//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1200)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Therrien, I want to thank you for a number of things.First of all, thank you for accepting an extension of your term. I think your institutionalized knowledge right now is extremely important. One of the things I'm getting a lot of emails about is trust—Canadians trusting the government. I think some of it's warranted, and some of it may not be warranted. I see you as somebody who is standing up for Canadian privacy rights. You mentioned privacy as a human right. Constituents of mine are concerned about that.I would like to address a couple of those concerns with you now.Mr. Barrett brought up the vaccination passport and whatever that's going to be in Canada. I was a little disturbed to hear that though you've been consulted, you really haven't been brought in on whatever it will turn out to be. There are meetings later in the week, you said, but the government is already making announcements on it today. I'm going to be doing a survey in Oshawa on it, because I'm getting emails from some people who think the idea of some type of a vaccine passport is reasonable and sensible. Others say it's a bad precedent and are concerned about civil liberties and their privacy. With the whole thing about censorship and Bill C-10, people seem to be concerned.Do you have some advice about what we could put in place to make sure that we talk about the Canadians who do have privacy issues or perhaps religious, health or conscience issues as we move forward with this type of vaccine passport?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCertificates of NominationCOVID-19Office of the Privacy Commissioner of CanadaPandemicPrivacy of personal recordsTherrien, Daniel6841889ChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieDanielTherrien//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1155)[Translation]You lowered the average, but you recovered nicely afterwards, and so much the better.What I am getting at is how important investing in culture is, and you talked about that.We just completed a study on Bill C‑10, where we were trying to showcase the value of our artists and content creators. We often hear the rhetoric that artists are living off grants and not bringing in any money. But that is completely false.I would like to hear your thoughts on this. You said that investing in culture is profitable in terms of the big picture. However, that message is not getting across.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCopyright and copyright lawIncome and wagesPublishing industry6842212BryanPerroBryanPerro//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1105)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I absolutely disagree with is the premise underlying the motion, about Netflix facing exclusions. I think most people who are Netflix subscribers have probably received a notice, in fact, of the company's intention to be contributing towards Canadian taxes. Regardless of that part, I actually think that in the interests of transparency, I would support this motion, but I disagree with the premise and think that there are some inaccuracies that would need to be addressed. Perhaps when everyone takes a good look at C-10, as well as their Netflix notifications and the actual budget implementation act, that might be clarified.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCommittee business6824196ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1120)[English] That was very generous of you.I'm not moving off of the issue about sports; I will get back to that in just a few moments. Right now, though, I will give you the broad context of what we're looking at over the next little while, upcoming studies or ones already before the committee.The supplementary estimates (A) are to be considered, as we normally do. The seventh allotted day, Thursday, June 19, is really our deadline for reporting them back. It's too late to do votes on supplementary estimates (A), as Bill C-10 took a big chunk of the time, but we can study the estimates as subject matter. I'll just leave that right there, that we can do that if you so desire.Let's get into the motion on anti-Asian racism that was adopted on March 26. I don't have to go through the whole motion. It was just talked about. I will say, however, that there was one stipulation in it that said, “no later than 180 calendar days from the adoption of this motion; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response.” Now, 180 calendar days from the adoption of the motion on March 26 is Tuesday, September 21. Please bear that in mind. That's basically when we come back. I forget the actual date.On to the next one, which was adopted on April 12: That the Committee devote at least one meeting before the summer recess to hear from witnesses on the continuing challenges for publishers, creators and artists as it pertains to fair compensation for their work in...educational publishing in Canada. That's number three.We also have this motion, which was adopted on June 11. It reads, in part, as follows: That the Committee invite officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage to testify about the funding for the discovery of the remains of 215 Indigenous children on the grounds of a former residential school in Kamloops....That was from Mr. Waugh. We also have the ongoing issue of Facebook, and the correspondence we've had since our summons to Mr. Zuckerberg, about his appearing before committee. I can brief you on that so far, and perhaps Mr. Housefather can as well, as he's been involved. There is that issue.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCommittee business6824261JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1125)[Translation]You look happy to be giving the floor to someone, Mr. Chair!I have some questions and proposals that could be discussed.My first question is about the study on anti-Asian racism. I remember very well the context in which we passed the motion on this issue. Obviously, we're all very committed to completing the study, but didn't think at the time it was proposed that Bill C‑10 would take us so long.On the one hand, I'd like to know what will happen if we don't meet the September 21 deadline. Since we aren't likely to be in session this summer and we don't really know what will happen this fall, what would the consequences of not meeting that deadline be?At the same time, can we commit to giving this study priority upon returning to the House and request an extension on the deadline, given the circumstances and the fact that Bill C‑10 took longer to complete?My second question is actually a proposal, and it has to do with Mr. Rayes and his expectations regarding copyright. Copyright is very important to me as well. We had made a promise to Mr. Rayes and to ourselves that we would deal with this issue, because it is urgent and needs to be addressed.With respect to the issue of harassment and abuse in high-performance sport, I propose that we begin the study on Friday. We could call in officials and one to three representatives from sports federations that we would like to hear from as part of the study. On Monday, we could do the study we promised Mr. Rayes we would do on copyright.This would make for a busy end to the committee's session, but an extremely efficient one as well.I am throwing the proposal out there and comments are welcome.We are also left with the September 21 deadline that we are unlikely to meet.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCommittee business68242786824280ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1130)[English]Certainly this is a topic that is very important to me, and it's very important to all members on this committee, I am sure, that we examine this. Unfortunately, as many have said, the work on Bill C-10 took much longer than we anticipated, and we have not been able to get to our other pieces of work.The only thing I want to raise, which I think is important, is the motion Mr. Waugh brought forward regarding the minister visiting or the officials visiting with regard to the children who were found in Kamloops. I say that because, of course, it's urgent; it's timely, and it's something we need to look at. I would not want the committee to let that fall off either, though I recognize that we are looking down the barrel of three meetings and that is all we have left together. C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCommittee business6824292ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1145)[English] Okay. If we need to discuss it on Friday at the end, I'll clear a few minutes for that as well. Friday and Monday, I have specific deadlines, and obviously Wednesday. Honestly, if you have someone in mind, please send it to us as soon as possible, given the tight time frame we are under.That being said, is there anything further? On these two meetings, do you want to do the format that we ended with before Bill C-10, which was a two-hour meeting with no break, and let's say we have...? Well, it doesn't matter how many witnesses we have. Would you rather do the two hours with all witnesses, or would you rather break it up, hour to hour, and then have different witnesses?Mr. Champoux.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6824381AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1240)[English] Welcome back, everyone, to clause-by-clause on Bill C-10 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.To people listening to us, viewing us from afar on the web, on the Internet, you have my apologies. We had a technical problem there at the beginning. We are now overdue, obviously, but nevertheless here we are.We're going to resume our consideration of clause-by-clause, under what we have received from the House of Commons and the procedure that we are going through.Before I get into that, however, I want to address something that was raised by Mr. Waugh about a motion of his. I seemed to indicate on Friday that it would be okay. Unfortunately, in this case we cannot deal this since we are now under the ruling that came from the House. We're proceeding with the debate and the clause-by-clause consideration.However, that being said, I just wanted to bring it up, because I wanted to assure you. Obviously, it fits within the confines of the 48 hours' rule. Therefore, when we finish with Bill C-10, and we have time left over, why doesn't the first order of business be your motion, once we are done?Just to give everyone a heads-up, when we end we will go to Mr. Waugh's motion. You have received the motion. Please give it your due consideration before that meeting arrives. Following the finish of this particular bill, we'll go into Mr. Waugh's motion. I think that's about it before we start.I just also wanted to remind everyone about some of the rules we have here.We cannot engage in debate. As we go through this there can be no amendments or subamendments, as directed by the majority of the House of Commons on a ruling that took place last week on time allocation.The only time you will hear me talk more than perhaps you desire, nevertheless, is when I make a ruling on a particular amendment. All the amendments you received in your package will be discussed. If I need to make a ruling I will do so, and I will explain to the best of my ability as to why it is inadmissible.I promise you, since there is no opportunity to talk about the particular motion by the person who moved it, I will pause—hopefully there will not be an awkward silence—and give time for all of you to consider, because you do have the option to appeal. You can challenge the chair's ruling.We've already done that once, but I felt at the time I was probably moving a little bit too quickly, and for that I apologize. What I will do, if I have to make a ruling on inadmissibility, is that I will take a pause and you can decide whether you want to appeal that ruling.Let's go back to where we were.We are now moving—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68155396815540681554168155426815543681554468155456815546681554768155486815549681555068155516815552GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1250)[English]I will. I promise.In the meantime, when it comes to challenging the chair, like I said, I have two ways to go. I can either stick with my original ruling or go the opposite way, which I did the last time. Further to that, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that we can't allow debate and we can't allow amendments, and those are pretty crystal clear from the ruling that we received from the majority of the House.I do thank you for your point of order, and I will look into it during the first break.(On clause 8)The Chair: That said, we left off at and are now at G-13(N).(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])(Clause 8 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)(On clause 9)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68155676815568681556968155706815571681557268155736815574GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1250)[English]This brings us to CPC-10.1, put forward by Mr. Rayes.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])(Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)(On clause 10)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6815575681557668155776815578ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1255)[English] The first one we are dealing with is PV-24. This is the first of the PV amendments. As I ruled earlier, the amendments from the Green Party are automatically deemed moved due to an order that we decided upon at the beginning of this Parliament. I wish to discuss it.PV-24 attempts to remove the discretionary power of the CRTC to make regulations when needed, to force the CRTC to make them in all cases referred to in proposed subsection 11.1(1) of the act. As a result, this power was not originally envisioned in Bill C-10 itself.That being said, according to page 770 of [Technical difficulty—Editor] goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill.I'll repeat how that works. This bill has been accepted at second reading, which means we accept the principle and the scope that the bill puts out there. This particular amendment goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill, which we've already voted on. Therefore, it exceeds the will of the House in this particular case. I have to make a ruling that PV-24 is inadmissible.I'll give you a moment to reflect. I hope everybody's well.Now, if you go back to your hymn books, we'll move on to LIB-8, moved by Mr. Housefather. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions681557968155806815581681558268155836815584681558568155866815587ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1300)[English] Now we go to BQ-28, which was put forward by Mr. Champoux.(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: This brings us to LIB-9.I forgot to mention off the top, for anyone just joining us that when I say LIB and these titles, similar to what you would hear at bingo, essentially what this is.... LIB is an amendment put forward by the Liberal party. CPC would be one put forward by the Conservative members of the committee. BQ would be one put forward by the Bloc Québécois members. “NDP” followed by a number would be one from the New Democrat on the committee, and PV—Parti Vert—would be for amendments put forward and deemed moved by the Green Party, primarily Mr. Manly. Finally, G means that it's an amendment put forward by the government.That being said, as I mentioned, we're on LIB-9, which was put forward by Mr. Housefather.I have a note before you start [Technical difficulty—Editor ]. I'll say this slowly. If LIB-9 is adopted, BQ-29 becomes moot, as they both contain the same provisions. They are similar enough that you are voting on both LIB-9 and BQ-29.Officially, it's LIB-9 that we're voting on.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68155886815589681559068155916815592681559368155946815595ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1300)[English]That brings us to BQ-30, which was put forward by Mr. Champoux.(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) (Clause 10 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) ( On clause 12)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68155966815597681559868155996815600ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1305)[English] We have some amendments for clause 12. We have BQ-31 put forward by Mr. Champoux, but there is a note. Before you vote, I want everyone to be aware that, if BQ-31 is adopted, then PV-25 becomes moot, as it contains the same provisions as BQ-31. That's PV-25, which would normally fall later, but it's similar to BQ-31, so essentially you're voting on both.(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68156016815602ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1305)[English] I declare the amendment negatived, and I declare the same for PV-25.Those were the only amendments for clause 12. Therefore, we go directly to the clause vote.(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681560368156046815605ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1305)[English] Next we have new clause 12.1, in amendment G-14, which was put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68156066815607ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1310)[English]I apologize. It was a straight-up clause. The amendment was in the last one we carried, which was considered new clause 12.1. (Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) The Chair: Mr. Méla, thank you for pointing that out. Thank goodness for smart people. With clause 13 carried, we now move on to the next amendment, which brings us to CPC-11. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68156116815612681561368156146815615PhilippeMélaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1310)[Translation]I would like to know if it is possible to withdraw amendment CPC‑11, so that it will not be voted on. It is an amendment that I had tabled. I do not want to move a subamendment; I just want to know if I can withdraw it. I may need unanimous consent to do that. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6815618ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1310)[English]Yes. I just declared what it was, so it is now deemed moved. Therefore, you'll have to have unanimous consent to withdraw it.Does Mr. Rayes have unanimous consent to withdraw CPC-11? I don't hear any noes. (Amendment withdrawn)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681561968156206815621AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1315)[English]Thank you.We are now going to CPC-11.1.In CPC-11.1, we had a great deal of conversation about it. It does amend the Broadcasting Act in many ways. The amendment proposes to amend part of the act related to licences. In this particular case they were talking about amendments to licences [Technical difficulty—Editor] they rendered necessary by other adopted amendments. I just want to read you something that is on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It says:…an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.What we're doing here is talking about the parent act in the case of the Broadcasting Act, but in C-10 it doesn't discuss this particular way of amending. Therefore, I have to rule it inadmissible as it goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill that we agreed to on Bill C-10, which was accepted in the House at second reading.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills68156296815630681563168156326815633PhilippeMélaGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1315)[English]Mr. Chair, I would like to challenge your ruling.If I correctly understand the rules, they don't allow me to make arguments for that challenge.Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills68156346815635ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAiméeBelmoreAimée-BelmoreInterventionThe Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Aimée Belmore): (1315)[English]The question is this: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?If you vote yea, you agree with the chair and the ruling will be sustained. The amendment would be, I believe, outside the scope or inadmissible. It would sustain the chair's ruling.If you vote nay, then you'll be able to vote on this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681564168156426815643ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameTimLouisKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1315)[English]Yes, please.(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions68156566815657AiméeBelmoreScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1315)[English]The ruling is not sustained, and off we go to CPC-11.1.Does everybody understand where we are now? I don't want to move on with anybody misunderstanding what's happening. These things happen fast. We're charting new territory. Do not be afraid to jump in if you have a quick question.Okay. We are now going to CPC-11.1, as the ruling was not sustained. Therefore, we go to a vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6815658681565968156606815661ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1320)[English]Thank you very much.We are on amendment CPC-11.2. This may sound eerily familiar. It proposes to amend the part of the act related to licences yet again. In the House of Commons Procedure and Practice—it's the third edition I'm speaking of, from page 771—it says:...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause in the bill.I mentioned this was eerily familiar because it is the same as before. However, since it is before us, I am compelled to do it.Since the part is related to licences, we're talking about section 22 of the Broadcasting Act, which is not being amended by C-10. As I mentioned earlier with the same genuine understanding, it was not touched upon in C-10. We voted that on principle. Therefore, the committee would be exceeding the scope of the bill if we amended something in the act that was not addressed by C-10, and here we are doing an amendment that wasn't.I really hope that was clear enough for everybody. I'm not sure it was but nevertheless—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills681566468156656815666681566768156686815669PhilippeMélaGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1320)[English]It was clear, but not convincing. I'm challenging the chair.Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills6815670ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1320)[English]All right. I accept that. That's fine.Without even pausing, apparently there's a challenge to the ruling.(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 11; yeas 0)Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions681567168156726815673GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1320)[English]We have 11 nays against the ruling. Okay. Table for one for this chair—I'm kidding.We will move on shall we. Shall CPC-11.2 carry?(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681567468156756815676ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1325)[English]I understand, Mr. Genuis. I understand that. I know. These are strange times indeed. Sometimes I feel the same way you do. However, I feel like I must....I'll make this brief, if that helps:...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.Again, this pertains to changes in the Broadcasting Act in section 22. Therefore, I cannot allow this to be admissible. I deem it to be inadmissible.What say you?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills68156826815683681568468156856815686GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1325)[English]I challenge you, Mr. Chair.Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills6815687ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1325)[English]I'm shocked. (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 11; yeas 0)Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions68156886815689GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1330)[English]I'd like to challenge your ruling that I can't submit a subamendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6815703ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1330)[English]I'm afraid you can't do that, sir. We have strict orders from the House. Again, I mentioned to you earlier about dealing with the House.Right now I have to go to the vote, as the challenge was done. Once I make a ruling like that and it's been challenged and overturned, I have to go straight to a vote.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68157046815705GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1335)[English]Welcome back, everybody.Mr. Genuis, thank you for your intervention. As I suspected, yes, but I'll just further explain why it is we're doing this in the case of overturning a challenge on a ruling and not in the case of an subamendment that you're putting forward.When it comes to the motion itself, the first part talks about the five-hour debate that has expired. That's fine. That's been satisfied. In the second part of the motion that came from the House, we have to go by the strict orders that were given to us, and I bring your attention, if you have it in front of you, to the last part of the sentence, “in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or further amendment.”What I did earlier is I ruled, a challenge was made and it was overturned, but these are regarding amendments that already exist. Either they were deemed moved by the Green Party or they were put forward when a challenge was made, but these are all amendments that were previously placed with us. Therefore, that applies, because there is nothing in this motion that considers options of motions that were already handed in to us.What it does say, quite explicitly, is this at the end, again, “forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment”, which is what you are proposing, which I have to rule as out of order. In which case, I now have to go—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68157296815730681573168157326815733ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1335)[English]Mr. Chair, I challenge the ruling you just made.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6815734ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1340)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Genuis.I think there are two things to consider. There is the five-hour mark, before and after. What the chair did at the arrival of the five-hour mark was basically to interpret what the motion of the House was saying in terms of how to consider the amendments present in the package, where they were either deemed moved or were just in the package, staying there, and what to do with them.Since the motion of the House is silent on these amendments, the chair made two rulings. The first one was on the amendments from the Green Party. Those ones are, generally speaking, deemed moved. They were considered by the chair and there was no overturning of that ruling.Then the chair made a second ruling considering the rest of the amendments. He proposed that they would be not proposed by the committee, and the committee overturned that decision. That's why we are now voting on all the rest of the amendments, plus the Green Party amendments.Now, to your question on adding subamendments at the present time, that is clearly specified in the motion of the House. In the last part of the paragraph, it says:...and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. There is before the five-hour mark, and after. Clearly, we are past the five-hour mark. Therefore, no other amendment can be proposed—or subamendment, for that matter.In this case, I would simply suggest that you bring it to the floor of the House, because basically you can't appeal an order of the House.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68157476815748681574968157506815751681575268157536815754ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1345)[English]Mr. Genuis, I appreciate your comments, I truly do. I think maybe you want to bring it up with the House—you're certainly entitled to do that—but this is our interpretation of how we have to proceed based on the motion we have received from the House on this time allocation motion. I thank you for that.We now go on to LIB-9.1.Shall LIB-9.1 carry? Seeing no push-back, I declare LIB-9.1 carried.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Now we're moving on to clauses 14 to 17. There are no amendments, so I will call for the votes. (Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681578768157886815789681579068157916815792PhilippeMélaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1405)[English] Welcome back, everybody.(On clause 18)The Chair: We left off at clause 18, so we're starting with PV-26. I need to say this about PV-26 before we proceed any further.Bill C-10 amends the Broadcasting Act to provide for the Governor in Council to be able to review a decision made by the CRTC under section 9 of the act. The amendment expands this power to the orders that the CRTC may make under proposed section 9.1 of the act, which is not envisioned in the bill. Again, we go back to page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, regarding an amendment being beyond the scope of a bill. PV-26 expands the power of the Governor in Council to cabinet and that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I have to rule that PV-26 is inadmissible.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills681580068158016815802681580368158046815805ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1405)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I'm challenging your decision.Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills6815806ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDanielleWidmerDanielle-WidmerInterventionMs. Danielle Widmer (Committee Clerk): (1405)[English]If a member agrees with the ruling, the vote should be yes. If a member disagrees with the ruling, the vote should be no.(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 8; yeas 3)Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions68158106815811ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1405)[English]We now go to PV-26.If PV-26 is adopted, NDP-13 cannot be moved as it is identical. If PV-26 is negatived, so is NDP-13 for the same reason.If PV-26 is adopted, BQ-32 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Essentially, if PV-26 is adopted, BQ-32 becomes problematic to adopt because it's based on older wording.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681581268158136815814DanielleWidmerMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1410)[English]Shall PV-26 carry?(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68158226815823MartinChampouxDrummondScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1410)[English] As a result of that, I also have to negative NDP-13.Now this may surprise you, Mr. Champoux, but we now vote on BQ-32.(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)(On clause 20)The Chair: We're going to start with BQ-33, which was put forward by Monsieur Champoux. (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68158246815825681582668158276815828681582968158306815831ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1415)[English]That brings us to BQ-34, which was moved by Mr. Champoux. (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 7, nays 4)(On clause 21)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6815832681583368158346815835ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1415)[English]We're starting with G-15, which was brought forward by Madam Dabrusin. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])(Clause 21 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681583668158376815838ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1420)[English]I'm sorry. They were all yes. I'm so used to someone opposing, I just can't get over the fact that everyone is unanimous. That's no reflection on you. That's just my abilities.(Clause 22 agreed to)The Chair: I was alone at the head of the table for so long.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681584568158466815847JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1420)[English] If you'll look at your hymn book, you'll see that G-16 is listed, but that was already carried. It was consequential to G-9. Therefore, we're going to just move on from there, because we're [Technical difficulty—Editor] the consequences of the G-9 vote to G-16, so you can take that one out.That brings us to BQ-35(N). This amends the Broadcasting Act. It provides for a specific regime for the commission to impose a penalty to the corporation, CBC, under the proposed section 34.99. The circumstances cannot be done without holding a public hearing. That's basically what the amendment's saying.The amendment aims at applying the same unique regime to a person carrying on a broadcasting undertaking, even though it's a different regime, and it does not contemplate a public hearing as proposed in the bill under proposed section 34.92, and I'm afraid that this goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill.We are applying one to one, and you want to expand it to apply to the other. It's not envisioned within C-10. Therefore, I have to rule that it is, according to page 770 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, inadmissible for the purposes of the principle and scope of Bill C-10.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills6815854681585568158566815857ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1425)[English]It's duly noted in Hansard forever.Let's move along.We now go to NDP-14, put forward by Ms. McPherson. There is just one thing to note about this: If NDP-14 is adopted, BQ-36 cannot be moved, simply because they're identical, as two great minds think alike. If NDP-14 is negatived, so is BQ-36, of course, which follows the same logic that I just stated. Those two amendments, NDP-14 and BQ-36, are linked, but technically, officially, we are now voting on NDP-14.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) The Chair: Congratulations to both of you.This brings us to the end of clause 23.(Clause 23 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) (Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) (On clause 25)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681586268158636815864681586568158666815867681586868158696815870MartinChampouxDrummondScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1430)[English]We're on amendment PV-26.1.For those watching us at home, PV is Parti vert, the Green Party. This has been submitted by the Green Party, by Mr. Manly.Shall PV 26.1 carry?(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: That brings me to amendment CPC-12.In Bill C-10, it amends section 46 of the Broadcasting—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681587168158726815873681587468158756815876ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePhilippeMéla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1430)[English]Based on the ruling that was deemed earlier that rules out CPC-12.Thank you very much for that.That brings me to the end of clause 25.(Clause 25 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)(Clause 26 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68158816815882681588368158846815885PhilippeMélaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1430)[English] Next is the proposal for new clause 26.1, in amendment CPC-13.The amendment amends subsection 71(3) of the act, which is not amended by the bill. In particular, we're talking about the corporation, CBC/Radio-Canada, and whether or not it is compelled to provide new information to its report to Parliament.House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 771, states, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act”—the Broadcasting Act—“unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.The bill goes slightly beyond its reach, meaning that by saying yes at second reading to Bill C-10, we've accepted its principle, but we've also accepted the scope of the bill. This particular measure does go beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I have to rule that CPC-13 is inadmissible.That brings us to clause 27. (Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)(1435)The Chair: Folks, could I just get everyone's attention for a moment? One of the things we tend to do in clause-by-clause, similar to this, is that if we have several clauses in a row, we can lump them together into one vote.Right now, I have clause 29, 30, 31 and 32 with no proposed amendments from our amendment package or from PV either. We can lump them together into one vote, but to do that I would need unanimous consent. This will also come up again later on in the bill. I have not done it yet, but it just occurred to me that it can be done. I will put it in front of the committee. Clauses 29 to 32 would be voted on at once.Do I have unanimous consent to proceed that way?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: No.(Clauses 29 to 32 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7, nays 4)(1440) (On clause 33)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions6815886681588768158886815889681589068158916815892681589368158946815895681589668158976815898ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English]That brings us to clause 33. Within the package that you have, we have G-17, as put forward by Mr. Louis. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6815899ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English]Yes, that's good. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes we go on autopilot a little too long and then, all of a sudden, something like this happens.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])(Clause 33 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)The Chair: That brings us to the new clause 33.1. We now go to G-18, as put forward by Mr. Louis. Shall G-18 carry?(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])(Clauses 34 to 46 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681590168159026815903681590468159056815906AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1500)[English] That brings us to a proposal for new clause 46.1. For clause 46.1, just to break a little bit of the monotony of the straight clauses, we have before us, from Mr. Manley, amendment PV-27(N).(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68159076815908ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1500)[English] Okay, folks, that brings us to BQ-37. Mr. Champoux, you will be honoured to know that yours will be the last amendment.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681590968159106815911ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1505)[English]I know. I get that a lot.Nevertheless, let me rephrase that. I'll back up for just a moment, everyone. Shall clause 47 carry?(Clause 47 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6815920681592168159226815923MartinChampouxDrummondScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1505)[English]You may be on the right path, Mr. Aitchison.Let me just ask the question again.Shall the title carry?(Title agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?(Bill C-10 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681593568159366815937681593868159396815940ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1510)[English] Shall the chair report the bill, as amended, to the House?(Reporting of the bill as amended to the House agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill, as amended, for the use of the House at report stage?(Reprint of the bill agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6815941681594268159436815944ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1515)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.[Translation]As you know, Mr. Champoux, there are a number of committees working on bills right now, and many of them are at the reprint stage. So all these bills end up in the same place for reprinting. That's why the process takes a little longer than usual.In the case of Bill C‑10, a lot of amendments and subamendments have been passed, so it's going to take a little bit longer still. However, we will try to produce the report by Monday or Tuesday at the latest. We will do our best at the end of the week.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6815962ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1515)[English] That's, of course, what I meant by short order. They should have that done by then, and then it goes back to the order of the House.By the way, we have a meeting on Monday. I'll update you at the very beginning of the meeting as to the progress of the reprint and report of Bill C-10 back to the House for report stage.Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6815964PhilippeMélaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1535)[English] Welcome, everyone, to C-10's clause-by-clause consideration. Welcome back.Before I get to resuming the debate we had, which was on CPC-9.5, I just wanted to let everybody know that there's been an addition. I think it's in your an inbox. A new amendment has been proposed that comes from Mr. Housefather.If you look at the reference number, the last three numbers are 710. It's going to be labelled as LIB-9.1.Now, where does that go? I'm glad you asked. I hope I get the page number right. It's going to be after CPC-11.2 and before the next clause, which is PV-26. I think that would now be page 106.Mr. Maziade, did I get the page number right?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68144216814422681442368144246814425JacquesMaziade//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1535)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.We were in the middle of a debate on an amendment. I appreciated hearing from Mr. Louis—I really did—expressing his opinion and his desires for artists, performers and creators. It's great to hear opinions from committee members about the things that are meaningful to them. I'm not sure of the reference about big tech. I like all performers, and whatever we can do.... The other side of it is performers, and I'm not one of them. I'm not a creator, but what I am is a person who buys tickets. I'm one of those people who really appreciate artists and creators of all different kinds, and I'm the one out there as a consumer who really supports them by buying tickets and wants to support them because I appreciate what they do. I purchase pieces of art, or admire the statue of David in Florence and line up for hours to do so.Then there's the other side of it, those people who really want to support and appreciate art by buying the tickets to do it. We need to remember the consumers out there, because without those consumers to appreciate.... If the tree falls down in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, did the tree make any noise when it fell? I really do appreciate Mr. Louis bringing his opinions and concerns, though. On big tech, we've all agreed that there's going to be taxation. That hasn't been up for debate for a long time, and there's going to be a support of the culture side of it. We've done reports on how short a lot of that is out there in support, but we have a bill here that at times, I think, doesn't hit the mark. Big tech's money isn't the answer that we're working on with this amendment. It's freedom of speech for creators and performers, but again, I'm not one of those. I'm one of those who will pay the price to see, listen and appreciate those who do create. That's the part we have to remember that they drive, what it is that those people can do, and that's the part that facilitates their moving forward and being able to use their talents and express them in many different ways. Freedom of speech is very important for two sides: One is the consumer and the other is the artist. Again, thank you, Mr. Louis, for expressing your opinion. I appreciate those people on the committee who will and do express them. We learn a lot more from each other when we take the time to talk about what is meaningful to us in our particular roles outside of this forum we are enclosed in at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6814439681444068144416814442681444368144446814445ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1540)[English] Thank you, Chair.I want to take a moment to speak to the motion. Obviously, there are a lot of things going on here, but at the heart of it, I think it has to do with artists or creators and discoverability online, and making sure that any regulations that are put in place do not infringe upon their charter rights or the charter rights of those who might view that content.It's interesting to me that in this committee, when proposed section 4.1 was removed, there wasn't a unanimous call to hear from the artists. I think that's very sad because their voices have been ignored and they are going to be largely impacted by this piece of legislation. There's this whole world of digital first creators whose voices haven't been invited to the table. We are here at the 11th hour before this legislation gets rammed through and we haven't even heard from them.How sad is it to not hear from this group that is going to be dramatically impacted by this legislation?That being the case, I mentioned earlier at this committee that I've taken it upon myself to reach out to these individuals and hear their voices. There's one in particular who I would like to bring to this committee's attention as we continue to consider the amendment that is on the table by my colleague Mr. Rayes.This is from an organization called Skyship Entertainment. This letter was written and submitted to me just within the last couple of days.It is from someone by the name of Morghan Fortier. This individual is the CEO of Skyship Entertainment, which is an award-winning entertainment company owned and operated in Canada. Of course, they are using non-traditional media platforms.I'm going to read it into the record, because again, I believe it's very important for this committee to consider the words of this individual. She writes:As one of Canada’s top two YouTube creators, we are a proud example of how Canadian content can be successfully exported to the rest of the world. Our educational content enriches the lives of over 30 million viewers around the world every single day—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681444768144486814449681445068144516814452681445368144546814455ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1555)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I will take a few moments to offer my opinion on this amendment. We are indeed discussing an amendment.I'm going to have a question or two for our friends in the department, particularly Mr. Ripley.First of all, I want to commend the member for Lethbridge for listening to the artists. We can see that she's sensitive to the artists' cause.However, when she says that we haven't listened to the artists, that we haven't heard them, I'd like to point out that the artists we're talking to are represented by associations such as the Union des artistes, the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque and the Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale. These are recognized and important associations. They are not lobbies; they are also unions and groups representing artists.She talks about artists who, in her view, are in niches and stuck in the nineties. Yet the vast majority of these artists are using electronic platforms to distribute their art. So these artists are not so out of touch, these artists are not so far removed from the ones she's talking about, who she feels we should have listened to.Furthermore, the artists she's talking about who she feels we should have listened to are often YouTubers, people who have platforms or channels on which they post content. Yet, these folks are not subject to the regulation proposed in Bill C‑10. That's one of the questions Mr. Ripley has answered a number of times.It's easy to build a series of arguments out of falsehoods, to spin it all out of proportion and make a big deal of it. You have to be careful, you have to say real things too, and you have to speak to the real world.We're talking about 200,000 artists represented by associations like the ones I just mentioned. These 200,000 artists do not have niches and are not stuck in the nineties. These are artists who would have deserved a much more heartfelt apology than what we just heard from the member for Lethbridge, based on the comments.Having said that, I'd like to once again ask Mr. Ripley about the amendment we're talking about here.Isn't this request that we would make in adopting CPC‑9.5 simply a way to make the CRTC's job much more cumbersome? Won't this amendment only complicate things, when they are already pretty clear in the bill we're in the process of passing?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68144996814500681450168145026814503681450468145056814506681450768145086814509ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1555)[Translation]Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.I would say that the proposed amendment will put a heavier burden on the CRTC, because for every decision, every order and every regulation, the CRTC will have to seek an outside legal opinion and then publish it on its website and in the Canada Gazette. I believe that's what is proposed.Again, it's not a question of whether or not the CRTC is subject to the Charter; obviously it is. Obviously, too, recourse is available should anyone wish to challenge a decision made by the CRTC.If this amendment carries, it will surely increase the burden on the CRTC, because it will require it to seek a legal opinion for each of its decisions and then publish it in theCanada Gazette.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills6814511681451268145136814514ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1600)[Translation]You have raised a good point: if someone feels that the CRTC has misinterpreted the act, they have recourse.I don't want you to think that I'm making you repeat yourself, Mr. Ripley. In fact, I've been listening to you very carefully over the past few weeks. I'd like you to tell us whether you feel there is any cause for concern that the current wording of Bill C‑10 could allow the CRTC to misinterpret the act and violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its regulations. Based on your interpretation of Bill C‑10 and the Broadcasting Act, do you see any cause for concern?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6814524Thomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1610)[Translation]Let me summarize how we interpret Bill C‑10 and the measures we want to put in place. I agree with my colleagues that we should not presume how the CRTC will interpret the act on which it will have to base its regulations. However, the current version of the bill doesn't raise concerns for users of online platforms, contrary to what some experts have suggested. According to several other experts, it doesn't represent an infringement of freedom of expression or of other principles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in general.Furthermore, if by any chance people we did not have the opportunity to hear from are concerned and want to give their opinion, they could participate in the CRTC public hearing process.Ultimately, if a decision made by the CRTC violates the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of expression, there is recourse to the courts.So there are several layers of protection, in my view.Actually, this is not a question for you, Mr. Ripley. Rather, it is the conclusion I draw from the many responses you just gave me, for which I thank you very much.I will try to stick to the amendment that we're talking about, Mr. Chair. I want to avoid doing what some of my colleagues seem to be doing, as you like to say, venturing off the playing field. We're talking about freedom of expression and adherence to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the tools we put in place to do that.I believe we have listened carefully to everyone and we haven't muzzled anyone. I don't think we have censored anyone in the last six weeks. We've clearly heard the concerns of our Conservative colleagues. In fact, I think it's very unfortunate that we've come to a process like the one in place. Ultimately, we urgently need regulations to level the playing field in the Canadian broadcasting system.We have artists in Quebec and in Canada who are anxiously awaiting this bill. It's urgent that it be passed. All these individuals are also eager to take advantage of the digital world, just as much as those who are already there or who have been discovered through digital media.I very much hope that we will conclude this debate in a cordial and productive manner, and that we will all move forward with the best will in the world. As I said earlier, more than 200,000 artists, creators, craftspeople, technicians and authors, to name but a few, are represented by the handful of associations we've been in contact with over the past few months. They are imploring us to pass this bill before the end of the session.I'm going to stop there, Mr. Chair. I know those individuals are listening. I just want to tell them that we stand firmly with them and we sincerely hope that we can deliver Bill C‑10, for which they have been waiting far too long.Thank you, Mr. Chair.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts68145436814552Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1610)[Translation]Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to speak to my amendment once again. Let me go back to what my colleague Mr. Champoux from the Bloc Québécois said: all's well with the world as long as there are no problems. I know that Mr. Ripley says that freedom of expression is protected; he's giving us the department's take on it. However, as Mr. Champoux has correctly pointed out, there are many voices in this country, including credible experts, who are expressing an opinion that is completely opposite to the department's vision. At the heart of this issue is the CRTC, an agency whose approach is, in some respects, challenged by a number of people, including former senior CRTC officials. They are strongly questioning this bill. I want to make something clear: I am not trying to digress from the subject, but I want to talk about an article that was published this week in La Presse, which is one of the most credible media outlets in the country. The reporter Philippe Mercure wrote this piece about a decision the CRTC made on Internet rates. Some may say that this is not relevant to the topic, but I simply want to illustrate how the CRTC works. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had clearly said in 2015 that he wanted to lower people's Internet bills. Despite clear government directives, the CRTC went back on its 2018 calculation and made a decision that helped the big players, to the detriment of the public. According to the reporter who is an expert on this issue, the CRTC made “a 180‑degree about‑face, which the federal agency explains... by 'errors' made in 2019” in its own calculations. As a result of this decision, people's future Internet bills will more than double, because of an error that the CRTC apparently made in 2019. The reporter adds: “They ask us to just believe them. Except that the CRTC refuses to present a new calculation to justify its pro‑industry shift.” Toward the end of the article, he writes: “So the regulator is simply choosing to cancel the rate cuts and keep the current ones in place. In a stunningly casual manner, it states that, in any event, the new calculations would 'probably' arrive at rates that 'might approach' those currently in use.” The CRTC decides of its own accord to say that it will not even do the rigorous, scientific exercise that is required. When I see such things happening with respect to people's Internet costs, I am led to wonder. What does this have to do with Bill C‑10, you might ask? Well, I'm talking about the organization that will be given all these powers tomorrow morning, when we don't even know how the CRTC will read the bill, as Mr. Champoux pointed out. The CRTC has nine months to tell us how it will read the bill and how it will apply it, because there are no guidelines. All of us on the committee, not just the Conservatives, added guidelines to the bill for francophone content, Canadian content, and so on, because none of those things were there initially. It is all very well to say that, based on how the bill reads, freedom of expression is protected. However, it seems to me that amendment CPC‑9.5 that I am proposing provides an additional safeguard to ensure that the CRTC respects freedom of expression, which is fundamental and which many experts have called for. I am not just talking about regular Canadians, but also about recognized experts from various universities and the legal field across the country. My amendment simply requires that the CRTC publish the legal opinion on its website confirming that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is respected, and that this opinion be published in the Canada Gazette. My colleague Mr. Waugh was saying that he had never read the Canada Gazette, and that's why we want the legal opinion to be published on the CRTC website as well. I understand not wanting to add unnecessary paperwork, but this is not too complicated. It would just take a fairly simple little 101 course. We can all relay the information afterwards on our web pages and social media. Given the CRTC's track record, this requirement is just one more protective measure we are taking as a country, as Canadians. This will be good for artists, both those in associations and those who are independent and work from home.(1615)Honestly, I do not believe that amendment CPC‑9.5 is asking for anything excessive at all. With respect, even if it required a little more paperwork, as Mr. Ripley said in response to a question from Mr. Champoux, would that be too high a price to pay to protect our freedom of expression? I'm sorry, but freedom of expression is priceless. I move this amendment with all due respect to my colleagues, to the officials who are here and to all those who have worked on this issue. Regardless of the expertise of each of us, we are all human beings. We have tried as best we can to improve the bill. It was not perfect at the outset, which explains the multitude of amendments that have been introduced. In fact, many of them are going to be squeezed through without our having had a chance to discuss them. One way or another, the bill will be challenged in court. It is actually not true that things will go smoothly tomorrow morning, despite what people would have us believe. The Conservatives will not be the ones responsible for blocking the bill, the courts will provide us with justice. In this case, law professors or those in this specific area will challenge aspects of Bill C‑10. I think that they too are entitled to have their expertise recognized whenever and wherever they comment. I don't want to go any further, because I really want to see the vote on amendment CPC‑9.5. I would also like to have the opportunity to introduce amendment CPC‑9.6 afterwards, if we are not yet at the end of the five‑hour period we have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6814557681455868145596814560681456168145626814563681456468145656814566681456768145686814569681457068145716814572ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1625)[English]I will be as fast as I can. Thank you.I just want to respond and say that I think this is a good amendment. I'm happy to support this extra oversight. I think that's great and I'm very thankful to Mr. Rayes for bringing this amendment forward. However, I want to also just bring up the idea and to flag that when Mr. Shields spoke about legal opinions, and the legal opinions being those of the ministry or the government or of those who are contracted by the CRTC, it's important that we recognize that there was a letter sent to the Prime Minister by 14 of Canada's pre-eminent broadcasting, telecommunications and entertainment lawyers, with decades of experience, who spoke very clearly about the concerns that have been raised by some of the Conservatives. They made it very clear that the commission is not being given any powers to infringe on Canadians' charter rights, that this is clearly outlined in the Department of Justice's update to the charter statement and that these lawyers agree with the conclusion. They say:Bill C‑10 would restrict the powers the Commission would have over social media services to: mandating financial contributions to support Canadian programming or the recovery of regulatory costs; discoverability, so Canadian creators can be more easily discovered and promoted online; registration, so the Commission knows which services are operating in Canada; and audit powers, to ensure compliance with all of these powers....They also said it is simply false and completely ignores that:Users who upload content to these social media services would not be subject to the Act, as specified in proposed Section 2.1. Moreover, the Commission would not have the power to constrain the content on social media services, set program standards for these services or the proportion of programs on these services that must be Canadian.Also some very smart legal opinion around this country has come forward and said some of the concerns that are being raised by certain members of this committee are completely unfounded. I think it's important that we get that on the record. I realize I'm at the very last and at the tail end here, but I do want to make sure that that gets put into the record.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681459368145946814595681459668145976814598681459968146006814601ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1640)[English] Welcome back, everybody.As you know, we are now within the confines of Bill C-10, clause by clause.What I am going to do right now is explain the process in relation to the order that we received from the House of Commons. It goes like this:That, in relation to Bill C–10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the committee stage of the bill....That is what we have just completed. It continues:That, at the expiry of the time provided in this order...any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the said bill shall be interrupted—We've just done that:—if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.What we're going to do is go through this clause by clause. There are three things to remember. Because of the orders from the House of Commons, voted on by a majority of the members, for these clauses there can be no debates, no amendments from the floor or subamendments pertaining to any amendment that is possible. This is a voting exercise that I am sure you have done before, and I don't need to explain how that goes.Here is an important part. I have two rulings to make regarding the package of amendments that we have. For those folks who are listening at home, we as members propose amendments in advance to be studied and distributed amongst committee members, but they are not officially moved. We have gone through several. We still have several on the schedule here, but I have to get to two rulings before discussing any further.Before I do the rulings, remember, whenever this chair makes any ruling, there is no debate on that ruling, but there is a process of appeal in a challenge. It has to be done following the ruling that is made. Again, I have two rulings, so let me deal with number one first. Pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee, I have an obligation to put to a vote amendments from any member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee left to deal with in the package of amendments. These amendments will be deemed moved.What I am saying to you is this: Orders that were adopted a few years ago—and I mentioned this during the committee—deem that motions by any unrecognized party on the committee are deemed to have been moved. In this particular case, it comes from one source, which would be the Green Party. These are all the amendments that say PV, Parti vert, so they are PV-26 and PV-27. According to the routine motions that we have adopted, those motions made by Mr. Manly, PV, have been deemed moved. That means we will be voting on Parti vert, Green Party amendments that were proposed, because they have been deemed moved. This is a rule in place.Now, again, Mr. Manly does not have the right to vote, but he does have the right to propose amendments, and once those are in our packages, those are deemed moved. Therefore, we will be voting on those. That is the first ruling. By the way, there's something else I should mention. I'm going to go very slowly with this, because I want everyone to understand what we're doing and I want to make sure that everyone is aware of how the process goes. I'll probably go at the pace of the heartbeat of a hibernating bear, and I apologize if you find that frustrating, but I truly want everyone to understand.Mr. Rayes, I see your hand up. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyConsideration in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsMotionsTime allocation681460868146096814610681461168146126814613681461468146156814616681461768146186814619681462068146216814622681462368146246814625ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1645)[English]I don't mean to prejudge what you're about to ask. It's just that I think I might be able to answer your question.Right now I'm still dealing with the first ruling, so now that is done.That brings me to my second ruling.All the rest of the amendments here have not been moved. Therefore, under the guidance—and in this case it's fairly strict guidance—of the standing orders, we will not be able to vote on the amendments by the parties.Does everybody now understand why? It's because they're not moved. I am under strict orders to look at clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. These amendments have not been moved, and we cannot vote on something that has not been moved.Mr. Housefather.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills681463768146386814639681464068146416814642ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1650)[English]Because I believe that all of the amendments by all of the parties should indeed be considered and voted on, I challenge the ruling.Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills6814646ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1655)[English] Welcome back, everybody. Once again, this is clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I'm going to clarify once more what we're doing right now. The ruling was such that— C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6814663ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1655)[English]Thank you for that, Mr. Housefather. I thought I saw him.There he is.Mr. Champoux, it's good to see you back. Let me describe this one more time so that we're all on the same page. The second ruling I made was that any motion that's not been moved cannot be voted upon. Mr. Housefather has challenged the ruling, so the vote will be on whether the chair's ruling should stand. In other words, if you agree with me that we shouldn't deal with these amendments, then you vote yes. If you think I'm wrong in my judgment, or by the standing orders, then you vote no and the amendments go back into play. They will be voted on again.There's one more thing I'd like to point out, though. If the ruling is overturned, the amendments go back in—all that are there. If you wish to remove one, you can do it at any time, until I say, for example, now we're doing this G-12. Once I say that, G-12 has been moved and, therefore, you would need unanimous consent to withdraw it. Is that clear?Monsieur Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills68146666814667681466868146696814670681467168146726814673AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaPhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1700)[English]Mr. Aitchison, the motion of the House is silent as to what to take into consideration. We have the package that's here, and the motion says, “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.” Basically, the interpretation that's being given by the chair is that there are the amendments from the Parti vert that are deemed moved, according to the motion that was passed by the committee, so those are going to be voted upon. The others—that's the interpretation of the motion by the chair of the committee—will not, because there is no motion adopted by the committee that designates them as deemed moved. Since this is an interpretation by the chair of the motion by the House, it is up to the committee to decide if the committee agrees with this interpretation or not. We have had a few examples of that happening in the past. It's an interpretation that the chair is giving on the motion by the House, and after that, it's up to the committee to decide if it agrees or disagrees with the ruling of the chair. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6814692681469368146946814695ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1700)[English]That being said, I see Mr. Rayes's hand up, but, folks, the other thing I'm supposed to be doing right now is going directly to a vote on the challenge. Let's just say I've been stepping all over that particular rule and I really don't want to do that anymore. I see everyone's hand down, so we're going to the vote. Once again this is to sustain or to agree with my ruling. (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)The Chair: There you have it. You don't have to worry about my being offended—trust me.Now that the rulings have been made, we're now going to dive into it.Let me just say this before we go any further. It means that all of the amendments you've handed in, which are in our huge package—or, as I like to call it, the hymn book—are now back. We will vote not only on the Parti vert ones, the PV amendments, but also on the CPC ones. For the people watching us at home, I understand that you are not able to see these particular amendments or hear about them. I'm sure someone who's watching this closely may find that frustrating. This is my own opinion, dare I say it, but maybe at some time in the future we can talk to procedure and House affairs, since people watch online, on computer, and we can have some type of split-screen whereby they can actually see the amendments. That's just my opinion. I'm putting it out there, colleagues, for the sake of people who are watching. A lot of people are watching this right now, and we welcome them.As we go through the clauses, we're going to do the amendments. When I say “CPC” that's an amendment put forward by the Conservative Party. When I say “LIB”, that is one put forward by the Liberal Party. When I say “BQ” that's one put forward by the Bloc. NDP and the number means one put forward by the New Democrats. “PV” will be Parti vert, the Green Party; and, finally, “G” means an amendment by the government.That being said, because all of these amendments are back in, I still have the ability and should make rulings on each of these amendments. Some may be inadmissible. Primarily, usually, that's because they're beyond the principle and scope of the bill. If I do rule that an amendment is inadmissible, I will explain why. You still have the option of challenging that ruling, but it's a straight vote; it's not a debate. I will call for that. I will explain my ruling, and then you have the choice of either challenging it or not, and then we move on to the next one, but there is no debate. Again I remind everyone that there is no debate and no amendment or subamendment in this exercise.All that being said, we left off on—Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions68146966814697681469868146996814700681470168147026814703681470468147056814706PhilippeMélaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1705)[English]I'm afraid not, Mr. Aitchison. I feel for the process. I feel for you—I do—but no. That's part of the debate as well, the normal course of debate. This is strictly now getting to each of the clauses and amendments that we've reinstated.We left off with CPC-9.5 That's from the Conservative Party, amendment CPC-9.5.(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681471068147116814712ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1705)[English]Before I go to the next one, when we do the voting, folks, I just want to be clear that when I call “shall it carry”, there are a couple of options that we've worked out. You can say “no”; however, if you agree with it, you don't have to say anything. If nobody says anything, I'm going to let it carry. If you say “no”, I will go to a vote. If you wish to suggest that it carry on division or be defeated on division, you can make that suggestion at the same time. I can go back to the committee to find out if that is the way you wish to proceed. Okay? If you agree with it, you don't have to say anything.This brings us to CPC-9.6, and I have something a little different.In reviewing CPC-9.6, it says it would add, in proposed section 9.2, in clause 7, after line 19 on page 8: “The Auditor General of Canada shall annually audit all the orders, conditions, regulations and decisions of the Commission”—meaning the CRTC—“with respect to the discoverability of programs”. I don't need to proceed any further. The reason I say that is that, if you look to page 770 in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it talks about “beyond the scope and principle of the bill”. In second reading, the House passed the bill, which means we accepted it in principle and scope, or at least the House did. I understand that not all of you do, but the majority of the House accepts the principle of it. If we propose things that go beyond the scope of the bill, then it's my responsibility, as chair, to deem it inadmissible. What is going on here is that this particular amendment, CPC-9.6, calls on the Auditor General to do the work, but nowhere in Bill C-10 does it call on the Auditor General to do that. Not only that, it doesn't even require in the Broadcasting Act for the Auditor General to do that. I'm not ruling on the intent of the amendment. In other words, I'm not saying I don't like the Auditor General. I'm saying that because Bill C-10 does not specify any function for the Auditor General to be involved, I have to rule it to be inadmissible. That's the ruling. Mr. Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills6814713681471468147156814716681471768147186814719681472068147216814722ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1710)[Translation]May I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair?Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment bills6814723ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1710)[English]Thank you, sir.Now, we go through the same process again. Should the decision stand? (Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6, nays 5)Appeal of the decision of the Committee ChairBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsRecorded divisions681472668147276814728AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1715)[English] I have news for you. We're actually done with clause 7. How about that? We have to check to see if that's the longest clause in our history of Parliament. Probably not, but I digress.We are finished with clause 7, which brings us to the vote. (Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681472968147306814731ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1715)[English]Shall LIB-7(N) carry?(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68147386814739AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1720)[English]We're back and out of suspension. Mr. Rayes, I feel for you on this one. Like I said earlier, I would love it for people watching. It probably would be a nice marker to look at. However, technically, our rules state that once I start reading the amendment, it becomes officially a part of debate. The instructions from the House say we cannot engage in debate, so technically I can't even read it.The only consolation I have for you is that, when the minutes are printed, when this is done, they will include all the amendments and the wording of them. Whether they're defeated or accepted, they will be in the minutes, so that people can see exactly what was voted on, the language of it and the whole thing, but as of right now, I'm afraid that, no, I cannot read it. I can only give you a title of what we are voting on. In this case, that would be amendment BQ-26(N).I appreciate your weighing in on that, because that's clarification for all of us.Okay, folks, back we go. The question is on amendment BQ-26(N).(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We now go to amendment PV-22. We're still on clause 8. (Amendment negatived: nays 9: yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Now we go to amendment G-12.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6814750681475168147526814753681475468147556814756681475768147586814759ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1725)[English] That brings us to PV-23.(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68147606814761ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1725)[English]I knew that would happen. That is correct and I sincerely apologize. I was ahead of myself.Mr. Champoux, that's no reflection on the value of what you're proposing.Shall BQ-27 carry?(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: I did mention that, because of the ruling on CPC-9, CPC-10 is no longer in.We'll now go to G-13(N).BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions681476568147666814767681476868147696814770PhilippeMélaMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1730)[English]Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn.Adjourning a meetingBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment bills6814771ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1730)[English]Mr. Shields, we can always depend on you.We will have a vote on the motion to adjourn.(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)The Chair: We will see you tomorrow.Adjourning a meetingBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6814772681477368147746814775MartinShieldsBow RiverJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1110)[English] Welcome back, everybody. Welcome to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10. We are in the middle now of a five-hour debate, as was voted on by the House. We have just over two hours left, and we're going to jump right into that.(On clause 7) The Chair: We left off with Conservative amendment 9.3. Just so you are aware, you did not get CPC-9.3 in your original package. The last three digits in your reference number are 641. That takes care of the hymn book. Last time, Mr. Genuis had the floor. He is not here with us now, but I don't see anyone who wishes to speak to CPC-9.3. We will proceed to a vote.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: This is a viciously efficient start we have going here. I'm just saying that for the record. Since I'm on record for many other things, I might as well be on it for that too.There was a CPC-9.4, but as you know, that falls later. No, I'm sorry, that's not right. We're going to CPC-9.5. Is that right? I'm going to check with the legislative clerk for just a moment.Go ahead, Mr. Méla.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681206068120616812062681206368120646812065681206668120676812068PhilippeMéla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1115)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.With amendment CPC‑9.5, I am proposing that Bill C-10, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:9.2 (1) The Commission shall, for each regulation or order made, or condition imposed, under this Act in relation to an online undertaking, obtain an independent legal opinion as to whether any of the provisions of the regulation, order or condition are inconsistent with the protections provided to Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly those relating to freedom of speech under paragraph 2(b).(2) The Commission shall publish the independent legal opinion on its website within 10 days after obtaining it and shall cause it to be published in the Canada Gazette.I want to make clear that subsection 9.2(1), as proposed in the amendment, applies to online undertakings.I'll explain the rationale behind the amendment.Actually, before I do that, I want to thank everyone for adopting amendment CPC‑9.3, which the committee debated yesterday and voted on at the beginning of today's meeting. I had forgotten to thank my fellow members for their support.Amendment CPC‑9.5 isn't very complicated, so everyone should find it quite straightforward. In light of all the concerns raised vis-à-vis the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the amendment would require the CRTC to publish an independent legal opinion relating to the charter when it makes a decision or a new regulation regarding online content. The idea is simply to ensure that the rights guaranteed by the charter are protected.Under the proposed procedure, the opinion would be published on the CRTC's website and in the Canada Gazette, to let all partners, traditional digital broadcasters and Canadians know that the regulation in question was consistent with the charter.By adopting amendment CPC‑9.5, the legislator, the Parliament of Canada, would be ensuring that the freedom of speech of all Canadians was protected. We know that freedom of speech is at issue and that the bill will most likely be challenged by lawyers, lobby groups and special interest groups. We sense that many university teachers and lawyers have doubts about the work we are doing and the direction in which the bill is going. Accordingly, this amendment gives us another opportunity to ever so slightly improve the iteration of the bill currently before us.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68121046812105681210668121076812108681210968121106812111681211268121136812114ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1120)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that.The amendment has been explained and the rationale for it, and I very much appreciate that, but the department is with us today. I was wondering what they believe in terms of how this could work with the CRTC. They're familiar with the CRTC and the regulations they develop and their undertakings regarding the things they do now. Could the officials explain to me how they believe we could do this in the future, as the CRTC would look at this piece within the work they would do looking at this legislation?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681211768121186812119ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1120)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Shields, for the question.There would be a few things I would underline with respect to the amendment that has been tabled.The first thing is to highlight a point that came out in the committee's discussion with respect to the charter and freedom of expression, and to remind the committee that, of course, the CRTC is bound by the charter. Its decisions are already subject and will be subject in the future to review for charter consistency through things like judicial review of its decisions, etc.Second, perhaps this may not be well known to the committee, but the CRTC is actually already served by independent legal counsel. In other words, its lawyers are not Department of Justice lawyers. In that respect, the CRTC already avails itself of independent legal advice. The third thing I would note is that the amendment that is on the table would be quite exceptional in the sense that we're not aware of any other regulatory body that is in the practice of publishing its legal opinions. My understanding of the amendment is that the requirement would actually be quite significant in the sense that it would apply to each regulation or order or condition imposed on online undertakings. We expect that those would be quite numerous.At the end of the day, Mr. Shields, the impact on this would be that any time the CRTC made a regulation or an order it would have to go and get a charter analysis done with respect to that, and then publish that and make it available. Again, from what we have seen, that would be fairly exceptional in the current regulatory landscape.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills6812122681212368121246812125681212668121276812128ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): (1125)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This whole discussion has actually made me wonder about a couple of different things.Mr. Ripley, I have a couple of questions. Do you know roughly what the legal budget is for the CRTC? I mean, is it frequently in court, or is it engaging lawyers regularly for the decisions that it makes? Is it a problem?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681214668121476812148ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1125)[English]I don't have the legal budget at the tip of my fingers. What I can say to you is that CRTC decisions are subject to judicial review on a regular basis in the sense that there are applicants who choose to have decisions reviewed by a court. Some of those are fairly high-level, high-profile proceedings, and others are less so. Again, just to reiterate, that's why there are mechanisms in place. There's judicial review, and there is actually another provision in the Broadcasting Act as well. If a party to a proceeding feels like the CRTC has made an error in law or something along those lines, there is also a mechanism by which it can have that decision reviewed by the federal court system as well.One thing that I would note or remind the committee—and perhaps it speaks a little bit to Mr. Shields' earlier question as well—is that proceedings are subject to a public process in the sense that anybody who wants to make a submission and put something on the record has the opportunity to do that. Again, when the CRTC is making a new regulation or an order, there would be an opportunity for organizations or individuals to make submissions, and if they have concerns about the impact on charter rights, for example, they could make sure that those are part of the public record. Then, of course, the CRTC will have to consider those in its decision-making.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68121496812150ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1130)[English]Thank you for that question.There are a couple of things. One would be just to stress off the top—and again, this perhaps picks up on some of the committee's debate from yesterday—that the effect of proposed section 2.1 would mean that any individual who is unaffiliated with a social media company, no matter how big their following is or how much money they make, is not to be considered a broadcaster for the purpose of the act.Again, even if you have millions and millions of followers, that provision means it's not a question of your being considered a broadcaster. Again, for the most part, individuals will not be participating in CRTC proceedings because the act will not apply to their activities on social media services, for example.What we see in this space, Mr. Aitchison, is that you have individuals or organizations coming to the table to represent the public interest that may not be sophisticated corporations able to hire legal teams to represent them. A good example in this space is an organization called the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which raises many of these issues on behalf of organizations or individuals. One of the things the government is proposing in Bill C-10 is to actually ensure there is better support for public interest representation in CRTC proceedings. Right now, the CRTC really has no formal mechanism to ensure the activities of these organizations can be funded. If you look at Bill C-10, the CRTC can seek contributions to support the participation of public interest organizations in CRTC proceedings. The government is doing that very intentionally, recognizing that, obviously, organizations and voices are needed at the table. The goal in that is to secure more long-term, sustainable support for those organizations so that they remain viable and can continue to bring those issues to the table and to CRTC proceedings.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts68121586812159ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1135)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.After that fine introduction of Mr. Ripley, I would like to thank him and all the other department officials who have been with us at each meeting. Even when we don't necessarily agree with their position, they provide sound information and guidance that helps us do the best possible job we can, given our respective knowledge and expertise. I want to thank them. I join you, Mr. Chair, in recognizing the contribution of Mr. Ripley and all the other department officials.I have a question for Mr. Ripley. One of his previous comments might suggest that my amendment is unnecessary, but as the saying goes, you cannot be too careful.Bill C‑10 gives rise to questions about freedom of expression. Some think that we are going too far or, at least, that freedom of expression is not really at risk, whereas others believe that the bill is flawed when it comes to freedom of expression. People have said that the CRTC will not use all of the powers it has been granted under the bill, but a number of experts worry that it might.Why not impose certain obligations on the CRTC from the outset? Once the bill is a done deal, the politicians in power will say the same thing. They will say that the CRTC is an arm's-length organization that makes its own decisions. That's what happens whenever questions on the subject arise. That was the case recently when big and small telecoms imposed user fees for their services. The argument will be that the government no longer has the power to do anything once the CRTC has made a decision, because the CRTC supposedly operates at arm's length.We experienced the same thing here, on the committee. The committee is supposed to be independent, but the government was able to interfere with the committee's work when it wanted to.That makes me wonder whether my amendment has anything wrong with it, anything that might be detrimental. I may be asking for more protection than necessary, but in this case, it seems warranted. Once the bill comes into force, the CRTC will have nine months to do its homework and come up with a definition. After that, we will no longer be able to influence the guidelines it adopts or the manner in which it applies them.My first question for you is this. Is there anything counterproductive in my amendment? Does it run counter to good old common sense? It may be overly protective, but if so, good. It puts additional safeguards in place to ensure freedom of expression is protected in every CRTC decision regulating the new space that is the digital world. Lobby groups and university teachers interested in freedom of expression can assuage our concerns by examining every CRTC decision or amendment, since it will be published on the commission's website and in the Canada Gazette.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6812168ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1225)[English] We'll continue with clause-by-clause consideration of BIll C-10. When we left off we left off with CPC-9.5. I have Mr. Rayes who was about to ask a question. You have the floor, sir, go ahead.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6812185ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1230)[Translation]Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. I would like to clarify the government's position. The issue here is not whether the CRTC is complying with the charter. As I mentioned, the charter applies to the CRTC, and mechanisms are already in place for people if they feel that the CRTC is not complying with the charter. For example, they can challenge a CRTC decision in federal court. To answer your question, I should say that Bill C‑10 does propose to add paragraph 11.1(1)(c) to the Broadcasting Act, which gives the CRTC the power to make regulations respecting: c) supporting participation by persons, groups of 10 persons or organizations representing the public interest in proceedings before the Commission under this Act. Once again, the bill includes measures to ensure the sustainability of funding for public interest groups by providing funding for those groups, as required.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6812203AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1235)[Translation] That's fine. Throughout the consultations that we held during the consideration of the bill, we heard from many witnesses, but no one representing individuals who use social networks came to speak. We did not invite them because it was not part of the initial version of Bill C‑10. The bill took a different turn only afterwards, when we started looking at the amendments. So the people who felt aggrieved by the bill along the way have not had an opportunity to speak out on this. Let me ask you my question. This will be my last question, because I want to give the floor to my colleagues on the committee who would like to speak to this amendment. Could an ordinary citizen, who is not a representative of an organization, have access to this fund to participate in public hearings?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6812216Thomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1245)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Champoux, for pointing that out.I will say that a number of us here were probably members of ACTRA at one time, whether you had a cooking show or you were on CTV or wherever. We didn't know what ACTRA did. They were a heavy lobbyist group of the government, with many of their interventions going to the CRTC. As employees paying their dues to ACTRA, we never knew what was going on, and we still don't, to this day. That's wrong, because when you pay dues, you always find out maybe a year later. You never find out when they do make an intervention on behalf of the members. I think Mr. Shields and Mr. Rayes were right. At times, you'll find out something, but it's always after the fact. I just wanted to bring that up. Mr. Ripley, you've done a very good job here this morning of explaining the YouTube thing, because I think there are many out there listening today who would say that the CRTC makes too many small decisions for getting a legal opinion to be practical. You talked about that. Then there are those decisions in the online sphere that should not be taken lightly at all, as we see today on free speech. We don't want them to be able to quickly make hundreds of algorithm changes every day without proactively checking for charter compliance. I make that point because we're going to go after YouTube here and others. Mr. Ripley, can you explain this a little? I think you've done a very good job here this morning in explaining parts of this, but I think that when you look at YouTube and a single user taking on ACTRA, CDCE and other organizations, you can see where the concern is, because a single user who maybe needs clarification going up against these organizations.... I mean, there is an imbalance there, and right away we would know that.Do you want to comment a bit on that? I know that you've explained it pretty well, but is there anything else you want to add, Mr. Ripley?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681224868122496812250681225168122526812253ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1245)[English]Thank you, Mr. Waugh.I might make a couple of introductory points and then suggest that my colleague Mr. Olsen jump in, who is very well versed in CRTC processes. Bill C-10 certainly envisions a transparent process when it comes to questions of regulations or orders. The intention is certainly that anybody who wants to participate in those proceedings would have an opportunity to do so.Mr. Chair, if you'll permit me, perhaps Mr. Olsen can just quickly jump in and explain how this would work in a typical CRTC process, the kinds of things that would be naturally published on the CRTC's website and the materials that would be made available.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6812254681225568122566812257KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen (Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1250)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.When the CRTC initiates a public proceeding, it publishes a notice of that proceeding on its website and, in most cases, in the Canada Gazette. Then it calls for comments. It has rules of procedure around the time periods and the process by which it gets those comments. Sometimes there's even a reply period, during which the commission would give intervenors a chance to reply to other comments. Sometimes there isn't, but that's governed in the CRTC's rules of procedure.The CRTC then takes all of those submissions and considers only that information that's on the public record—of course, subject to any information that was filed in confidence. Then it makes its decision. For anything that's filed in confidence, the rules say that there must be an abridged version without the confidential information filed. It's usually just financial information. It's usually just numbers that get blanked out. All of that information is available to all the parties, other than the actual numbers. Then the commission takes all of that and makes its decision. The decision is always published on its website, and the decision is almost always published in the Canada Gazette as well. The CRTC takes transparency very seriously in that regard. It is an administrative tribunal, so if it has failed to follow any kind of due process, then that would be subject to judicial review.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills6812259681226068122616812262ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen: (1250)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh.Those commercials you refer to are part of the licence renewal process. They are an obligation that the CRTC imposes on licencees to make public the notion that the licence is being renewed and that people can make comments on the conditions of licence.The situation in Bill C-10 is that the proposal is to move away from a conditions of licence model and towards a conditions of service model. The clause that this committee is currently debating—clause 7 of the bill, which would include proposed section 9.1—does give the CRTC the powers to make orders with respect to conditions of service that would need to be put on. The CRTC would, under the sort of umbrella, or the chapeau if you like, of proposed section 9.1, have the ability to make requirements related to CRTC proceedings, such as advertisements of various CRTC proceedings, if it chose to.That, of course, also depends on what this committee and this Parliament ultimately decide to do on whether conditions of service will have a seven-year maximum duration or whether those will be subject to different periods of review.Bill C-10 does give the CRTC the power to require, at any time that significant conditions of service are being looked at by the commission, that messages be broadcast by licencees to that effect. C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts68122716812273KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1300)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time.As far as CPC-9.5 is concerned, I think we've discussed it at length. I'll still maybe have another question at the end of my comments, but I believe that would just really slow down the process.From the beginning, we've heard from stakeholders and we've heard from experts that in updating Canada's Broadcasting Act it's necessary to include digital platforms. We can't spend more time doing this. These digital platforms that act as broadcasters have to be subject to the same legislative and regulatory conditions that apply to traditional Canadian broadcasters.Every day things get slowed down, our artists are losing income by not having a level playing field. I know this from personal experience. I've sat here and I've listened and I've heard members from the other side now start to attack some of the organizations for the lobbying, ACTRA or SOCAN or others. These are the same organizations that many of us belong to or have belonged to, and so do I. They make up the arts industry and the cultural industry in our country, and we have an obligation to support them. Making art takes years of dedication, and that requires support.We get more of what we support and we get less of what we don't. We need to move forward in a quick way, and most of us on this committee have done that. My concerns are that some members are taking the side of these big tech companies opposed to our arts community, especially during a pandemic when they're struggling, every stage in the world is dark and people couldn't perform, and they're relying on that passive income for the writing they're doing, for the performances, the things they're putting on Spotify and YouTube, and all they're asking for is a level playing field.When one of the members in an article in the Lethbridge Herald, I believe, referred to these artists who rely “on government grants in order to continue to exist” and who “are producing material that Canadians just don't want”, those are our neighbours. Those are our Canadian artists. We deserve to move as quickly as possible to level this playing field and give them a chance to make a living.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills681230868123096812310681231168123126812313ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1305)[English]The government's position is that the CRTC is bound by the charter. It needs to respect the charter, and its independent legal counsel will help it do that. If ever there is a question about its not having respected the charter, there are meaningful avenues of recourse available where individuals or organizations can have oversight from the federal court system.As I indicated to Mr. Rayes, if the objective is to make sure that there's a way that third parties can put legal opinions on record, have them made public and have them considered by the CRTC, the government's position is that this is already able to happen under the framework in Bill C-10, as Mr. Olsen outlined. There is a process whereby anybody can make a submission to any kind of CRTC proceeding. Therefore, if there are individuals or organizations wanting to put on record a legal opinion that speaks to the issue of charter and have that be part of the public record, part of the proceedings that the CRTC must consider, then there is already a way for them to do that under Bill C-10.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6812334ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameTimLouisKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1305)[English]I move a motion to adjourn.(Motion agreed to)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68123566812357ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1650)[English] Welcome back, everyone. This is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.I just want to point out to everybody in this room that I know the bells are ringing and that I'll be seeking unanimous consent in just a few moments.Okay, I know I said some time ago that I would try to give you as ample notice as I could about a meeting, and when I seek out meetings, I will do just that. I will be cognizant of the time. I'll be cognizant of your situation.The whips amongst our parties—again, I am not specifically pointing out any particular whip of any recognized party, and there are four groups in question—decided that they would put this meeting together. I received notice shortly before you did.Now, because we passed a motion on March 26 that states that we will seek out meetings—and it didn't say anything about notice—we must have this meeting as of right now.That being said, I'm going to say this publicly. I'm going to say this in front of you, my colleagues. I'm going to say this while we're in session. As chair, I have the floor, so I'm going to say it.This is a message for the benefit of my colleagues, the staff, the analysts, the clerks, the interpreters, the technical staff, and everyone involved. I ask you to please consider the fact that these people have families, that these people live in rural areas like me. We are not emergency workers. We're not paramedics. We're not firefighters. We're not on call like that. These are planned meetings—normally. So, to the four represented whips at this meeting—and I know you're on this call—please consider this when we do this again. I'm asking this not just as a chair but as a human being. Thank you.That being said, do I have unanimous consent to continue?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills680396668039676803968680396968039706803971680397268039736803974MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1750)[English] Welcome, everyone, to clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. This is the resumption of the meeting. Welcome back.We are going to pick up where we left off the last time, if you want to get out your song sheets once more. Some hands are up.Mr. Shields, do you want to move a motion? Go ahead; you have the floor.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6803977ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1755)[English] I'm assuming you moved CPC-9.2. I only say that, Mr. Rayes, because CPC-9.2 is in your name, but did I hear correctly that Mr. Shields is going to?Mr. Shields, I'll put the floor to you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills680399868039996804000AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1755)[English]Thank you.One of the things we were talking about that came up from the people from the department was the monetary number, the millions, or the number of people, and who this would include. In that conversation, the CBC came up, from the department staff. As we well know, as the CBC has digitalized significantly. They've also moved into stories that they write per clients' requests and they want to enlarge that. This particular legislation, without those marks in it, could include the CBC and their digitalization service, which is really interesting. It could include political parties as well when we get into this type of thing, without putting some limits, barriers or ceilings around it. I think that is what we're attempting to do in this particular amendment: to go to where we need to be and what the intent is. What we have heard about the intent of the authors of the bill was that by having a wide open net.... It's like when you trawl on the ocean. You catch a lot of fish in those big trawlers. They kill a lot of fish and do a lot of damage because they catch a lot of things other than the intended species they're looking to fish. I think this legislation in itself—as we hear from the department officials when they bring out the digitization of CBC and you understand how broad a net this is—is not really where you want to go, unless you're looking to have the CBC in this, if you're looking to have it in this as they digitalize to make money from stories that they are writing for particular clients, for political parties. You have to think about this in the sense of what you're attempting to do. On the nature of we've talked about, you've talked about it and many others have: the big techs, the big companies, the Facebooks, the Googles, all of those you've talked about. In thinking about that, this big dragnet of a trawling line could catch a lot of things in it that could be very detrimental to a lot of parts of our society, our country, our creators and our cultures.Going back to the departmental officials, I think it was Mr. Riley who brought up the possibility of CBC and what they've explored, so I'd like to go back to Mr. Riley and have him again discuss how he views this dragnet operation without some ceilings in it, as is suggested in this particular motion.I would like it if the department could respond, please.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68040056804006680400768040086804009680401068040116804012ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1800)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.The point I was trying to make during our last meeting was that Bill C-10, as tabled, does not have thresholds in the legislation, in terms of determining whether an online undertaking should be regulated by the CRTC and should be required to contribute. The test, as articulated in the bill as it was tabled, was a determination of the CRTC's part with regard to whether that online undertaking is well positioned to make a material contribution to the policy objectives.One reason it was done in that way was to recognize that there is a very wide diversity of online business models out there. It is difficult to be categorical with where that material contribution threshold kicks in. The reason I referenced CBC/Radio-Canada was to give an example of how, as the committee knows, CBC's conventional services are licensed and overseen by the CRTC right now, just like TVA or CTV. The expectation is certainly that the CRTC would have jurisdiction over its online undertakings of TOU.TV and CBC Gem, just as the CRTC will have jurisdiction over Bell Canada's equivalent Crave TV service, Club illico, and those types of services.The point I was trying to make was that based on the data we have, the threshold that's being put forward in this amendment may be so high as to exclude CBC/Radio-Canada's online undertakings, for example. The position of the government would be that CBC/Radio-Canada is very well positioned to make a contribution to achieving the policy objectives of the act. That was the point I was trying to make, Mr. Shields.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills68040176804018680401968040206804021ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1800)[English]Thank you.I just want to say a few things.First of all, I do appreciate Mr. Rayes's frustration about having to be here. We all have places we need to be. We all have very busy lives. It is always hard when our schedules change on a dime. I know we all have incredibly packed schedules.I do want to just point out that this is very important work we're doing. In fact, it has not been everybody's priority to do this work in this committee over the past several weeks. We have seen a lot of time wasted by certain members of this committee not letting us get to that work.That's not really what I want to talk about right here. In terms of amendment CPC-9.2—and perhaps it would be best for Rayes or Mr. Shields to respond—did you, when you were putting together these thresholds—and of course, I asked some questions about these thresholds earlier—ask any stakeholders in the Quebec cultural sector? If so, could you tell us which ones you spoke to about CPC-9.2 and their support for that?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills680402968040306804031680403268040336804034ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1805)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'll attempt to answer the question, but first I'll respond to Ms. McPherson's first comment.Yes, we all have schedules. I have no problem with us doing other meetings. You even put forward a motion on that, which was adopted. The chair had the opportunity to add one.The problem is the notice. If we had had notice this morning that this meeting was going to be held, we could have taken a minimum amount of material with us when we left home. Then the notice would have been reasonable.Let me be clear: I have no problem with the fact that we're holding this meeting. It's how it was organized that I have a problem with. I think it shows a total lack of respect for our work as parliamentarians, for our personal lives and for the lives of all the staff who support us and help us to do our work well.That said, I'm closing the loop. I'm going to get over my emotions and come back to work with a smile, because I don't like being angry.Ms. McPherson, in response to your question, I have to say that I have indeed met with several organizations, like the one I mentioned at our last meeting. We've been working on this amendment for a long time. We even proposed something similar at the very beginning.Did all the stakeholders we met with agree on the thresholds? The answer is no. Did all of them want thresholds? Actually, some did and some didn't. There were differing opinions among organizations representing cultural groups in Quebec and Canada.To draft the amendment that I put forward on behalf of my party, we looked to the thresholds that Australia had established. The ones we're proposing are even lower. All countries point to Australia as an example. Even Minister Guilbeault does. The thresholds in our amendment are the ones proposed by two former senior CRTC officials who are following the bill very closely.Those are the thresholds, plain and simple. I don't see that this in any way prevents the CRTC from regulating the big players like Netflix and Spotify. The major broadcasters aren't covered by this exemption, because they all have revenues and subscriber numbers that exceed the thresholds we've included in the amendment. However, the amendment does protect our artists who aren't part of the traditional structure, who make their living from social networks and want to continue to do so.We talk a lot about self‑employed artists, but I would add that it may also include small organizations or academics who post content on social media and who have a lot of followers. The purpose of the amendment is to exclude them from CRTC regulation. It's as simple as that, and there's no hidden agenda.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68040436804044680404568040466804047680404868040496804050680405168040526804053ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (1805)[English] Thank you, Chair, and also for welcoming me to the heritage committee.I've been following the procedure of this bill through various stages for some time now and I am concerned about the broadness of scope and the serious concerns that many well-placed advisers have brought up. I could speak to that at length. I will start by speaking to the amendment that my colleague brought forward.On this bill, I just don't understand why the government and members on this committee aren't supportive of putting some restrictions and limitations on who this impacts. Again, some of the amendments that have been defeated at this committee would, I think, take away some of the fears of Canadians who are rightly asking questions about what this means for them. Some of us have served longer than others here in the House and in Parliament, so I'll just speak to my experience. When I started my public service, social media was really still in its infancy in terms of its transformation of how we consume information, but today, the reality is that traditional broadcasting and traditional ways of creating Canadian content have been disrupted, much like Uber disrupted the taxi industry. As parliamentarians, I think we have a responsibility to ask ourselves if putting in place certain government regulations benefits the country and creators as that disruption comes through, or if it's actually hindering the emergence of new voices, new content and Canadians actually engaging in cultural activities. I do think this amendment that my colleague has put forward actually would benefit many Canadians and I want to explain why.My colleague Ms. McPherson raised the issue of consulting with Quebec cultural influencers. I can name one off the top off my head: Cynthia Dulude. She has over 600,000 YouTube subscribers. I'm sure she has been able to monetize her account. This is a voice that wouldn't necessarily be eligible for the current structure of proceeding that we have. Rather than supporting her, this bill would allow the CRTC in many ways to essentially deem her to be a broadcaster. That's why I think amendments like this are beneficial to enshrining the rights of women especially, who have been typically excluded from the way we've done things in Canada for a long period of time.When you look at the progression of legislation and regulations over the years, I fully support the strides that were taken to ensure that Canadian culture, content and heritage were promoted, but this bill doesn't work with the disruption that has been created in the industry. It just seeks to enshrine an old way of doing things, and in doing so, it marginalizes Canadian voices when we're looking at where the football is going to be10 or 20 years from now.In a lot of ways, the way that social media has disrupted the development of Canadian content has really democratized the creation of content. It's a really exciting thing. There are voices that never had a platform before that now do have a platform and don't have to go through gatekeepers. I think that's a very positive thing for Canada, not a negative thing for Canada.I understand why the gatekeepers want to gatekeep. I understand why the gatekeepers, the incumbent telco companies, those who have a stake in making money off grants and contributions without really promoting the advancement of heritage activities, want to protect the status quo, because they profit off it. Why can't we do both?(1810) The amendments that my colleagues have been suggesting would allow us to support influencers, support those who have found platforms on social media, and protect them but also allow the current way of doing things to exist.I guess, maybe, this is a different a way of looking at things. I'm glad we're having this debate, but I don't think that government should exist to regulate away disruptive influences in the marketplace that actually benefit Canadians.We often see this. When I was vice-chair of the industry committee, I made some pretty bold statements about how we need to potentially look at disrupting the way that Internet is provide in Canada in order to address rural broadband issues, even access within urban centres.You see those incumbents that benefit from the monopolistic structure that government protects. They are going to push back at that because their profit models are dependant on it. Again, I almost feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here because we have the left arguing for the propping up of a monopolistic structure that doesn't benefit the people in any way, shape or form. I think it just benefits large companies that, arguably, I'm not sure have done the best job of promoting Canadian content and culture.We have the opportunity here in Parliament to rethink how government interacts with content creators. Instead, we get this bill that seeks to enshrine the status quo. I don't know why we couldn't be looking at taking the best of the status quo, like supporting.... Ms. McPherson brought up the issue of Quebec content creators. I don't understand why we can't be looking at regulations and laws that support those content creators but at the same time acknowledging that disruption has occurred and ensuring that we're protecting those new voices and those new ways of doing things. I really think that's what is at the heart of the amendment that has been put forward today.There was an assertion made that there was no research done on this particular amendment. I know that to be false. There have been white papers drafted around the world. I'm thinking of one. I can't remember the reference off the top of my head because, much like my colleague, Alain, I'm jumping into this meeting at the last minute, but it's important for me to be here on behalf of my constituents. I know that there was a white paper done out of Australia that did look at certain threshold limits based on the disruption that had occurred in their national market and a desire to protect those voices.The account that I mentioned out of Quebec.... They're not a broadcaster; they're creating videos and giving a voice that is unique to their lens and their perspective on certain issues. For the government to try to come in and use a.... Frankly, we could have a whole other discussion about the CRTC's being an outdated institution that is desperately in need of reform. However, this amendment would actually limit the scope of what that outdated institution could do to the benefit of intersectional voices that all of a sudden have a platform in Canada.I really think that if we don't put amendments like this in place, we're going to look back 10 years from now.... I think that Canadians will look back at this debate by parliamentarians and these types of amendments, and the parliamentarian who don't support these amendments and say, “Why were they supporting the old way of doing things? Why weren't they supporting my voice? Why did they regulate speech?”Why should the CRTC have a say over individual YouTube accounts? Why wouldn't you put clarity to this? If the government is true when it says there is no intention to regulate individual social media accounts, why wouldn't we put those safeguards in there?(1815) This isn't the Criminal Code. This is policy that influences how business will be undertaken, and it's the right to freedom of speech.I'm going to reference another example that I've been deeply uncomfortable with: the subsidies for print media in Canada. I believe it's very important for our country to have a strong journalistic culture that holds all of us to account, regardless of political stripe. However, when the government puts in place a fund to support media and then it picks the recipients of funds, there's a direct linkage there. A direct bias is created and you no longer have independence in journalism. That's wrong. We can sit here and vociferously disagree on policy and politics, but we should be agreeing that we need independence of media. There needs to be a separation—a clear delineation—between media, the speech of Canadians and government.There has been a lot of discussion about how the government should regulate hate speech. That's another thorny area because there is a lot of hate, even today. As a parliamentarian, I have received a lot of hate in the last 24 hours for statements I've made that I strongly believe in. That doesn't mean I should be taking away the right of people to make those statements, unless they fall under existing Criminal Code provisions related to libel or hate speech. We already have the Criminal Code for this.If you port that concept over to Bill C-10,, why would the regulator be seeking to limit the activities of individual voices and Canadians? That's why I think Bill C-10 is a flawed piece of legislation. I don't support it in general, but at least the amendments that my colleagues are putting forward seek to separate this concept out.Honestly, the point I want to make at this committee on behalf of my constituents is that you have this nexus right now where historically over time our country and the government have sought ways to promote Canadian content. However, we've had such a disruption in how that content is produced and consumed that porting the old style of supporting content creation onto a disrupted model is opening the door for government abuses on freedom of speech.That's why it is so important for us to pass these amendments. There needs to be more structure. There needs to be more clarity. Even for user accounts that.... Consider the Quebec account that I mentioned earlier. I am sure she has a good business from that. I'm sure she is making money off of it. Good for her. That's awesome; that's fantastic. Why would the government seek to limit her voice?These amendments give clarity and certainty for an emerging area of business that most Canadians are just waking up to. For us, it's about understanding that putting “influencer” on a CV is a thing. Influencing is a thing. People make money off of it. It's a new way of advertising. Yet, I feel like we are sitting here as legislators looking at this with a lens that is 30 years old. That's a huge problem.I understand that there might be some really rote, basic politics. There might be a polarization here to score quick political wins one way or the other. However, I encourage colleagues on this call, from the bottom of my heart, to look past that and ask, what's in the best interest of this country? We should be seeking to support Canadian content creation, definitely ensuring that we are supporting French-language content creation as well. It should be all content creation, including marginalized voices that typically have not had platforms because of the gatekeepers. We should be seeking to do that while ensuring that we are acknowledging the fact that the structure of how we create content has fundamentally changed.(1820) The amendment at hand that my colleague proposed puts clear limitations on and structure around intent. If the government's intent is X, Y or Z, this amendment makes sense, as did the one that was defeated in this committee. I was so disappointed. I honestly thought that the government was going to put this debate to bed by proposing the amendment that was defeated earlier that was in the media. I was shocked. My colleagues on here who have known me for a while, from all political stripes, know that it takes a lot to shock me. I was actually shocked.Again, there are winners and losers with Bill C-10, and why would we be doing that? Why would we be picking winners and losers? Why would we be picking voices?What I worry about is that groups who seek to promote the status quo have a very well-funded lobby. I know they have been in front of many of you. They seek meetings. They seek to spin their position. The people who are emerging in this market disruption—the voices such as the account I mentioned—don't have a lobby. They don't have a well-funded group that's coming in and talking about how they're going to influence votes in our ridings. That is why I'm here at the heritage committee today. I'm trying to cut beyond the political bluster to try and honestly, from a place of reason, say, “Look to 10 years from now. Look 10 years from now and understand that if we put this legislation in place without some definitions...”.. They're not coming in and talking about the polling based on the popularity of a spun question within our ridings. They're just doing their thing. They're new content creators. They don't have that lobby, but that doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to protect them.The amendments that are being put forward here are designed to protect those people. They are people who haven't had a voice in our previous iterations of cultural content creation, and they don't have a voice with these big lobby groups right now either. Why wouldn't we be protecting them? Why wouldn't we add this in? It makes so much sense.I really think we should go back to the drawing board. I get that parties are set in here. However, if we don't get this right, now, I really think we have opened up Canadian influencers to a chill on freedom of speech. I think that is absolutely possible. We have not done our jobs as legislators here to tell the regulator what they can and can't do. We haven't done the systemic reform of the regulator that's necessary. That's a problem as well. We also haven't.... We are trying to impose the regulatory structure of a system that was put in place before cellphones existed on to a disrupted system of how we create content. That is why these amendments are being put forward.I would just say this to colleagues: If you don't like the amendments, if you don't like the set thresholds of subscribers or the advertising thresholds, then propose a subamendment. Bring forward other research. But this bill, as it is right now, is bunk. It needs to be fixed. It can't pass without this happening. What I'm hearing, from watching the media coverage of this, is that there is a desire among all parties to ensure that Canadian content is created, is funded, is supported, particularly French-language content creation, which needs to be shared across the country. I think there's a shared desire here.... I also hope that there's a shared understanding that we shouldn't be rushing to put in place systems that could inadvertently put a chill on our freedom of speech. I'll put it this way, and I've said this to people: For those of you who were in Parliament under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and vociferously railed against him, if you would be uncomfortable with Stephen Harper having the power to regulate individual social media content, then you should also be deeply uncomfortable with Justin Trudeau being able to do that. No person, no government, should have the right to regulate freedom of speech in the way that this does.At the same time, we should also be understanding that regular content creators have a right to proceed through this disruption. Canada went through a very sort of unsettled period of time—three to four years—when Uber disrupted the market.(1825) There was a lot of back and forth, admittedly at the municipal level, about what bylaws should be put in place to regulate Uber and how taxi drivers were affected through that disruption, but at no time during that debate were higher-level issues like freedom of speech threatened. That's really what we have here with this bill.I implore my colleagues here to really think about passing smart amendments. Again, if there's a problem with the amendment, propose a subamendment rather than just dismissing it outright.I understand that people like Michael Geist and the former CRTC commissioner might be irritants to the government right now, but I know these people. They're not partisans by any stretch. These are informed people who have been working in the space for a long period of time and genuinely care about the flaws in this legislation, because they're coming from a place of academic understanding that this is flawed, deeply flawed, to the point where it is detrimental to the country. They're not doing this from a place of partisanship or politicking; they are genuinely concerned. We have a job as legislators to listen to those concerns in this period of time.I know that my colleague Mr. Arnold wants to get on. This rant has been brewing for some time for me. It is so crucial that we get this right.I would put this on the record. Colleagues, I'm sure many of you watched the American Senate committee hearings, over a couple of years ago now, when Mark Zuckerberg appeared before a Senate committee and the questions that he was asked were so pedantic. You could see him trying to explain to legislators what an email was. I'm being slightly facetious, but not that much.I just feel as though we are here right now and the debate that we're having is so mired in a lack of understanding of this space, as opposed to really thinking about what the role of government is in the broader discussion of the disruption that has happened in media, in how we consume information and how we create information. I implore you that rather than just importing a regulatory structure that is 40 years old onto a beautiful new way of doing things, in a way that could put a serious chill on it, that silences voices of Canadians who have finally found a platform—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills680406268040636804064680406568040666804067680406868040696804070680407168040726804073680407468040756804076680407768040786804079680408068040816804082680408368040846804085680408668040876804088680408968040906804091680409268040936804094680409568040966804097680409868040996804100680410168041026804103680410468041056804106ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (1830)[English] Thank you, Chair.Mr. Champoux, I had said I was wrapping up, but now I feel like I need to explain a few more things, unfortunately. If you had given me another 10 seconds, I would have closed. I was on the grand finale, but perhaps now I will take a few more minutes to discuss the motion at hand.Again, to colleagues who are looking at the amendment, it reads:9.2 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of online undertakings that have fewer than 500,000 subscribers in Canada or receive less than $80 million per year in advertising, subscription, usage or membership revenues in Canada from the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet.(2) Every two years after the day on which subsection (1) comes into force, the Commission must, with the approval of the Governor in Council, review the subscriber and revenue thresholds and may make regulations to increase them as required.This is smart because it actually puts in place form and substance in a bill where these did not exist before. This amendment talks about what the materiality principle is in relation to the regulator, and that has not been described anywhere else in this law. Again, there are bodies of knowledge and work that have been undertaken, I think, to support that as a starting point.What I like about the structure of this amendment is that it says, here's a starting point, but on a biannual basis there's a requirement for the commission to review whether or not that's adequate in terms of how Canadian content creators are actually growing. It has this built-in review process, and that's why it's elegant.I know that some colleagues have asked—I believe it was Ms. McPherson—how he came up with this threshold. I believe that my colleague came up with it based on white papers that have been produced around the world. He has also built in this mechanism here to say that we will have a review process to ensure that it is adequate over a period of time.I'm not going to propose a subamendment, but if I were to change it, I think that review process should also take into consideration the impact that the current incumbents and current system have. Why should we just give them a free pass here too? Why shouldn't we be talking about their actual views? The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is how many views CBC News actually gets on any evening, or how many views CTV News gets on an actual evening, yet we are moving heck and high water, Chair, to protect them.Perhaps that's something the committee could discuss as well. How are we putting checks and balances on the incumbents that would benefit from our maintaining the status quo? I do think that the review process that's built in here is elegant—it's nice—and it recognizes that this is an emerging field of regulation.The need for a review process that's built into the amendment acknowledges that Bill C-10 is coming in almost ham-fisted, this very “bull in a china shop” approach to ramming through regulatory process that doesn't really reflect the reality of new content creation.Again, I know that my colleagues are going to propose other amendments to try to do what we've been talking about, which is recognize that we shouldn't be putting a chill on freedom of speech and shouldn't be unduly burdening a new source of economic revenue for Canadians, but this is an excellent amendment.I hope that my colleagues approach our amendments, not from that blind partisan perspective but more from the perspective of getting this right on behalf of Canadians—Canadian women, indigenous voices, Black voices, persons of colour and members of the LGBTQ+ community, who traditionally haven't had voices and now have voices and platforms. Put amendments in place to protect them, and be clear on what the role of the regulator is.To my colleague, Mr. Rayes: good work, excellent, well done. You have served your constituents well. I implore my colleagues on this committee to really think about this so that when we are looking back in 10 years time to these committee hearings, which will undoubtedly be referenced in numerous challenges, we're on the right side of history and the right side of the disruption that happened.Thank you, Chair.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6804123ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): (1835)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you again. We certainly had some splendid times on that fisheries committee, or FOPO, and it was interesting to hear another member mention today that the FOPO committee had to be cancelled because of the proceedings here.I sit on that committee, and indeed the meeting was cancelled just minutes before the meeting was to start, but no explanation was given, so I had to come to this committee to find out the reason that my regular committee had been cancelled. I want to speak to this amendment that's been proposed and how it puts limits and parameters around who will be affected by this. This is certainly needed. We've seen in the past how legislation that was rushed through caused unintended consequences, and I want to refer to unintended consequences that my constituents have been calling me about just recently.They can't buy home insurance. They can't find home insurance. Why? It's because the Cannabis Act, Bill C-45BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6804133680413468041356804136ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1845)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. chair.It won't take that long. I don't think there are any more questions on the amendment I proposed, but I want to take one last little moment to remind all members of the committee that the ultimate goal is to set guidelines. We believe that the powers of the CRTC must be circumscribed. We all know how frustrating the deletion of clause 4.1 originally proposed in Bill C-10 as well as the changes made to that bill throughout the process have been.I invite the committee to consider this request, which I repeat is quite reasonable, in my opinion. The thresholds we're proposing are below those recommended by Australia. They would provide a minimum level of protection for users and small players on social networks, so that they're not controlled and aren't subjected to additional regulations and paperwork. These people are asking for nothing more than the freedom to express their art, and not just at home but around the world.I think that, as Quebeckers and as Canadians, we're proud to see artists succeed outside the country. In Quebec, we have Cirque du Soleil, which everyone knows and which has performed all over the world. If it had been restricted to Canada because other countries had prevented it from performing on their territory, I'm not sure it would have had the opportunity to enjoy the success it has.The idea is not to close in on ourselves. We must instead show that we are proud and strong, and that there is talent here. We should be proud to see our home‑grown talent exported around the world and let everyone's creativity shine on social networks.The game has changed. Digital players like Netflix and Disney+ have joined the so‑called closed broadcasting system. There is also the open system, where broadcasters use certain algorithms and let users choose the content they want to download.As legislators, we have a responsibility to protect users and the content they broadcast. The proposed amendment to add section 9.2 to the Broadcasting Act does not amend Bill C‑10 perfectly, I agree. Personally, I would have liked there to be no standard. At least this amendment protects a certain number of users.Also, as you know, under proposed subsections 9.2(2) and 9.2(3), the CRTC will have the opportunity to review these thresholds every two years, if I'm not mistaken. I'm going from memory, since the short notice we had for this meeting didn't give me a chance to get my notes from home.I implore the members of the committee to consider this in their thinking before voting. I also ask them to rise above the direction they've received from their strategists. We now know that they have a kind of hold over the committee. We only have to look at what they did: the gag order was imposed on us and then, as a result of corridor discussions between the whips, this meeting was set up without all of us knowing about it.I'm asking you to allow us to do our job and make sure we protect all Canadians and Quebeckers who use social networks to post content. We're not just talking about videos of dogs and cats, as some would have you believe, in an attempt to simplify the situation. We're also talking about artists who produce quality content, content aimed at informing people, such as documentaries. They create this content without a budget, using simple tools and democratized technology. Now, people can create high‑quality things just from their phones, thanks to a few low‑cost apps. These digital tools make it possible to democratize information and create content.Thank you, Mr. Chair.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts68041706804175ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1850)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Well, here we are today with the government censoring debate on a censorship bill, an incredible compounded attack on our freedoms as Canadians. What's at stake here is section 2(b) of the charter, freedom of expression, so really, what we're debating is 2(b) or not 2(b): that is the question. Will Canadians continue to have their section 2(b) rights to express themselves uninhibited by government bureaucracy? Before us is a bill that would allow government bureaucrats to rig technological algorithms in order to favour certain kinds of pro-government content online while discouraging content that government does not want us to see, in some cases taking that content off the Internet altogether. Now, they tell us that this new power, which we have done just fine without for the last 20 years since the Internet blossomed and online communications and the existence of social media occurred, is necessary to protect Canadian content. But they can't tell us exactly what Canadian content is. Apparently, for example, when the CBC plagiarizes a CNN story out of Washington and runs a full story, without even mentioning Canada, about what's happening in the United States, that would be considered Canadian content. My local community association in Canada puts out a newsletter informing a Canadian audience about what's happening in a Canadian community, produced by a Canadian author, and that would not be considered Canadian content. It therefore would be knocked down on the algorithmic food chain and pushed out of sight and out of mind. We don't—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6804188680418968041906804191ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1915)[English]Orwell said, Mr. Chair, that if freedom of speech means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Obviously, government members on this committee do not want to hear what I have to say, but I still have the right to say it. Regulators do not want to hear what Canadians have to say. They still have the right to say it.If we have to stand alone as Conservatives in this fight for freedom of expression, so we will do. We will stand for the right of people to say what they like and express themselves freely without interference and coercion by the state. That is why we're here with such contention today. It's why we have fought so hard on the floor of the House of Commons and why we have committed, very proudly, to be the only party that will repeal Bill C-10 and restore free speech online for all Canadians.Numerous senior ministers, including the Prime Minister, have said they see COVID as an opportunity for them to expand the power and scope of the state—to make people like them more powerful. That is why they have attempted to take over large parts of the economy, massively increase government spending, limit freedom of choice for parents in how they raise their kids, and now censor what people say online.If members of the government think we're going to sit by and allow that to happen, then they've ignored 800 years of parliamentary history, where commoners have routinely stood up to defend their freedom through the system of Parliament that we have inherited through so many generations.[Translation] I am not surprised to hear that the Liberals want the federal government to have more power and that federal officials should control people's speech. However, I am surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois, which claims to want to separate itself from Canada, and therefore from the authority of the Canadian state, is supporting a bill giving federal officials the power to control the speech and words of Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois should be called the centralizing Bloc, since it now wants to give the federal government in Ottawa the power to control what Quebeckers say. How is this consistent with the independence of the Quebec nation? We, the Conservatives, are the only party standing up for the freedom of expression of Quebeckers. Apparently, we are the only party that understands that people's speech, people's words are not under federal or provincial jurisdiction, but under individual jurisdiction. Everyone has the freedom to express themselves without interference from the state. We believe that all Quebeckers should be able to decide what to say, when to say it and how to say it. I am shocked that a sovereignist party would give the Canadian state the power to control the way Quebeckers express themselves. It is ironic. Most Quebeckers would be really surprised to hear that this party, supposedly the Bloc Québécois, is in favour of giving the federal government much more power on this issue. We, the Conservatives, are proud to defend the autonomy of Quebeckers. Everyone is free to say what they want and to choose how they express themselves on the Internet and elsewhere. Although the Conservatives seem to be the only ones willing to protect these freedoms, I am proud that we do. At the same time, I must admit that it is disappointing and surprising that no other party is willing to do the same. From what I can see, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals are listening to the lobbyists, the officials and the politicians in Ottawa, who simply want to protect their interests by excluding people and controlling content. The Liberals and the Bloc are attacking Quebec artists. Those artists will have the opportunity to choose the only party that supports freedom of expression, the Conservative Party.Such is the nature of the debate we are having. However, there is still time. The Bloc Québécois may still have the opportunity to see that Quebeckers do not want the federal government to decide for them, and to understand that everyone, including Quebeckers, must have the freedom to express themselves.(1920)[English] That's really the choice. All of the other parties want to give more power to bureaucrats, lobbyists and politicians, and one party wants to give power back to the people. That's the Conservative Party. We're standing up all by ourselves to defend the principle that people should be able to express themselves even if the government and the political establishment close to the government disagree. Quite frankly, I'm proud that we're taking this principled stand, that we are speaking our mind and defending the millions of Canadians who are going to be voiceless if this bill passes.What we've seen from the other parties is a desire to massively increase the power of the state at the expense of the people. When the state becomes more powerful, the people become weaker and smaller. That, of course, is the goal, the purpose of this bill and so many other power grabs that we have witnessed over the last year.Remember, when this pandemic began, the first thing the Prime Minister did was try to pass a law empowering him to raise any tax to any level for any reason, without even holding a vote, for two years. He wanted to have that power locked in until the year 2022, the ability to just raise any tax with an executive order. That has never been done in our parliamentary system. The basic principle of no taxation without representation means that the government can't tax what Parliament doesn't approve. He tried to take that power away and impose higher taxes on the Canadian people.Instead, we fought back, and to the credit of the Canadian people who joined us in the backlash, he backed down. We hope that he will back down again before this censorship bill becomes law. As you all know, there has been a massive outcry against this bill. You've heard it. Your leader has heard it. Unfortunately, here's the problem: Instead of recognizing the opposition, this Prime Minister has been threatened by it. He said the last thing we need is more dissent and debate in this country, because then people won't agree with him. Therefore, he needs to pass a law to shut them down, silence their voices and prevent them from speaking up in the future. That is exactly what this bill does.The bill needs to be repealed in its entirety, every single word of it. Not only that, it's interesting that my original suspicions about this bill were fulfilled. I said on the floor of the House of Commons last year, before the bill got much notice, that it would lead to Internet censorship. However, the government had put in a proposed section saying that user-generated content would be excluded, user-generated content being the material that everyday Canadians post online. They were able to use that as a fig leaf to cover up their true censorship intentions, but then the fig leaf dropped about a month and a half ago when the government, with the backing of other opposition parties, removed that one protection that was supposed to let everyday Canadians continue to post what they wanted online.(1925) They just eliminated that altogether, even though the department's own charter analysis had shown that the bill relied on that protection in order to keep the bill constitutionally viable. They said, “Don't worry, this bill won't touch freedom of speech—it's got this one key exclusion.” Then they took that exclusion out, and here we are with a bill that will control online content and allow government to dictate what people see and say online.We're going to continue to fight this bill right through all the stages in our efforts to defeat it. I think the Prime Minister is in a mad rush to get it through so that he can have it in place and locked in before the next election. Perhaps he thinks that some of the censorship elements in the bill will help him to win the election, will help suppress criticism of him while he's on the campaign trail so that nobody can expose the corruption of his government, the mismanagement of the pandemic and his horrendous failures at the early stages of the outbreak. All of these things can be suppressed by preventing what people say online.Then we'll be stuck, of course, with the model of a very small group of liberals in the press gallery dictating the narrative and campaigning for the Prime Minister, without Canadians having the release valve to speak out and spread information and thoughts of their own online. That is, I think, the model that the Prime Minister feels most comfortable with: where you have 30 or 40 liberal press gallery types who go around spreading his message and attacking his enemies and no one is allowed to speak up to the contrary because there's a government regulation to prevent their voices being heard.I think a lot of liberals have been bewildered by this new social media environment that they can't control. For so long, of course, they had such an iron grip on the discourse, when a small oligopoly of media enterprises could dominate political press coverage. In that environment, liberals thrive, because a small group of elites tells everyone else what to think, and those who dissent are left in the wilderness. They want to bring back that model—a model that is threatened by open free speech and the free expression and circulation of ideas.You can't maintain a small oligopoly of media voices when everyday people are able to compete in a free market. Trudeau needs to abolish the free market of ideas and bring back a small group of media sycophants and give them the exclusive ability to dominate the discourse. Then, when he gets back to that position, no one will be able to contradict him or the overall party line.Rest assured that we as Conservatives will fight back against this, and in the end, we will win. We will win this debate. We will overturn this bill. Whether we do it before the election or after, this bill will be defeated and freedom of speech will be restored.Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6804266ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1930)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome everyone to committee here once again. I want to thank the member for Carleton and the member for Calgary Nose Hill, because both of them have huge followings on Facebook. This is the concern that we have at committee. When you get to 500,000-plus subscribers, the government or the CRTC will start looking into your activities.We got rushed into this committee meeting today. I think the chair duly noted his disappointment with that here today, because we were scheduled for Friday morning. Now I see that we're also going to meet tomorrow morning, Thursday morning, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. We're rushing through this bill, as we all know. It is flawed, and this has been talked about for quite some time.This amendment by Mr. Rayes I've talked to before, and I like it—no “fewer than 500,000 subscribers in Canada or receive less than $80 million per year in advertising”. We have used those numbers because they equal what they have in Australia more or less. When Mr. Rayes brought forward this amendment, this was well thought out. We had some information from Australia that he certainly followed. That's why we put forward this amendment. It's a very good one. I'm going to read its second proposed subsection:(2) Every two years after the day on which subsection (1) comes into force, the Commission must, with the approval of the Governor in Council, review the subscriber and revenue thresholds and may make regulations to increase them as required.We even talked about this earlier, Mr. Chair, because the commission might want to decrease them as required, per the regulations on the CRTC's part.I think the member from Carleton brought up a very good point. We had not heard a lot from the CRTC until the chair was here. We all know this bill will have major ramifications for the CRTC's workload. You will have listened to me for months about the concern I have about the CRTC. I understand, with the recent changes on licensing, that some want the seven-year licences because they will keep everyone in check. Others don't because, to be quite honest, when and if this bill does get passed, we will put strenuous time restraints on the CRTC, the chair, Ian Scott, along with members. We all know, sitting around this table, that we're concerned about the CRTC's involvement with this bill.I've seen it as a conventional broadcaster. I've seen it for four decades, where they hand off the licence, then don't return for another six and a half years, when the conventional broadcasters in this country have violated their agreement with the CRTC almost the first week into the seven-year contract. If you're going to give conventional broadcasters the white flag and say we're going to do away with the seven-year contract on a licence, that opens up another can of worms. I think, in this country, we all have concerns about this.The National Post has a big base in this country. It was interesting that on the front page of the National Post today—and the Windsor Star, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, all the newspapers that the Post owns in this country—they have a message to the Prime Minister. There are not as many Canadians today subscribing to our newspapers as they did in the past. We all know that story, but it was an interesting read by the publisher of the National Post, the owners, signalling that their business is in trouble. They are worried about Google and Facebook like the rest of us are.(1935) I really question the timing of the front page article today in the National Post. Knowing that we have less than five hours to go through Bill C-10, as a former broadcaster, I really do question why today? Why June 9? You have a full-page editorial in all the newspapers that the National Post owns in this country—many of them—to give a signal to the Prime Minister to deal with Facebook, with Google and all the other social media. It was strange timing. I am reading between the lines on it. They have had their hands out, as we know. They are part of the $600 million already guaranteed to many in this country for the newspaper industry, which the Liberals have given many owners of newspapers. Yet today, Wednesday, June 9, two days before we're going to shut down debate and the gag order on Bill C-10, here we have a full-page editorial in every newspaper owned by the National Post in this country.I agree with the amendment. It was interesting today...and I'm glad that the members for Calgary Nose Hill and Carleton were on, because they are going to be targeted. They will easily have 500,000 subscribers. They will easily be in line with the CRTC's—they will be flagged. They may not have the $80 million per year in advertising, but they will have millions of followers on Facebook. To me, they are going to be flagged.Mr. Chair, I really appreciate both the members coming forward this late in committee, because they are concerned. They are concerned about free speech—their free speech—as we don't really know what is going to happen after this bill. How involved will the CRTC be? I think they're going to be heavily involved in social media, more so than conventional TV, conventional radio, which we really even haven't talked about a lot in Bill C-10. I've had many radio owners in this country who are concerned because this bill got off the rails. We were trying to save radio and television stations in the country, and then, thanks to proposed section 4.1, we got derailed into the social media. In talking to many radio and TV owners, I know they're concerned that this bill does nothing for them and does everything for social media.Now the CRTC is directing all of their attention towards Google, Facebook and so on—Netflix, Disney and the rest of them. They are very concerned that going forward, if this bill does pass before we rise, and also in the Senate, that their concerns.... Their concerns have been talked about long ago. We all had lobbyists knocking on our door when we came back in the fall and we started this Bill C-10. It seems like a long time ago that we opened the doors to radio stations across this country, conventional networks, left and right. To me, they've been forgotten now.We barely remember who came to committee on their behalf with their concerns, as we've been absorbed by the free speech debate we are having as a result of Bill C-10.Proposed subsection 9.2(3) of the amendment is interesting, because it says:The Minister must prepare a report on the Commission's review under subsection (2) and submit the report to the standing committee of each House of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to broadcasting.In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I want to to thank you for your words when we reconvened today, on a Wednesday instead of Friday. Your comments we're well observed from coast to coast, as I'm seeing from social media. I, too, was surprised that we got called back early for this. I think we all agreed that we were going to do the five hours, which would have been two on Friday, two on Monday and maybe one more next week, and we knew that we could have extended meetings.Having said that, I like this amendment. I like what Mr. Rayes has brought forward in proposed section 9.2, subsections (1), (2) and (3). As we move forward on this, let's not forget the conventional television stations, the networks. My fear with this bill, if it does pass, is that we're going to see more carnage in that business, television and radio.(1940) We've seen enough in the last year or two, but my fear now is that we have forgotten about those that we were to deal with first of all in this bill. The carnage with layoffs could be tremendous in the fall once this bill does pass.Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6804291680429268042936804294680429568042966804297680429868042996804300680430168043026804303680430468043056804306680430768043086804309680431068043116804312680431368043146804315ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1945)[English]Okay. That's settled.Continue with the vote.(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions680436368043646804365AiméeBelmoreScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1945)[Translation]Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to introduce amendment CPC‑9.3. I apologize for earlier. In addition to voting, I made a gesture. As you all know, the lights in the committee room are automatic. Our meeting is long, the lights went out suddenly, and I am slightly claustrophobic. Having said that, I'd like to introduce amendment CPC‑9.3 right away. It proposes that Bill C‑10, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:9.2 An online undertaking that provides a social media service is deemed not to exercise programming control over programs uploaded by any user of the social media service who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them. We are therefore proposing to add a new section to the Broadcasting Act.I'd like to exercise my right to explain this amendment, as we may not all have had a chance to chat about it. It is quite consistent with what we are trying to do, which is to improve the bill as a result of the withdrawal of section 4.1 originally proposed in the bill, and the refusal to reinstate similar provisions through our amendment CPC‑9.1.Earlier, the conversation was about protecting users or small players on social networks who are not part of the so‑called closed broadcasting system. The original intent of this bill was to regulate broadcasting companies like Netflix and Disney+. However, as we all know, it has taken a completely different turn since the beginning of the debate. So we see a loophole there.According to the definition proposed in the bill, “programming control” means control over the selection of programs for transmission, but does not include control over the selection of programming services for retransmission. We believe that the CRTC should not consider that social media sites must exercise programming control over the content that users upload. The CRTC would be over‑regulating, which would make it extremely difficult for those users. It would increase the bureaucracy and cause some stress to those people who use social networks in a completely free way.Not everyone sees this, but again, there is a real difference compared to a broadcaster in the so‑called closed system. Everyone has used Netflix before. When you log on to Netflix, you see the programming. In terms of discoverability, we can assume that it must be quite simple to access so‑called Canadian programming, or more specifically, French‑language or Quebec programs among all the programs that are offered.When we think of Netflix, we think of a program in a specific setting. I'm thinking of the French series Lupin, whose second season we're all waiting for, which will be released on June 11. It will be in the programming, it's settled, it's clear to everyone. The programming can't change at any time. When one season is over, we wait for the release of the second season, which takes some time to be produced. All the better if it's done with artists from our country, whether they are Quebeckers, Canadians, francophones, anglophones, indigenous or anyone else.Then we have the broadcasters of the so‑called open system, which includes social networks in some cases. It can involve everyone. I'm not a company like Netflix, but I can post things on social media. My colleague Mr. Poilievre, who spoke earlier, has many more followers than I do. I'm sure he doesn't want a federal agency to have a say in what he wants to post.In a recent decision, a judge brought the CBC to heel over its criticism of the Conservative Party for posting a video with excerpts from public broadcasts. The last thing we want is for users, whether they are politicians, the public or artists, to be regulated in this way.The purpose of the amendment is to remove the notion that social media sites have control over programming. The approach we are proposing today, in practical terms, is in line with that of the European Union in its Audiovisual Media Services Directive. It's important to say that we are not reinventing the wheel. This would allow us to conform to the international practices of countries that are trying to find a fair and equitable way to include social networks. What I am proposing in amendment CPC‑9.3 is nothing out of the ordinary. It is perfectly aligned with current practices in the European Union.(1950) The European Union uses the concept of editorial responsibility, which roughly corresponds to our concept of programming control, to differentiate services like YouTube from other players in the so‑called closed broadcasting system and platforms like Netflix or Disney+. The European Union makes a distinction in this regard, which the current Liberal government and Minister Guilbeault do not. Perhaps that's why he has been so confused in the various interviews he has given. Not only the Conservatives and the opposition parties, but all Canadians, experts and political analysts could see his failure to understand the issue, which is extremely complex. This is something new; it didn't exist 30 or 40 years ago. With our proposal, we are trying to strike the right balance, or at least improve the bill as introduced.So I was saying that the idea is to differentiate services like YouTube from other players in the so‑called closed broadcasting system and other platforms. According to the European Union directive, editorial responsibility for programming means exercising effective control over both the selection of programs and how they are organized, chronologically, for example.As I explained earlier, on Netflix, there is a set schedule. There is no to‑ing and fro‑ing programming, no algorithms that mean that all the content can change in real time. That simply makes it impossible to apply measures to control discoverability without penalizing certain artists and certain Canadians and Quebeckers who use social networks to make their voices heard.We are therefore talking about control over the way television programs are scheduled or, in the case of on‑demand audiovisual media, listed. It is a way of providing service.We believe it is necessary to make a distinction to include video sharing services.The European Union has expressly recognized that a video sharing platform that uses algorithms and automatic means to organize content does not necessarily have editorial responsibility for it. This is extremely important. I want everyone to understand what I'm saying. It is not we who are saying this, it is the European Union. If these platforms do not have editorial responsibility for the content, how can they be forced to ensure discoverability?It is important to note that some 500 hours of video are uploaded on YouTube every minute worldwide. I repeat: on YouTube, 500 hours of videos are uploaded every minute. We often use YouTube as an example because it is one of the biggest players, but there are all the other platforms that we can't name. We, as politicians, officials and the like, are sometimes in a bubble and we don't even know all the other platforms that young people are using right now, or all the ones that will be created in the future and used by the generations that will follow us. Technology is changing so fast. Five years ago, nobody knew about TikTok. Today, even politicians are pressured to use that platform and post videos of themselves dancing or singing on it. Some people do it; personally, I'm not there yet.The YouTube model presents videos to users based on their search criteria. YouTube doesn't decide what content to suggest, the user requests do. If I want to see Canadian content or a Canadian artist, if I want to listen to a Céline Dion song and send it to someone afterwards, I do my own search. If I want to see Canadian content, I'll type “Canadian singer” into Google and, believe me, the answer will come up. People know how to program keywords to be discovered. We don't need to ask YouTube to do it for us. We are all capable of doing it. I can do it, the members of this committee can do it, everyone can do it. (1955)People will make their own requests according to their preferences. In some cases, YouTube will recommend content based on users' search histories or the content that they have already listened to, among other things.I personally subscribe to Spotify. I always have five lists available to me based on the type of music that I listen to. When I'm tired of listening to the playlist that my children prepared for me, because I'm unable to create one myself, I can choose another one from the five suggested to me. The suggested content varies. This gives me the chance to listen to something new.Given the type of music that I listen to, especially music from Quebec, I discovered a young up‑and‑coming artist. You may not believe me, but he's the son of one of my wife's best friends. This friend lives a three‑hour drive from us. Coincidentally, Spotify introduced me to this young artist through my playlist, when I didn't even know that he was on the platform. I was very proud to call and tell him that Spotify introduced me to him and that my children were listening to him through my playlists, and so on. He's a young artist making his mark. His music is now being heard by people all over the French‑speaking world, not just in Quebec and Canada. You can imagine the boost that this can give to his budding career.A social media outlet with an almost infinite supply of content can't be treated in the same manner as a platform that orders and acquires specific content, such as Netflix. It's impossible, even utopian, to imagine that, through Bill C‑10, we can ask the CRTC to manage players in the closed broadcasting system, platforms such as Netflix and Disney+, and social networks in the same way.The CRTC hasn't even been able to establish clear rules between the big and small players in telecommunications with regard to competitive rates. We all know that. We're currently talking about this matter in the House of Commons. The CRTC found it too complex to strike a balance between the big players and the small companies, which drive down prices for all consumers.We're now asking them to find a way to play within the algorithms of platforms where 500 hours of videos are uploaded every minute.It makes sense to impose standards and obligations on the content controllers when the content is ordered and the controls can be implemented effectively. I want to say that to the people who are tuning in.We can't consider that services with search engine‑like functions, which help users find content, contain organized content. This simply isn't possible. We can't consider that they selected content for their users either.The European Union has acknowledged this difference in nature between open and closed platforms. How can the European Union understand this, but not the Liberal government and its minister? I can't believe it when I see this.If we were to move forward, if Canada were to apply the same broadcasting standards and obligations to user‑generated content, whether we're talking about an open platform such as YouTube or a platform such as Disney+, we would be the only country in the world to do so. I repeat: we would be the only country in the world to do so.After hearing the explanations provided by the minister in his various interviews, it worries me that we're the only country in the world to implement these types of regulations, especially when we don't have a good understanding of the technical details being discussed. We aren't experts. The experts came to talk to us about the topic.I didn't speak extensively about freedom of expression or discoverability. I discussed a situation that's currently an issue. We must find a way to improve this flawed bill, despite the fact that a gag order has been imposed on us. In any case, the Liberals can do as they please, with the help of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. The NDP expressed outrage and said that imposing the gag order made no sense. However, they took part in the discussions to sneak in today's meeting, which we were called to without notice.(2000)Yet, when the bill arrives in the Senate, do you think that the senators won't try to address the flaws? They're smart as well. Moreover, we won't even have finished dealing with all the amendments before us. Senators certainly won't want to vote without having done the thorough work or without having studied all these amendments.We have a week and a half left before the House of Commons draws to a close. We already know that the Liberal government is recruiting for the election that should be called as soon as the summer break is over. In other words, the cart is being put before the horse. There will inevitably be a hurdle when the bill reaches the Senate. Even if, through various tactics, the Liberals manage to speed up the process, there will be a challenge.Some people may think that, with the passage of this bill, we can provide support for Canada's cultural infrastructure starting tomorrow morning. The minister is trying to make everyone believe that we're currently losing $70 million each month that could be reinvested in culture. In any case, when it comes to releasing funds, the Liberals have no problem. They print money. For them, money grows on trees. If there's an emergency and support is needed, they have no issue finding money. They come up with indirect ways to do so.Today, through amendment CPC‑9.3, I'm proposing another attempt. Earlier, amendment CPC‑9.2 was rejected. Yet we proposed thresholds that were below those of Australia, supposedly the current model in this area. I chose lower thresholds, thinking that perhaps I would convince my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberal Party that basic guidelines were absolutely necessary and that we couldn't leave this completely in the hands of the CRTC without drawing any lines. We saw what happened in the case of French‑language content.I'm thinking of my colleague, Martin Champoux. He knows how much I appreciate him.By the way, Mr. Champoux, I have some muffins for you in my car. I thought that I would be seeing you. However, since I'm leaving after the meeting to pick up my daughter in Montreal, I won't be able to give them to you today. That said, I hope to see you again before June 23.I can't understand why the Bloc Québécois would agree to give more powers to a Canadian organization that has difficulty managing these things, even though they wanted to prioritize francophone and Quebec culture. The current situation is completely illogical.We're told to support the content. We'll do so. We want the legislation to apply to digital broadcasters in a fair manner, compared to traditional broadcasters. However, we're now in a completely different realm, since we're talking about all social media.The open letters floating around are calling for the sharing of advertising revenue as a way to help our print media. This bill doesn't provide any support measures. There's a reason why all these publishers are saying loud and clear that the government hasn't done anything. It hasn't done anything in this bill to regulate the role of CBC/Radio‑Canada. It hasn't done anything for the writers, who are saying that nothing has been done for them.Former commissioners and senior CRTC officials now represent several groups, including Timothy Denton, Konrad von Finckenstein, Peter Menzies, Michel Morin and Philip Palmer, who was legal counsel at the Department of Justice and, I believe, general counsel at the Department of Communications. All these people, who know the structure of the CRTC because they worked there, are saying that this must be stopped, that it simply doesn't make sense.This is on top of the comments made by all the law professors. It isn't just Michael Geist. Many others have stood up. These people know that this bill, if passed, will be challenged immediately.At this point, we can't play our role as legislators to help the cultural community at all. A gag order has been imposed on parliamentarians who are trying to correct and improve the current bill.I'll stop here for now. I may have more comments to make later, since I'm sure that some people will be asking officials about the potential impact of our proposals.(2005)I just want to remind people that, when considering this bill, they should take into account the difference between digital media or broadcasters that generate content within a defined structure, and social networks, which are platforms that generate so‑called open content. These are two completely different things. Netflix can't be treated the same as a social network. People can't upload content to Netflix, but they can upload content to YouTube. This platform can serve as a launch pad for artists to promote themselves to other users around the world. Afterwards, the Netflixes of the world or traditional broadcasters can raise the profile of these artists through documentaries or new shows. All this helps to increase the number of success stories and the discoverability of our Quebec, Canadian, francophone, anglophone and indigenous artists, or our artists of any origin.I hope that you'll consider my recommendation through amendment CPC‑9.3.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68043816804382680438368043846804385680438668043876804388680438968043906804391680439268043936804394680439568043966804397680439868043996804400680440168044026804403680440468044056804406680440768044086804409680441068044116804412680441368044146804415680441668044176804418680441968044206804421680442268044236804424680442568044266804427680442868044296804430ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (2010)[English]That is not a point of order. It is a very good point of generosity, but I'm afraid I'll have to rule it out of order.Now we're all on a culinary track, so let's move off it for a moment and go back to Bill C-10.Before I go any further, I see Ms. Dabrusin and Mr. Genuis. However, I think, Mr. Genuis, I referred to you earlier, so I'm going to put you first. Then I'll have Ms. Dabrusin follow.Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6804440AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (2010)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Genuis. I will have a couple of questions for Mr. Ripley, but before I get there—because we've covered a lot of ground all around the bill and beyond it—I just wanted to perhaps remind, especially Mr. Rayes when I was listening to him, about a couple of things.One is that we adopted clause 2 much earlier in this review of the legislation, and that, in fact, created an exclusion for user-uploaded content. Also, if he would take a look at the amendments that we had introduced with G-11.1, it actually does have a different discoverability rule for social media companies. I need to say “social media companies”, not people uploading their content. I just wanted to clarify that because we've covered a lot of ground and sometimes it can be hard to remember exactly where we've been.There has been a lot of conversation about our artists and what the purpose of this bill is. I think it's been clear all along that the purpose of this bill is that we want web giants who are making money here in Canada to contribute a portion of the revenues they make here in Canada to our Canadian artists. The decision by the Conservatives to block this actually dates back to before this even got to committee. It dates back to when this was first debated in the House. That's just to give some background as we have that conversation.I believe that one of the questions raised by an earlier speaker was about who the artists are who want the support. I guess I can understand where this question comes from this, given the statements made by the Conservative member for Lethbridge who has been a frequent attendee at this committee. She said that this bill was about supporting artists who “are not able to make a living off of what they are producing...so they require grants that are given to them by the government.” It also included a statement saying that artists can “apply for that money so they can continue to create material Canadians don't want to watch”.In some of the previous statements that were made today, there were questions about who the artists were because there were many references to lobby groups. Individual artists like Yannick Bisson, who is the star and director of Murdoch Mysteries, which is a big success here in Canada and around the world, have expressed support. There's Jean Yoon of Kim's Convenience, which is also popular here at home and around the world. There is also the director, I believe, of Corner Gas.Looking at who's received FACTOR funding—and who the member from Lethbridge felt we do not want to watch—there are people like Grammy-nominated Jessie Reyez, Gord Downie, the Arkells and shows like Schitt's Creek. That's just to give a bit of background because there has been a lot of conversation today about this bill. I think it's important to ground it in what we're actually trying to do with this bill, the artists we're trying to support, artists who have actually spoken up individually to show their support, or who—if we look through the granting systems—have received support, so that they can create the great art that we love here and has been loved around the world.On that, when I was looking at this specific amendment, I was trying to understand what it adds to clause 2.1. Can I please ask Mr. Ripley how it ties in with that addition to the bill?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68044496804450680445168044526804453680445468044556804456680445768044586804459ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (2015)[English] As the committee is aware, Bill C-10 as tabled includes a definition of “programming control”. That term is used in a few places in Bill C-10. You will see a couple of references to it throughout the policy objectives section. With respect to regulatory powers, you will see it referenced in one place, in proposed paragraph 10(1)(c), with a discussion of programming standards. The definition was included in Bill C-10 to recognize the fact that there are different business models out there. For some of those business models you have the distribution of content, but the entity distributing that content isn't exercising any control over the selection of those programs. Perhaps one of the most simple examples to understand is that in a conventional system, you have cable and satellite companies that transmit the TV channels of others. The TV channel exercises control over the programming that's included on their channel, but Rogers Cable or Bell or Vidéotron do not. This definition was included to make the distinction, again, between those business models where a company does and does not have control. This was intended to be a determination in fact that would be made about any given situation. The amendment proposed by Mr. Rayes would essentially have the committee clarifying or making it “deemed”—I think that's the word used in Mr. Rayes' amendment—that in terms of content that is uploaded to social media services by unaffiliated users, that social media service is deemed not to have programming control over it.With respect to the regulatory powers of the CRTC, it would only be a question of whether or not proposed paragraph 10(1)(c) would apply to social media companies. I know we haven't gotten there yet, but to my recollection from a few committee meetings ago, government members did indicate that the intention is to limit those powers as well and their application to social media services. That would be the point at which this amendment would come into play. It's not really directly relevant to proposed subsection 2(2.1).Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68044616804462680446368044646804465ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (2020)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.It's good to see the members of this committee. I think it's my first time subbing in at the heritage committee, but from a distance, I have been following your proceedings very closely out of great interest in the bill's subject matter in general. Also, I have a particular amendment, which I think you're aware of, that deals with issues of broadcast involving abuses of human rights. Realistically and unfortunately, given the important free speech issues that have to be discussed, we probably are not even going to get to have the opportunity to explore that amendment here at committee. Nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you.I'm supportive of this amendment by Mr. Rayes, which I think advances and protects freedom of speech. It doesn't fully protect it, obviously, as existing concerns about the bill as structured remain, but it's an important step in the right direction.I'm struck by I guess two points that Ms. Dabrusin made in respect to the comments Mr. Rayes had made about the nature or objectives of the bill. This speaks, I guess, to a broader frustration with the kinds of arguments that are often used to advance the positions that the government takes.One is to rely very heavily on intention: to say “the bill intends to”, “we intend to” or “we intend to do this”. An assertion of intention is just not reassuring when experts—former CRTC commissioners, academics and others—have reviewed the text of the bill and have said that “this is what it does” and “this is what the bill says”. Good intentions are not enough. Especially for legislators, what matters is what's in the bill. I think we should look at the bill, I think we should look at the amendment we're discussing and I think we should frame our approach to it based on the language of the amendment itself and the language of the bill itself, not on some assertion about intentions.The other logical fallacy, I guess, that informs a lot of the reasoning of the government in this bill—and, frankly, I think in other bills as well—is the creation of false choices, the sense that we have to choose between alternatives that we don't actually have to choose between. When we're looking at a complex broadcasting reform bill, I think we should identify not just one objective or two objectives, but a broad suite of objectives, and then undertake the development of a framework that achieves all of those objectives.Government members have said: “We're trying to support artists. We're trying to stick it to the big web giants. Therefore, this is what we're doing.” Conservatives have said that protecting freedom of speech is important and that the bill as structured raises issues about freedom of speech—experts have said that—and I think that certainly the amendment we're currently discussing takes a step toward addressing those free speech concerns by providing more protection for users and user-generated content. I would just say in general that there's no reason why we have to choose between support for artists and protecting free speech. It seems to me, as someone who is not a regular member of this committee and not a huge expert on broadcasting policy—although I have a growing interest in it—that it shouldn't be difficult to construct a framework that supports artists, that charges whatever the legislature deems to be a fair rate of return from large online companies and that also protects freedom of speech. There would be a variety of different frameworks through which that could be done. One would be simply through tax and subsidy.The minister's latest defence of the bill is that there's money that needs to get to the artists and the delaying of the bill is delaying getting money to the artists. Well, there are a lot of different mechanisms the government could develop for getting money to the artists, and they don't require this bill to do that. There is a variety of different frameworks that they have available. I think it's the responsibility of governments not to try to set up a false choice. We don't have to choose between commitment to artists and a desire to see content developed in Canada and freedom of speech. We can and we should seek to preserve both.(2025) Some of the amendments that we've put forward don't in any way take away from the objective of supporting artists. As well, prior to the amendments that were put forward at this committee, when the bill was in second reading form, the government argued at that time that it was a framework for supporting artists. That was before the government made the changes that have garnered so much attention in the wider public—certainly in my constituency—in terms of their impact on freedom of speech.Mr. Chair, I want to make this point, as well, as I think it's particularly applicable to the amendment as it pertains to discoverability on social media and what will be required of users and so forth. I think we have to understand substantively what freedom of speech is and why it's important. Freedom of speech is not just the right to say something. It's not the sort of abstract assertion in a vacuum that people should be able to say anything they want. It develops from an appreciation for the fact that people's speaking and being heard allows for an exchange of ideas; the sharing of information and concepts through conventional speech, as well as through artistic mediums and other forms; the presentation of those ideas; the hearing of those ideas by a wider public and the evaluation of those ideas; and then the creation of combinations and syntheses that in some sense move our society forward.Freedom of speech is valued because it creates opportunity for people to hear, evaluate and compare different options, to decide what they like and dislike, to decide what they believe is conveying true or false messages in certain contexts, and to compare those messages and come to conclusions. That's why freedom of speech is important. That's the core argument and I think the most influential argument for freedom of speech that someone like John Stuart Mill makes in On Liberty, namely, that freedoms allow for the presentation of ideas and experiments in living that allow people to listen and come to conclusions.What this bill does, I think, and what the government's defence of this bill does is conceptually try to separate this question of a right to speak from a right to be heard. It says that you can post whatever you want online but that we will allow the CRTC to go in and make regulations around discoverability that influence whether or not the things you say online are heard. It tries to sort of take from that right to speak element the question of a right to be heard.I would just say that for freedom of speech, freedom of expression and liberty in general to be meaningful, it has to include not just the right to sort of speak into a void but also some ability to not have the state interfering with and limiting your ability to be heard.The powers that I see this bill—unamended and in its present form—giving to the CRTC in the name of discoverability allow a government body to make regulations with respect to not, in this context, what you can say but whether or not you can be heard. That might seem like a distinction, but if we are to try to pull those things apart—the right to speak and the right to be heard—then I think we are really robbing the concept of freedom of speech of its substantive meaning.What this amendment does is say to the users that they will have the freedom to not be interfered with by the CRTC on the degree to which their content will be heard on social media platforms. That, again, is an important effort that we are undertaking to protect this concept of freedom of speech and to protect it in a meaningful way, in a substantive way, and in a way that goes beyond just the formulaic idea of the right to speak and actually draws from the real meaning of what it means to have a right to speak. It's why our charter and pre-existing constitutional documents have emphasized the idea and importance of freedom of expression.(2030) I do think part of why this amendment is important as well is because it speaks to this issue of algorithm regulation, a question that has not been answered. We've had multiple occasions on which the question has been put directly to the minister. It was asked, I think, by a member at this committee. Is this bill seeking to allow regulation of algorithm? I think it very clearly does. Is this bill seeking to allow the regulation of algorithms, and if it's not seeking to, maybe the government is willing to accept amendments that eliminate the risk of CRTC algorithm regulation. The minister was as clear as mud on this when he was asked in the committee. He said it's not a yes and it's not a no. I asked the same question during the closure debate of the minister in the House about algorithm regulation. He said something to the effect of "Let me use a vehicle analogy. If we have a car, I hope it's electric, but if we have a car it's...". I'm going to get this wrong. He said, "We're not interested in what's under the hood, we're interested in where it's going." I might have that mixed up. In any event, he used this vehicle analogy that I just didn't understand. I didn't understand what he was conveying. I re-asked the question, and he said he'd answered it, but maybe the member hadn't understood.Maybe this is just a question I should ask to the officials. I don't know that I want to put them on the spot by asking them to answer a question that the minister has been unable to answer, but it is a technical question that I think maybe they can provide a technical answer to.Does the bill, as written without this amendment, allow for the possibility of algorithm regulation? If the amendment is added, what is the possible impact on the ability of the CRTC to engage in the regulation of algorithms?Mr. Chair, can I put that to Mr. Ripley as part of my time?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills68044736804474680447568044766804477680447868044796804480680448168044826804483680448468044856804486680448768044886804489680449068044916804492680449368044946804495ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (2030)[English]The committee has had an opportunity to discuss this issue before. It is most relevant with respect to discoverability measures or powers that are being given to the CRTC, because I think there's an appreciation on this committee that recommendation engines that are used on services like Spotify or Netflix or social media services like YouTube or others employ algorithms that underpin those recommendation engines. I've indicated before that, when it comes to the discoverability of creators on social media platforms, it would be premature to judge what the outcome of regulatory proceedings are and how the CRTC may choose to move forward on this issue, given the example of it requiring the profiling of artists or creators on landing pages. That would be one way to increase the profile of artists or creators. Yes, it could also extend to requiring Canadian creators or artists to potentially be surfaced in search results. The answer to the question is that algorithms are relevant, but I think we also acknowledge that the algorithm is a mathematical formulation that most of us wouldn't even begin to understand, so the emphasis is on the outcome of that. The emphasis is on the profiling of the creator or the artist or the surfacing of those creators or artists. Algorithms are relevant to the extent that they're an important part of the way that recommendation engines work on a variety of different online platforms. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills680449768044986804499ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (2035)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I never want to presume.When you look at online services like Spotify, the reality is that you do see less Canadian, francophone artists, for example, surface in search results. Indeed, the reason that discoverability powers were included in Bill C-10 from the get-go was to recognize that if we want to make sure that our Canadian artists and creators are being surfaced on these platforms, the CRTC needs the tools to do that.To your point, we expect that the impacted social media service or the impacted online undertaking would obviously still have control over how they did that, in a way that would continue to jive with their business model.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6804517ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (2045)[English]All right.Mr. Chair, I don't want to be too prescriptive, because I'm not a regular member of this committee, but in deference to my colleagues, I'll move a motion to adjourn and see where the chips land.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment bills68045726804573ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAiméeBelmoreAimée-BelmoreInterventionThe Clerk: (2045)[English]Just to confirm, voting yes would adjourn the meeting and voting no would continue the meeting.(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions68045776804578ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1100)[English] Welcome back, everyone, to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10. This is meeting number 40. (On clause 7)The Chair: As you know from the last meeting, we left off with amendment PV-21.1. Ms. McPherson, you have your hand up. Is there something I can address?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6792990679299167929926792993HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1105)[English]That was my understanding as well.If anybody does not have the motions from Ms. McPherson, they should let the clerk know so they can receive a copy.That being said, I don't see anybody up right now.As I mentioned, we are on PV-21.1, an amendment put forward by Mr. Manly. We will pick up the discussion where we left off. We are still in clause-by-clause. I don't see anyone who wishes to speak to it.Now that debate has collapsed, that brings us to our vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: This now brings us to the end of clause 7. It seems like only yesterday we had just begun on clause 7.Mr. Méla.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions67930136793014679301567930166793017679301867930196793020HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaPhilippeMéla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1110)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I brought forward a motion last week for this committee because I am quite concerned that we are not progressing through Bill C-10 at the rate that I think we all want to. I hope that everybody on this committee is interested in making sure that we get the very best piece of legislation that we possibly can at the end of this clause-by-clause process, and that we are all being very propositional to add amendments to try to make this the very best legislation we can, which will protect the Canadian broadcasting landscape, protect Canadian artists and our cultural sector, which is vitally important, and also ensure that Canadians' freedom of expression is protected.I want to be as propositional as I can. I want to work with all committee members to make this happen. I know it's extremely important legislation. As we know, it has not been updated in 30 years and it's well overdue.I know there are times during July and August that we are unable to sit, and I do also realize that this would mean we would be sitting, in person, in Ottawa, but I would like to propose that the committee take the decision to sit into July and August to ensure that we have time to complete this work. I think that allocating to stop the debate and to stop the conversation on Bill C-10 would cause a lot of problems, because we won't have had time to go through the important amendments that I know all parties are putting forward. That said, I also think that filibustering and not letting us get this work done is also a mistake. This gives us a little bit more space, a little bit more runway to get a good piece of legislation. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67930436793044679304567930466793047ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1110)[English]Thank you.I agree with Ms. McPherson that extra time would have helped, certainly at the beginning, to try to move this forward. In fact, several times at the beginning of the study of Bill C-10, I tried to get extra time for extra meetings so that we could move through this quickly. We have now reached a point where, in the last meeting, we did not vote on a single amendment. Adding extra meetings during the summer isn't going to help us get to where we need to be because at this point, we have just reached a standstill. Quite frankly, Ms. McPherson is well aware that there is a motion for time allocation and I would hope she would support that so that we can put this important bill forward and make sure that we are doing what we need to have web giants pay their fair share and to support Canadian artists.I would point out that the Conservatives have been filibustering here at committee, as is their right to do by parliamentary procedure, the same as it is our right to bring forward a motion for time allocation. I would like to point out to Ms. McPherson that I think it's been laid bare at this point, when I am looking at statements that have been made by the Conservatives, that the issue here isn't about freedom of expression that they are really pushing for. In fact, I would just point out what Ms. Harder stated to her local press about Bill C-10 specifically, and what is trying to be done. The quote I have is:These artists are not able to make a living off of what they are producing, so they require grants that are given to them by the government. And so these little, niche lobby groups composed of outdated artists are going to the Liberal government and asking them to charge these large streaming companies in order to bring about more money to put into these grant funds so these outdated artists can then apply for that money so they can continue to create material Canadians don’t want to watch.That's the fight we're in about Bill C-10 right now. That is saying that artists like the Arkells or shows like Heartland are not things that Canadian want to watch, and that we shouldn't be supporting, as a government. I don't believe that's true. My question for Ms. McPherson is, is she going to support time allocation so that we can move forward to support artists, or is she going to take the position that these are outdated artists whom we don't need to be providing support for?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67930576793058679305967930606793061679306267930636793064ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1115)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I support and applaud what my fellow member Ms. Dabrusin just said in relation to the Conservative member's recent comments in the Lethbridge Herald about her party's position on the situation of artists. Frankly, I was very concerned by the party's view of the cultural sector as well as its read on Bill C‑10, which I think is completely wrong. No doubt, we'll have a chance to revisit the matter later.I want to speak to Ms. McPherson's motion. As everyone knows, the party leaders are in the midst of negotiating next steps regarding a summer schedule. The committee can't decide to sit in hybrid format until the powers that be have come to an agreement.In light of that, I think we would do well to propose an amendment to Ms. McPherson's motion, specifying that the motion is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.I am not suggesting Ms. McPherson's motion has no merit, but I do think we should take into account the talks under way, which will certainly override some of the committee's decisions.I therefore move that the motion be amended by adding wording to the effect that it is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679306767930686793069679307067930716793072ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1120)[Translation]That's fine.Ms. McPherson, I think what you're trying to do is very noble. We, on our side, have no problem continuing the discussion on Bill C‑10. As we have repeatedly pointed out, the bill has numerous flaws. It's a complex piece of legislation that was poorly thought‑out from the get‑go; it has undergone all kinds of amendments, with more on the way—very significant ones, I might add. I do not see how we can pass this bill without having had the time to take a comprehensive look at it.Ms. Dabrusin said it was a bit late. Personally, I find it a bit early since we are expecting a time allocation motion to be put forward today. That would bring the committee's work to an end. With a time allocation motion, the Liberals are choosing to put an end to the work before the committee, even though we are constantly told that committees are independent.I don't necessarily want to propose an amendment to your motion, Ms. McPherson, but I do have something to suggest, ever so politely, of course. Should we not put off consideration of your motion until Friday, to see whether the Liberals follow through on their ultimatum and move a time allocation motion? If they do, it will render your motion unnecessary. If they do not, your motion will be entirely appropriate.That is my humble suggestion.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67930826793083679308467930856793086ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1120)[Translation]I am proposing that Ms. McPherson's motion be amended at the end to specify the motion is conditional on the outcome of the talks between the party leaders.I don't know what the exact wording should be. Perhaps one of the legislative clerks could help with that. I am no expert on legislative wording, but I would just say something to the effect of “all conditional on the outcome of the party leaders' discussions”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67930936793094AiméeBelmoreScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1120)[English]Mr. Chair, I have a few things. First of all, in terms of Mr. Champoux's amendment to the motion, I had suggested that we could go forward in an in-person format. I recognize that the House leaders—I am a deputy House leader myself—are discussing what the hybrid will look like into the summer months. I was not proposing that we use the hybrid system but rather come to Ottawa, travel to Ottawa, for the meetings. We could probably have longer meetings and get a little bit more done.In terms of the questions put forward both by Mr. Rayes and Ms. Dabrusin, I very much feel that we are now in a situation where the Liberals have put forward a flawed bill. We are trying to fix that bill. We are trying to be propositional and we are trying to fix that bill. The Liberals have now put forward in the House, not in committee, a time allocation of five hours. That is wholly insufficient to get through the remaining amendments that need to be examined so that we make sure that we have good legislation. That's wholly insufficient. Such a heavy-handed manoeuvre hasn't been done for decades. It has not been done for decades. The last time it was done, there were 10 hours allocated, twice as long.I have some real concerns about being told by Ms. Dabrusin that I am choosing to either support the Liberals' very heavy-handed move through time allocation or abandon it and support the very disturbing and very wrong-headed comments of my colleague from Lethbridge. I feel like we're in a situation where the flawed legislation that was brought forward by this government needs to get fixed, and the Conservatives are making it impossible for us to fix that legislation. I'm incredibly frustrated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives on their inability to see that we have a job to do, that we have an obligation to work as hard as we can—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67931006793101679310267931036793104ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1125)[English]Mr. Chair, I want to revisit the point that there's absolutely a need to move to time allocation, because we could sit all summer. We are going through entire meetings without voting on a single amendment. For the past several meetings, even when we do vote on an amendment, it's one or two a meeting. At that pace, we will not complete the study of Bill C-10 . We will just keep going for months and months and months. I do believe there's a bit of a disconnect, if anything, on that, to say that if we just add in a few more meetings this summer we'll be able to complete it. That's clearly not what's been shown over the past weeks and even, I would say, months.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67931156793116ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1125)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.[Translation]I really appreciate Mr. Champoux's contributions, which he always makes in good faith.I have nothing against his amendment, but I do object to the main motion by Ms. McPherson. I'll tell you why. [English]I want to say this with all my friendship for Ms. McPherson, who, again, I respect very much as a member of the committee. Normally, I would agree with this motion. Normally, I would agree that we should work all summer to get a law right and to continue debate as long as there was actual debate going on that was reasonable with respect to each amendment, but that's not happening.In the last meeting, we spent two hours filibustering on an amendment that each and every member of this committee voted against. Each and every member of this committee was going to be against it from minute number one, yet we spent two hours on it. As someone who has really tried in good faith to work with members of all parties on this committee from the beginning, I have at this point grown completely exasperated by what has happened in terms of us not working in good faith, so I see no reason for us to sit here having meeting after meeting of two or four hours and not advancing on the bill.I don't see any other alternative to move forward at this point, unless I see a huge change in comportment from the Conservatives, than going to time allocation. I'll vote for Mr. Champoux's subamendment, but I'm going to vote against the motion as amended, because I just don't see that it's going to help us in any way.Thanks very much for the effort, though, Ms. McPherson.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6793119679312067931216793122679312367931246793125ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1130)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I think what Mr. Champoux is proposing is entirely appropriate. It shows great respect for the work of parliamentarians and the House leaders, who are trying to arrive at a democratic compromise through their talks. I think the amendment is in line with what Ms. McPherson is proposing.However, it's unfortunate that all the blame is being laid at the Conservatives' door. I repeat, we are where we are because the minister brought forward a bad bill, plain and simple. The bill was full of flaws. It has been amended along the way, so it's entirely appropriate that we take the time to study it properly, instead of being subjected to a time allocation motion by the government, through the House of Commons, to expedite the committee's work. That hasn't happened in more than 20 years, not even under Mr. Harper's Conservative government.For the past six years, the Liberal leader has said over and over again that committees work independently. The Liberals on the committee are doing the best they can. This is a very unusual situation.Ms. McPherson, I repeat, we are relatively in favour of your motion. I'm not sure I fully understood what was said after I last had the floor, but I think it's one meeting too soon to adopt the motion, since a time allocation motion may be coming.If we must adopt your motion only to have it nullified by the gag order imposed by the Liberals, then we must. If not, we can move forward.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679312767931286793129679313067931316793132ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1130)[Translation]When someone moves an amendment to a motion, a debate is obviously supposed to follow.Fundamentally, I'm somewhat resistant to the idea of doing things out of order. I am of the mind that we should discuss Bill C‑10 as long as possible because I firmly believe that we should pass it. Obviously, my first choice is not to extend into the summer, but if we must, let's do it.I put forward an amendment to ensure that, if Ms. McPherson's motion was adopted, the discussions under way between the party leaders would not interfere with the decisions we made here, in committee. I simply wanted to make sure we were going to do things in an orderly way.That said, as was pointed out earlier, there is no point holding additional meetings if we are going to spend them dragging things out, filibustering and preventing Bill C‑10 from ever seeing the light of day, because there are groups who are strongly opposed.I wanted to make clear my intention, which is essentially to give us some peace of mind in light of the discussions between the party leaders, should Ms. McPherson's motion be adopted.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts67931406793142ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1130)[English]I move to adjourn the debate.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6793145ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1135)[English]No, we adjourn the debate. It's as simple as that. We then go on to what we were dealing with earlier, which was clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. Is everybody okay?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6793154HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1135)[English]Is everyone clear on that? We're adjourning the debate. Madam Clerk, we are voting on the motion to adjourn the debate.(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)The Chair: The debate has been adjourned. We cannot bring that debate back into play for the rest of this meeting, but we can at subsequent meetings, just so you know, and that will be the motion by Ms. McPherson.We are now proceeding to clause-by-clause. We're going to pick up again with a CPC amendment; however, that being said, we have to take a break at this time. I need to have a discussion with the table staff regarding the proposed amendments, so I'm looking at about five minutes.We're going to suspend for about five minutes. Thank you.(1135)(1150)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions67931656793166679316767931686793169679317067931716793172AiméeBelmoreScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1155)[English]We're back.First of all, I want to say a huge thank you to our technical staff for all of these breaks, suspensions and so on. Our technical staff handled it masterfully, I might add. We don't say that enough, but we thank you so much.Let's get back to the amendments at hand. These are amendments regarding clause 7 that just came to us from the Conservative Party.Mr. Rayes, I want to point something out before we go any further. I feel it's only necessary I do this in the course of debate. We have from 9.2 up to 9.6 regarding clause 7, and they follow in succession. However, I would like you to have a look at CPC-9.4. The last three reference numbers are 725. I want you to have a look at that for a moment. There is a problem here in the sense that, as you know, we propose these amendments in the order in which they come in the bill itself, which is C-10. What you're aiming to do in this case, by adding after line 2 on page 8 of clause 7, should have been moved before PV-21.1, which we debated at the last meeting and voted on at this meeting. It should have been done just before that. So CPC-9.4, 725, is not in its right order. The others are. I'm bringing this to your attention now in case you were hoping to incorporate that into your overall debate. Normally, I'd get to it and make a ruling, but I thought maybe you should know now before you proceed any further.With that in mind, we return to our clause-by-clause consideration. Right now, we are on amendment CPC-9.2. Again, the last three numbers of the reference number are 583. Mr. Rayes, I'm going to give you the floor. If you need any points of clarification on the ruling I just made about 9.4, by all means, ask. In the meantime, you can proceed with CPC-9.2. We're still on clause 7.Go ahead, sir, you have floor.Sorry, sir, you're on mute. It's still Monday.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6793217ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1200)[Translation]All right. I will move it in due course. Thank you, Mr. Chair.I imagine it's time for me to move amendment CPC‑9.2.The committee is at an impasse given the disagreement over the various parties who post content on social media. As we understand Bill C‑10, the CRTC—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6793231ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1200)[Translation]Thank you for being so kind, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate it.To ensure the committee does things in the proper order, as Mr. Méla explained, I am seeking unanimous consent from the committee to discuss amendment CPC‑9.4. If I don't get it, I will come back to amendment CPC‑9.2 when I am allowed to do so.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67932416793242ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1200)[English]Thank you very much for your patience, everyone. Again, the last three numbers are 725. It is CPC-9.4. Mr. Rayes is asking to go back and do that amendment. He's seeking unanimous consent to go back and do that. I'm repeating myself only because I want everyone to fully understand what he's asking for. It is out of order. We should have dealt with it before, but in order to return to that, we need unanimous consent. Does Mr. Rayes have unanimous consent?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6793243679324467932456793246AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1200)[English]No.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6793247ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1200)[English]Sorry, sir, you do not.That's CPC-9.4, which you can now take out of your package. We will now go to CPC-9.2, reference number 583.Monsieur Rayes, once again, sir, you have the floor.Thank you for your patience.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67932486793249679325067932516793252JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1200)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'm not surprised by the outcome. As has been explained so well, we have to proceed in order.Setting amendment CPC‑9.4 aside, I am coming back to amendment CPC‑9.4. I will read it and, then, explain it. The amendment states that Bill C‑10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:9.2 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of online undertakings that have fewer than 500,000 subscribers in Canada or receive less than $80 million per year in advertising, subscription, usage or membership revenues in Canada from the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet.(2) Every two years after the day on which subsection (1) comes into force, the Commission must, with the approval of the Governor in Council, review the subscriber and revenue thresholds and may make regulations to increase them as required.The amendment addresses the disagreement the committee is having over users who are not professional broadcasters in the digital space. We are in serious disagreement regarding the power to be given to the CRTC to regulate not only users, but also the content they post.The committee heard from experts on both sides, so I will not rehash the great debate. Ensuring the bill sets out parameters for the CRTC is the lesser of two evils. That way, local artists with fewer than 500,000 YouTube subscribers will not be regulated by the CRTC and can continue to showcase their craft to people all over the world without leaving their homes. These artists who work for themselves online are not asking for any government help, and they do not comprehend why the government is interfering in these platforms.Despite what some may think, some artists are outside the so‑called conventional system, the one we all know and support when we go to concert halls and buy tickets for performances. When the artists in question create content, we want to make sure they are not subject to Bill C‑10.That is the purpose of amendment CPC‑9.2. I look forward to hearing the views of my fellow members, in both my party and the other parties, as well as the experts with us today.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679325367932546793255679325667932576793258679325967932606793261ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1205)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would like to thank Mr. Rayes for his amendment. Can you tell me a little bit about how you came up with that $500,000 and the $80 million per year in the first part? Also, could you comment on the last sentence of the second part where it says “and may make regulations to increase them as required”? Is there a reason it is “increase” not “increase or decrease” them as required?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679326667932676793268ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1205)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.You're absolutely right, I haven't read proposed paragraph 9.2(3). I'm going to do that right now to make sure that everyone is on the same wavelength. Thank you for setting me straight. Proposed paragraph 9.2(3) reads as follows:(3) The Minister must prepare a report on the Commission’s review under subsection (2) and submit the report to the standing committee of each House of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to broadcasting.The clarification is very important, because the minister is asked to report to us.If I may, Mr. Chair, I would now like to respond to Ms. McPherson's question.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67932776793278679327967932806793281ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1210)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Ms. McPherson, the question is quite relevant. Why would you set the threshold at 500,000 subscribers, not 750,000 or 200,000? We had to decide on a number, based on some expertise. What you have in this amendment that I tabled this morning is the threshold recommended not by Conservatives, but by Konrad von Finckenstein, the former chairman of the CRTC, and Peter Menzies, the former commissioner of the CRTC. They say it's the threshold necessary to be treated on par with services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, and it also helps protect the websites of Canadians who publish content. They see this threshold as avoiding excluding large broadcasters from the bill, while providing minimal protection for users who post content on social networks.A decision certainly has to be made sometime. Anyone with 525,000 followers would fall into a zone between the two. There is a provision in proposed paragraph 9.2(2) that these thresholds can change as needed along the way, every two years, if I'm not mistaken.We see this as a quite interesting way to protect all Canadians who publish content, because it will not be regulated by the CRTC.I also want to point out that Australia, which the Prime Minister often likes to cite as the leading model for online regulation, has proposed a threshold of $100 million in revenue and 1 million subscribers, so double what we are proposing. I think it's interesting to note that our request is not over the top. It's a way of presenting something that we think is a perfectly acceptable compromise, especially since the suggestion comes from former senior CRTC executives who know the rules of the game, who know how things work, and who are aware of the reality.In giving you this information, I don't know if I've answered your question correctly, Ms. McPherson. While I am not an expert on the subject, I have tried to do the best I can.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679328367932846793285679328667932876793288ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1210)[English]Mr. Chair, I find this amendment interesting for two reasons. One is that it seems to very much mirror an amendment that had been voted down by this committee previously. In addition, it is again trying to carve out contributions toward our cultural production funds. In light of what Ms. Harder said in her local press, I believe that a lot of what the Conservatives are seeking to do right now is, in fact, reduce our cultural production funds as a whole. Part of the reason I feel this way is this quote, which stood out to me: That arts fund actually goes toward a very niche group of artists that are stuck in the early 1990s because they haven’t managed to be competitive on new platforms. So they are very reliant on government grants in order to continue to exist. And, quite frankly, they are producing material that Canadians just don’t want. I apologize—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6793296679329767932986793299ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1215)[English]I was. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, because it goes to the point about contributions to the funds, which is actually what this amendment goes to.If I may, I'll just complete it to make sure that it's clear what I believe the actual background is to this amendment. Then I will have a question, actually, beyond that.She continued to say, “Because, at the end of the day, if Canadians did want it then there would be a market for it. And if there was a market for it then these artists would get paid based on the market.”Basically, in that quote there is a huge disrespect, a tremendous disrespect, for our cultural production funds and for our artists.As I pointed out, there is that background to it, as well as the fact that this is something the committee has already considered. I was wondering if perhaps the department could help me to better understand what the impact of this amendment would be. What would be the net impact of allowing this amendment to proceed?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67933066793307679330867933096793310ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1215)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin.Based on what I understand the amendment to be, the starting point in the bill currently is that the CRTC should only regulate online undertakings if it's of the opinion that they will contribute in a material manner to the fulfillment of the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.The bill, as it was tabled, recognized that if the CRTC came to the conclusion that if a service did not have sufficient subscribers or viewers in Canada, or it wasn't making sufficient revenue, the CRTC's starting point is that they should not regulate those services.If I understand the amendment correctly, what's being proposed to the committee is that in addition to that, as it currently stands, Parliament would essentially make an exclusion of services—online undertakings is the term used in the amendment—with a specific subscriber base and revenue base. If I understood correctly, it's 500,000 subscribers or less than $80 million per year in a variety of different kinds of revenues. If either one of those was triggered—because the amendment uses the word “or”—the CRTC would not be able to impose regulatory contributions on those services.In essence, Ms. Dabrusin, it would be Parliament making a call off the top, so to speak, that services that don't meet these thresholds should not be subject to contributing to the cultural policy objectives of the act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills679331367933146793315679331667933176793318ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1215)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.[Translation]I have some questions for Mr. Rayes, too. Indeed, I am not sure yet whether I am for or against the amendment, but I would like to hear from Mr. Rayes on this, because I am willing to discuss it.What I don't understand is why companies with fewer than 500,000 subscribers or less than $80 million in revenue are excluded, rather than those that meet both criteria.Let's take the example of a company that has 495,000 subscribers and earns $2 billion, because its service is very expensive. Shouldn't a company that makes $2 billion be considered important enough to be included?It's the same for a company that has 30 million subscribers in Canada, but gets very little revenue from advertising, signup, usage, or subscription, because it has a different revenue stream than those listed.So why are we excluding companies that meet either of the two criteria? I don't understand that. I would like Mr. Rayes to clarify that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679332067933216793322679332367933246793325ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1220)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.My colleague Mr. Housefather's question is very relevant. If we had set these thresholds ourselves, we would have been told that it was a partisan exercise. In a previous comment, Ms. Dabrusin tried to attack us on this issue. Yet I had taken pains to point out to the members of the committee that this recommendation came from a former CRTC chair and commissioner.I will go even further, with respect to this proposed amendment that Ms. Dabrusin was attacking. By the way, this is an amendment, so we're going to debate it and questions are going to come up. In fact, Mr. Housefather just asked a very good question. So this is a democratic exercise. We too were elected democratically and we represent the citizens of our ridings. Those people have a right to have a voice, even if they do not share the opinion of the government or of the minister who introduced this bill.To take it a step further, I would point out that Australia has set even higher thresholds. Instead of 500,000 subscribers, it's 1 million, and instead of $80 million in revenue, it's $100 million. The country that's being held up as an example right now has set even higher thresholds by using the word “or” in their law. Australia has done exactly what we are proposing, but has set the bar even higher.I think the amendment we are proposing is legitimate. In any event, it deserves to be discussed in this debate.I have one last brief clarification in response to Mr. Housefather's question. My background is as a math and computer science teacher as well as a manager, as a school principal. So I have managed budgets. I don't want to get into the semantics of the French language on the issue of “ou” and “et”, but it's illogical to think that someone with 300,000 subscribers, for example, could generate $2 billion in revenue. The figures proposed in the amendment take into account the fact that companies like Netflix have higher revenues than those that are in business and have a certain number of subscribers. We're talking about Canadian men and women with small businesses sharing content on social networks in a somewhat parallel way.I like to say this a lot, because I feel that as parliamentarians in Ottawa, we are sometimes in our own bubble, and I include myself in that. You've heard me talk about this many times, I've given the example of my children, friends and others. Governments are almost always behind in regulation because it's done by people sitting in offices. In the digital sphere, there is a parallel world that doesn't work the same way. These people are pressuring us, but they are not using lobbyists and they are not necessarily trying to get money from governments.This is not to say that we are against artists or against giving them grants to help them, far from it. Some of them need the help. When I was mayor, I put in place a $24‑million project for a performance hall. There were showrooms for virtual artists. As we know, these artists can't live without subsidies. Presenting shows to develop art among children or specific groups is impossible without subsidies, because it is not profitable. Without subsidies, we would only present comedy shows. That's a reality.That being said, other comparable companies are doing well, and don't want the government to interfere with the process, as it would require paperwork and accountability, and make the CRTC process more cumbersome. We see this happening with fees right now. It's being given too much decision-making power.Although the numbers look large, I don't think my proposal today is irrational at all for two reasons. First, it is based on thresholds recommended by a former CRTC chairman and commissioner. Secondly, the thresholds are below the thresholds that Australia is proposing and that are being used as benchmarks right now, since Australia is the first country that has chosen this direction.I want to say that this was not our first wish. You know that section 4.1 that was originally proposed in the bill was more important to us. Since that was not accepted, we think that these thresholds would provide some kind of social safety net and protection.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67933276793328679332967933306793331679333267933336793334679333567933366793337ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1225)[English]Mr. Chair, let me put some context to this amendment. You will remember that Mr. Chan of Facebook came to committee. I asked him this question. Do you know that Facebook is used today for broadcasting? This is where this amendment came from. I know hundreds of former broadcasters who have been laid off or let go who now have a show on Facebook, a one-hour show, or maybe two- or three-hour shows—Bob McCown, Rod Pedersen, Don Cherry—and this is where the amendment comes from, Mr. Housefather. Mr. Chan could not answer my question when he came to committee with a Facebook group in February as I asked Facebook the question: Do you know people are using Facebook as a broadcasting tool? They're selling advertising on Facebook for their shows. They have subscribers. He claimed he knew nothing about this, which I found hard to believe, but this is where this amendment comes from. Then I flagged it with our side, saying this is going to explode because what's happening is these people are entrepreneurs and to keep their hand in the broadcasting industry they've taken to Facebook to do these shows. Mr. Ripley, you were correct when you answered that. This amendment by Mr. Rayes talks about this. Do we want the CRTC regulating everyone with 10 subscribers and $1,000 coming in? No, we don't want that. This figure arrived from the Australian figure, more or less. We went to the former commissioner of the CRTC and vice-commissioner and asked. This is a big issue in this country. You know it's going to get more and more common as we see less and less conventional broadcasting, whether it's radio or TV stations going dark. This is something that has been coming for the last three or four years on social media. I flagged it in February with Mr. Chan, who claimed at the time Facebook knew nothing about it.Therefore, this amendment is very important to the Broadcasting Act. I would say it's one of the most important amendments that we can make, because people in this country are using Facebook to generate subscribers. They're using Facebook to generate money and advertising, which according to Mr. Chan is fine.I'm going to back up what Mr. Rayes said, and just in layman's terms this is where this amendment came from. In the discussion, Mr. Chair, that we had with Facebook officials in February or March, when they came, I flagged this because I see many people in this country making money off Facebook, which is fine, but are we going to over-regulate them with the CRTC, or is there going to be a threshold? We think that 500,000 subscribers and $80 million per year is the threshold.If I can give you some context on the amendment, here it is. It was through the questions that I posed to Mr. Chan and Facebook that we felt this amendment had to be included in the regulations.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679334367933446793345679334667933476793348679334967933506793351ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1230)[Translation]Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chair, but it's always a pleasure for me. I never try to shy away when I am asked questions, whether they come from a reporter or a colleague in everyday life. I try to answer them to the best of my ability and, if I am wrong, I apologize.To answer your question, Ms. McPherson, I should say that I have consulted with over 40 organizations in the cultural community since we began our study of Bill C‑10. This is not to say that all cultural organizations agreed with us during these exchanges. However, for all of the amendments that we put forward, or almost—I just want to protect myself, because I don't have all of my data—we made it a guideline to make sure that they represented more than one entity, so that they were not too specific. I don't have the list at hand, because God knows how much documentation I have from all my meetings, but we based it on the concerns of some groups that weren't necessarily against this idea.That being said, the bill changed along the way, and I apologize for that. If we had known that social networks were going to be included, as a party, we would have invited witnesses who represent those who were left out and whom we did not hear from in committee in the first place. So with this amendment, people that we never had a chance to hear from will now be able to come and talk to us about their concerns. We were surprised, as everyone else was, by what happened.I repeat, this amendment is perfectly aligned with what Australia is doing. Moreover, the thresholds it proposes, which were recommended by former CRTC experts, are below those of Australia. So I find these thresholds to be legitimate.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6793375ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1240)[English]That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going way back in the conversation to when we started.Mr. Chair, you suggested we could ask other colleagues on the panel questions. If they choose to respond that's up to them. Ms. Dabrusin, you were expressing concern about financial contributions that would go to cultural groups. I think this amendment established a base. I'm not an accountant; I'm absolutely not. That's the last thing I am.I am wondering if you believe this created a loss of revenue for the cultural groups. I just thought a base, just in the sense of one level or another like the Australian model, had some validity to it in the sense of numbers and money. I know the G7 came to some kind of a tax thing on the weekend, and already somebody was pointing out the loopholes via which Amazon might get around that. We may face that with this as well. Is it your belief that this type of amendment was built around trying to get around the revenue from the major technology companies we've talked about many times? Is your concern that there's a loss of revenue here with this type of amendment?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills679341667934176793418679341967934206793421ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1240)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin. I'm not able to give a definitive amount to that on the spot. It would take us going back and looking at some of the analyses the department has done underpinning that $830-million number to look at how it might intersect with some of the thresholds that are being put forward. Bill C-10 put down the marker about material manner, but left it a little bit at the CRTC's discretion because not all services are comparable. For example, I would point the committee towards CBC Gem or TOU.TV, which are our national public broadcaster's online undertakings. The department's assessment was that right now those undertakings have about 200,000 subscribers and earn maybe somewhere in the $20-million to $30-million range in revenue each year.The government's perspective would be that, obviously, our national public broadcaster and its online undertakings have a powerful role to play in contributing to the cultural policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act, yet the intersection with this amendment is that even those online undertakings launched by our national public broadcaster could be excluded if they don't meet the revenue threshold. Ms. Dabrusin, we'd have to do some further analysis to actually look at the intersection with all the services and assess how that might change our analysis.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6793441ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1245)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.Perhaps I will begin by reiterating that the government's position, when it tabled Bill C-10, was acknowledging that there will be many smaller services that are not scoped into the act because of that requirement for there to be a material contribution. The goal was not to scope all those smaller services in.I think the challenge is that there is a wide variety of business models in the online undertaking space. You have subscription-based services that we all know well, like Netflix or Crave. You pick your favourite subscription services. More and more we are seeing the launch of advertising-supported business models. You can stream your television content or your music content and not actually pay a subscription fee; rather, the service is selling advertising—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6793451AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1105)[English]Thank you, Chair.Minister, thanks for being here.Just to start, do you think Bill C-10 is adequate to combat child sexual abuse material and rape and non-consensual material online?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800578ChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1105)[English]I was invited to talk about our upcoming legislation regarding online harms, which I'm happy to do. If this committee would like to invite me to talk about Bill C-10, I would be happy to appear at another time to do that.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800579ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs: (1105)[English]I'll take that as a “no” for Bill C-10.Witnesses said previously that Canada's Criminal Code “child pornography” definition is among the world's broadest. It bans images, audio and written forms. Platforms are already liable for circulating illegal user-generated content. There are circumstances in which a company becomes liable for something that somebody else said or did if the company knew about it in advance and published it anyway, or if the company was notified about it after the fact and failed to take action. These situations are very well documented with MindGeek and Pornhub. It seems the real and disturbing issue is a lack of application of the law and its enforcement. In January, you said that within a few weeks you were going to create a regulator to stop child sexual abuse material and sharing of non-consensual images online. I'm just wondering why there hasn't been any serious progress on that. I have a couple of questions about that for you from survivors. What's the delay?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800580StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1105)[English]I respectfully disagree with the premise of the question. What we see here in Canada, and frankly, all around the world, is that the tools we have to deal with these harms in the physical world just aren't adapted to deal with them in the virtual world. Let me give you an example. In 2019, the RCMP saw a 1,106% increase from 2014 of reports regarding child sexual exploitation online. This exploitation disproportionately impacts girls. In 2019, the RCMP found that girls made up 62% of identified Canadian victims depicted in online child sexual exploitation material. I did say I was hoping to introduce this legislation in January. Unfortunately, the systemic obstruction by the Conservative Party regarding Bill C-10 has prevented me from doing so. However, I am still hoping to table this bill as soon as possible.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800585ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104806Marie-HélèneGaudreauMarie-Hélène-GaudreauLaurentides—LabelleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaudreauMarieHélène_BQ.jpgInterventionMs. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): (1120)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Good morning, Minister. I hope you are well on this Monday, as we approach the end of the parliamentary session.First of all, I congratulate you on all the work you have done on Bill C‑10. Of course, I am very disappointed with what is happening right now. In December, the committee made a point of meeting with witnesses to get to the bottom of everything that was going on with child pornography. However, because we are on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we had to address other issues.Today, I would like to shed some light on all of the testimony that we have heard. Initially, our motion was to invite Pornhub executives. We've heard a lot of comments, and I'd like to express a concern that I have.We talked about the Five Eyes group and how this is a global issue. That being said, our current position is unfortunately not at the forefront. As you said earlier, other countries have already introduced similar legislation or are in the process of doing so. Canada does not have any concrete bills in the works on this topic.How is Canada positioning itself? How do we position ourselves internationally in terms of protecting our fundamental rights?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsInternational cooperationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800621ChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1120)[Translation]Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau. Good morning. I wish you a good Monday as well.I am as disappointed as you are to see the lack of ambition of some of the other parties in the House with respect to the passage of Bill C‑10. However, we are not here to talk about that.Canada is among the lead countries in addressing this issue. The countries I named earlier, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand, are among the only ones that are currently taking action.It was at Canada's initiative that a coalition of countries was created that are committed to working together, not only on the issue of hate speech and other online harm, but also on cultural issues. Several countries are very interested in what we are doing with Bill C‑10 and with respect to media compensation. This sort of informal coalition of countries is working collaboratively at Canada's initiative. In a few weeks, an announcement will be made about this joint international work.Of course, a country like ours needs to have legislation that addresses the issue of online harm. However, this is indeed a global problem, and it needs to be addressed on a global level. That's why we formed this coalition of countries. Right now, there are only five of us, but I suspect that before long, many more people will be around the table.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsInternational cooperationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites68006266800628Marie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1125)[Translation]That's an excellent question.I would like to clarify something first. Regarding online cultural content issues, which are addressed in Bill C‑10, obviously some political parties have decided to join the big companies like Google and YouTube rather than support our artists. As for media compensation, Facebook reacted very strongly in Australia.As for online harm and hate speech, several social media platforms have publicly called for government intervention, perhaps because they feel they are losing control of the situation. I'm not saying that they all have. I've personally met with most of these large platforms that have a presence in Canada. They obviously won't agree with everything that's going to be in the legislation—I've never seen a company agree with all of it. They do agree that more and more governments need to step in on this issue to help them.Let me come back to the argument about the dark web. It's somewhat like saying that we should not put criminal sanctions in the laws, and eliminate them all instead, otherwise people will hide to commit their crimes. It may happen, but that's no reason to do nothing.Honestly, the percentage of people who have the technical skills to access the dark web is very small. So we need to put the necessary laws in place. We won't solve everything, but with these laws we will solve a lot of the problem.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsPornographyPrivacy and data protectionRegulationWeb sites6800635Marie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1125)[English]Are you saying that Bill C-10 is not covering Pornhub?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800657StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1125)[English]Bill C-10, as I've said a number of times, is about cultural content. It's about ensuring that the web giants pay their fair share, and that our artists are fairly compensated for their—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800658CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1130)[English]It's not about content. BillC-10 is not about content moderation, which is also something I've said a number of times in the past.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800660CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1130)[English]I just need you to say yes or no. Bill C-10 is not going to be the means by which you regulate Pornhub. You'll have something else—another regulator or some other process?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800661StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1130)[English]It will not be done through Bill C-10, yes, that is correct.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800662CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): (1135)[Translation]Minister, would it have been possible to include a provision in Bill C‑10 to regulate platforms like Pornhub so as to finally protect our children, who are going through unspeakable things right now?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsContent moderationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800700ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1135)[Translation]Thank you for the question.I find your question very cynical, as your party consistently opposes the passage of Bill C‑10, which is not about content moderation, but rather about web giants contributing to our cultural sector's artists and musicians.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsContent moderationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800702JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde: (1135)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have had some very disturbing testimony about underage children being exploited by platforms, and we need to take action. You told us you would put in place a new provision, new legislation, which probably won't come into effect for a year, a year and a half. We need to move much, much faster than that. We live in a society where our children are not protected, currently, from web giants.How are you going to speed up the process? Why couldn't C‑10 close the loophole for now?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsContent moderationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800716ChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1135)[Translation]Once again, your party opposes the passage of Bill C‑10, which has nothing to do with content moderation, while the hate speech and online harm bill specifically addresses the issue of content moderation.Yet you say you oppose content moderation. You and many of your colleagues say that the government wants to take away your freedom of expression. The exploitation of persons bill will ensure...C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsContent moderationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800717JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde: (1135)[Translation]Could Bill C-10 have helped, yes or no?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsContent moderationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800719StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1135)[Translation]I want to start by saying that the Internet and the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet existed before 2015. Your party was in power for 10 years. On the one hand, you did nothing about this issue, despite the existence of this phenomenon.On the other hand, the sooner your party stops its systematic obstruction of Bill C‑10, the sooner...C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800728JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreMelissaLukingsMelissa-LukingsInterventionMs. Melissa Lukings: (1230)[English] I think the current issue is that perhaps the penalties that currently exist in PIPEDA are not strong enough to deter corporations. I'm not saying to put in new regulations—I'm not saying that—but when you're going to do the digital charter implementation act and you're discussing things like Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, it's important to remember that. I think there is room for improvement. Because we've found that financial penalties don't really seem to impact companies that make a lot of money, fines could instead be based on percentages. The key here is that we need to not have increased regulation. If what we're trying to do is in fact what we say we're trying to do, which is to reduce human trafficking and harm to young people, additional regulations are not going to help that.Did I answer your question?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-11, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other ActsCompaniesLaw enforcementPornographyPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites6800897ShannonStubbsLakelandShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1315)[English] Welcome everyone to the continuing study of Bill C-10, clause by clause. Welcome to everyone although I know we are missing one member at this point. We'll [Technical difficulty—Editor] shortly.The way this normally works is that when the bells start ringing—I'm of the understanding they will be 30-minute bells—we break at that point. However, in the past when we've faced that, I have extended it to kind of finish what we were thinking about, as it were. To do that, I would need unanimous consent. Before we came online, Mr. Rayes and I had the discussion about whether to continue or to end or suspend when the bells start ringing. Mr. Rayes, do you want to start?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67871246787125678712667871276787128AlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1320)[English]I was going to say meeting 40, but I knew that was wrong.This is meeting 39. We are dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10. Welcome, everyone. As was pointed out earlier, we are virtual except for two members who are sitting in our committee room. That might be a positive sign of things ahead.(On clause 7)The Chair: Nevertheless, we will start with PV-21.1. As I mentioned, it has been deemed moved. It's from the Green Party. Mr. Manly, you have the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills678716367871646787165678716667871676787168AiméeBelmorePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1320)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This amendment brings back proposed section 4.1. It states the following:9.2 This Act does not apply in respect of(a) programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission or retransmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service, except where the Canadian creator of a program has voluntarily chosen to be subject to the Act for discoverability purposes; and(b) online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of such programs, except where the Canadian creator of a program has voluntarily chosen to be subject to the Act for discoverability purposes.The idea behind this exemption is a compromise. This would exempt user-generated content from regulation under the act unless a Canadian creator of programs opts to voluntarily have their programs available for discoverability. This would address concerns about freedom of speech, which are also providing an option for Canadians in the cultural industry to be promoted through discoverability.The process of ensuring that you're discoverable is fairly straightforward under the CRTC regulations. There's a point system where you determine whether the producer, the director or the actors are Canadian. It's a six out of 10 score. It depends on a number of factors—where it's produced, who is involved with the production—for film and television. With the MAPL system, it's fairly straightforward. MAPL stands for music, artist, performance and lyrics. You need to fulfill at least two of those criteria to be eligible for Canadian content.I feel that this is a compromise. It respects the freedom of speech. It doesn't deal with the issues around algorithmic bias, which is another serious issue we need to be discussing. We have seen in recent cases, with the Red Dress Day on May 5, that family members and people posting about missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, posting about family members who have gone missing, had their posts removed by Instagram and Facebook through an algorithm. These social media platforms have their processes where they're determining what content will be pulled down and what content won't be pulled down. There have been complaints by people in the Black Lives Matter movement, by the Indigenous Lives Matter movement, by people standing up for the rights of Palestinians or people in Crimea or other locations, and by people standing up for old-growth forests. They have had their posts removed. They've been blocked on these social media platforms. We talk about free speech, but this is not really a democratic space. It is a corporate space. It is something that we need to deal with. I hope members of the committee will support this amendment. I think it's a fair compromise. Those Canadian content producers who do want to be subject to the act and have discoverability of their Canadian productions should be able to have that option.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67871696787170678717167871726787173678717467871756787176678717767871786787179ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1330)[English]Okay.My question is to the staff, to ask them how they would view this dual approach in the sense of those who voluntarily...and those who don't. Does the heritage department have an opinion? They've seen this amendment for a while. I'd be interested in knowing what they would think of this dual approach.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67871946787195ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1330)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. I would point out a couple of things. The first one is with respect to the reintroduction of language along the lines of proposed section 4.1. The challenge for the committee is that this language is in a certain degree of tension with amendments that the committee has now passed. One of the challenges, as the committee may now recall, is that it has passed some language in proposed section 9.1 that speaks specifically about programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service. Implicitly, there is acknowledgement that the jurisdiction of the CRTC extends to that programming. With the reintroduction of proposed section 4.1, you can see that there's a certain amount of tension now with that language that the committee previously endorsed. The legal situation of how that would play out is extremely unclear. A court or the CRTC would presumably try to reconcile those two things and find a way for both of those provisions to stand. That could be done by reading down certain provisions of the act or trying to find a way to make sense of those two things. I think the committee should be aware that it may be creating a situation of a degree of legal uncertainty.With respect to the question of how it would work in practice, if a social media creator wanted to opt out of that, again, it's unclear how that would be operationalized by the CRTC at this juncture. On the one hand, the committee has endorsed language that gives the CRTC certain powers to promote the discoverability of those creators, and then, on the other hand, if this language is passed, there is a suggestion that they could potentially opt out of that. Again, the legal situation of how those two things would work together is quite unclear.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills67871986787199678720067872016787202ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1335)[English]Thank you.Again, I appreciate Mr. Manly in the sense of bringing what he believes is a sense of compromise to deal with some of the issues that we were dealing with. I thank him for doing that. I'm just following up again with our department. I heard two things. One was that the legislation, in the sense of amendments that have been passed.... I believe he is saying that the CRTC would view the challenge of.... They are all inclusive of all of the social media platforms and the creators. They would view that legislation as inclusive. If we adopt this amendment, it would create sort of a challenge for them to understand how they wouldn't be dealing with those who are not included. That's the first part of what I think the department was telling me.I think the second part was that the department had a challenge trying to comprehend how the heritage department, through the CRTC, would deal with the opting in or opting out. I think that he expressed that if there's discoverability, it would be the discoverability of those who opted in and maybe not those who opted out. He had a concern. I believe he was suggesting that could arise. Of course, that leads me to the same conclusion. If the CRTC is looking at those for discoverability more than they are of others that are Canadian, that creates the same type of process. I think the department would be somewhat stating the concern that many of us have had, which is that in doing what Mr. Manly has said—volunteering in or not—those who volunteered in with discoverability automatically would be rated higher because of that discoverability.I think that's problematic and why we were extremely concerned that this resolution, in the sense of 4.1, will now do the same thing, which is that for those Canadian creators and culture people participating in it, there is going to be a mechanism within the CRTC that ranks and rates the discoverability of some more than others. I think this amendment points out exactly the challenge. I think department staff is basically saying they have a concern about those who are opting in versus who are opting out. The whole process of a mechanism of opting in is one of the challenges that we have in the sense of creating programs. It's sort of like with the $5,000 for the house renovation. When 30,000 people applied to begin with, the website fell apart. It's an interesting thought. Again, Mr. Manly, I really appreciate your looking at a solution. You have a long history of working in the industry and know it well. I really appreciate your looking at another avenue that might resolve that freedom of speech and leave those who choose not to be involved in one. I think that's significant in what you're attempting to do here.I think the challenge, from what I'm hearing from the department, is that it may create that same thing that we believe has been created by removing that piece now.I'll leave it at that.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67872166787217678721867872196787220678722167872226787223678722467872256787226ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1335)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I want to start by thanking Mr. Manly for explaining his amendment, because it was clear he had concerns about the freedom of expression of certain creators and Canadians who post content on the web. I think he has the right idea in mind. Like us, he is trying to remedy Bill C‑10's failings.I do have a few questions for the experts, though. Perhaps Mr. Manly can chime in as well.As per Mr. Manly's amendment, the end of new paragraph 9.2(a) reads “except where the Canadian creator of a program has voluntarily chosen to be subject to the Act for discoverability purposes”.I have to wonder because the explanatory note provided to the minister by justice officials does not refer solely to Canadian creators of programs, as we imagine them when we think of traditional broadcasters. The purpose is to apply the act to digital broadcasters in the same way it applies to traditional broadcasters.Like a number of experts, former senior CRTC officials and other Canadians, the Conservatives are concerned about all Canadians who upload content on social media platforms or use web-based applications, whether for exercise or gaming. The explanatory note even states that, under Bill C‑10, the CRTC could possibly regulate audiobooks and podcasts. It refers not just to Canadian creators of programs as we think of them, but also to anyone who currently downloads or transmits information via web-based platforms and applications.How will the government or CRTC make sure 38 million Canadians have prior knowledge that they can voluntarily choose to be subject to the act for discoverability purposes? That is my first question for the experts.Second, who will that obligation fall to? The CRTC or the government? Am I mistaken to think that, should it be adopted, Mr. Manly's amendment would give rise to an obligation to inform all Canadians of this option?Mr. Manly can give his take, if he likes, but I'd like to hear from Mr. Ripley first. Actually, Mr. Chair, you can decide who should have the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills678722867872296787230678723167872326787233678723467872356787236ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1340)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would like to thank Mr. Rayes for his question.The answer is that it is up to the CRTC to oversee the matter and put a system in place, given that responsibility for implementing Canada's broadcasting system falls on the CRTC. Operationalizing that will certainly pose challenges.On one hand, the committee proposes giving the CRTC the power to make orders regarding the discoverability of creators, and on the other, Mr. Manly's amendment would give people the option to be subject to the regime.Once again, the two proposals seem to be conflicting. The CRTC is the one responsible for establishing a mechanism to make creators aware of their choice to be subject to the act. Operationally, implementation certainly poses a challenge.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67872396787240678724167872426787243ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1400)[English]Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [Translation]Bill C‑10 sets out the regulatory power to implement a registration system to help the CRTC administer the system. The CRTC would then know whether an online undertaking was operating in Canada, for instance. That is why the bill grants the power.Of course, with the removal of new section 4.1, as initially proposed, and the inclusion of social media in the bill, regulations governing registration could apply to social media. However, I want to point out that the bill does not apply to users. Again, the powers granted under new sections 9.1, 10 and 11.1 really apply to online undertakings and traditional broadcasters.The idea is not to establish a registration system that would apply to users. Again, the exclusion in new subsection 2(2.1) very clearly states that users are not considered to be broadcasters and are not subject to CRTC regulations. The requirement to register with the CRTC applies instead to social media services and other online undertakings.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6787297ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1405)[English] Thank you, Chair.Welcome to the officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage.I, too, want to thank Mr. Manly for his efforts in bringing forward amendments to the Broadcasting Act. As you've all talked about, it hasn't been updated for 10 years. I think for the last several months we forgot about the conventional broadcasters. We've dipped into the digital world, and when we first started this it was all about the conventional broadcasters, who are suffering badly in this country.Many radio and television stations are leaving the airwaves almost monthly. Mr. Manly would know that because he was a part of community radio for many years. He's a producer. It gets harder and harder to sell a product when there is black on TV channels. I look at B.C. and see that all the radio stations out there have gone dark over the last year, and he's seen that too. I want to thank Mr. Manly for talking about the point system, because it's very complicated. You need the score of six out 10. When we talk about Canadians.... Where is it being shot? Where is it being produced? Who are the actors or actresses involved? Then there's the MAPL system. Those are the discussions we can't forget about here in committee, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Mr. Manly for bringing that out, because he's been involved in community radio for decades, and as a producer he gives us some insight into that.To the department officials, this is an interesting proposition, because Ian Scott, the current chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, came to the committee on March 26. Now what we're seeing, and the departmental officials have acknowledged this today, is that this will be an operational challenge. Since proposed section 4.1 was eliminated in April, Mr. Scott hasn't had the ability to talk about the CRTC. When Mr. Scott was in committee and I asked him point-blank whether he had the capability to enforce Bill C-10, the first answer coming out of his mouth was “yes” but that he had to go to Treasury Board. We all know what that's going to be, asking for more money on behalf of the CRTC to operate this. It is a concern.Mr. Ripley, I'm just going to ask you this, because like I said, on March 26 we had the CRTC in front of us, and then we've seen all of these changes and operational challenges. What you've told us here today will be front and centre with the CRTC. Could you elaborate on those operational challenges, not only money-wise but with the capacity of the CRTC?You have heard me and Mr. Manly talk about the capacity of the CRTC for years. They give the seven-year licences and then walk away, and then come back six and a half years later to have a peek. When I hear operational challenges tied into the CRTC, wow, I see a red flag.I will leave it up to the department officials. I would like you to explain the operational challenges to the committee as we move forward with this amendment. What are the operational challenges that you, as a department, see the CRTC will have to be aware of going forward here?This is for anyone in the department.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67873176787318678731967873206787321678732267873236787324678732567873266787327ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1410)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for the question and for giving me the opportunity to clarify. My comments to Mr. Rayes were specifically with respect to the proposal on the table by Mr. Manly to introduce a mechanism whereby creators could opt in to a discoverability framework set up by the CRTC with the implication that some creators would be outside of that. The point I was making is that this type of framework raises operational challenges for both the CRTC, which would have to think about how you actually put in place a mechanism where a creator could put up their hand and say, I want in, and others could say, I'm not in, and at the service level on a service like YouTube, which would have to navigate how you actually put that into practice in real life. That was the point I was trying to make. I think just stepping back a level, the proposal that the committee had previously looked at and adopted with respect to proposed section 9.1, to reiterate that, the first step when it comes to thinking about how to move forward with a discoverability framework will be the CRTC doing a regulatory hearing on what makes sense. Again, I think there are a variety of different ways we could imagine that social media services could help raise the profile or visibility of Canadian creators. Part of the job of the CRTC will be balancing those interests of creators and social media services, who are going to say they have very real practical limits in terms of what they're able to do and here's how the service operates.Again, my comment was not so much at a general level but recognizing that the committee has previously adopted those powers, including the discoverability one, and is suggesting that it be given to the CRTC, while what Mr. Manly has put on the table is something that has a degree of tension with that. That's what I was trying to highlight, because it gives the ability for some people to be a part of it and other people not. I think it's just very challenging to think about how that would be put into practice day to day, given the nature of social media.That was the point I was trying to make, Mr. Waugh. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6787329678733067873316787332678733367873346787335ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1415)[English]What the minister had said, Mr. Waugh, was that he intended to bring forward the policy direction following royal assent of the bill and to ask for the first tranche of regulatory work to be completed in the nine months. That first tranche primarily includes putting in place a framework whereby the online undertakings—the online broadcasters—would be required to contribute. I think there is recognition that it would ambitious to expect everything related to C-10 to be completed in nine months. That's why that first phase would focus on having the online undertakings contribute, with a two-year horizon for all of the work to be completed.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6787347KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1415)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I want to thank Mr. Ripley for those final few comments. I automatically thought “cue the lobbyists”, because there are nine months to try to influence things to make them the way you want them to be.I actually want to focus specifically on that issue.... In general, it relates, I think, to my problem overall with big government programs. The bigger the government, the more interference and the greater the chance for undue influence. Mr. Waugh quite capably raised that issue. I actually want to ask the question of Mr. Manly, specifically, because he has some experience with the system as it exists today. I have absolutely zero experience with the traditional broadcasting realm.If I could start with this question, I'm curious to know, Mr. Manly, in the process of trying to get recognized as Canadian content in the traditional system, were you aware of situations where high-paid lobbyists were clearly able to get their client's product broadcast somewhere, ahead of a smaller operation like yours?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6787353678735467873556787356ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1420)[English] That's exactly how the system works, actually. The number of productions that get produced in this country for the traditional broadcasters by producers.... It's about 90% to 95% of the same people who produce over and over again. To break into that system is very difficult. It's actually a small number of commissioning editors who determine what gets commissioned in this country by CTV, Global or any of the provincial broadcasters, or CBC, so it's a difficult thing to break into.I just want to correct Mr. Waugh, as I've spent a very small amount of time in community radio. I actually worked on hundreds of TV episodes in the broadcast industry. I've produced and directed documentaries of my own and commissioned documentaries. I have worked in artist management and done record deals, international deals, international licensing agreements for artists who have succeeded all across the planet. I've done very well through the CanCon system, which helped them finance tours into the United States, because they could afford to get in a van and drive across the States based on the money they made in Canada by having radio play in Canada.There is a system in place that is stacked towards companies that work very closely with the big broadcasters. I have produced lots of films that have just gone on to YouTube or on to my own pay-per-view through Vimeo, or other avenues. I have other things that are licensed here and there in other parts of the world. When I have had a broadcaster pick something up, then I go through the CRTC process of certification. It's a fairly straightforward process.In terms of the comments by Mr. Ripley about how the social media could work with this, well, when you upload a video to YouTube, you can set a number of tags on there. I can say my name, where it was produced and what the key subject areas are. I don't know if anybody here has done web design, but it's a pretty straightforward process to add another line in there asking if this is Canadian content and if you have a CanCon, a CRTC certification number. When you're doing searches online, on YouTube, it would simply say, “Are you interested in Canadian content? Click here.”These kinds of things can be done quite easily through web design. It's not rocket science anymore. I did do some work in computer engineering as well, way back in the day. It's not a black box. It's not a huge problem.Those are my comments. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills678735767873586787359678736067873616787362ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1430)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a question for Mr. Ripley and Mr. Manly.Mr. Ripley, yes, I might be from Alberta, but I'm looking for classical instrumental, not that other type of music you might have referred to in reference to somebody coming from the west.Mr. Manly, I'm going to get down to a numbers figure. Maybe you can't answer it, but maybe you can generalize. If these types of amendments we're talking about are approved, CRTC is then faced with, as you said, a conundrum. Has there been any discussion, if you're talking about implementing this at the CRTC in nine months, of cost and the number of employees it would take to do it? They have a conundrum to resolve if they implement this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6787392678739367873946787395ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1430)[English]I apologize. I wasn't clear if the question was for me or for Mr. Manly.Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. Indeed, there is a fair amount of regulatory work that needs to be completed over the course of nine months. From the get-go, the government has always acknowledged that the legislative piece is the first piece and the details do indeed get worked out through regulation. Nine months is the minister's stated intent, recognizing we need to give them some time to do that but also recognizing that, as the committee has pointed out, the Canadian broadcasting sector currently operates under a certain set of rules to which foreign online undertakings are not subject. They are really keen to ensure that there's a fair regulatory framework across the board.The intention moving forward is that, like the current system, the CRTC's regulatory operational expenses would be recovered ultimately from the industry. The CRTC imposes what are called part I fees. Those get recovered. The idea is that moving forward, just like CTV and TVA and company have to pay in to the operation of the system, online undertakings such as Netflix or Spotify, etc., will need to contribute to the operation of the CRTC. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6787401678740267874036787404ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1440)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.As I was pointing out, we are now incessantly prolonging debate on an amendment that is going to be defeated. The simple goal is to stop the committee from doing its work. I think Canadians are starting to see that. It's exceptionally frustrating, as a member of this committee, to see a committee that used to work very well descend to this level, which I think has gone far below the level any parliamentary committee should operate at. I just voice my disappointment. That really explains why I think we need to go to time allocation at this point.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6787441678744267874436787444ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1440)[English] Thank you so much.Mr. Chair, interestingly enough, the member who just spoke before me brought up a really good point, and that is that he feels the members of this committee—in particular, I think referencing the members who are on the Conservative side of the table—are frustrating the process. I can understand that he feels maybe a little bit frustrated by that process. Nevertheless, there is something very important that is going on here. In the same way that he felt it was necessary to clarify that for the Canadian public who might be watching today, I feel that it's very important to further clarify.Right now at committee, we are discussing Bill C-10, clause by clause, which means that we're going through it line by line and we're determining which parts of this bill are great and should move forward and which parts of this bill may be questionable. Perhaps there are some that need to be amended. Maybe there are even some subamendments that are necessary in order to help strengthen this piece of legislation. In addition to that, there may be some parts of the bill that need to come out altogether.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6787449678745067874516787452ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1440)[English]Hold on one second, everybody, please.I gave Mr. Housefather quite a bit of latitude here to talk about the process we're working through here. I'm affording Ms. Harder the same, although Ms. Harder might.... That can only go on for so long, because, as Ms. Dabrusin pointed out, we are on PV-21.1.Some people refer to the debate that has happened in the House. I have absolutely no instruction from the House, other than what we are doing right now, which is that we're in the middle of clause-by-clause on C-10.Ms. Dabrusin, yes, she does have the floor following Mr. Housefather.Ms. Harder, you have the floor.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6787458RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1440)[English]I'm not going to make a ruling on that, other than to state the fact that there have been discussions outside committee. That is true. I would not want us to get into a full-fledged conversation, although two parties in this committee have now discussed it. I please ask, once again, that we stick to the clause-by-clause that is before us, on Bill C-10, and we are currently on PV-21.1, an amendment moved by Mr. Manly.Ms. Harder, you have the floor again.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6787468JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1500)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.There are two things. One, because of what Mr. Housefather said, I can call it a point of order. I don't really like to do that, but I will. I've known Mr. Housefather for a while and I find him very honourable. I find him a very good politician and parliamentarian. I very much respect him.I ask questions, and I ask lots of questions at times. I'm looking for information. To suggest what I am doing and have done for many years here on committees.... I had a good debate with the parliamentary secretary last night in the House on this particular topic, in the late show, and I appreciated that. That was a debate where we both stated some obvious positions. To suggest that I am not looking for clarification, not looking for opportunities for discussion, getting feedback and learning more about what these things will do, I take exception to that. I know MP Housefather's an honourable gentleman and MP. I appreciate that he's frustrated, but I take exception to his labelling of what I do as a parliamentarian as damaging and harmful to the process of democracy. It at times can be messy, but it's democracy. I object to the comments that he made.With that, Mr. Chairman, I would move for adjournment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67875116787512678751367875146787515ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1500)[English]Okay. We'll go to a vote.(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)The Chair: The meeting is adjourned. We'll see everybody at the usual time on Monday.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills678752167875226787523MartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1100)[English] Welcome back, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is meeting number 38. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Once again, I'd like to ask everyone for their patience. Let's try not to to talk all over each other because it gets very confusing for the people watching. It gets even more confusing for the people who are taking the record of what we are saying. I appreciate your patience in that.(On clause 7)The Chair: Let's dive right into where we left off last Friday. We are now coming up on an amendment put forward by the Conservative Party. That's CPC-9.1, if we all want to turn to our documents.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67734456773446677344767734486773449PhilippeMéla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1105)[Translation]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I've been looking forward to moving amendment CPC-9.1 for nearly a week now. I'll read it first and then explain why I was so eager to present it. This amendment proposes that Bill C-10, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:9.2 This Act does not apply in respect of(a) programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission or retransmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service; and(b) online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of such programs.With your permission, I'd like to present a summary and history of the bill.As the minister noted, Bill C-10 was introduced last November. Everyone had been waiting for this bill, under which the Canadian government, through the CRTC, would regulate digital broadcasters such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+—the ones the minister has named from the start—in a way that would be fair and equitable for so-called conventional broadcasters such as CTV, CBC/Radio-Canada, TVA, global and others. The same would be true for the various radio stations, CBC/Radio-Canada and commercial stations. Although the government has been in power for six years now, this much anticipated bill wasn't introduced until last November. As has been noted on numerous occasions, the committee has worked hard not to slow down proceedings. We even agreed to conduct a pre-study of the bill in committee both to avoid delays and to enable members to express their views on it in the House of Commons. Discussing a bill in the House is an entirely legitimate process, and it's a member's privilege to do so. It was all the more legitimate in the case of Bill C-10 because we'd been waiting for it for so long and it contained significant flaws, as may be seen from the number of amendments. The witnesses who've appeared, even those who have wholeheartedly supported the bill from the start, have recommended many amendments, and speakers who completely opposed the bill naturally had many amendments as well.As a result, nearly 120 amendments have been introduced by all political parties and even by the government itself. In fact, nearly one quarter of those amendments have come from the government. The Bloc québecois has introduced 37, the Green Party 37, the NDP 14 and the Conservative Party 15 or so. That's excluding all the other amendments that have been introduced along the way. A key event occurred a few weeks ago in the course of this process:section 4.1, which was initially included in Bill C-10, was deleted, which raised red flags for many experts. Michael Geist, in particular, discussed it, and I would note that other experts of course expressed views that differed from his. My Bloc québécois colleague said so as well when we finally got a chance to hear from the experts following the presentations of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Experts for and against Bill C-10 have thus come and told us what they thought of it since proposed section 4.1 was deleted. The bill then turned into something completely different. It wasn't just about digital broadcasters anymore; it was also about social media, platforms and related applications.Once again I'd like to note that many experts have spoken. An attempt is under way to make us believe that the cultural sector is at war with free speech and net neutrality advocates. There's no such war between those two camps, contrary to what the government would have us believe. We of the Conservative Party think we can reconcile the two concepts, as other countries have done.It's clear in our minds that the government must support the cultural sector. It also has to pass a bill to ensure that digital and conventional broadcasters are treated fairly. However, I think the government was mistaken in deleting proposed section 4.1 because, in doing so, it attacks users and the content they upload to the Internet.(1110)So the committee's proceedings were brought to a halt. I want to make it clear that, if the government, at the outset, had accepted our initial proposal, that it invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, we would only have wasted about 48 hours, but the Liberals opposed that proposal.Thanks to our teamwork, however, we finally managed to succeed. It was even a Liberal member, Mr. Housefather, who submitted a new proposal similar in tenor to what we had initially requested. After the committee's proceedings had been halted for nearly three weeks, we ultimately heard once again from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and, to our delight, some experts also came and gave us their opinions.However, people are still raising red flags. Many wonder about all the powers being conferred on the CRTC. They say we want to give the CRTC even more powers. At the same time, experts who had previously worked at the CRTC told us it was unacceptable to delete proposed section 4.1 from the bill from the get-go.I'm thinking of Timothy Denton, who was commissioner of the CRTC from 2009 to 2013, and Konrad von Finckenstein, the CRTC's president from 2007 to 2012. Peter Menzies, who was vice-president for telecommunications at the CRTC from 2013 to 2018, even said this was a full-fledged attack on freedom of expression and the very foundation of democracy. In his view, it's hard to contemplate the levels of hubris, incompetence or both that would lead people to believe such an infringement of rights is justifiable. He was talking about the minister. I'm also thinking of Michel Morin, who was national commissioner of the CRTC from 2008 to 2012, and Philip Palmer, general counsel at the Department of Justice and head of legal services at the Department of Communications from 1987 to 1994. These are sound, reliable people.We also had professors such as Michael Geist, whom we all know, but also Emily Laidlaw, professor of law at the University of Calgary, and Dwayne Winseck, professor at Carleton University.Artists and web influencers also expressed their opposition. In particular, Mike Ward, an occasionally controversial Quebec artist, made a public statement on the subject on social media.This is a bill that challenges the very basis of net neutrality. It has to be said that, if we agreed to regulate the Internet this way, it would be a global first because no country has gone this far.We can even raise questions about discoverability. I'm speaking to Quebec francophones here: if other countries like France, which has 67 million inhabitants, or other countries in the Francophonie, which have 400 million, decided to do the same thing, artists here at home would lose their discoverability potential. There are approximately 9 million or 10 million of us francophones in Canada. According to an article in Le Devoir, artists from my region clearly question what the government is doing on social media. They wonder how the government can consider regulating, through an agency, platforms that constantly update in real time. YouTube, for example, can update more than 500 times a day.With regard to net neutrality, it's important to note that the Prime Minister said in 2017 that net neutrality had to be defended. When she was Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mélanie Joly stated in her cultural policy that the government was in favour of the principle of net neutrality. Navdeep Bains, while Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, said that net neutrality was one of the crucial issues of our time, just as freedom of the press and freedom of expression had been.At 6:18 p.m. on May 22, 2018, the present Minister of Justice, but at the time parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, told the House of Commons the following:It is clear that the open Internet is a remarkable platform for economic growth, innovation, and social progress in Canada and around the world. It is essential to a modern digital economy and society. Many activities depend on it, including access to health care, education, employment, entertainment, and more. More broadly, it is vital for freedom of expression, diversity, and our democratic institutions. A flourishing and vibrant democracy is possible only when citizens are able to communicate and access information freely.(1115)It was the Government of Canada, the Liberals, who said these things. Consequently, we want to give the committee, in all the work we're doing, an opportunity to adopt a provision that would compensate for the deletion of initially proposed section 4.1. That would be like putting a band-aid on Bill C-10, which we believe is fundamentally flawed. We hear a lot of groups talking. They're entitled to do so, and, I should point out, they represent a lot of people. I'm thinking, in particular, of Quebec's artistic sector, which legitimately advocates in favour of Bill C-10 given the impact it might have on its network. However, I want to clarify one point, and I'd really like everyone, including the people watching us on the web, to listen closely to what I'm about to say. When the minister introduced Bill C-10, even before proposed section 4.1 was deleted, he said in his interviews, even on Tout le monde en parle, that digital broadcasters such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+ were going to invest nearly $800 million by 2023, if I'm not mistaken, in Canadian anglophone and francophone content, particularly in Quebec francophone productions and first nations productions.Incidentally, it took us months to access the calculations that yielded those figures. The minister said that the assumption used in the calculations was that the same rules would be applied as those applicable to our conventional broadcasters, but that would depend on what the CRTC decided in the following nine months. So we have no guarantee on that if the bill is adopted. However, the minister made that statement before proposed section 4.1 was deleted, and thus before social media were included in the bill, with all the consequences that entails for net neutrality and freedom of expression. These are two principles that are currently missing and that many fiercely advocate.If we adopt amendment CPC-9.1, we'll find ourselves back where we started. If the government sincerely wants to help the cultural sector and allow this alleged investment of $800 million or $900 million—the minister even said in some interviews that it might be as much as $1 billion—it has to support this amendment because, otherwise, we'll wind up exactly where it initially said we would.If it doesn't, I invite the minister to provide us with some new figures. If all the digital platforms and applications are included, it won't be just $800 million or $900 million. Given the rule of three, and considering what he's told us, it'll be much more than that, and so much the better for the artists.Whatever the case may be, given the deletion of proposed section 4.1 and the government's stubbornness, I think we're jeopardizing this bill.(1120)We're talking about the cultural sector right now. However, we received a document last week. I know the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage receive a lot of documents, so I can understand why some haven't read them all. Last week, we received a document from the British Columbia Library Trustees Association, an organization that supports and represents trustees in advancing public libraries. I want to emphasize that it represents public not private libraries. This letter was sent on May 13, 2021, and it's one of the documents that all members of the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage have received. The organization also took the trouble to send it to me personally, with copies to the British Columbia members of Parliament from all parties. The letter reads as follows:The British Columbia Library Trustees Association, or BCLTA, founded in 1977, is a not-for-profit society and registered charity. As the association for public library trustees in British Columbia, BCLTA supports and represents trustees in their role of overseeing libraries (which have a collective annual budget of over $0.25 billion. The BCLTA board has been following the discourse regarding Bill C-10 and is sending this letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, with copies to all British Columbia MPs, to communicate our concerns regarding the recent exclusion of clause 4.1(1) from Bill C-10.The BCLTA board endorses freedom of expression as a core principle of Canadian librarianship. Public libraries are impartial collectors and distributors of knowledge in its many forms, including Internet social media. Because public libraries are fee-free and do not require membership, Canadians regard their local libraries as being key to supporting intellectual freedom and open communication. For many Canadians, their public library is the only place where they can participate in online discourse or create and publish end-user content. This makes the Internet an essential tool for Canadians exercising their right to freedom of speech. Accordingly, the BCLTA board believes CRTC regulation should not be expanded to include Internet platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, which are just two examples of where Canadians may post content. Clause 4.1(1) allows for the exemption of end-user content from regulation by CRTC. The BCLTA board encourages the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to press for the reinstatement of clause 4.1(1) of Bill C-10. Why did I read this letter to you? I could've read many other letters that we've received from associations and organizations that have questions about Bill C-10, particularly since proposed section 4.1 was deleted, because that's when a break occurred. Things were very calm before that. People weren't particularly interested in the bill, except those directly concerned by it.This letter is just one of the many we've received from thousands of Canadians across country. Setting aside partisanship, our responsibility is to represent all Canadians: Quebeckers and the citizens of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. In short, we represent Canadians across the country.I heard the minister attempt to portray those who are fighting for this part of Bill C-10 as people who are opposed to culture. When he attacks us as he has done—and I think he has done so in a crass manner—he attacks all the people and experts who have an opinion different from that of the government. That scares me because freedom of expression is at stake. It is incomprehensible that a minister should make such comments when people legitimately make every effort to ask the right questions. Members of Parliament aren't the only ones who have questions; so do organizations like the British Columbia Library Trustees Association, as well as web artists, influencers and users. Approximately 25,000 Canadians currently earn a living from the web without belonging to any association. I'm talking about the artists who create their works without seeking any subsidies from the government. They do their work and live out their passion.As I said in one of my speeches, this subject is of deep concern to me. Despite the criticism and attacks that have come my way, I haven't gone to bed troubled one single night since we began debating Bill C-10. I've never found it hard to fall asleep because I'm doing what I think, in my soul and conscience, is best, based on all the information I have gathered since we began studying the bill. I therefore ask members of the committee to let us move this bill forward. I also ask them to cross their fingers and hope the government doesn't call an election. The fact of the matter is that, if an election is held in the fall before this bill has been passed, it won't the Conservatives' fault. We already know that NDP and Bloc québécois members ultimately want to vote for it, and I'd remind you that the government's in the minority. If the bill is passed, it will be for one single reason. Although the government has had six years to work on it, Minister Guilbeault failed by deleting proposed section 4.1 one Friday afternoon without even consulting us. He failed to keep us informed and didn't work with us, as he had done from the start in addressing this bill. He delayed the process for three weeks before ultimately deciding to come back and testify before the committee, together with the Minister of Justice, in order to advance the proceedings. Now the Liberal government is making every attempt to call an election in the fall. So it will be a lost cause, despite all the work we've done.(1125)If we want the essential aspects of this bill to advance, even though it's imperfect, whether we're for or against certain parts of it, completely for or completely against, if we want to respect all the speakers who raised yellow, orange and red flags, the least we can do is adopt amendment CPC-9.1.This is a fundamental issue for us. I hope our discussions will help us achieve that result. I'm eager to hear what you all have to say on the subject, not only my Conservative colleagues, but also the members of the other parties. Even though we have differing views on certain points, I know you have opinions on the subject. It's important that you express them if we are to move forward.We still have many amendments to examine as part of our study of the bill, as imperfect as it may be. To those who feel the bill has been delayed by the Conservatives, I repeat that we have brought the fewest of the some 120 amendments that have been introduced. Apart from our own, amendments have been introduced by the Green Party—and I'm pleased to see the committee unanimously decided to allow the Green Party to take part in the process—by the Bloc québécois, by the NDP and by the government itself. Just imagine, the government brought forward amendments to its own bill. You have to believe all those amendments will help us come up with an acceptable bill.I'll conclude with one final comment, because I want to give everyone a chance to speak to amendment CPC-9.1 today.If the government had first listened to the discussions during the clause-by-close consideration of the bill in committee and had appropriately adapted the section 4.1 it was proposing, we would not be where we are today. If the government and its minister had made a cooperative effort right up to the end, as they wanted to do at the very start, we would not be where we are today. If the government had properly done its work over the past six years, we would not be where we are today. And if the government had not signalled that there might be an election in the fall, we would not be where we are today either.I am asking the members of the committee to adopt amendment CPC-9.1 so we can continue moving forward in our study of this bill.Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to present this amendment to the members of the committee.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6773476677347767734786773479677348067734816773482677348367734846773485677348667734876773488677348967734906773491677349267734936773494677349567734966773497677349867734996773500677350167735026773503677350467735056773506677350767735086773509677351067735116773512677351367735146773515677351667735176773518677351967735206773521677352267735236773524677352567735266773527ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1130)[English]Thank you.In the spirit of wanting to move things along quickly, I'll try to be concise. The majority of the committee agreed to the removal of proposed section 4.1. That was the decision of the majority of the committee, not just one party here. That was part of a package that included the addition of amendment G-11.1, which restricted the powers of the CRTC and obligations for social media companies. That was a restriction for social media companies to be required to report only their Canadian revenues, to contribute a portion of those Canadian revenues towards the creation of cultural productions and to make Canadian creators discoverable. We have to look at the bill, as we're going through it, as a whole package, and not section by section. Yes, there was a removal of one section, and then through amendment, an addition of another, which completed that picture. With that, it makes little sense now to go back and start adding other pieces, in particular this amendment. It will in fact only complicate things, given the bill as it has come together, with the majority of the members of this committee agreeing on it, by adding G-11.1 in.I will be opposing the addition of this Conservative amendment. It doesn't fit within the bill as it has come together and as it has been thought out, debated and discussed by all of the parties here at committee. Once again, the consideration is really not just about the removal of one section in one part, but about the amendments that have been made since that point. I will leave it.I see there are other people who are interested in speaking to this matter, so I will pass it along. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67735296773530677353167735326773533ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1130)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.There are a few points about which I'd like to comment or give my perspective.Ever since the Friday on which the committee voted in favour of removing proposed section 4.1, we've been able to see the turmoil that resulted. Ever since, I've believe that proposed section 4.1 ought to be reinstated in the bill and amended in a manner that would exclude the regulation of social media users, but not the social media themselves with respect to their commercial broadcasting purposes. For the sake of the cultural industry, the cultural community, and artists, social media must be subject to regulation with respect to their commercial broadcasting activities.Nevertheless, we afterwards succeeded in putting forward a number of amendments. Even though there were not that many, they got things back on track.From the very outset, people from the cultural industry and the cultural community, with whom I have frequently held discussions, have been convinced that reintroducing proposed section 4.1 into the bill would be a mistake. They feel that as things stand now, user freedom of expression is in no danger at all.We heard expert opinions from both sides. As my colleague Mr. Rayes was saying earlier, legal and other experts have given us diverging opinions. In fact, the problem I see with respect to this committee's work is that there are many lawyers and other experts defending a point of view, but we've not heard from the judges. If a judge were to rule on our current debates, it might be easier to find a way of settling our disputes.In view of the comments made by these experts, I still believe that in the current circumstances, and with the amendments that have been adopted, there is no attack on user freedom of expression. I think it's a mistake to believe that there is and to try to convince people of it.I'd like to take a few seconds to speak about net neutrality, a subject that's been on the agenda quite often of late.Here again, on behalf of those listening to us or perhaps watching us online, I want to say that net neutrality has nothing to do with Internet content. Net neutrality is a principle that guarantees that the speed at which my aunt Gertrude's video chats are transmitted is no slower than the speed at which online content from a broadcaster is transmitted.This principle therefore applies to telecommunications. It applies to service providers who send data through Internet "pipes". Because of this principle, Mr. Champoux's aunt Gertrude's video chats are not transmitted any more slowly than a Netflix program to the same destination.It has nothing to do with content or with the fact that some people might be discriminated against because of their opinions. It's important to clarify this point.Mr. Rayes Spoke earlier about artists who earn their living through online media. More and more people are doing just that. Online media give us access to terrific content. People are creative, and that's all to the good. However, based on the standpoint from which I look at the situation, my conclusion is that these artists will be able to continue to create and disseminate their creative work through their platforms. Nothing we are doing now will prevent this or control it. On the contrary, we might even be helping them, if they want it, to acquire more visibility.The broadcasting act is designed to apply to broadcasting undertakings that have an impact on the Canadian broadcasting system and on the cultural industry. YouTubers or artists who use their own platforms to disseminate content are not affected here.I believe that these ongoing fears about freedom of expression survive simply because people are being told that it could be attacked. If instead they were told to take the trouble to read what is written in or proposed in this bill, I think many of them would be reassured. At least that's my impression.(1135)The arts and culture in Quebec and Canada urgently need us to continue to study the proposed clauses and amendments of the bill we are studying. We need to do as much as we can in the time remaining.That's all I wanted to say about this amendment. I too will now give the floor to others.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6773535677353667735376773538677353967735406773541677354267735436773544677354567735466773547677354867735496773550ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1135)[English] Thank you, Chair.I have a few comments with regard to this amendment and bringing back protection for the content that people post online.One of the interesting things is that, for all the conversation we have had, the debates that have taken place and the opinions that have been sought, unfortunately very few creators have been asked to speak to Bill C-10, which is a shame because it's actually creators who are going to be impacted to a great extent.I wish, then, to present the words of Scott Benzie, who is the CEO of something called Buffer Festival, an event hosted in Toronto every year that celebrates the creative material being brought forward by artists.Speaking from that heart, that passion and that understanding of what digital creators put into their work, I'm going to read his statement, because I think it's really powerful. Again I would present to the committee that we really have not done justice to this group. We really have not considered them to the fullest extent. I believe before moving forward they do need to be considered, and with the fact that the censorship of the content they post is going to have such a detrimental impact on them, their well-being and their way forward, it does us well to hit the pause button for a moment and to really consider what that impact is.Mr. Benzie wrote, “The democratization of media caused by platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Spotify and others has given rise to the quietest renaissance of Canadian Culture in history. Canadians are among The most watched, with the most exported content and the Canadian musicians that have dominated the charts have almost exclusively been Digital First Creators and they are world class.“With them, Tens of Thousands Canadians of diverse backgrounds, economic status, gender identification and educational level have all succeeded through finding an audience, a niche and a business outside of the 'Canadian Cultural System'.“So what’s the problem bill C-10 is trying to solve? It’s just that...that these Creators have found success outside of the existing traditional system…this is about money and status. Those inside the system do not consider online Creators 'real' artists, have created a false narrative around what is 'Canadian Culture' and feel they need to be compensated for someone else’s success.“I would like to touch on 3 major issues with C-10 and how it affects the community at large.“1. Digital Creators have not been widely consulted, the Minister has repeatedly claimed that “artists” are in support of the bill yet never once accepted an invitation from Digital Creators to engage.”I'll pause and add my commentary. That's shameful—the fact that this government has not even sought the opinions, the direction or the feedback of digital first creators in putting this bill together, and the fact that at this committee, during clause-by-clause, not a single one of these individuals was invited to the table to offer their insight. Folks, we're legislators. We've been elected to represent the Canadian people, and we can't even so much as hit the pause button for two seconds here and give consideration or thought to those individuals who are going to be most impacted by this bill. This is a government that claims to be for diversity, for inclusion, and for advancing in the digital world. This bill is a direct attack on all of those things.I'll resume Mr. Benzie's statement here. He writes, “It is clear he means 'Traditional Artists'. Legislation is being written without any consultation of those being impacted, and being written by people who do not understand the first thing about how money is made, audiences are found and maintained and how discovery online happens (at least not without being propped up by regulation and subsidies). Just because Heritage has heard from YouTube, TikTok etc, does not mean they have heard from creators themselves.”(1140)His second point is this: “Technically the bill is flawed. While promoting Canadian Culture is an admirable goal and one we support. Non organically promoting videos and content on platforms could negatively impact the discoverability of the content. Elevating one video/song over another means demoting someone else's video, who makes that decision? Likely it will benefit media organizations over new and emerging voices trying to break through. That along with definitions of CANCON as a binary from Netflix to TikTok is not only impractical it might be impossible to define and regulate. Additionally CAVCO requires all Creators to be incorporated that will again discriminate against new and emerging Creators. Finally Canada can not take this step and expect fair and equal treatment abroad, if this same step is taken in the US, we will see an end to Canadian online success stories, millions of dollars in revenue for entrepreneurs and a diverse representative Canada, as 90% of all YouTube views (specifically) come from outside of Canada for Canadian creators.”The third point is on the Canadian cultural system. He writes, “We are being told C-10 is needed to save 'Canadian Culture', but who defines it? For years digital first Creators have been written out of grant applications, told that they do not have a distribution plan because they don’t have a deal with Bell or CBC and have not had access to money through funding organizations even with the honest attempts from those organizations to include them. If there is to be a tax or inputs from the platforms it is imperative that those funds be set aside for the Creators that use those platforms. This is nothing more than an attempt from an industry that is not as important as it once was to get a piece of the pie. Digital First Creators do not have Unions or lobbyists or in house grant writers, additionally unlike conventional producers they do not spend time worrying about the government because their success has not been predicated on it.“Do not allow those unions to grab money from the platforms and then fund the same programs they always have, in the same way they always have.”He continues, “Bill C-10 is legislation based on a fallacy of popular Canadian Content. If it is passed Creators need to be at the table while the CRTC cleans it up. “When we talk about the Canadian Media Landscape the truth nobody wants to talk about is that the sea change is already here. The most popular Canadian Storytellers and media are not traditional anymore. WatchMoJo might be the most successful export Canadian content history and it dwarfs the audience for programs as great as Schitt's Creek but I don't see them winning Canadian Screen Awards. Peter McKinnon is probably Canada's most famous photographer. While traditional infrastructure tries to find ways to be inclusive, Molly Burke, Stef Sanjati, Julie Vu, King Bach, Shannon Boodram, Lilly Singh and thousands more have already smashed barriers traditional media are still wrestling with.”He goes on to say, “I'll just leave a few names in music as well. Justin Bieber, Alessia Cara, Shawn Mendes.“What they all have in common is they didn't need the 'Canadian Media Industry' for discoverability, they just needed it not to get in the way. I fear we are starting to get in the way when we should be finding ways to enable more voices, more stories, more Canada.”(1145)Those are the words of an individual whose life is consumed with advocating for and understanding working with digital first creators. This is a group that has not been consulted. This is a group that has not been understood, but I think we need to take a step back and acknowledge as a committee is that these individuals will be extremely impacted in a very detrimental way by this bill.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills677355467735556773556677355767735586773559677356067735616773562677356367735646773565677356667735676773568677356967735706773571677357267735736773574ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1145)[English]Thank you, Chair.When we talk about the digital content that is put online and the fact that this bill, if it moves forward the way it currently stands, will censor that content, we need to take that very seriously for two reasons: one, the impact that will have on artists or creators and, two, the impact that will have on their audience, those individuals who go on YouTube and use it in order to access content.When it comes to the artists, we have to acknowledge that the greatest artists right now and over the last decade have come up through platforms such as YouTube or TikTok. We're talking about artists who are young, aspiring and diverse. We're talking about individuals who belong to different minority groups, represent different viewpoints and are able to bring Canada to life. However, they won't necessarily make the cut when it comes to being acknowledged as “Canadian content producers” because they don't fit the traditional mould. When the government steps in and imposes these regulatory measures that insist that Canadian content be bumped up in its “discoverability” and that non-Canadian content be bumped down in its discoverability, first of all, they are starting with a false definition of Canadian content, and then they move on to actually demote or degrade or thwart the success of some artists, because, again, those artists won't make the cut.Let's take Lilly Singh, for example. She's Canadian, fully Canadian, functioning from Canada and in many of her posts she talks about Canadian issues, but in many of her posts, she talks about her Indian culture and heritage. In some of her posts she talks about other countries. In other posts she talks about things that are just hilarious, not necessarily Canadian content per se, but she's Canadian, functioning in Canada and enjoying a life of artistic success. She'd be punished. If Bill C-10 passed, her content would be demoted. It would be moved to the bottom of the page. Meanwhile—I don't know—maybe basket weaving gets moved to the top because everybody wants to learn about basket weaving.The fact that this is going to have such a detrimental impact on artists and on creators should cause us as committee members to pause for a moment and to consider the amendment that's been put on the table, because this amendment will protect the content that is produced. It will make sure that these artists have a fighting chance, that they are captains of their own destiny, that they get to determine their success based on the way they perform and based on growing an audience organically. Again, I'll remind the committee that 90% of their audience members are beyond the borders of Canada; they are from all over the world. If we start putting fences around these individuals, sure, they'll protect some artists, but they will imprison other artists. They will actually prevent them from being able to achieve the level of success that they would be able to achieve on their own.Artists are not asking for more government regulation. In fact, they're telling me quite the opposite. They're telling me they want the government to get out of the way. They're creators. They're creative. They're entrepreneurial. They're hard-working. They don't want the government to step in and dictate to them what they can and cannot do, and they certainly don't want the government to step in and determine what is Canadian and what is not Canadian and whether or not they make the cut. They just want to continue to create and enjoy an audience and provide something of value to those who would enjoy their talents.I think the idea of protecting “Canadian culture” is a noble one, but in actuality that's not what this bill would do.(1150) This bill will protect a very small niche group, a little niche group of artists who can't compete on new platforms, a niche group of artists who have lobbyists who apparently have been quite effective within this government, a niche group of artists who rely heavily on government grants. Why do they rely on government grants? If the content is wanted, if the content is desirable, then surely there would be a buyer. Again, there are many digital first creators who are making a go of it. In fact in Canada over 25,000 Canadians have platforms and through them have organically grown an audience and are able to make over $100,000 a year. This bill will put them out of business.So much for a government that believes in the digital economy. This bill is a direct attack on that. It's shameful. I think we have to ask ourselves, then, what defines Canadian culture. What defines Canadian content? What is going to make the cut and what isn't? That definition, we discover, is extremely flawed, again putting an end to so many good Canadian artists. The amendment that's been brought forward would protect the content that individuals post online. It would protect it from getting bumped up or bumped down. It would protect it from having to go through the scrutiny of being determined Canadian or not Canadian and being given a rating out of 10 on just how Canadian it is. Further, the amendment we put on the table in terms of the content would not only protect the artists and their content but would also facilitate a person's viewing experience. In other words, when we go online in search of content, we're going to have the freedom to explore based on our desires as audience members rather than being dictated to by a government-designed algorithm. Again, in its current form, this legislation will result in algorithms being put in place that will move content up or down in the queue and make it available to us based on what the government wants us to see, based on “Canadian content”. Right now, Canadians go online and they go on YouTube and they access the videos they want using a search bar. Once the algorithms figure out that a person really likes looking at cartoons and learning how to draw cartoon characters, the algorithms generate more content for them that is in line with that. It's great. It curates it for us. What the government is saying with Bill C-10 is that, no, we don't want it curated for you, Canadians. We don't want it curated for the audience member or the user. No, this government wants to dictate what Canadians should and should not have access to. Instead of algorithms curating a platform for you, the government's going to step in and create an algorithm that's going to curate it based on what they think you should see.That is a direct attack on freedom of expression. That is a direct attack on our charter rights to be able to access information freely, to be able to express ourselves freely, to be able to hold beliefs freely, to be able to hold opinions freely, to be able to use what is now the new public square in order to have our voices heard and to access the voices of others. It is absolutely necessary that this bill move forward only with this protective mechanism in place, with the protection of content. Content that people post online should not be regulated by the government.(1155) We already have the Criminal Code in place, which of course protects Canadians by making sure that child pornography, let's say, is not posted online, for sure. That type of legislation is appropriate, but to put legislation in place that will rate, somehow, the Canadianness of something, and then determine whether or not it gets to be posted and where it falls in the queue, is inappropriate. That is totally inappropriate. It is extremely dictatorial. It's an affront to democracy.Numerous experts have spoken out and said that, so why we're even having this conversation is a mystery to me. It's a no-brainer. We live in a democracy. We live in a free society. We believe people's voices should be heard. I mean, this is the government that keeps saying diversity is our strength. This is their chance to stand by that statement. If diversity is truly our strength, then why wouldn't we want to celebrate diversity of thought, diversity of artistic expression, diversity of creativity? This bill will quelch that like never before. This amendment is needed in order to protect the content that so many post online. This amendment is needed to protect those individuals who wish to access that content freely. Without this amendment, this bill is an absolute disaster. It is an attack on the Canadian people and their freedom. I'll end there for now. C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts67735876773600ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1200)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.There was a comment made earlier in the meeting that if we had just not said anything different when proposed section 4.1 was gone, if we had just repeated the words of other MPs who had agreed with removing it, we wouldn't have this issue.It's freedom of speech where we have differences of opinion. That is what this is about. In my opinion, the fundamental piece here is the comment that this controversy arose only because other people had differences of opinion. People have differences of opinion. One particular group, while perhaps made up of a number of different parties that have the same opinion while others don't, shouldn't be dictatorial in the sense that we will automatically have to repeat their words when we may not agree with them. I find it very interesting that somebody would suggest to us this morning that we created a controversy that wasn't there by not expressing the opinions of others that were different from our own. I think we've agreed in this discussion about funding for culture. I think we've talked about the source of that. The minister in documents indicated about $400 million, but then the document became very redacted in terms of where that other $400-plus million was coming from. It's really interesting that only part of it is verified when he talks about that funding. It's interesting about funding in the sense that we've all lobbied and many of us have for arts organizations in our communities, as I have for the Calgary Arts Commons in Alberta or the Rosebud Theatre in my riding. The parliamentary secretary will remember that, when she was chair of the heritage committee, a Liberal MP from Alberta wanted to talk about funding. It was very interesting that we found that Alberta received about 5% of the funding that went to arts and culture in Canada. Only 5% went to Alberta. It was a Liberal MP who brought this to committee for us to look at when the parliamentary secretary was chair of the heritage committee. When we talk about funding, there get to be all sorts of interesting issues that go with the funding. It's not that we're not supportive of funding and it's not that we don't support big major foreign tech companies being taxed for the services they provide, but the minister has said zillions of times how while the Conservatives are supportive they must be in the pockets of those tech companies supporting this. I have not been lobbied by one tech company, but the list of the tech companies and the times they've been in the minister's office is huge. They haven't been in my office. I haven't talked to one of them. When the minister says, “we're listening to the tech companies”, they have to talk to you before you can listen to them, and they haven't talked to me. They haven't sent me any information. They haven't done anything to influence my decision, yet they've been in the minister's office, practically living there they've been there so many times, right at the top of the people who lobby on behalf of the tech industry. They're in his office, not mine. When we're talking about proposed section 4.1 and we hear about the difference in opinions on net neutrality, if there is a person in between those creators and how it is placed in the world at large, then we're talking about a difference of opinion about what net neutrality is. Someone mentioned that if a judge can do it.... That's where this legislation is going to go. It's going to end up in front of judges. It's going to be there for a long time. For those who have been given to believe that the money is just going to flow and that it's going to come instantly, that's not going to happen because there are going to be judges involved in this.(1205) There's a difference of opinions on what net neutrality is, and that's what 4.1 was protecting, people's ability to do things differently, a creator's ability to do things differently, not the status quo.People talk about the algorithms of the tech companies out there, and, yes, those are based on data and they drive people to where they want them to go, but that's not what the CRTC does. It's not based on data. Historically it has been based on content, not data.We know what the algorithms of the big tech companies are for. They're for making money and being data-driven, but that's not the model the CRTC has used for 30 years. It is based on content, so it's not data-driven.Removing 4.1 took us from being data-driven to a different algorithm, not what people necessarily want but what people are driven to, so that rating system...and it's been interesting as the news stories of this past week have talked about how businesses buy services to get them rated higher, but how there are also services they can buy to take away negative ratings they might have. They might also want to buy that service to take away their competitor by driving that rating.This is the kind of mechanism we're putting in the hands of the CRTC. It's a mechanism on content driving people to a certain platform—not on data but on content. That's why this is not net neutrality. That's why proposed section 4.1 was important, Mr. Chair. What we need to be doing is protecting.When there were consultations done by the minister, members of this committee said consultations were done from sea to sea, from ocean to ocean, and that we talked to everybody, but we know that's not true. We didn't talk to those 200,000 creators who are on there. We didn't talk to the 25,000 who are making a living. As was mentioned earlier, they don't have lobbyists, so who was that consultation with? It was with lobbyist organizations, with those cultural groups that have been there forever, not with the new ones.Social media has changed. It's not the mainline media of print newspapers and CTV, CBC and Global. It's not there. That's not where the younger generation is. They're in a different world, and they didn't speak to those people who've been very successful.Chair, I think it's of critical importance that freedom of speech be protected. As we express differences of opinions on this committee, we ultimately have to ensure that we protect that for Canadians. They can be successful doing it. We shouldn't have to repeat the same opinions of other people in this committee when we have differences of opinion.That's what this committee is about. That's what Canadians are about. We should protect freedoms of speech, and this is what we need to do with this piece of legislation.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67736086773609677361067736116773612677361367736146773615677361667736176773618677361967736206773621677362267736236773624ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1210)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.People might have noticed that I have an amendment coming right after this. It would have been a subamendment, but I can't put subamendments forward to amendments. Basically, it says the same thing except that people would be exempt from this process and their programs would be exempt under the act, except where Canadian creators of programs want to voluntarily choose to be subject to the act for discoverability purposes. The undertakings would be exempt except in those situations where Canadian creators want to be part of the program and voluntarily be subject to the act.There's been a lot of discussion about how to determine what is Canadian content. It's actually a very simple process. In addition to being a professional musician, I ran an artist management company for a number of years. I had some very successful Canadian artists I did record deals for. I negotiated international record deals and distribution deals and licensing agreements for them. I stepped them through the process of MAPL—the music, artist, production, lyrics process—in determining what is Canadian content for music. It's a very simple process. It's an easy thing to step through and score.I've also produced documentaries and educational films. When I got a Canadian broadcaster that was interested, that hadn't commissioned a film before it was made but wanted to play it afterwards, I stepped through the CAVCO process. That's very straightforward as well. It's based on a points system. It's really easy to get something certified as Canadian content. The actual tax credit system, where you get money back, is a little bit more onerous and difficult. You have to engage accountants to step through everything and determine what you're eligible for in terms of funding. If you don't have a big budget to deal with that, it's not necessarily advantageous for small producers. But that's a whole other thing. The actual determining of what is Canadian content is pretty straightforward. It's in the regulations. Those regulations haven't changed for a long time. I think they do need to be reviewed, but the idea that CanCon actually fences in Canadian artists is erroneous. That's not true at all. In fact, CanCon has made it easier for Canadian artists to be discovered in Canada and have the financial wherewithal to be able to go and expand into other markets.Take musicians working in Canada. When they're eligible for grants or whatever, or when they're getting airplay, whether it's on commercial radio or on college radio and getting promoted because they're Canadian content, they can tour across Canada and get airplay. It helps them to finance tours going into the United States, where it's harder to break in as an artist if you're not making it through the algorithmic process on YouTube, Facebook or the social media platforms. I have produced stuff for social media. I've had YouTube videos that have gone viral and had millions of views. I didn't have to bother going through a CanCon process with them. I just let them loose. But I've also had programs that I wanted played on a Canadian broadcaster, so I hopped through that process, which was very simple and easy, just to determine whether or not it met the certification requirements. To have a voluntary system where artists and producers are able to actually determine for themselves whether they want that discoverability, and then have a system where Canadians who are looking for Canadian content can find Canadian content easily through this process, makes a lot of sense for continuing to support Canadian talent—musical talent, film talent and all of these other things.(1215) The CRTC regulations say that programs under five minutes aren't covered under the Canadian content rules. There's no requirement for somebody making a TikTok video or an Instagram video to apply for Canadian content rules, and you can submit stuff for broadcast that is under that limit. It's not required that you meet the CRTC regulation for it. Of course, those regulations can change, but it doesn't make sense, really, for the CRTC to be doing something that would be detrimental to Canadian artists. The idea that there's a fence around Canadian producers that would be created by these CanCon regulations is ridiculous. The CanCon regulations have helped artists who I've worked with tour Europe, tour all over North America and break into those markets, because they could afford to after making it here in Canada.I don't know if somebody wants to put forward a subamendment to this one, or we'll just wait and see what happens when we get to my amendment, but I think that having a voluntary process would meet the needs of people who are concerned about free speech and just want to put something out on the Internet, those who want to be discovered as Canadian content and audiences who want to be able to buy Canadian content more easily through a discoverability process, and also have these giant social media companies pay into a fund that helps produce more Canadian content.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills677363567736366773637677363867736396773640677364167736426773643677364467736456773646ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1220)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'll try to be brief. I simply want to respond to what Mr. Shields said a while ago.He said something very important when he talked about not rejecting other people's opinions in a discussion. I fully agree with him.Besides which, we took the time to ask questions, listen to the experts and check whether indeed there was anything to worry about in terms of an attack on freedom of expression for users of digital platforms and social media. I think we kept an open mind on this matter. I fully agree that it is important in debates to remain open to the opinions and ideas of others, because the healthy exercise of democracy means that we shouldn't necessarily cling our positions.I also just wanted to add that when I said that we had no judges on the committee, I was drawing an analogy, an image to say that what we have here is a dialogue of the deaf. Each party is doggedly defending its positions, and I said that it might take a judge to rule on the matter. I am well aware that these issues will highly likely end up in court.I also wanted to return briefly to Ms. Harder's lengthy monologue. I got the impression that we were being schooled on the quality of the work that had been done by the committee members, and I must say I take umbrage at this. We received 121 witnesses and 54 briefs during the study and preliminary study of Bill C-10. Indeed, I think that the Conservatives were able to invite many of these witnesses, and our colleagues who were there at the time were very effective. When we were began doing it, I think each of the parties did a good job of inviting the witnesses they felt were most appropriate at the time. Did we invite everyone who should have been heard? I think we would agree that's impossible, but a call was nevertheless sent out to all interested parties across Canada to prepare a brief to state their opinion on this issue. So I think the work was indeed done well and that several issues were raised by people who were not necessarily there during the studies of Bill C-10, and I'll admit that there were moments when this struck a chord with me.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6773653ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1220)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I guess what I'm struggling with here, in all of this, is that there's been so much discussion about what we started with and what we've heard. We've talked about reports from staff. We've talked about experts on different sides of this issue. What I'm finding frustrating about this right now is the argument I'm hearing against the concept of putting proposed section 4.1 back in, or a slight variation of it that we think might capture some of the concerns of the governing party. I'm hearing that it's unnecessary from a number of colleagues, not just the Liberal MPs. I'm struggling with that. We've now heard from a number of experts and a number of people who say it is absolutely necessary. I'm hearing MPs say that it is unnecessary, because people's protections are already guaranteed in other sections of the bill. What I haven't heard is a legitimate argument to say that somehow, putting proposed section 4.1 back in, or a variation of it like we've proposed today, is somehow damaging to the bill. If it's just simply unnecessary, if you see it as duplication, what's so wrong about a little duplication when it comes to protecting freedom of expression online? Is it really just unnecessary, or is it in some way going to hurt something somewhere else?You're hearing a pretty clear message, I think, from the Conservative members of this committee that if we do this, we can move on. If it's simply unnecessary—I'm seeing Ms. Dabrusin kind of roll her eyes and giggle, and that's great—then why can't we just agree and move on? If it's somehow going to damage the bill, then tell us what that is, because I see enough credible evidence, from the staff to the minister, from the debate we had with the experts.... This is what representatives of the public do. They listen to the public and they change if they need to make changes. That's what I've heard. It seems as though some of the comments I've heard, particularly from Ms. Dabrusin, about how we've done this and we have to move on.... Maybe that's the advantage I have of growing up in small town politics, where you listen to people. If you make a mistake, you change course. There's plenty on the public record of me making mistakes and having to change course because of something. I can give you all kinds of examples. You change course.This is, to me, a legitimate question. I'm not used to this partisan game that goes on around here. This is ridiculous. All we're asking for is something that we've heard regularly now from experts and individual creators who use online forums who are concerned about this. If it's just duplication to you, why do you care? We've given you an option here to move forward and help these creators who need this support.Mr. Chair, I throw the question out there. I apologize that I don't have a particular individual to share it with. I'm just at a loss here, trying to understand if this is just a game or if they're truly concerned that it somehow damages the bill in some other way. I'm kind of lost. I'm hopeful that maybe somebody, if they don't answer that question, could at least give it some thought and wonder what on earth we're arguing about anymore.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67736566773657677365867736596773660677366167736626773663ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1235)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've gone an hour and 40 minutes without a break, so I think we can all wait another 20 minutes. I certainly won't speak for 20 minutes, but I want to reiterate what Mr. Rayes and others have said about bringing back proposed section 4.1.To my dear colleague in the House, Mr. Champoux, I agree that proposed section 4.1 did allow for YouTube to be regulated when it operated as a broadcaster of its own for-profit content. The language of 4.1 said it clearly, but then the department, in December of 2020, in a memo to the minister, clearly stated that YouTube Originals and YouTube Music would be regulated even under 4.1. I've been quoted several times by the minister in the House and in committee talking about this. Of course, on that Friday afternoon, proposed section 4.1 was suddenly eliminated. I think it's been an interesting conversation, not only today but for the last three weeks. All of our offices, I'm sure, have been inundated with concerns about Bill C-10, and rightfully so. It is an important part of our culture. I look at the Toronto Sun today, and now we have the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation doing an attack on culture. That's what we don't want, I believe, in heritage. Now we have creators and culture, so now we have an editorial in the Toronto Sun today, and several comments now, done by Franco Terrazzano. I think as politicians we support our creators. We support our culture in this country, but now all of a sudden what this bill has done is to say, you know, you're a bunch of freeloaders. You've gotten millions of dollars in the past, and now you've been exposed. Many of these groups have lobbied the heritage department over a number of months and years. Now we're seeing the figure that the minister himself brought out of $835 million.Mr. Chair, we still have some doubts about where that money will come from. I have an idea of where that $835 million will come from. Everyone says it comes from YouTube, and it could come from Amazon, Netflix and so on, but indirectly that comes from Canadian pockets. Don't fool us. That $835 million will come from consumers, on top of what is already put into culture and all the sectors that the heritage department supports in this country. We dearly love the support, especially during the time of the pandemic for the last 15 months. We've seen it. The member for Edmonton Strathcona talks about her constituency and about being viable and wanting to get back to normal and having our culture in the summer and feeding hundreds if not thousands of people in our communities. That's what this is all about.I must say that Bill C-10 is a disaster now. We need to step back. Let's face it: Tomorrow is June 1, and it may pass the House of Commons but it won't pass the Senate. There's no time in three and a half weeks. This amendment by Mr. Rayes should be brought back in, and for very good reason. Canadian content should be accessible to all—I agree with you guys—but the algorithms will put some ahead and some back. Now we have winners and losers. Who knows? Once you get into the loser category, where you go from there?Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say that. I won't go on much longer. I used four minutes of the time. I just felt that I should support my colleague Mr. Rayes on bringing back proposed section 4.1.(1240) I think it's a very good amendment to bring back in, because I was quoted several times by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I thank him for quoting me. “Saskatoon—Grasswood” is what the riding name actually is. He has trouble with saying that at times in the House. When he quotes me in saying that I supported the bill, I did because that's what the bill said in November. Then it was changed in March and April here. I haven't had time to say that on the record, but I think proposed section 4.1 should be brought back in as an amendment.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6773686677368767736886773689677369067736916773692677369367736946773695ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1255)[English] Thank you, Chair.Because there have been some misleading remarks made, let me say that this concept of net neutrality is that every single Canadian has equal access to different sites online. Every site is treated with equality, which means that some sites aren't made more prominent than others. It means that speeds for some are not slowing down while speeds for others are speeding up. It means that we, as Canadians, have access to material made available online in an equal fashion: that some things are not discriminated against, some things are not promoted and some things are not shown favouritism. It's a great principle. It is a principle that so many members of the current government have spoken about in the past, including the justice minister; the former heritage minister, Minister Joly; and the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau himself. It is this principle that Canadians would be able to function within this glorious platform that is allowing so many individuals to thrive. They would be able to function within that platform, this tool that we rely on in Canada to access information, to promote other information, to share ideas and to welcome people into their creativity and their artistic expression. It's amazing.The Internet exists as this amazing place where ideas collide and where, as stated, artistic talent is shared, debate takes place and business transactions transpire, etc. Net neutrality, this principle that all those who use the Internet would be able to do so without being discriminated against, without having some content favoured over others, is a brilliant concept.For this bill to move forward with the exclusion of proposed section 4.1 is threatening that concept of net neutrality, because instead of all things being considered equal, this bill would move forward in such a way that some content is actually demoted and some content is promoted—not all things are equal. The hand that guides this process is the government's, through a regulatory arm known as the CRTC. To put the CRTC in control of such a thing is not only daunting for them, by their own admission, but crazy. It's just ludicrous. This bill is under the guise of “modernizing” the Broadcasting Act, but the Broadcasting Act actually shouldn't be applied to the Internet, because the Internet is this incredible place that is limitless. You don't actually need the CRTC to step in and pick winners and losers, to show favouritism to some and to harm others. What's going on here, if Bill C-10 proceeds without any sort of amendment that would offer protection for the content that individuals post online, is actually the extreme censorship of material that is posted online and, therefore, an attack on this concept of net neutrality, which is something that we have held in high regard for so long. It used to be a principle that was held by all parties, so it wasn't even a partisan issue. Now, with the removal of 4.1, all of a sudden the government has turned this into a massively partisan issue, and for what? It's certainly not for the benefit of the Canadian public. The only one benefiting from Bill C-10, interestingly enough, is actually, I guess, the government, because it gets to determine the content that Canadians can and cannot access. Then it also actually benefits the big telecom giants, which is interesting, because the government would say, “No, this legislation actually goes against them.” (1300) No, it doesn't. This legislation goes against Canadians. This legislation goes against those who wish to access content online and those who wish to post content online. This legislation goes against our freedom of choice. This legislation goes against our freedom to express ourselves, to share our opinions, to share our beliefs and to share our talents with the world. That's what this legislation does—if it moves forward in its current form. Again, that is why we should be voting “yes” to the amendment being brought forward. We should want to protect Canadians. We should want to look after their well-being. We should want to give them the freedom to express themselves. We should want to allow Canadians to access the content they so desire.When we talk about net neutrality, when we talk about Canadians having access to the Internet in an equal fashion, this bill goes against that. The way we restore that principle, the way we return to the advocacy of that principle, is through the amendment that my colleague has presented. I am somewhat perplexed as to why we are not considering this amendment to a greater extent.Going back to my colleague Mr. Aitchison, he asked why we would be against proposed section 4.1. How is this bill strengthened by its removal, or how, in the opposite of that, is this bill harmed by adding this amendment, which is similar to 4.1? For all of the facial expressions that have been shown and the things that have been lipped, no one has offered to raise their hand and offer an explanation as to why the omission of 4.1 strengthens this bill or, alternatively, why adding this amendment would weaken it. I guess I would invite that, through you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if someone here would be able to provide that explanation. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would be best positioned to do that. I think many members on this committee would be interested in hearing that justification. I think many of us are baffled right now by the way this is landing.I'll leave it there.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts67737356773736ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1305)[English]Madam Clerk, we'll have a vote, please. (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)The Chair: Folks, we are currently five minutes overdue. As you know, we've just filled our normal two hours. Through implied consent, normally we'd adjourn at this hour, and we will do just that. We'll resume again on Friday, June 4. We'll see you back here again on June 4 for the resumption of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.The meeting is adjourned.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions67737476773748677374967737506773751JulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1300)[English] Welcome, everybody. It's been a bit of a break, but we're all back here at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage discussing, once again, clause-by-clause of Bill C-10. This is meeting number 37. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10.Today’s meeting takes place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. I would like to remind everyone on board that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted. Also when you are not speaking your mike should be on mute. You all know that. Since we are doing clause-by-clause, I'll give just a quick reminder. If you go back to the documents you have here, you will see in the top right-hand corner—for the people who are watching from all around the world or at least all around the World Wide Web in our universe—if I say PV and a number, PV stands for Parti vert, which is a Green Party-proposed amendment. If it says CPC, that would be a Conservative Party-proposed amendment. NDP would be from the New Democrats. BQ would be from the Bloc Québécois. Of course, LIB is from the Liberal members on our committee. Finally, if an amendment has G and a number attached to it, that is a proposed amendment from the government.(On clause 7)The Chair: If you go back to our regularly scheduled programming, you will see that we are currently on BQ-23. For that, we're going to go to Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6761597676159867615996761600676160167616026761603MartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1300)[Translation]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I'm glad to see you again, friends and colleagues.Amendment BQ-23 concerns a provision that, under Bill C-10, would be added to the Broadcasting Act to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission the necessary verification tools to meet the regulation-related requests it receives. Among other things, persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings are asked to grant the CRTC access to certain information. With this amendment, we wish to clarify, in proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(v), that the information on broadcasting services includes “any information related to any means of programming control.” We would also like to add subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(vi) to include “information related to any means of promoting, recommending or selecting programming, including Canadian programming.”I think it's important that we give the CRTC the necessary tools to verify whether persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings meet the requirements set for them.I'm open to discussion and await your comments.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67616046761605676160667616076761608ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1305)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'm going to add something to your comment. Yes, it's important that it be succinct, but we nevertheless need certain details, hence my first question.I'd like Mr. Ripley or one of the other senior officials here to explain the consequences of the Bloc Québécois' amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676161467616156761616ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith (Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1305)[English] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Rayes, for the question.There are a couple of points I would mention to the committee with respect to this motion. First of all, it seems to rely on an amended definition of “programming control” that was proposed in amendment BQ-3. That amendment was negatived, so as a result, the definition of “programming control” remains the “control over the selection of programs for transmission, but does not include control over the selection of a programming service for retransmission”. This is a defined term in the bill, and it refers to it, so I just wanted to point that out.Given that BQ-3 was not carried, the definition of “programming control” as adopted by the committee in clause 1 will be limited to the editorial function, you could say, of a person, corporate or otherwise, in choosing the program for a service or putting together programming for a schedule. It does not necessarily extend to the algorithmic control that would have been imported by the definitional change in BQ-3.Secondly, I would bring to the committee's attention that, given the changes imported by amendment G-11.1, conditions of service relating to discoverability on social media services will be limited to the discoverability of Canadian creators. Online undertakings that are not providing a social media service will be subject to programming discoverability orders more generally. As a result, the changes imported by BQ-23 would be aimed at seeking information about recommendation algorithms employed by the platform itself, it would appear, and how it operates its algorithms generally or in relation to the order-making powers outlined in proposed section 9.1. These algorithms are treated as trade secrets, generally, and a competitive advantage for the services that employ them. Therefore, any request for information on the matter is likely to be met with heavy resistance from the platform itself. I wanted to flag that for the committee. This would be especially so given the definition of “programming control” that was adopted by the committee.Finally, I have a minor point, and I would defer to the expertise of the legislative clerk on this point. It's really not a question of content, but rather a point with respect to the form of the motion. The placement of the proposed amendment may not be ideal. Proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(v) is currently included as a sort of basket clause in order to provide flexibility for the CRTC in this section generally. If the committee wishes to adopt the amendment, it might be more appropriate to sever the first part and include it as a subparagraph (iv.1), for example, and similarly label the second part of the amendment as subparagraph (iv.2). Again, I am not a drafting expert, but as written, the motion may indirectly restrict the original intent of proposed subparagraph (v), which was intended to provide some flexibility to the CRTC.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills676161867616196761620676162167616226761623676162467616256761626ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1310)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following up a little bit, I think you provided some excellent information on that from the department. When you see the phrase in there, “including Canadian programming”, how does separating that out as “Canadian programming” change the meaning of it? If you're talking about doing this, why would you separate out “including Canadian programming”? What are the repercussions? BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67616456761646ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith: (1310)[English]Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. I interpret this as more of a precision. Mr. Champoux, I don't intend to speak to the intent of your motion, so I'd be happy to have you explain this as well. I see two aspects to this motion. One is about transparency for recommendation systems in general. The second is about transparency in how they relate specifically to Canadian programming, so understanding how Canadian programming fits within a broader recommendation scheme employed by the platform. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676164767616486761649MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1315)[Translation]Thank you for that explanation, Mr. Smith.Yes, Mr. Shields, the words “including Canadian programming” are added to clarify that point. I think that's one of our main concerns about the revision of this act. However, it's true that the subparagraph wouldn't necessarily lose its meaning, and would even afford a little more flexibility, if the words “including Canadian programming” were deleted.In addition, further to the exchange between Mr. Smith and Mr. Rayes, I'd like to go back to a point concerning algorithms in general. We don't necessarily want to analyze, dissect or understand the algorithms because they are indeed changing, adaptive tools that can be updated several times a day. However, algorithms today are a predominant programming control tool and will be even more so in the future. They will likely become the tool most used by all broadcasters. If the CRTC isn't given access to all the tools it might ultimately need, including algorithms, we'll be missing an important element. I don't think we should deprive ourselves of that.I also heard someone say there will definitely be considerable resistance from online undertakings because they view algorithms as trade secrets. However, this isn't the first time we've had to regulate sectors of the industry that have trade secrets. We nevertheless have to ensure regulatory compliance. Financial market authorities also have to deal with this kind of delicate information, and they manage to do so without betraying trade secrets.I don't really think this is a problem we should fear, despite the potential outcry from online undertakings. It shouldn't prevent us from adding the tools the CRTC might need to do its job to the Broadcasting Act.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676165667616576761658676165967616606761661ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1315)[English]Thank you.I have a question for the specialists. I know that with TikTok videos, you can do 15-second videos and you can do three or four of them together to get 60 seconds. We've had TikTok videos that are maximum three minutes now. With Instagram you can do 60-second videos. Under the CRTC regulations for Canadian content, are videos under five minutes covered under the certification program for Canadian content, or are they covered under the act?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67616656761666ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1315)[English]Mr. Manly, with respect to the question of whether they would be caught under the act, the definition of “program” is broad in that it encompasses both audiovisual and audio content. It's clear that for the purposes of the act, there is no time limitation, necessarily, with respect to what may constitute a program.With respect to the question about CAVCO certification, that answer I don't have at the tip of my finger in terms of whether there's a point in time when a video is too short that it cannot be certified as Canadian content. I don't have the answer for you on that one, at this time.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills67616686761669ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1315)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I need some clarification from the department, if I could. It's really not clear in this legislation whether or not social media companies are considered to exercise programming control over the user uploads. I guess to simplify it, do social media sites have programming control?That question is for either Mr. Smith or Mr. Ripley.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676167367616746761675ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith: (1320)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thanks for the question, Mr. Waugh.Programming control, as I indicated earlier, is a defined term in the bill. Let me get the exact wording. It means: control over the selection of programs for transmission, but does not include control over the selection of a programming service for retransmission;In the example of social media services, I could perhaps provide an illustrative example. There are many facets to YouTube's service. They have original programming that they themselves produce and are for all intents and purposes in a direct programming control function in that sense. They are producing it. They are commissioning it themselves, but then there is also the programming that is uploaded by users, over which they are not exercising any degree of programming control. I think that's maybe the easiest way to sort of separate the two items here.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67616776761678676167967616806761681ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1335)[English]Okay, here we go. The subamendment would read that, in the first line of Mr. Champoux's amendment, after the words “broadcasting services” we would add “excluding social media services whose programs are primarily uploaded by users”. Then in his proposed subparagraph (vi), after the words “Canadian programming”, we would add “with the exception of algorithms or other means used by a social media service to determine the presentation of programs uploaded by users of the social media service”.Is that as clear as mud?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6761749676175067617516761752ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1335)[Translation]With regard to Mr. Aitchison's subamendment, I don't understand what would justify excluding social media undertakings from amendment BQ-23.Amendments BQ-11 and G-8, which have been adopted, clearly state this requirement. Amendment BQ-11 proposes the following:(q) online undertakings must clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery;So we weren't excluding social media. Before Mr. Aitchison moved this subamendment, we should have made substantial subamendments to those amendments, which then would have applied automatically to amendment BQ-23.We adopted amendments like BQ-11 and G-8, but, based on what's been suggested, we wouldn't be giving the CRTC the same resources for verifying social media undertakings as for broadcasting undertakings in general. I'm trying to understand the logic. The same rules should apply to everyone in this case.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67617616761762676176367617646761765ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1335)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I share Mr. Champoux's concerns regarding this subamendment. I think we all want to apply the principle of fairness in the broadcasting ecosystem. Excluding social media would be tantamount to denying the contemporary reality that social media are broadcasters. They are part of the digital broadcasting ecosystem and are bound increasingly to become broadcasters. By refusing to acknowledge that fact, we'd be maintaining a status quo that would undermine our system and our ability to invest in Quebec and Canadian cultural production. That would violate the principle involved in, and the very purpose of, modernizing the Broadcasting Act. This subamendment would be a step backward.However, Mr. Champoux's amendment is entirely acceptable.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676177067617716761772ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1340)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'm going to comment briefly on Mr. Champoux's remarks.It's true that we initially didn't include this clarification in the other two amendments you mentioned. However, considering the initial version of the bill, its introduction by the minister and the version we have today, I don't think we're dealing with the same bill at all. Since the decision was made to delete clause 4.1 as initially proposed, we now have to add some clarification regarding social media.I heard Mr. Boulerice say that social media will play a new role or an even more prominent role as broadcasters in future. I would remind you that all of us initially had the same objective for this broadcasting bill, which was to ensure that digital broadcasters such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+, which are major players affording access to programs, documentaries and series, were subject to the act on the same fair basis as our conventional broadcasters, such as CTV, Global, Radio-Canada, TVA and others. However, a change was made to include social media in the bill that raised concerns not only among the Conservative party, but also among many experts, former CRTC officials and university professors, as we've noted on several occasions. Like us, I believe you're getting increasing numbers of messages from concerned Canadians. More and more people are taking an interest in this issue as a result of our constructive, structured and extensive discussions in committee. The media are suddenly interested in this issue as a result of testimony by the Minister of Justice and theMinister of Canadian Heritage before the committee.We're no longer talking just about multinationals, but also about users and the content they put online. Even the Minister of Justice declined to tell us, during his testimony, whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected both individuals and the content they generate. He didn't want to venture an opinion on the matter after we produced, not a new legal opinion, but rather an explanatory document. We've completely taken this new bill to another level, and we'll remain concerned until we've come up with an amendment to add section 9.2 to the act. Then we can determine whether it's possible to restore part of the content that was amended to ensure we protect freedom of expression and net neutrality, regardless of what it's called. These are topical and important issues.As has been noted, we've been waiting for this bill for 30 years. We've heard the concerns of the cultural sector. There's a way to take them into consideration as well. The government is in no way prevented from supporting the cultural sector. I think it has to do so, and we all agree on that. No one is opposed to the idea of helping the cultural sector, not even Michael Geist, who was one of the country's biggest experts opposing this bill. And there are a lot of them; you need only to follow them on social media to see that's true. However, do we need to interfere with the Internet, and with these platforms that protect users, in order to help culture? They may be influencers, interlocutors or artists who, without being represented by certain groups, live solely from their work and aren't subsidized.I'm satisfied that, over the next few minutes or meetings, we can discuss the opinion that the Minister of Justice has received requesting that he list all the platforms and apps that the CRTC would then have the authority to regulate. That even includes sports apps. While you were self-isolating, you may have downloaded a training app in an effort to stay in shape. That made me realize the impact of the bill we have before us.Mr. Champoux, I think this is the only reason why we're concerned. Although we disagree on the very basis of the bill as it stands following the changes that have been made, we're trying in our own way to determine whether we can amend it and thus rectify the situation where we feel that's necessary.I believe that's the intention behind this subamendment. I'm sure Mr. Aitchison can clarify it since he was the one who moved it. Personally, this is one of my concerns. I think we'll have to find a middle ground within the committee.(1345)It wasn't talked about much in Quebec, but in my riding, people and artists who are on the web write me. For example, Mike Ward was upset by the fact that the government was trying to regulate the space where he is now disseminating his content. Some people might say that he's perhaps not the best example, but in my opinion, comedians are artists, just like singers, musicians and singer-songwriters. In my riding, there are artists who are only on social networks, have never asked for a grant and manage to earn a living. They want to be discovered not only by Canadians, but by the whole world. They are wondering about things and worried that other countries might be tempted to introduce similar regulations.I think that's why we, and in fact many Canadians, are legitimately asking ourselves about all this.I'll stop there, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67617776761778676177967617806761781676178267617836761784676178567617866761787676178867617896761790ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1350)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I just wanted to clarify.I realize not everybody has this subamendment yet, but there are some key words in here that I'm wondering if Mr. Boulerice, for example, or Mr. Champoux didn't quite catch. We were talking about social media whose programs are primarily uploaded by users—primarily uploaded by users. It's a very specific subamendment that speaks to individual users.I think the subamendment is a minor tweak to Mr. Champoux's amendment, but it actually helps us get this whole bill back in line with the memo that was produced by the deputy minister's office back in December, which talked about how social media was exempt from this particular bill but could be regulated if, in fact, it was acting as a broadcaster. However, it would still provide the exemption for individual users, so Mr. Champoux is quite correct. This is about individual users. This is about freedom of expression. This is about freedom of speech online. It's not about trying to find a loophole for big broadcasters or big streaming giants to use social media tools to get around the various different big government rules that we're trying to put in. It's another example of identifying specific individual users and putting more tools in place to protect the individual users.I'll come back to this again. I just think we have to be really careful. I hear so many comments about how we don't think the CRTC would do this or it's not in the CRTC's nature to do that. I just don't think it's wise for legislators to put legislation in place that would leave any question whatsoever about whether the CRTC might be inclined to do something it shouldn't do.That's all this is. It speaks very specifically to those whose programs are primarily uploaded by users. It's very specific. I'm not entirely sure why there would be a problem with that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6761807676180867618096761810676181167618126761813ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1415)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the French version, as pointed out by Mr. Housefather, indeed, there are explanations at the end, after the quotation marks. There are two lines of explanation that don't belong in the subamendment, so that would be that. In terms of the lines, it says:[Translation]"Que le projet de loi C-10, à l'article 7, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 2, page 8 [...]"[English] That would be, in fact, line 40 on page 7, because you removed the term “radiodiffusion” in French, so the amendment needs to start at “radiodiffusion” and takes off “services de”. Otherwise, you would have “services de services de radiodiffusion” once it was all included in the text of the bill.The other problem is that the text you have received from Mr. Aitchison is the text once the amendment of Mr. Champoux is amended, where you need to vote on the subamendment first and then, if adopted, the amendment as amended. There are two things here. If you vote on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Aitchison—what you have received—the French incorporates the whole thing. The English incorporates the whole thing as well, rather than having subamendments as it should be. Basically, in English it should read that the amendment be amended by adding after “broadcasting services”, the following...and that would be “excluding social media” and so on. Then it would continue that the amendment be amended by adding after “Canadian programming”, the following.... Then you would vote on that. If that's adopted, then you would vote on the amendment as amended, which would look like what Mr. Aitchison sent us.I hope that's clear.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6761896ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1425)[English]I'd just like to say that I would like to see the CRTC have the ability to examine these algorithms and find out how Canadians are being censored, because that is in fact what's happening on the Internet on these platforms.They're using automated content moderation. There is algorithmic bias, and we have a perfect example on May 5, the National Day of Awareness of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Red Dress Day, where hundreds of posts were disappeared off Instagram and Facebook. How did that happen? It would be good to examine that. It would be good to examine and for the CRTC to be able to see how free speech is actually being manipulated. We've seen organizations like Cambridge Analytica undermining the democracy of the U.K.We need to—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676193167619326761933ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1435)[English] I'm seeing a lot of thumbs and nodding heads. In the world of Zoom that usually means yes. I'm assuming that everyone would like to take a quick read and make sure everything is in order. I think the genuine understanding is there. For those of you who are watching from afar and wondering what the heck is going on—and there are probably a few of you—we have BQ-23. It's a motion proposed by the Bloc Québécois by Mr. Champoux. Now we're working on a proposed subamendment from Mr. Aitchison. Now that you have a copy of that, I guess it would be safe to assume that we are ready to go to a vote.(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions67619986761999676200067620016762002AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1440)[English]Hearing no, Madam Clerk, we will go to a recorded vote.(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions67620076762008MartinShieldsBow RiverScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1440)[English]Now we move to amendment CPC-9.Mr. Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67620096762010ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1440)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair for clarifying that.I think that we're all learning something about procedure. From the outset, I could tell that you have a great deal of experience. I had the opportunity to replace you once and it was quite an exercise for me. I'd like to take this moment to congratulate you and to thank the experts who have have assisted us. I believe that it's important to take the time to thank you for your work.Here is the amendment I am proposing:That Bill C-10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 8, the following:(k) the provision to the Commission, by the Corporation, of any information that the Commission considers necessary to determine whether the Corporation has satisfied the public interest criteria set out in subsection 46(6) and may proceed with the introduction of a new undertaking or activity.I'm not sure whether you would like me to give my explanations right now. Mr. Louis implied that you might rule the amendment inadmissible. I hope that's not the case and that we will be able to debate it. I'll have further explanations to give afterwards.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67620246762025676202667620276762028ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1440)[Translation]If you will allow me to, I'd like to make a very short comment. I don't want to drag out my presentation, because you asked us to be brief.This amendment gives the CRTC—you'll be surprised, because it's unusual for us to ask that the CRTC be given additional power—more power to review the activities of CBC/Radio-Canada “in order”, I would like to emphasize, to ensure that it fulfils its mandate as a public broadcaster very strictly. We're not reviewing the role or the mandate of the public broadcaster, but would like to make sure that, through the CRTC, it observes the mandate entrusted to it. We have seen some instances where the corporation launched new programs that were challenged, even by broadcasting stakeholders. We would like to ensure that the bill takes this into account.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676203067620316762032ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English] Before we discuss this any further, I would like to ask a question. I get to do that once in a while.Mr. Ripley, feel free to pass this to any one of your other officials, but again, I'll keep this within the realm of the officials. My question is quite succinct. This goes to the mandate of the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the form of the original bill, how does Bill C-10 affect the mandate of the CBC? BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676203367620346762035AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1445)[English]If I understand what's taking place, Mr. Rayes has tabled an amendment that alludes to a future amendment that introduces, I think, something along the lines of a public interest test for the corporation. The changes with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada in Bill C-10, as it was tabled, were very limited in the sense that the government acknowledged that there were recommendations in the Yale report with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada, but that it was not including CBC/Radio-Canada within the scope of Bill C-10 for the most part and that the role and mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada would be looked at in a future phase of reform.The only change that was made that affected CBC/Radio-Canada flows from the expansion of the CRTC's jurisdiction over online undertakings. Right now, the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada refers specifically to radio and television. There is a limited change being made in that context to talk about broadcasting services more broadly, to reflect the fact that CBC obviously operates as CBC Gem and ICI TOU.TV, and those are online undertakings. To ensure that the CRTC would have jurisdiction over those was the only change we proposed that affects CBC/Radio-Canada in Bill C-10.Flowing from that, Mr. Chair, indirectly of course, CBC/Radio-Canada would also be subject to the AMP regime, the administrative monetary penalty regime, that's been put in place. All broadcasters, for example CBC/Radio-Canada, would be subject to that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6762036676203767620386762039ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English] Mr. Ripley, I want to thank you very much for that.I wanted to put the cards on the table on exactly what we're doing here. I want to continue further if you will indulge me for just a moment.What this amendment does is that it adds a condition that the commission may impose by orders. It adds that the CBC shall provide information demonstrating that the corporation, the CBC/Radio-Canada, has met public service criteria set out in proposed subsection 46(6) of the act, which is in CPC-12.Let me go back to what was mentioned earlier. Of course, yes, they tie in to each other: CPC-9, CPC-10 and CPC-12, which would be proposed later. In other words, we're getting into the main part of it. Yes, it was mentioned earlier that CPC-12 is the main instigator. That is true.Right now what I'm dealing with is CPC-9, which is a part of that, and my ruling will encompass all three: CPC-9, CPC-10 and CPC-12.If you look on page 770 of this.... You have my apologies for using a prop, but this, of course, is the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Page 770 states quite simply that we cannot go beyond the principle and the scope of the bill, because we've already voted yes at second reading. Therefore, it is my ruling that this particular amendment does go beyond the scope and principle of the bill regarding the corporation.Once again, I'd like to remind everyone, if you'd turn to look at your hymn books once more, you'll see that this is a ruling on CPC-9, which is inadmissible. This also applies to CPC-10 and also CPC-12, which go beyond the principle and the scope of the bill.I see a lot of hands up. Unfortunately, I can't go into a debate on that. However, there is one option that you have. Is everyone okay with that? All right.If you look at your song sheets, we would normally go on to BQ-24, but because BQ-1 was carried some time ago, BQ-1 also applied to BQ-24. Therefore, that brings us to BQ-25. On BQ-25, we have Monsieur Champoux, please.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67620406762041676204267620436762044676204567620466762047676204867620496762050Thomas OwenRipleyMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1450)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Here is the wording of amendment BQ-25:That Bill C-10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 8 the following:(1.1) The Commission may amend the term or conditions of any order made under subsection (1).(1.2) The Commission may also suspend or revoke any order made under subsection (1) or renew it for a term not exceeding seven years and subject to the conditions that comply with that subsection.We are clearly not talking about requiring the commission to review all of the orders it has issued every seven years—not at all. This would be an absolutely painstaking task to which an organization like this ought not to be subjected.However, we would like to give the CRTC the ability to do so. For example, if there were an undertaking whose name came up frequently in complaints or which was suspected of non-compliance with respect to some of the CRTC's orders, we would like to allow the commission to review the term of these orders and have this weapon in its arsenal to be able to monitor the organization's regulatory compliance.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67620516762052676205367620546762055ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1450)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Looking at this, it looks like it just adds another bureaucratic element without its being necessary.I was wondering, though, if I could get some clarification from the department as to how this would interplay and if this is a necessary addition that would add those teeth.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676205767620586762059ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1450)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question.One observation I would have is—I heard Monsieur Champoux express that this wasn't his intention, but the concern would be—that this potentially imposes a seven-year cap on all proposed section 9.1 orders. I certainly understand that the spirit of this is to ensure that the CRTC reviews orders from time to time. I would remind the committee, though, that there are a number of different kinds of section 9.1 orders, which will vary in importance. Obviously, some may be quite important in terms of their impact, but there will be others that are more minor. The question becomes whether the intention is really to impose an obligation on the CRTC to review every order on its books. That would be one observation. The second one would simply concern the language about “conditions” of any order. I believe the spirit there is to say “may amend any order”, rather than the “term or conditions” of it. I think Monsieur Champoux was just speaking about the ability to change an order.Those would be my two observations, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676206167620626762063676206467620656762066ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1455)[English]Thank you, Chair.I want to thank Mr. Ripley for that.It's an interesting clause that Mr. Champoux puts forward. Many of us in the broadcasting field have often thought that the CRTC needs a deadline for renewals. We have seen, countless times, where you get the licence and then you walk away and don't do what was talked about in the licence. Then they'll come back in year six and look at the licence and make sure that they get the stamp for the next seven years. I think we need some regulation of this. I don't think we need to give underlings and conventional broadcasters.... They have to be accountable to people, and I think the CRTC has to be accountable to people. To give a “we'll get back to you when you're doing something bad” isn't what I would do. I think there has to be a provision to look at everything in the CRTC's purview.That's why, in a way, I don't know that I would support this, Mr. Champoux. I think the CRTC needs to be accountable not only to Canadians but to broadcasters and those online. Making sure that they have a deadline, whether it's five, four or seven years, gives the CRTC time to know that they're going to visit everybody. I think that's important. It's important for executives of Netflix and Amazon and all those companies to know that Big Brother is in fact looking over their shoulder—not every day, but there will be provisions here where they will sit down and look at what they've done over the past seven years.That's just my thought. I think it's not only good for the public, but for the corporate world too.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills676206867620696762070676207167620726762073ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1455)[English]Thank you.I appreciate the comments by Mr. Champoux and Mr. Waugh.When I look at what we're talking about with this particular bill about what the CRTC could be doing, we haven't defined a number of things, but they're going to be writing a lot of regulations that apply to a much broader spectrum than they have, figuring out who gets the money and who doesn't, and who gets Canadian content. If we broaden this into what I believe is in this particular amendment, to the department, what are we talking about? Would you view that the number of people and involvement it would take to do this would broaden the terms of this particular legislation for the role of the CRTC?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6762075676207667620776762078ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1455)[English]Perhaps I'll just start by taking a step back and reminding the committee that Bill C-10 proposes transitioning from a licence-based model to what we have called a conditions of service type of model. The bill proposes that conditions of service, which could be through orders at proposed section 9.1, regulations at proposed section 10 or proposed section 11.1, not be necessarily time limited.To Mr. Waugh's point, which is a good one right now, we know that licence renewal is the key point when the CRTC tends to turn its magnifying glass on a particular organization and look at compliance. Bill C-10 proposes a shift from that as well, in the sense that, as the committee knows, it's proposing the introduction of an administrative monetary penalty regime. That would allow the CRTC, at any point in time, to call a broadcasting undertaking before it if there's a question of compliance and potentially subject them to an AMP if they're found not compliant. The goal is also to shift the CRTC to a more regular kind of enforcement footing as opposed to waiting for seven years before a licence is up for renewal before it looks at some of those compliance issues.Mr. Shields, indeed the bill does apply to a broader scope of undertakings, including online undertakings, as the committee knows well. The bill allows the CRTC to amend an order of its own motion or at the request of a party at any time. Again, the position is that, once an order's in place, it's not set in stone. From that perspective, the amendment on the table, in proposed subsection 9.1(1.1), confirms what would already be the case—that the CRTC has the ability to amend an order. As I highlighted, it's proposed subsection 9.1(1.2), though, that suggests that the CRTC would be under an obligation to renew an order for a period not exceeding seven years. It again raises the question of whether it's workable or effective to require the CRTC to look at every single order that it may have on the books on a recurring seven-year basis, as opposed to identifying the biggest impact orders in terms of those that may need to be reviewed because of a change in technology, a change in business models or those kinds of things.I hope that helps answer your question, Mr. Shields.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67620806762081676208267620836762084ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1505)[English]I believe we have lost Mr. Regan. Unfortunately, we'll have to move on. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2) The Chair: That leaves just one thing. Folks, as a quick note before we adjourn, we'll call it to an end here and when we come back on Monday we'll start with amendment CPC-9.1, which has been a later addition. If you don't have that amendment, can you please contact the clerk? We have endeavoured to find either extra time during the meetings or extra days. I'm afraid we have not been successful at all. The calendar is quite full, and of course, Friday becomes problematic for extending hours because of the services.We will continue, but for this week it's not possible and it looks as though it won't be possible next week either. If we do get an opening, I'll make sure that it's with ample notice, as I've pledged to you before and I pledge to you again. Otherwise, we'll see you on Monday at 11, eastern time. It was a great debate today, as always, and I thank you all. The meeting is adjourned. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions67621016762102676210367621046762105676210667621076762108JulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1410)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'm speaking to my motion today to invite Mr. Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of Heritage, to come to the ethics and privacy committee to testify on the plans that are being led through the heritage department to deal with the allegations of non-consensual sexual assault videos that exist on PornHub.At the April 12 ethics meeting, we were informed by security minister Bill Blair that the government of Mr. Trudeau will “introduce legislation to create a new regulator that will ensure online platforms remove harmful content, including depictions of child sexual exploitation and intimate images that are shared without consent” and that “Public Safety Canada and other departments are working on this proposed legislation with Canadian Heritage, which leads this effort.”We have had no indication of what this new regulator is and I think we need clarity.I would just step back a minute and say that this all stems from the December 2020 reports that came out of the United States on horrific abuse of children and sexual assault victims on PornHub, a company that is based in Canada. We began our study at that time to see if our laws were insufficient or if there was a problem. We asked the RCMP to come. The RCMP have made it clear that they are not moving forward with allegations against PornHub. They've talked about their being a partner. They've talked about voluntary compliance.I received the RCMP's internal briefing documents in response to the December 2020 article, and in that document, it talks about what next steps have to be done and it mentions the leadership of the heritage department. My office asked the RCMP to send us the blacked-out information to explain why the RCMP is deferring to Mr. Guilbeault's office. My staff was told that this would breach cabinet confidence. What that tells me is that after the December 2020 article came out in The New York Times on PornHub, this issue was discussed at the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a decision was made then to have Mr. Steven Guilbeault and the heritage department handle this file, rather than transferring it over to police, to the Attorney General or to public security.I think this is really important. We cannot finish our PornHub study without knowing what exactly the government's plan is, because we have Bill C-10 right now that Mr. Guilbeault is in charge of, and I think the government shocked everybody when they decided to put user-generated content under Bill C-10. I've talked to many arts organizations that were shocked that Bill C-10 includes user-generated content. It is nothing that the artists' community wanted. They want Facebook and Google to pay their share. Where is this user-generated content coming from? Is this to address the allegations the survivors brought to us on PornHub?If that is the case, Mr. Guilbeault needs to explain that, because I don't think you could disrespect survivors in any more of an egregious fashion than to suggest that sexual assault videos or videos of the torture of children that were brought forward to our committee are somehow considered user-generated content in Canada. What does that say to survivors? What does that say to the women of the global south who I have been meeting with, who are speaking from Nigeria, Colombia, Spain and France, talking about the sexual assault videos from their countries that are being posted on a Canadian site?Are the Liberals telling us that they consider sexual assault and criminal acts mere content that can be handled by a regulator? Are they going to hand it off to the CRTC under Bill C-10, or are they going to create a new pornography regulator? I would like to know what that pornography regulator would be, because, again, I had excellent meetings following the debacle of our meetings with the sex workers, and Ms. Lukings provided really interesting analysis of how what we want to do is to make sure we hold corporations accountable for what's online, but we don't want to push stuff to the dark net.(1415)If the Liberals have this idea that Mr. Guilbeault could set up some kind of regulator to tell us—I don't know—Canadian content in porn, good porn, bad porn.... Do we need a regulator or do we simply need the Liberal government to apply the laws? We can look at the laws we have in Canada. In section 162 of the Criminal Code, it is a crime to film the private acts of individuals or people without their consent. It is a crime to circulate, to sell, to advertise or to make available the recording. We have a law. In section 163, sexual videos of crime, cruelty and violence are classified as criminal in behaviour. We heard from the survivors of non-consensual sexual assault videos that their videos were videos of crime, cruelty and violence. Section 164 gives the authorities, which would be the RCMP, the power to issue warrants to seize the recordings of voyeuristic videos of crimes as well as child pornography. We have mandatory reporting laws. We have learned that Pornhub has not followed through on them. Pornhub has not respected the laws we have in this country. The Attorney General doesn't seem to even think it applies, because he's not sure if this Montreal-based company is a Canadian company. If the Attorney General, who lives in Montreal, isn't sure that Pornhub is a Canadian company, even though their address is on Décarie Boulevard and everybody in Montreal who goes to work passes their office in the morning, then how are we expected to believe that the CRTC or some kind of regulator will handle this?I think Mr. Guilbeault needs to come and explain this to us. What is the government's plan for dealing with the issues of sexual violence on Pornhub that have come to our committee? Are we going to ignore Canadian law or are we going to establish the CRTC to do this? Is this going to be Bill C-10 or...? Mr. Blair suggested that they're going to create a new regulator. I think Mr. Guilbeault needs to come and inform us so that we can actually finish a report on what Parliament needs to do to address these disturbing allegations of brutality and non-consensual sexual assault of women, not just from Canada but from around the world. We need to be able to respond to those survivors and to the Canadian people that we've done our job. We cannot do that job without Mr. Guilbeault coming and explaining why he is the lead person appointed by the Trudeau government to address these very serious allegations. I'd like to bring that motion forward for a vote.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationCommittee businessCommittee witnessesMotionsPrivacy and data protectionWeb sites677939567793976779402ChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—Mackenzie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104806Marie-HélèneGaudreauMarie-Hélène-GaudreauLaurentides—LabelleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaudreauMarieHélène_BQ.jpgInterventionMs. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau: (1420)[Translation]I'm going to keep my turn this time. I have something else to say, but I'd like to comment on the motion.We have seven meetings left. If I understand correctly, four of them are to review reports. That leaves us three meetings.Furthermore, we are aware that Ms. Shanahan may be putting forward a motion today.Top of mind are the people watching us and following our proceedings. The purpose of the original motion, adopted in December, was to meet with the owners and executives of Pornhub. Naturally, once we started looking into the matter, we wanted to go deeper. Unfortunately, the committee doesn't meet five days a week or have 20 hours of meeting time a week. My biggest concern is finalizing the reports. Let's be frank: we could take longer. After all, the committee has gone over the time allotted in the past.We have three meetings left. I'm sure my fellow members have suggestions on how we can end the session on as good of a note as we started it on. I won't go on about it, but I am quite concerned about the committee's ability to be effective, on behalf of those who are counting on us. We need to respect the purview of each committee. A committee can study an issue inside and out. As mentioned, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women took a different approach in the case of Pornhub, deciding to apply a different lens. The same is true in this case: the committee is examining Bill C-10.I just want to be sure that the right work is being done at the right place.That is my first concern.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCommittee business6779421ChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieChrisWarkentinGrande Prairie—Mackenzie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1430)[English] I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.Pursuant to the order of reference of February 16 and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.As I mentioned earlier, when we left we were with G-11.1. I see there is a great deal of interest on the board. There are hands up.Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead, please.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674000767400086740009674001067400116740012JulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1430)[English]Ms. Dabrusin, I'm sorry, but just before you finish, I didn't have a chance to say, for all those watching on television or the Internet through our web page, that we are doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I forgot to mention that this is clause-by-clause.I'm sorry for the interruption, Ms. Dabrusin. Carry on, please.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6740015JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1430)[English]It's about declaring what the companies are making in Canada, requiring financial contributions to cultural production funds in Canada, and making Canadian creators of programs discoverable. That is why G-11.1 is being proposed.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674001767400186740019ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1430)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to offer my support to this. I'm looking forward to getting back to it. I think G-11.1 strikes the balance. I'd like to hear from others, work together and get this done in a judicious manner. That's all I wanted to say.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674002167400226740023ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1435)[English]Thank you, Mr. Rayes. Since G-11.1 is now moved, as Ms. Dabrusin pointed out, we are in the middle of that debate. If you wish to move a motion—I'm assuming it's about Bill C-10—that certainly falls within the purview of the committee to examine, but we have to dispense with what's on the table right now. That would be G-11.1, as far as the amendment is concerned.In saying that, would you like to talk about G-11.1?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6740031AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien (Toronto Centre, Lib.): (1435)[English] Mr. Chair, I was just going to express support for G-11.1 and say that I'm looking forward to getting this work done.That's all for me.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67400386740039ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I would like to propose a subamendment to amendment G–11.1.In proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), which talks about “the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs”, I would like to replace “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs”. So it would say “the discoverability of Canadian programs”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67400416740042ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1435)[Translation]At the end of the text the amendment proposes to add after line 10 on page 8, I would like to add the following:Interpretation(3.2) for greater certainty, paragraph (1)(i.1) shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings.I have in hand the English and French texts, which I can send to the clerk.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674004867400496740050ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1440)[Translation]I think that says it all, Mr. Chair. Paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), as proposed in the amendment, talks about “Canadian creators of programs”. However, that is not a term generally used in the texts we are now reviewing under Bill C-10. It is rather a matter of Canadian content, francophone content or programs, or even of human, creative and other resources. So I felt that the term “Canadian creators of programs” does not refer to something very specific. However, the term “Canadian programs” does refer to what we want to make discoverable for users, in the context of the Canadian broadcasting system. That is my explanation for this part of the subamendment.As for the second part, the aim is to add wording to reassure people who may be concerned about the act being interpreted so as to infringe on freedom of expression. So this notion is added to the part on interpretation, to encourage the CRTC not to lose sight of needing to make its decisions while keeping in mind that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a fundamental principle, that of the freedom of expression enjoyed by Canadians. As such, this is about the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings.It is pretty simple and clear.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6740063674006467400656740066ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1445)[English]I thank Monsieur Champoux for putting forward the subamendment. The second part, the part that we had in the email, seems like a good addition to me, but I am concerned about the first part that was just added in this last piece that he talked about, with changing what would be discoverability for social media companies. I think that, around the committee, if there's one thing that we all agree upon, it is that the content on social media shouldn't be covered. For me, I have a concern that the amendment on the discoverability piece actually changes it.I am wondering if perhaps someone from the department might be able to help clarify what they believe the impact would be of the change that is proposed to proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1).BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67400736740074ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1445)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin.If I understand the amendment correctly, it would replace the phrase “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs” or “Canadian programming”. Indeed, that is a change, in the sense that, as drafted right now, the discoverability power that is being provided to the CRTC is explicit about raising the visibility of Canadian creators, so the emphasis is on the individual creator or artist and showcasing them on these services, not their programs. Mr. Champoux is correct that the act does have a definition of “program”. Changing that power to focus on the program would be a significant change, in that then the obligation on the services changes from raising the visibility of or showcasing the actual individual creators or artists to their Canadian programs. The term “Canadian program”, just so that the committee is aware.... If you look at section 10 of the act, the CRTC has the ability to make regulations defining what constitutes Canadian programming. The committee may be aware that this is what engages the question of the 10-point scale and those kinds of things.The discoverability power, as it is currently drafted, was really intended to focus on the individual creator or artist, as opposed to getting into the question of what constitutes Canadian programming on social media services. Social media services are obviously a very different kind of environment from conventional broadcasting, so the focus on the individual creator or artist was intentional: It was not to create a situation where you may be asking social media companies to assess what constitutes a Canadian program.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills67400766740077674007867400796740080ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1455)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to propose something similar to Ms. Dabrusin's proposal.I would propose to Mr. Champoux to move two different subamendments—one for the first part and another one for the second part—so that we can vote separately on each part. Perhaps he wants to make a connection between the two, but I don't think there really is a connection between them. I may be wrong about Mr. Champoux's intention, but I think it is a good one. If he agreed to do this, it would resolve the issue for everyone. Ultimately, these are still significant amendments. Once we finish discussing these amendments, Mr. Chair, I would like you to give us five minutes to allow colleagues from each party to discuss amongst themselves and to decide how to vote.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6740109674011067401116740112ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1455)[English]One moment. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Champoux, but I have to put this horse before the cart. I need unanimous consent to withdraw your subamendment. Is there anybody who is against the idea of withdrawing the subamendment?(Subamendment withdrawn)The Chair: That being said, Ms. Harder, with your permission, because you are next in line to speak and I'd like to be close to the speaking order, would you allow Mr. Champoux to proceed with his subamendment, the first one, and then we can go to you to speak? I'm giving you a veto, essentially.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6740119674012067401216740122MartinChampouxDrummondRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1500)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. As agreed, I will propose two subamendments. I have no issue with pausing to discuss them. The goal of the first subamendment I am proposing is simply to change a few words in order to end up with the following:(i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian programs;As far as I understand, Mr. Chair, we will take a break and deal with this subamendment, and then I will be able to propose the other subamendment. Is that right? Can I propose both subamendments right away?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67401326740133674013467401356740136ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1500)[English]Thank you.I wish to seek perhaps Mr. Owen Ripley's response to this. I'm just wondering if the significance of this change can be explained to us, changing “discoverability of Canadian creators of programs” to simply “discoverability of Canadian programs”. Perhaps that nuance could be explained to the committee so that we better understand the effect of that change.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67401466740147ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummondThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1500)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I go by Owen. Thank you for asking.The big difference is kind of the unit to which the discoverability power would apply. As it's currently crafted, the obligation or the power is in relation to the individual creator or artist, so if the CRTC were to exercise that, it would be limited in requiring social media services to raise the visibility of the creator or artist, as opposed to their programming. With the subamendment by Mr. Champoux, the unit of analysis, so to speak, would shift from the individual creator or artist to the idea of “Canadian program”. Mr. Champoux is right that it is a concept that is well known and exists in the broadcasting system. As I mentioned, there's a power that the CRTC has to kind of specify what constitutes a Canadian program, so it would then be given the power to impose obligations on social media services to raise the discoverability of the programs, as opposed to the actual individual creators or artists.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67401546740155674015667401576740158ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1510)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ripley, we are bombarding you with questions, but I think they are quite relevant. At first sight, when Mr. Champoux proposed the first part of his subamendment, its aim was to replace “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs”, and I saw this as a simple superficial amendment. However, I have listened to your comments, especially those in response to Ms. Harder's questions. The further we get, the more she is showing her knowledge on the topic, and the more I am finding that the amendment is not just a superficial one. It is rather an important amendment. I am happy Mr. Champoux agreed to divide his subamendment in two, so that we can vote. I would like you to clarify something for me.At first, when Bill C-10 was introduced, the objective was for the activities of digital broadcasters, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Spotify, to be regulated in a fair manner compared with the activities of our so–called traditional broadcasters, such as TVA, CBC, CTV and Global. The basis of the bill is very technical; we can see that in all the proposed amendments, the scope of this issue and the reactions to it around the country.To ensure that I understand properly, I would like you to explain something to me, as this will impact my response to this subamendment. As you pointed out, everything we are trying to do is related to the initially proposed section 4.1. The government is trying to integrate elements to compensate for the shortcomings stemming from this section's deletion. The rift occurred when social media were brought into the discussion. In the beginning, it was a matter of digital broadcasters like Netflix, which is not a social network such as Facebook or TikTok. Now, YouTube, TikTok and all social networks have been integrated as potential broadcasters.As you pointed out so well, the bill provides no definition of social media. You say that the CRTC will define what constitutes a social medium and what constitutes a Canadian program. I think we all agree on what a Canadian program is when it comes to traditional broadcasters. Those rules have been in place for a long time. Now, the Internet has joined the conversation. For me, Netflix is on the Internet. However, a social network is another type of platform. We always talk about the same social networks we, the old generation, are familiar with; I will put all of us into the old generation category. My children, who are 19, 23 and 25 years old, use other social networks that I dare not even mention, as I may get the name wrong. The youth are using them by the millions around the world.I am honestly a bit shaken today, and I would like you to clarify this for me. Without a definition, we are all relying on the CRTC. Unless I am mistaken, the corporation has nine months following the passing of Bill C-10 to set out clear rules. Is that right? Do I understand the situation correctly or am I completely off course? If so, tell me, and I will accept it with humility.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67401936740194674019567401966740197674019867401996740200ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1515)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.The starting point is the definition of an online undertaking, which is an “undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”.As you can see, the concept of programs is part of the definition of an online undertaking. Here is how the act defines a program: “sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain, but does not include visual images, whether or not combined with sounds, that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text”.The starting point is that certain social media are included in the definition of an online undertaking. So they are subject to the act, barring an exclusion. As you know, there are two relevant exclusions—proposed subsection 2(2.1), which indicates that an individual who is using social media is not a broadcaster under the act, as well as the initially proposed section 4.1, which contained an exclusion for social media under certain circumstances.When we testified for the first time to present the bill, we explained that the social media business model was complicated. Certain social media, like YouTube, are already included in one part of the bill. If they behave like a broadcaster—in other words, if the social media undertakings themselves are controlling content—they are subject to the act.I repeat that the change proposed here is to replace what was initially planned in proposed section 4.1—which was deleted—with the limited powers described in the amendment the committee is now discussing. The starting point is that social media are included in the definition of an online undertaking.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67402026740203674020467402056740206674020767402086740209ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1520)[English]Thank you.I think we've had a very helpful conversation and discussion so far. What I take from it is that it really helps to clarify the point that G-11.1, as it's been drafted, specifically in proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), has discoverability that does not apply to content, and the subamendment that has been proposed by Mr. Champoux would actually extend that to cover content.I have found this actually very helpful, and I want to thank everyone for that. What helps me is that it gives me much greater comfort that, as worded, the original proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1) in G-11.1 specifically does not cover the content. It doesn't require discoverability of content, and it applies only to making Canadian creators more visible. I just wanted to thank you.I will be voting against the amendment to proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1) in G-11.1.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6740222674022367402246740225ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1530)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I appreciated the conversation, so let's get it down, for my mind, in the simplest terms. Under the subamendment, we are talking about whether, let's say, a study of the beluga whales in the St. Lawrence is Canadian content versus—with the original motion—whether it's a Canadian in South Africa studying South African penguins. You are talking about the individual in one, and the content in the other. Is that what we're talking about here in those two, Mr. Ripley?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674026867402696740270ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1530)[English]Mr. Shields, thank you for that question.The short form is yes: The difference is between the individual and the program. Again, I think the intention is not to deny the fact that these services are used in a variety of ways. That is what makes them so challenging to deal with from a regulatory perspective. The question that this committee is grappling with is where the appropriate line is, in terms of ensuring that they make a meaningful contribution to the broadcasting system while also recognizing that lots of people post different kinds of content to these services that isn't really cultural content in the purest sense of the word.Again, I don't want to underplay the work that the CRTC will have to do in giving that effect, but it's also why I would highlight that it's important that it be done in consultation with the folks this is going to impact. It's important that creators have their say in that. It's important—to your point, Mr. Shields—that social media services have their say in that as well, in terms of actually bringing forward a regime that, if the discoverability power remains in it, will work for everybody at the end of the day.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674027167402726740273MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1535)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Ripley, as we move forward, new questions come to mind. I'm sorry for dragging out the discussion, Mr. Champoux, but I find that I'm learning almost more today than I've learned since the start of this study.If we don't pass Mr. Champoux's subamendment and we go back to the government's original amendment, which talks about “the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs,” we won't know what constitutes a Canadian creator. It could be anyone. As you confirmed, Mr. Ripley, it isn't defined. The CRTC will have to define it. There's no mention of professional Canadian creators, for example. If need be, I could create my own program on social media. I'm thinking of a young Quebecker who created his own program, 7 jours sur Terre, and who is followed by thousands of people. He even has his own subscription system. This has become a side gig for him, or maybe it's his main job. I have no idea. Thousands of people follow him in real time.Since the original proposed section 4.1 was removed from the bill three weeks ago, the government has been telling us that users aren't affected by Bill C-10, even without that section. Over the course of our discussion, questions have been coming to mind. I'm thinking as I'm talking to you. I can see that, in proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), the government is asking for, “in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs.” So, indirectly, if a Canadian were to create their own program on social media for fun, the CRTC would be asked to determine whether to ensure the discoverability of that program and, if so, to establish how to do this. Is that right?For three weeks now, the minister has been telling everyone that users aren't affected by this bill after the removal of proposed section 4.1. However, I can see the intention to reinstate a provision in the bill that could directly affect users. In any event, I'm raising the issue.Do I understand this properly?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6740287ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1540)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'll keep it short.First, I must say that I'm quite in favour of the subamendment proposed by Mr. Champoux. He tried to remind us of the idea behind the discoverability requirement. We want people to be able to discover productions, programs, films and television series. We want to make sure that our stories, Quebec and Canadian stories, can be easily found online.Personally, I really like director Anaïs Barbeau-Lavalette. However, I would prefer that people discover not Anaïs Barbeau-Lavalette, but rather her film, Goddess of the Fireflies. Afterwards, they can discover the director. In my opinion, it's important to put things in the right order. We want to highlight Quebec and Canadian productions. I'm therefore quite in favour of Mr. Champoux's subamendment.Second, I want to go back to the definition of social media. I don't think that we should box ourselves in or limit ourselves. We must give the CRTC the flexibility and freedom to face the future. As Mr. Rayes said, our children are using social media that we don't know about. Honestly, this is also true for me. We need to leave the door open and let the CRTC define social media. If we define it today, in May 2021, the definition will probably be outdated in six months or a year.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67402966740297674029867402996740300ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1545)[English] I wanted to clarify that as well. There is a system within the CRTC. When you're talking about music, there's something called MAPL, which is music, artist, performance and lyrics. It's a scoring system to determine how you figure out whether something is Canadian content or not. There's a similar set of rules for broadcasting, for documentary production—producers and directors, the actors, the companies involved. The CRTC has already set up these kinds of rules that would determine how we figure out what is Canadian content and what is not Canadian content. That's basically how the system works. The CRTC has been fairly clear about this. I think it's not going to impinge on people's freedom of speech, because you can still post what you want on your social media channels. It just means that the algorithm that says “If you like that, you might like this” is going to show you something and say, “This is a Canadian program you might be interested in.” Maybe they'd put a little Canadian flag on it or something to indicate that, for discoverability, this is something you might want to watch that is Canadian.That's just a comment I wanted to make.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6740310674031167403126740313ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1545)[English]Thank you, Mr. Manly.I see no further conversation.Just so that we're all clear—it's been a bit of time since it was proposed—we're now working on amendment G-11.1, put forward by Ms. Dabrusin. We're currently voting on the subamendment as proposed by the Bloc, by Mr. Champoux, which simply proposes to take out the words “creators of”. This is the English version, and I'm assuming my interpretation went through. Has everybody now understood?Very well, then, we will now proceed to the vote. This is on the subamendment by Mr. Champoux.(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions674031467403156740316674031767403186740319PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1550)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.My second subamendment concerns paragraph (b) of amendment G-11.1, which proposes to amend clause 7 of Bill C-10 by adding subsection 9.1(3.1) after line 10 on page 8. My subamendment seeks to amend the amendment by adding the following to the end of the proposed text:Interpretation (3.2) For greater certainty, paragraph (1)(i.1) shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674032267403236740324ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1600)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.As I explained earlier, this subamendment provides an additional safeguard in response to the concern raised in recent weeks by a number of people, including our colleagues in the Conservative Party, about the possible infringement on freedom of expression.The purpose of my proposed subamendment is to ensure that, when making decisions, the CRTC will always consider the significance of the fundamental principle of freedom of expression.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674034167403426740343ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1600)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Champoux said that the Conservative Party members were very concerned. I just want to point out that they aren't the only people concerned. We speak for many people across the country, including experts, as everyone has seen. Experts from a variety of backgrounds may have different opinions.That said, it will still be a good initiative to protect freedom of expression in every possible place in the bill. As the saying goes, you can't be too careful. If, based on the comments and explanations provided by the experts, we can add an additional layer of protection to address the concerns of a number of experts and Canadians, that would be good.I'll also be moving an amendment in this area soon.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6740346674034767403486740349ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1605)[English]Thank you.I guess I'm just looking for some clarification. Again, perhaps Mr. Ripley would be the best one to comment on this.It's about the phrase “freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings”. I'm not sure what that means, “freedom of expression enjoyed”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674035367403546740355ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1605)[English]Thank you for the question, Ms. Harder.I guess the starting point would be perhaps to point all members to subsection 2(3) of the act, which talks about the act being “construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.” At its heart, the Broadcasting Act has recognized that media are obviously in the business of sharing ideas and opinions and that freedom of expression is very important. A lot of the debate over the last few weeks has focused on the issue of the interaction between social media services, which, again, are caught by the definition of “online undertaking” and being regulated, and the intersection with users who use those services. If I understand the intention of the amendment correctly, it would be to clarify that the CRTC, in applying that discoverability power, should do it in a way that is consistent with freedom of expression, i.e., the ability for users to post and upload the content they wish to social media services. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6740357674035867403596740360ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1620)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I just want to clarify some things for Ms. Harder about what “Canadian production” means. You can find this on the CRTC site: The CRTC only certifies Canadian film or television productions that meet the following criteria:The producer must be a Canadian and must act as the central decision-maker from the development stage until the production is ready for commercial exploitation.The production must earn a minimum number of points based on the key creative functions that are performed by Canadians [director, screenwriter, actors, etc.]. Usually, a minimum of 6 out of 10.At least 75% of the production’s services costs must be paid to Canadians and at least 75% of the production’s post-production and laboratory costs must be paid for services provided in Canada by Canadians or Canadian companies. The production must qualify for certification—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6740404674040567404066740407674040867404096740410ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1620)[English]Thank you, Mr. Manly.Seeing no further discussion on the subamendment by Mr. Champoux, we now proceed to a vote.(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We now go back to the main amendment, which is G-11.1. If you're following along at home, G signifies that it is an amendment put forward by the government, moved by Ms. Dabrusin. This is G-11.1 as amended. Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67404206740421674042267404236740424PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1620)[English] Seeing no hands, I'll say yes, we can proceed to the vote.The vote is on amendment G-11.1 as amended by Mr. Champoux, if you recall that.(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Monsieur Rayes, you have the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6740426674042767404286740429AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1625)[Translation]It's dated May 11, 2021. I can't tell you the exact number, but it's the one that calls for clause 7 of Bill C-10 to be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6740437AiméeBelmoreScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1625)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The amendment moves that clause 7 of Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following: 9.2 This Act does not apply in respect of (a) programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—who is not the provider of the service or the provider's affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission or retransmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service; and(b) online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of such programs.This amendment is being introduced in an effort to work with everyone, given what happened after the removal of proposed section 4.1.My colleague, Mr. Champoux, has asked this question several times. The minister even told us that the committee was responsible for these decisions. We would like to address the situation and dispel all lingering concerns by proposing this amendment, which applies to the place in the bill that we're studying today.We've heard from several experts. For the past three weeks, our work has been stalled because of the unwillingness of the two ministers. Actually, I shouldn't say that. Rather, the government members on the committee didn't want the ministers to appear from the beginning. In the end, everything worked out over time. I want to acknowledge that and thank everyone.I want to propose this amendment so that we can break the deadlock in relation to the issue of freedom of expression and the protection of content. That's why this amendment is so important today.I hope that all my colleagues will see the value in this. I'll end on that note and let them discuss the matter. When I spoke earlier about the second subamendment proposed by Mr. Champoux, I said that, as the saying goes, you can't be too careful. I think that it would be in our interest to pass the amendment. This would show the government's willingness to protect freedom of expression and to address the current concerns of a number of people across the country.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6740448ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88827PeterFragiskatosPeter-FragiskatosLondon North CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FragiskatosPeter_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Fragiskatos (London North Centre, Lib.): (1530)[English]Thank you, Chair. I'll have to go back to the record afterwards. I think I heard Ms. Jansen say that she may not be voting in favour of the budget, which stunned me a great deal. I think we're all very surprised by that.I would also point Ms. Jansen and Conservative colleagues, if they wish to take a look, to the most recent data, which has regularly for the past several weeks put Canada in the very top tier—either first some days, second other days, third other days, but no worse than third—in the G20 for vaccinations per day being administered. It's really something that I think needs to be corrected here. Yes, we can do better, of course, but we're doing extremely well right now. The effect of that rhetoric, Chair, is that it generates a sense of concern and I would say even fear that is not well placed. If we're going to be seized with issues at this committee, let's focus on the facts rather than contribute to these myths that opposition colleagues have been peddling recently. It's a different issue altogether, but we've seen what has happened with Bill C-10, concerning which Facebook has been alive and well with conspiracy theories about censorship in recent weeks, and we all know they're not true.I will, however, focus on the issue at hand here, Chair. I just wanted to put those points of view on the record. Mr. Telles, thank you very much for representing youth here today. Thank you very much for being an advocate. Ms. Dzerowicz took my question, unfortunately, which was to ask you about student debt. It was great to see that there were a number of measures put in place in budget 2021 to help students with debt. That matters a lot for me, because prior to taking on the role of a member of Parliament, I taught at Western for a number of years, where I saw students really impacted in such negative ways by student debt. What I also saw was the mental health challenges that young people faced. I think we all know—we've heard the stories in our own communities—about the way the pandemic has exacerbated that challenge for young people. Could you speak to that? I know the budget provides a very sizable investment for mental health in this country and for improved services.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsMental healthYoung people6750443PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeSimonTelles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1430)[English] Welcome back, everybody. Once again, just 22 hours later, here we sit once more with Bill C-10.Today, we're doing witness testimony. With us today we have both ministers and officials. I'm just going to briefly introduce them for you. We have the Hon. Steven Guilbeault, who is the Minister of Canadian Heritage and who has been here before.We also have the Hon. David Lametti, the Minister of Justice.From the Department of Justice, we have Nathalie Drouin, the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Sarah Geh, director general, human rights law section; and Michael Himsl, legal counsel. Once again, and no strangers to us now by any means, from the Department of Canadian Heritage we have Thomas Owen Ripley, director general, and Drew Olsen, senior director.We have an hour and perhaps a bit. I know we have an hour with the minister, but, Minister, bear with us. Sometimes we tend to go five minutes over. I say that with trepidation, but you can try to hold us to it.That being said, we usually do four questions in the opening round and four questions in the second round. I'm hoping to accomplish that. If we have time left, we can do more. That would give an extra one spot for the Conservatives and then the Liberals. In the meantime, I'm going to try to hold to these eight speaking spots. Mr. Guilbeault, you're not doing an opening statement, but we understand Mr. Lametti is.Minister Lametti, welcome to the committee. You have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours, sir.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6747498DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice): (1430)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.I wish to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you today from Ottawa on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the charter statement that was tabled for Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document requested for the proposed amendments now before the committee.As you can see, I'm appearing alongside Minister Guilbeault, who is the minister responsible for Bill C-10. I am accompanied by officials from my department.[Translation]I want to begin by discussing the duty I have under the law, as Minister of Justice, to prepare statements regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for government bills introduced in the House of Commons.I will discuss the purpose of charter statements and provide the context, including their history. I will explain what charter statements are meant to do and not do.I will also gladly speak to the charter statement tabled in relation to Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document provided to the committee concerning the potential effects of the proposed amendments on freedom of expression.(1435)[English]I should note at the outset that it is not my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give legal advice to parliamentary committees. You have access to your own legal counsel and independent witnesses.As you are aware, however, I do have obligations under the Department of Justice Act in terms of reviewing proposed government bills for inconsistency with the charter and preparing charter statements for government bills. This obligation was created by our government to be open and transparent with Canadians about the charter considerations of our legislation.These two sets of obligations—examining bills and preparing charter statements—are both focused on the bill as tabled.[Translation]Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in the House of Commons for every government bill. That obligation came into force in December 2019.Examining bills for potential inconsistency with the charter, as set out in section 4.1, is one of my most important responsibilities. Rest assured that I also take very seriously the obligation to ensure charter statements are tabled in the House, as set out in section 4.2.Now I will turn to the purpose of charter statements.Charter statements are intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a government bill. They foster transparency regarding the effects of a government bill on the fundamental values protected by the charter. They provide parliamentarians with additional information to further inform the important legislative debates they have on behalf of Canadians. Charter statements also provide Canadians with additional information to help them participate in these debates through their elected representatives.The obligation to table charter statements is a testament to our government's commitment to respect and uphold the charter, as an integral part of the country's good governance. We can never abdicate our responsibility as a government to ensure that our decisions—including those reflected in the reform of an act—respect our fundamental rights and freedoms. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act strengthens the obligation this government and future governments have to respect this most basic of requirements.[English] I would like to take a few moments to explain the content of charter statements. In keeping with their purpose, charter statements are drafted at a high level. They set out in an accessible way the potential effects a bill may have on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Charter statements also explain considerations that support the constitutionality of a bill. In our discussion of the charter, it is also important to stress that, when Parliament legislates, it may have an effect on charter rights and freedoms. This may include limiting people's enjoyment or exercise when it is in the broader public interest to do so. This is entirely legitimate. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter are not absolute, but rather subject to reasonable limits, as long as those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This means that, when identifying the potential effect of a bill that could limit a right or a freedom, it may also be necessary to consider whether the limit is reasonable and justified. A charter statement may therefore outline considerations relevant to the potential justifiability of a bill. The fact that charter rights and freedoms can be limited, however, is not a licence to violate them. Rather, it is a reminder that any legislative limits to rights and freedoms must be carefully considered in the context of the shared values of Canada's unique, free and democratic society. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to discuss and debate potential effects on charter guarantees. We exercise our judgment on behalf of Canadians as to whether proposed legislation strikes the right balance between rights and freedoms and the broader public interest. Charter statements are one more source of information to add to our deliberations.[Translation]I would also like to take a moment to explain what a charter statement is not.A charter statement is not a legal opinion. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the constitutionality of a bill.As I mentioned, a charter statement provides Parliament and the public with legal information relating to the possible effects of a bill on the rights guaranteed by the charter and to the considerations that support the consistency of the bill with the charter.As we all know, bills often change when they are being considered by Parliament. A charter statement reflects the bill at the time it was introduced by the government in the House of Commons. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act does not require that charter statements be updated as a bill progresses through Parliament.Keeping that in mind, I will now turn to the proposed amendments to Bill C-10 in relation to social media, which are before the committee.My fellow minister Mr. Guilbeault talked about the scope of the proposed amendments. He highlighted the key objectives underlying the amendments and discussed their intended effects on social media services and users.In short, the proposed amendments are intended to empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to regulate a social media service in respect of programs uploaded by its unaffiliated users, strictly in relation to the following: payment of regulatory charges, such as to support the creation of Canadian programming; discoverability of Canadian creators; registration of the service; provision of information; and auditing of records.(1440)[English] In keeping with my obligations under the Department of Justice Act, I tabled a charter statement for Bill C-10 in the House of Commons on November 18, 2020. The charter statement for Bill C-10 identifies the rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by the bill, and relevant considerations that support the bill's consistency with the charter. In considering the committee's recent discussions focusing on the impacts of the proposed amendments on social media, I understand there has been extensive debate on freedom of expression. We have prepared and shared with you an explanatory document that examines the amendments, and discusses their potential effect on the right to freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. I'm confident that these considerations support the charter consistency of the bill, and that they remain as outlined in the charter statement. It is our position that the bill, as tabled, and these proposed amendments are consistent with the charter.As the charter statement indicates, the bill's regulatory requirements have the potential to engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. The following considerations support the continued consistency of the proposed regulatory requirements of section 2(b).By virtue of clause 1, which would remain in the bill, unaffiliated users of social media services would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in respect of the programs they post. What remains is an updating of the CRTC's regulatory powers, and providing it with new powers applicable to online service. The bill maintains the CRTC's role and flexibility at determining what, if any, regulatory requirements to impose on broadcasting undertakings. Regarding the proposal to give the CRTC new limited powers to regulate an online undertaking that provides the social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, the relevant charter considerations include the CRTC's discretionary role and flexibility.The proposed narrowing of the CRTC's discretionary powers to regulate its social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, to only discrete members that I have mentioned, is an additional consideration. The CRTC is subject to the charter, and must exercise any discretionary powers it has in a manner that is consistent with the charter. The act states that it must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with freedom of expression. The CRTC's decisions on matters of law or jurisdiction are subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal. In my view, the relevant considerations that are set out in the charter statement remain valid. These considerations are not impacted by the proposed amendments.[Translation]Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today.I am at your disposal to answer questions.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsLegislationRegulationSocial networking sitesUser-generated content67475106747511674751467475336747536ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1445)[English]Thank you.Minister, in the charter statement for BillC-10, clause 3, proposed section 4.1 is cited as grounds for the bill being in compliance with the charter. We know that section was removed. Experts in the industry now say that the removal of section 4.1 takes away the safeguards that were imperative to protect user-generated content. Do you agree with that?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6747551ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1450)[English]I have a question with regard to the charter—as to whether or not section 2(b) of the charter is actually held up by this bill—so let me explain further.If I go to an art exhibition owned by a private individual, I expect to walk in and the art to be curated for me. Some artists are going to be given the front room; other artists are going to be given a back room. The curators are going to choose which paintings come first and which are toward, maybe, the end of the exhibition. That curation is expected because I'm going into a private gallery, and they've offered to do that for me. At the same time, however, if the government was to come in and dictate to that gallery how the art should be hung, where it should be hung or which artist should be promoted, that is censorship in its finest. The same thing is happening on our social media platforms with Bill C-10.How does that fit within section 2(b) of the charter: to have what we post online carefully curated and censored by a government arm, the CRTC?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6747629DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1455)[English]As I mentioned in my opening statement, both the charter statement and the explanatory document looked at the various provisions of Bill C-10 and found that section 2(b) might be engaged, but there were various reasons given—which I outlined in my opening—to conclude that this was in conformity with section 2(b) of the charter.Again, if there's a substantive application question, I will turn it over to Minister Guilbeault.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6747631RachaelHarderLethbridgeScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1455)[English]Thank you.At our meeting last Friday, a number of questions were raised about why the explanatory document was not on the Department of Justice website and why the initial charter statement had not been amended on the Department of Justice website. Can you explain to us why that's the case?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills67476416747642DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1455)[English]The legal obligation with respect to charter statements, according to section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, is that they be tabled around the time that the bill is tabled in the House of Commons. At that point, we put it up on the website. As the committee requested a separate assessment, we produced an explanatory document based on the amendments to C-10, and we gave it to the committee because it was the committee that requested it.It's not the charter statement that was originally tabled, so there was no need to list it on the Department of Justice website.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills67476436747644AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1455)[English] Thank you.Some have claimed that the charter statement is a political document because it's been signed off by you, and you happen to be a Liberal minister.Would the charter statement not be more accurately described as a non-political document prepared by non-partisan department officials at Justice Canada to provide Canadians and parliamentarians with a better understanding of how the bill may impact charter rights?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills674764567476466747647DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1455)[English]That is very true. Your second characterization is absolutely the case, and the first characterization of it as a political document is absolutely not the case.It's an important responsibility, as I outlined in my opening remarks, for me to oversee the preparation of charter statements. These are done by non-partisan department lawyers who are tasked with preparing charter statements and doing the analysis. The charter statement has a specific role, as I outlined in my opening remarks. While it is a document that is finally reviewed by me, I do that in my role as Minister of Justice, and I do that very seriously in an non-partisan way. The document itself was drafted in a wholly non-partisan way, so no, it's not a political document. It's meant to be a legal framework document, if you will. That's the best way I can describe it.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills674764867476496747650AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1455)[English]Some have criticized the explanatory document for not stating whether the potential discoverability requirements would breach section 2(b) and require a section 1 analysis.Mr. Minister, would a charter statement ever contain section analysis?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills67476536747654DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1455)[English]It would very rarely, if ever, contain one. I certainly can't recall ever having seen one with a section 1 analysis. The reason is that, when you get into a section 1 analysis, you're balancing the actual provisions in an act with a section of the charter, and you're asking whether it's potentially justified as a limit that is reasonably and demonstratively justified in a free and democratic society.That's something that puts you in the realm of doing a political analysis or giving an actual legal opinion, which, for either case, would not be something that would be in the neutral framework of a charter statement.I personally think I would never see one, as I can't recall ever having seen one. Section 1 implications do not have their place in the charter statement, the goal of which, as I've already set out, is to articulate the articles under the charter that might be impugned by a potential piece of legislation and the considerations that are there that explain the law. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills6747655674765667476576747658AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1500)[Translation]I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question.Although it's an important question, I must say that I am here to explain the purpose of charter statements and to discuss the explanatory document we provided.I am not here to give lessons on the charter and certainly not legal opinions. Answering a hypothetical question could lead me into very dangerous territory, as justice minister.If you have any questions about Bill C-10, I will defer to my colleague Mr. Guilbeault.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6747674MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1505)[Translation]I have a question for you. I'm not necessarily looking for a legal opinion, but I would like to draw on your expertise as a lawmaker.Once Parliament passes a bill, as may soon be the case with Bill C-10, and once that bill comes into force, can people or groups of people turn to the Federal Court or another court to challenge specific sections of the legislation they find worrisome or unconstitutional? I'm thinking of provisions they feel jeopardize their freedom of expression.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyConstitutionalityGovernment bills6747683DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1505)[Translation]That is always the case. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I don't give legal opinions publicly, either before committees or in the House.As I have repeatedly said, if you have specific questions about the scope of Bill C-10, I will defer to my colleague Mr. Guilbeault.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyConstitutionalityGovernment bills6747685MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1505)[Translation]No, the question was not directly related to Bill C-10, Mr. Minister. It could have been about any bill. However, this is a good example. The bill before us is more complex than just the matter of freedom of expression. I am wondering whether, after the bill is passed, people will still have an opportunity to challenge parts of it if they want to, if they are concerned or uncomfortable. This is simply a question about procedures and how the justice system works.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6747686DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1505)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would also like to take a moment to thank Minister Guilbeault, Minister Lametti and the department representatives from Heritage and Justice for joining us today in this important meeting.Mr. Lametti, I'm very glad you're here. I have to say that I was worried when you initially chose not to testify at this committee. I was, of course, deeply concerned that your absence would cause continued delay and would continue to impede our work on creating good broadcasting legislation, so thank you for taking the time to be with us here today.Mr. Lametti, some experts have stated that your latest update on the charter statement is very fragile, as it is more a political document to protect the mistakes of your government than a legal analysis, so, of course, by your declining the initial invitation, we felt that you were reinforcing this concern and the fears about threats to the freedom of expression. Again, thank you for making the time to be here with us today.I have a series of questions for you, if you don't mind. First of all, I'd like to know if you can identify the sections of the bill that are intended to protect the charter principles. Could you identify clearly those provisions that are intended to protect the charter principles?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills67477026747703674770467477056747706ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1510)[English]Yes, but it would be a terrible precedent if a Minister of Justice were called to defend charter statements, in part because they are apolitically drafted, and in part because, as you have identified in your question, they aren't meant to be a legal opinion. There are going to be different legal opinions out there, and you, as a committee, you, as individuals, parties and other people for or against the proposed legislation can get access to legal opinions and go precisely into detail. The charter statement isn't meant to do that; the charter statement is a framework document that is meant to show that the government is attuned to the fact that there is a charter and that proposed legislation needs to conform to that charter. Therefore, it forces the minister in charge of the bill, we, as the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice to take all of that into account.If you wish to go through a more specific analysis of the various articles of the bill that are in question, I would turn the question over to my officials. I did identify the changes that were brought about that were considered in the explanatory document subsequently, and, again, the conclusion is that they fall within the original framework of the analysis that was done on the charter statement.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills674770967477106747711HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1510)[English]Thank you.I don't think I'll go into more depth at the moment.One of the concerns I have with this legislation, and I've articulated this many times at this committee, is that, if this initial bill is.... We know it wasn't crafted particularly well, and we have had 120 amendments come forward. If we don't fix this legislation, if we don't make sure this legislation, which we know is decades overdue, is done properly, it will be challenged in court. You just alluded to that potential in your last answer. If that happens, the implementation of this bill will be delayed again and again, and, of course, the impact is going to be felt by the Canadian cultural sector. Those who this bill was meant to help will be hurt the most. As you know, several experts have said that your department's analysis does not provide a clear answer regarding the bill and its compliance with the charter principles. If the protections are not clear, what would happen if the bill is challenged in court? Further, do you think that, without clear protections for the charter principles, there is a high risk that a legal dispute will undermine efforts to protect our cultural sector?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills6747712674771367477146747715DavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88501DavidLamettiHon.David-LamettiLaSalle—Émard—VerdunLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamettiDavid_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David Lametti: (1510)[English] I support the bill. I'm a member of this government and cabinet, and I support the bill, so let's make that clear from the outset.The charter statement is meant to help frame debate. It's meant to help identify articles in the charter that might be engaged by a piece of potential legislation and to identify the considerations that might be looked at as an explanation of the bill. It is not meant to be a legal opinion, so you're absolutely correct in your question to note that there are going to be legal experts who say there isn't enough in the charter statement to say that the bill is completely in conformity with the charter, and that's never the case with any charter statement. There will be different legal opinions, depending on the weight any particular legal scholar, commentator or lawyer puts on any particular factor. I leave it to the lawyers, legal scholars and other experts to do that weighing in the public sphere. The court system is part of this process, but obviously, I certainly would like, as a legislator, this committee to help improve the bill and my colleague to put forth a bill that is a great bill.As I said, I support this bill, and I want to make that clear.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment accountabilityGovernment bills6747716674771767477186747719HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1520)[English]Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank Ministers Lametti and Guilbeault for being here. I appreciate that and also I want to thank the representatives from justice and heritage for being here in this important conversation.We've heard lots of testimony already and numerous arts organizations have come out in support of Bill C-10. Our artists are among the most fierce defenders of free speech in our society. They understand that updating this Broadcasting Act in no way infringes on the freedom of expression nor does it represent any censorship of the Internet.Minister Lametti, I would like to hear from you. Can you explain the balanced approach that this bill takes in supporting our arts and defending free speech? Specifically, the charter statement says, “In making regulatory decisions, the [CRTC] must proportionately balance the objectives of the act with protection of freedom of expression in light of the facts and circumstances.”Can you explain exactly what you meant by that? Is it your conclusion that the original import of the charter statement still applies and remains true?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCultural industryFreedom of speechGovernment bills6747760ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1520)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ms. Dabrusin.Earlier on in one of her questions, Ms. McPherson said that because the bill had around a hundred amendments, it was a flawed bill. That's a false premise. I know that, just like me, she's a new MP, so we're not used to this. It's not uncommon for bills to have 200 amendments. Going back in the previous Parliament, I can recall Bill C-69, which I followed closely in my previous career, had around 200 amendments. There's nothing extraordinary about that. In fact, a hundred may not be so much after all. She pointed out that we've heard about experts who have raised concerns. I think just yesterday this committee heard from a number of experts who have actually clearly said that they thought there were no issues regarding freedom of speech. We've heard from a previous director of the CRTC, Janet Yale, and from a law professor from the Université de Montréal, Pierre Trudel. I could quote this because I don't think it has been done in this committee and I think it is important. It's in French, so I'll switch to French. It's the unanimous resolution from the National Assembly.[Translation] The motion recognizes that Bill C-10 “constitutes a significant step in protecting and promoting Quebec culture and..., therefore, [the National Assembly of Quebec] affirms its support for the measures proposed by the bill.”(1525)[English]I think Bill C-10 actually has a lot of support across this country given the benefit it will bring to our artists as well as to the broadcasting ecosystem.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCultural industryFreedom of speechGovernment bills67477746747775JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1525)[Translation]I thank my colleague for his question. I think we have done everything the committee has asked of us. Every time the committee has asked me, I have come to testify, even twice in the last two weeks. The committee asked for clarification of the original charter statement; that was submitted last week. My colleague the Minister of Justice is here with me today. We take this bill very seriously, as I think does the entire Quebec and Canadian arts community. You may have seen the petition launched by the Union des artistes and signed by Yvon Deschamps, Claude Legault and Ariane Moffatt, among others. I could talk about the letter published in the Toronto Star last week and signed by the great international artist Loreena McKennitt. I could also talk about the unions. Again today, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec issued a press release in support of Bill C-10. There is also the Confederation of National Trade Unions, and even Unifor, the largest union in Canada.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6747784MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1530)[English]Thank you, Ms. McPherson.Folks, that brings us to the end of this part. This is the witness testimony that we brought here today. We want to thank both ministers for being here. We want to thank the officials who accompanied them for being here as well. Is there any further discussion at this point about what we have heard? I see none, other than Minister Lametti waving goodbye to us. As you saw in the notice, tomorrow we're going to resume clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I'm looking for input here. We're good to go, as the motion put forward by Mr. Housefather has been satisfied. Tomorrow we will proceed. We're going to be starting with proposed amendment G-11.1. Go ahead, Monsieur Rayes.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6747816HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1530)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am wondering about something and I would like to share it with everyone. Before me, I have the motion that Mr. Housefather introduced. The first point asks the Minister of Justice “to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10.” The minister clarified in his speech and repeatedly in his responses to questions from the Conservatives and members of other parties that this was not a revised statement from his November 18 document, but rather an explanatory document. I would like to know whether all members of the committee really understood what the minister said. If so, I would direct your attention to the third point of the motion, which is that the committee suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2. I am wondering. I don't know what our decision will be, but I need to have some good discussions with my colleagues on my side. I would like to hear from the other members of the committee on this issue.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67478206747822ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1535)[Translation]Yes, it's me again, Mr. Chair. I would like to remind you that I asked a few questions earlier about possible remedies after a bill has been passed. Minister Lametti said that, if there are still concerns about certain sections of the legislation after a bill is passed, Canadians, individuals or groups always have a process through which to challenge its validity or constitutionality.In the last few days, the leader of the Conservative Party has been very clear that, if elected to power, he would repeal this piece of legislation. It is understandable then that our Conservative colleagues' support for Bill C-10 is non-existent. However, since the beginning of the work, although they do not support the bill, the Conservatives have always been willing to not interrupt, block or slow down the work, and I am absolutely grateful to them for that. Moreover, despite their opposition to the bill, their input has often been very constructive. We stopped our study for several meetings when it would have been very important for the cultural industry and the community to move forward. We have repeatedly expressed the urgency of this bill for the cultural industry. I sincerely believe that the questions have been well answered and I am quite convinced that we will never reach a consensus. We will not agree, but, as they say, (1540)[English] “let's agree to disagree”,[Translation]and move on with the job we have to do. There will always be remedies available afterwards, if you feel that any of the sections of this piece of legislation actually infringe on freedom of expression. The most important thing we have to do right now is to do our best to improve this bill and send it back to the House of Commons. We need to do this for the cultural industry, which is watching us, listening to us and pleading with us to put an end to this stalemate and move forward with the work. I think it's crucial for that industry. We must get out of this impasse. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6747852ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1430)[English]I call the meeting to order. Hello, everyone, and welcome back.This is our 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.We are in the midst of doing clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10. As you know, of course, we took a little bit of a break to go on to other activities, including a motion that was passed to allow guests to come in and to also receive a document from the Department of Justice.We also passed a motion to invite the Minister of Justice. Once again, I'd like to bring to everybody's attention—you probably know by now, through social media—that we did receive confirmation that Mr. Lametti will attend the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage tomorrow, May 18, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time, for one hour, alongside the deputy minister and the other officials who were present last Friday. Minister Guilbeault will also be attending. We didn't extend the invitation to him, but I didn't think you would mind if he tagged along and was involved in the proceedings as well. Nevertheless, if you do have a problem with that, you can simply not ask him a question, I guess. Perhaps that's how it goes.That's for tomorrow. As you've just read, he's coming in for an hour. I want you to think about this for just a few moments, and we can discuss this later. Both ministers will be in, and we have what was required from the Department of Justice, so once that is complete, we can start clause-by-clause study again right afterward. That could be as soon as the second hour tomorrow or on Wednesday, as we have another meeting then. I will let you think about that for a while, and we can discuss it again later.That said, the other part of the motion was to invite an expert panel, the membership to be based on suggestions from each of the parties represented officially on the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage.We have, suggested from the Liberal caucus, Ms. Janet Yale. If you remember, she is from the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel. She is the chair of it. Welcome, Ms. Yale.Also, from the Conservatives, we're welcoming back Dr. Michael Geist, who is the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa.From the Bloc Québécois, we have Mr. Pierre Trudel, professor, public law research centre at the Université de Montréal. Welcome back as well.Finally, from the NDP, from the Canadian Independent Music Association and by no means a stranger to this committee, as he was a former member of this committee not too long ago—I was sitting next to him, and I don't want to give my age as well as his—we welcome the president and chief executive officer, Andrew Cash.You know how this goes. We're going to start this right away. We're not going to break; we're going to do a full two hours, if you wish. There will be lots of time for questioning, but I assume everybody's going to want a bio-break in there somewhere. With your permission, I will find a spot in approximately one hour from now to take that break, and then we'll come back to resume.Let us first start out with Ms. Yale. Of course, these are opening remarks. You can go up to five minutes, but we ask that you not go beyond five minutes for the sake of our committee.Ms. Yale, the floor is yours.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67427686742769674277067427716742772674277367427746742775674277667427776742778674277967427806742781674278267427836742784JanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale (Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel): (1435)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for the invitation to be here today. My panel colleague Pierre Trudel and I are very pleased to provide our perspective on Bill C-10. We endorse the federal government's efforts to update the legislative framework governing the broadcasting system to include both media streaming services and sharing platforms. This approach is consistent with our report, which recognized the realities of a borderless online world in which Canadians will seek to access media content based on personal interest, irrespective of platform or technology.Bill C-10 would ensure that these new online streaming services, including Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, as well as sharing platforms like YouTube, are required to make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural content. These online services derive significant revenues from Canadian audiences from both advertising and subscription revenues, yet face no obligation to contribute. To imagine that in 2021 we would permit these platforms to make money from Canadian audiences, Canadian consumers and Canadian creativity without any corresponding contribution defies logic, particularly when our system imposes obligations on traditional broadcasters that are now much smaller, less powerful and less prosperous.In our report, we recommended, as a matter of competitive fairness, that online undertakings be included in updated broadcasting legislation. Our report also made it clear that these regulatory obligations should be restricted to the platforms—that is, if we use the language of the law, to undertakings. Individual creators should remain untouched by regulation, and that is exactly what Bill C-10 proposes. Let me say it again: Bill C-10 imposes regulatory burdens and the obligation to contribute to Canada's creators only on the undertakings such as the big streaming and sharing platforms, not on individual creators.I will put it another way. Programs consist of audio and audiovisual content. TV shows, songs, podcasts, postings and that programming—all those programs—exist beyond regulation and will remain beyond regulation. Individuals who create content, whether amateur or professional, and audiences large and small are not affected by Bill C-10 when they upload their programming, share it or even sell it to a streaming service. No one is going to police that content, tell them what they can say or compel them to pay dues. What Bill C-10 does require—and, from my perspective, thank goodness we are finally taking this step—is that the undertakings—the YouTubes, Disney-pluses and Netflixes of the world that share that content and make money from distributing content—must operate by a set of rules and contribute some amount of the revenues they are harvesting from Canadians to the production of Canadian content.Finally, to those who argue that Bill C-10 fails to protect user-generated content, we say that is just wrong. Proposed section 2.1 specifically provides that exemption already. New amendments that have been tabled make this exclusion even clearer. Therefore, to persist in creating this illusory scare against freedom of expression is either to misunderstand the legislation, in my view, or to intentionally seek to mislead people for some other purpose.I will finish by saying this: Legislation, of course, is complex, and broadcasting policy and its regulation can be very technical. Devils do lurk in details, and that is why the scrutiny of this committee is so important. However, what's at stake here isn't hard to understand: We need to make provision for the reality of these immense and hugely powerful online platforms. We need to ensure that they give to, not just take from, Canadian creators and Canadian audiences. We need to update a broadcasting framework that was last amended before the world was even online. We need what is set out in Bill C-10, with all its provisions and all its protections. We urge the government to pass this legislation as quickly as possible. Thank you.BroadcastingBroadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review PanelC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationUser-generated contentWeb giants67427856742786674278767427886742789674279067427916742792674279367427946742795ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist (Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual): (1435)[English] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.As you know, my name is Michael Geist. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views. I always start with that statement, but it feels particularly necessary in this instance, given the misinformation and conspiracy theories that some have floated and that Minister Guilbeault has disappointingly retweeted. As I am sure you are aware, I have been quite critical of Bill C-10. I would like to reiterate that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for culture or of regulation of technology companies. I think public support for culture is needed, and I think there are ways to ensure money for creator programs this year and not in five years, as in this bill.Further, I am puzzled and discouraged by the lack of interest in Bill C-11, which would move toward modernizing Canada’s privacy rules to help address concerns about how these companies collect and use our data. The bill would also mandate algorithmic transparency, which is much needed and far different from government-mandated algorithmic outcomes.I’ll confine my opening remarks to the charter-related questions and widespread concerns about the regulation of user-generated content, but would welcome questions on any aspect of the bill. There is simply no debating that following the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now applies to user-generated content, since all audiovisual content is treated as a program under the act. You have heard experts say that and department officials say that. The attempts to deflect from that simple reality by pointing to proposed section 2.1 to argue that users are not regulated is deceptive and does not speak to the issue of regulating the content of users.I will speak to the freedom of expression implications in a moment, but I want to pause to note that no one, literally no other country, uses broadcast regulation to regulate user-generated content in this way. There are good reasons that all other countries reject this approach. It is not that they don’t love their creators and want to avoid regulating Internet companies; it is that regulating user-generated content in this manner is entirely unworkable, a risk to net neutrality and a threat to freedom of expression. For example, the European Union, which is not shy about regulation, distinguishes between streaming services such as Netflix and video-sharing services such as TikTok or YouTube, with no equivalent regulations such as those found in Bill C-10 for user-generated content.From a charter perspective, the statement issued by the Department of Justice last week simply does not contain analysis or discussion about how the regulation of user-generated content as a program intersects with the charter. There is similarly no discussion about whether this might constitute a violation that could be justified, no discussion on the implications of deprioritizing speech, no discussion on the use of terms such as “social media service” that are not even defined in the bill, and no discussion of the implementation issues that could require Canadians to disclose personal location-based information in order to comply with the new, ill-defined requirements. In my view, the prioritization or deprioritization of speech by the government through the CRTC necessarily implicates freedom of expression. The charter statement should have acknowledged this reality and grappled with the question of whether it is saved by section 1. I do not believe it is.First, the bill as drafted, with section 4.1 in it, was the attempt to minimally impair those speech rights. With it removed, the bill no longer does so. Second, the discoverability policy objective is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights. There is no evidence that there is a discoverability problem with user-generated content. Ms. Yale’s panel, which notably appears to have lost its unanimity, recommended discoverability but cited no relevant evidence to support claims that there is an issue with user-generated content. Third, the objective of making YouTube pay some additional amount to support music creation is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights either. This isn’t about compensation, because the works are already licensed. This is about paying some additional fees, given concerns that section 4.1 would have broadly exempted YouTube. I am not convinced that was the case, as services such as YouTube Music Premium might well have been captured. I am not alone on that. Canadian Heritage officials thought so too in a memo they wrote to the minister. In fact, it was such a non-issue that Mr. Cash’s organization did not even specifically cite the provision or raise the issue in the brief that it submitted to this committee.I find it remarkable that the minister and the charter statement effectively tell Canadians that they should trust the CRTC to appropriately address free speech rights but are unwilling to do the same with respect to how section 4.1 would be interpreted. Let me conclude by noting that if a choice must be made between some additional payments by a streaming service and regulating the free speech rights of Canadians, I would have thought that standing behind freedom of expression would be an easy choice to make, and I have been genuinely shaken to find that my government thinks otherwise.(1440) I look forward to your questions.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-11, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulationSocial networking sitesUser-generated contentYouTube6742798674279967428006742801674280267428036742804674280567428066742807674280867428096742810674281167428126742813ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel (Professor, Public Law Research Centre, Université de Montréal, As an Individual): (1440)[Translation]Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, good afternoon.I'm a law professor, and I've been teaching the Broadcasting Act since 1979. I was the research director of the Caplan-Sauvageau committee, which produced the 1991 Broadcasting Act. As my colleague Janet Yale pointed out, I was involved in the work of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.As noted in the notice from the Department of Justice, which was tabled a few days ago, Bill C-10, amends the Broadcasting Act, which does not authorize measures to be taken against individuals with respect to the content they create and decide to put online. Above all, the act already clearly provides that all measures put in place to regulate broadcasting activities must respect freedom of expression.Moreover, the Broadcasting Act has never authorized the CRTC to censor specific content. The CRTC's entire practice over the past 50 years is a testament to that. Furthermore, the Broadcasting Act requires that the CRTC refrain from regulating broadcasting in a manner that violates freedom of expression. It's hard to imagine a broader exclusion than that. It is an exclusion that requires a prohibition on interpreting the act in a way that empowers the CRTC to take action and create regulations or orders that violate freedom of expression.In addition, as you know, the act provides that the CRTC shall refrain from regulating any activity that does not have a demonstrable impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. In fact, the Broadcasting Act is enabling legislation. There are no specifics in the act. It is enabling legislation that empowers the CRTC to put in place rules adapted to the circumstances of each company so that they organize their activities in a way that contributes to the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives, as set out in section 3 of the act.Therefore, Bill C-10 does not need to expand exclusions for any type of content. Rather, it is a recognition that Bill C-10 already excludes measures that could be suspected of infringing on freedom of expression and ensures that the Broadcasting Act applies to all companies that transmit programming, including on the Internet, which is the primary purpose of Bill C-10.With regard to these online companies that determine content and that, it's important to remember, already regulate content that is offered to individuals through processes based on algorithms or artificial intelligence technologies, Bill C-10 strengthens the guarantees of fundamental rights for all Canadians. It empowers the CRTC to compel companies to provide information on the logic behind these algorithmic devices, which does not currently exist. It enables the CRTC to put measures in place to ensure that Canadians are offered programming that reflects the principles, values and objectives set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.Nothing in the Broadcasting Act as it is proposed to be amended would allow the CRTC to impose on anyone programs that they do not want to hear or see, let alone allow the CRTC to censor content on platforms.Rather, the act provides individuals with a real opportunity for choice. There is currently no guarantee that online companies are offering Canadians a real and meaningful choice that reflects Canadian values as codified in the Broadcasting Act.There has been a constant since the early years of radio, and that is a tension between those who believe that broadcasting undertakings should be left to market forces alone and those who—rightly, in my view—believe that intervention is required to ensure the effective availability of programming that is the product of Canadians' creative activity.(1445)Bill C-10 is part of this continuum, which has allowed Canadians to have media that offers the best the world has to offer, while also giving prominence to the works of Canadian creators, including creators from minority and indigenous or first nations communities.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulationWeb giants674281667428176742818674281967428206742821674282267428236742824674282567428266742827ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAndrewCashAndrew-CashInterventionMr. Andrew Cash (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association): (1450)[English] Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee and fellow panellists, good afternoon.My name is Andrew Cash, and I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian Independent Music Association. It is a pleasure to be back at committee.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Independent Music AssociationClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMusic industry67428306742831ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAndrewCashAndrewCashAndrew-CashInterventionMr. Andrew Cash: Let's start by getting one thing off the table. Digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are incredible. They represent phenomenal opportunities for Canadian arts and culture creators.It's been said that being in the music business is a great way to get rich and a lousy way to make a living. The pandemic has put this maxim in stark focus. Many artists and musicians lived below the poverty line before the pandemic, but the pandemic has made things much, much worse. Travel and gathering restrictions have meant no touring, no live shows and no income at all. The pandemic has also underlined the systemic inequities in the market that have led to diminished compensation for creators. This imbalance has put the promise of a stable middle-class sector of artists and arts and culture workers further and further out of reach for this country. The sector is in crisis.CIMA commissioned Nordicity to do a report on the impact of COVID. It found that the independent music sector saw a drop in revenue of $233 million, live music saw a drop in income of 79%, independent sound recording and publishing companies saw a 41% decline in revenue, and thousands of jobs were lost. That was just in the first nine months of the pandemic.We don't expect to return to pre-COVID levels of revenue until 2023 or 2024 at best, but as we move towards recovery, we must address the elephant in the room: Digital giants doing business in Canada make lots of money off Canadians but pay fractions of a cent to content creators, and they operate here without any accountability or regulatory obligations, including to fairly contribute to the arts and culture ecosystem.Really? Are we okay with this?Given the numbers that I've laid out before you today, if there ever were a time when we needed you to stand up for the little guy, it's right now. Do you really want to go back to your ridings and say to your constituents, “Yes, I voted to protect big tech. I voted to allow them to continue raking in the profits, taking profits out of the country and not contributing a dime in return.”? Unless things have dramatically changed since I was an elected politician, I don't think you want to be doing that. In fact, many of you, from all parties, have pointed out that this inequitable playing field is wrong and that we have to do something about it.CanCon regulations were created 50 years ago and helped establish a domestic industry within a domestic market. We wanted to protect and nurture French-language creators who were surrounded on all sides by English-language cultural content and English-language creators who were competing on all sides with the massive giant next door. Well, today our arts and culture marketplace is no longer a domestic one. Digital platforms have transformed the way content is consumed. Today the marketplace is global. Today we need a modernized system to grow our domestic industry into one that will thrive in the global market.This bill, flawed though it is, could point us towards new modes of discoverability, towards new investments in our artists and our arts and culture entrepreneurs, and towards information transparency and accountability from big tech companies that simply doesn't exist right now.CIMA believes that the bill as amended did not infringe on individuals' rights and freedoms. That belief was affirmed by last week's charter statement and further proposed amendments. However, let's be clear: We would oppose any measure that puts those rights at risk. Artists have long been at the forefront of fighting for civil liberties and freedom of expression against monolithic power structures. Our work quite literally depends on civil liberty and the protection of freedom of expression.Bill C-10 couldn't [Technical difficulty—Editor] bad videos. What it could do, though, is begin to make a real difference in the lives of musicians, content creators, entrepreneurs and [Technical difficulty—Editor] across the country. It has the potential to move the creative sector from precarity towards middle-class stability, unlocking innovation and creating a global presence for the sector.(1455) That's why I implore you today to continue your work in amending Bill C-10 as expediently as possible in order to pass it through Parliament before the end of the spring session.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Independent Music AssociationClause-by-clause studyCOVID-19Government billsMusic industryPandemicRegulationWeb giants6742832674283367428346742835674283667428376742838674283967428406742841674284267428436742844AndrewCashScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1455)[English]Awesome. Thank you so much, Chair.My question is for Dr. Geist.Ms. Yale, the minister and all of the other witnesses on this panel today have tried to make the claim that our freedom of speech is not being attacked by this bill. In fact, they claim that it's not even impacted, and that somehow content can be moved up or down in the queue without impacting other content. It would be my observation that in order for some information to be bumped up and made more discoverable, other information must be bumped down. I just don't see how it's possible for that not to be the case. When that is the case, it means that there's a mechanism being used to regulate and curate what I can and cannot see, which then would be a form of censorship.Mr. Geist, I'm wondering if you can comment or elaborate on this further.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6742854674285567428566742857ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1455)[English]I think you've highlighted what is the nub for so many experts that have spoken out on this issue.First off, let's be clear: User-generated content, when we are speaking of the content, is regulated. It's absurd to simply suggest that you're exempted or the CRTC is bound by some other policy objectives. We are putting it into the basket of regulation. We would never dream of saying the CRTC would or should regulate things like our own letters or our blog posts, but this is a core expression for millions of Canadians, and we are saying that it is treated as a program like any other, and subject to regulation. That's number one.When you layer on top of that—as the Liberals' proposed amendment does—discoverability requirements, what you are saying is that the government, through its regulator, gets to determine what gets prioritized. It is not about any specific piece of content per se, but it's going to make choices, elevating some and deprioritizing others. That clearly has an impact on individual Canadians' expressive rights. It's doing so in an environment that frankly is completely unworkable, when you think about this from a user-generated content perspective. The notion that somehow this increases choice at a time when there is unlimited choice for user-generated content is frankly just absurd.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content674285867428596742860RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1500)[English]Thank you.I'm going to continue with Dr. Geist.I was at the original news conference on the Yale report. The chair had talked about levelling the playing field. We've often heard for the last several months about levelling the playing field. You say that's not the case.Maybe you could just talk about that. “Level the playing field” is an expression that this government has used since it introduced this bill in November.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation6742863674286467428656742866RachaelHarderLethbridgeMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1500)[English]It does. Ms. Yale often talks about like for like, as if we need to treat all of these players in the same fashion.What we ought to recognize is that the existing broadcast sector enjoys a whole series of regulatory advantages, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, that are not available to streaming services. It's things like simultaneous substitution, whereby they substitute out commercials worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It's the must-carry rule so that you have to carry certain channels, which are otherwise unavailable. It's foreign investment and ownership restrictions. There are a whole series of measures that actually don't make this like for like.Now listen: That's not to suggest that there ought not to be a regulatory environment for online undertakings. What I would say, though, is that trying to treat them in the same fashion as this bill does has rendered it fundamentally flawed, and this committee ought to know it better than anyone. It has had witness after witness say they're concerned about things like changing Canadian ownership requirements, changing the prioritization of performers, changing Canadian intellectual property, and all of that is a function of trying to treat online in precisely the same fashion as conventional broadcasters.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation674286767428686742869KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1500)[English] You have been pretty vocal on Twitter and other social media about this. You've said to scrap this bill and start over. Others on this committee want this bill to proceed. It's been 30-plus years now since we've updated the Broadcasting Act. We all realize that this act has to be modified at some point. Could you talk about scrapping it and what you would put in there instead of what we have in front of us today?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation67428706742871MichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1500)[English]Sure.I would start by noting that I think we've seen the flaws. Even Mr. Cash acknowledged that it's a flawed piece of legislation, and we now have the government contradicting its own departmental officials again and again on things that were directly included in government memos from the heritage department to the minister with advice on some of these issues.It's a flawed piece of legislation. The concerns are real and legitimate, raised by an incredible number of people, including people who have been some of the biggest critics of tech companies in the country.I would suggest that we need to get this right, because we don't change our legislation that frequently. Clearly, it runs sometimes for decades. At the same time, we need to ensure that there is money for creators for precisely the kinds of reasons Mr. Cash identified.What I would say is that the starting point is tax dollars. The government has already announced it wants to increase the taxes on tech companies. It should take some of that tax money and allocate it directly to the various creator programs. In doing so, there could be money this year, at a time when there really is that need for money, as opposed to the way it will play out with this bill. It is undoubtedly going to take years before the CRTC finishes with the litigation that is inevitable to ensue. Nobody is going to see a dime coming out of this legislation for years. There's a mechanism both to get the legislation right and to ensure that creators get money and get it quickly. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationTaxation67428726742873674287467428756742876KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1500)[English]There is an open letter about Canadian Internet policy, and technical professionals put it out. It's about the future of free and open Internet. Could you comment on that? It's a letter sent to the Prime Minister today.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality6742881ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1500)[English]It is, and I'm proud to have signed that letter.I think one of the most shameful aspects of this debate over the last few weeks has been the continual attempt to suggest that somehow it's just people who are speaking on behalf of tech companies or who aren't critical or who don't want to see any Internet regulation who have concerns over Bill C-10. That letter has been signed by some of the fiercest critics and biggest experts around tech policy, including Ron Deibert, Bianca Wylie, Nasma Ahmed and Lex Gill. These are people Canadians have learned to trust, people who have expressed real concerns about the tech companies. They've look at Bill C-10 and they've looked at government policy around the Internet and said that they're very concerned about the direction we're headed. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality674288267428836742884KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1505)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.In fact, I noticed that Janet Yale had her hand up and seemed to want to respond to some of the aspects that were touched upon by Dr. Geist on discoverability and the like.Perhaps we could start there, with your ability to respond.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulation674288967428906742891ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1505)[English] Thank you very much. I want to make just two or three quick points. The first is that programs aren't regulated; undertakings are. When Dr. Geist says that if it's a program, it's regulated, it's not a program unless it's offered by an undertaking. Online undertakings are the only ones that are subject to regulation. It's not people who make programs. It's really that clear. Point number one is that a program isn't regulated; only an undertaking is regulated, whether it's a streaming platform or a social media platform.Secondly, on discoverability, the way Dr. Geist described it would have you think that the algorithms that are operated by the likes of Amazon and Netflix are just mathematically pure, uncontaminated by commercial considerations, and that everything you see is driven completely in an agnostic way by consumer preferences. Well, I can tell you personally that when I've bought things on Amazon or I've chosen a show on Netflix, before I know it, I have pushed to me all kinds of things that have nothing to do with my preferences or taste but everything to do with the things that the provider in question is trying to push.Once we acknowledge that algorithms are not agnostic, then it's really a question of whether cultural policy has a role to play in a world of so many choices and unlimited amounts of content in ensuring that we know what Canadian choices might be available. That's just the simple principle of discoverability, and it's not about interfering with freedom of choice. It's about promotion of Canadian choices. Nobody has to watch it if they don't want to watch it. There are actually no restrictions on freedom of choice whatsoever.Those would be my thoughts, but I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulationUser-generated content67428926742893674289467428956742896JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1505)[English]Thanks.[Translation]I'd like to give Professor Trudel time to add something to what Dr. Geist said.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67428976742898JanetYalePierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel: (1505)[Translation]It is essential to understand that the algorithms used to direct the flow of content on the Internet are not neutral. These are default regulations, default rules. At the moment, there is absolutely no guarantee that these default regulations, which are based solely on the commercial choices of commercial enterprises, do not involve biases or possible violations of fundamental rights. If we want to get into the area of conjecture, we must also take that into account.At present, Canadians have no guarantee that their choices are not being directed in the same undemocratic way that they could possibly be if the multiple scenarios that have been discussed were to become reality. If the CRTC ever decides to violate the Broadcasting Act by imposing regulations that contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our freedoms would be at risk. This is a very distant possibility.Right now, there are some very real contingencies. The practices of the companies that dominate the online platforms in a monopolistic way can, with impunity, without anyone looking at them, infringe on our fundamental rights. That is the real issue with respect to fundamental rights. It is in this sense that Bill C-10 would strengthen the protection of our fundamental rights.Unfortunately, there is no protection on the Internet at the moment. Our rights aren't protected. Our rights to access content relevant to us and our rights not to be spied on when we make choices aren't guaranteed. Government regulations can guarantee them.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulation6742899674290067429016742902JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1510)[Translation]Thank you very much.[English]I only have a minute left. I will go back to Janet Yale, please. There's been some conversation about how much consultation went into preparing for this bill. Could you just quickly talk about the number of consultations and the stakeholders you spoke with in preparing your report, which formed the backdrop to preparing Bill C-10?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674290367429046742905PierreTrudelJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1510)[English] Thank you for that question. In fact, we went to great lengths to go coast to coast to coast to meet with people. We reached out proactively. We made it clear that we were ready, willing and able to meet with anyone, with any stakeholders—minority language groups, indigenous communities and all the different stakeholders—from all sides of the debate. We spent about six months just doing consultations to make sure we heard how the organizations, how the stakeholders and how the consumer groups were feeling challenged about the current environment and that we heard their recommendations for how we should go forward. We didn't start deliberating until after written and oral consultations that took us from, I would say, August until January of 2018 through to early 2019, when we began our deliberations in earnest.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674290667429076742908JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1510)[Translation]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Their visit was highly anticipated. I'm grateful to them, and I thank them for their availability.I'll start with Mr. Trudel.Mr. Trudel, a few moments ago, you talked about the fact that, as things stand, we are still much less protected. Privacy, freedom of expression and, at the very least, freedom of choice of content are less protected. Bill C-10 has no intention of infringing on this.Do you think the bill will improve things or will the status quo be maintained?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulation67429116742912674291367429146742915ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel: (1510)[Translation]I believe that Bill C-10, which seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act, will ensure that the resulting legislation will better protect the rights of Canadian citizens and consumers. As for the possibility of allowing the CRTC to take a look at algorithmic processes, it's always important to remember that it's not a body that censors content behind closed doors. It's a body that regulates certain activities through a public process to which everyone is invited.During these processes, the CRTC could invite the major platforms to explain how the algorithms and other processes they use to administer the flow of various content work. It could ask them to explain how these are compatible with Canadian values and how they are not likely to be subservient to undeclared commercial interests. It could also ask them to explain how consistent they are with Canadian values, which are different from American values. I"m thinking of equality and diversity, among other things. Most importantly, it could ask them to explain to what extent algorithms provide real proposals to Canadians and how they can be organized in such a way that they reflect the values found in the Broadcasting Act.For example, they could give visibility to cultural productions from minority groups, as well as the rich production of Canada's indigenous peoples or racialized people. In short, with an amendment to the Broadcasting Act, such as the one proposed here, the act would promote freedom of expression rather than censorship. In a sense, it would encourage companies to promote Canadian creativity, while leaving consumers free to consume what they want.Online, no one thinks for a second that you can force someone to watch what they don't want to watch. This issue has long been settled. However, what is often hard to find on platforms is cultural products that reflect Canadian creativity or the productions of creators from Canada's linguistic or cultural minorities. That is what is currently missing on the platforms. That's why Canada has managed to set up an audiovisual or media system that is very open to the world and that has never practised censorship, as some seem to claim.On the contrary, not only do we have access to everything in the world, but we also have access to the productions of our creators. That's the difference. That's why I think it's an act that increases our fundamental rights—AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulation67429166742917674291867429196742920MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Trudel, I'm going to interrupt you because I want to bring you back to the issue you just raised, which is censorship.Basically, the purpose of all of you being here today is to try to sweep this issue under the rug so that we can continue to do important work on this bill. I completely agree with you that it is absolutely necessary to protect culture. However, the fact that section 4.1 is no longer being created has raised concerns among some people and groups. Other amendments are coming, including section 2.1, which does not seem to be enough to convince people. Generally speaking, when you talk to us about Bill C-10, you see absolutely no risk to freedom of expression. However, let's suppose that, in an extrapolated scenario, the CRTC ends up making decisions that go against freedom of expression.First, could such a scenario occur, and in what context? Second, what would be the remedies for it?I think there are defence mechanisms, in all of this.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6742921674292267429236742924PierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel: (1515)[Translation]Absolutely.If the CRTC made such a decision, it would be done through a public process. There would be a call for public comment. It would invite all Canadians to come and give their views on the action it was considering. Then it would take those actions. It would issue an order or a regulation. This regulation or order could be challenged under the provisions that are already in the Broadcasting Act.One of the first challenges that would come to mind is that the CRTC would have interpreted the act in a way that contradicts freedom of expression. This seems to me to be a particularly remote or unthinkable hypothesis, since, for this to happen, the CRTC would have to have ignored all of these provisions.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills674292567429266742927MartinChampouxDrummondScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1520)[English]Actually, Ms. Harder, under normal circumstances I've done that, yes, but I've also seen precedents in which we've allowed discretion for other members to be involved. I have not given Mr. Manly any time thus far in the Bill C-10 deliberations. However, he's been very active in proposing amendments, and I thought it would be at the chair's discretion to say, “Yes, go ahead.”He's only getting the one question—certainly no more than five minutes—and there are precedents for that, Ms. Harder.Thank you very much.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6742936RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1520)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today.Obviously our goal here is to create broadcasting legislation that protects Canadians' freedom of expression and also levels the playing field and makes the web giants contribute to our broadcasting landscape. I appreciate that you've all come here to share your expertise, because I think we're all trying to get to a place where we can work collaboratively, hear from experts, get the best information possible and create the best legislation going forward.I know we all recognize that the legislation before us needs some work and needs some attention, so I thank you for being with us here today and helping make this bill or future legislation as good as it possibly can be for our broadcasters and for our artists and our creative sector.I'm going to start by asking a few questions of Mr. Cash.Mr. Cash, you spoke about the impact and the importance of the independent music industry for our local culture and our economic development. Could you speak a little bit more about that, please?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMusic industry674294167429426742943674294467429456742946ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAndrewCashAndrewCashAndrew-CashInterventionMr. Andrew Cash: (1520)[English] Thank you so much for the question. You know, roughly 80% of all the players in the music scene, in the music sector writ large in Canada, are solo self-employed or solo operators. They are running, in a sense, small businesses. There are some larger entities, of course, but that's the reality. Their combined efforts and their combined risk....By the way, there is a lot of risk, not just on one's financial resources but also on one's physical and mental health, in being in this business. There is a real need for people like you to really understand what we're doing and how we do it. People don't really know how the music they're listening to in their earbuds got there. They don't how it was made and who made it. That is one of the reasons that a bill like Bill C-10 is so important. As I said in my opening remarks, COVID really has laid bare the vulnerabilities in the system. It would be one thing if this were pre-Internet, but the fact of the matter is that these massive companies are interacting with our arts and culture sector. They essentially need the content, and not just Canadian content but the content of all creators around the world. They need it in order to make their platforms roll. Too often it is especially the artists and the small independent Canadian-owned companies that get swept under.There's one other thing that's important to note here when you're asking about the Canadian independent music scene. We're talking about Canadian-owned companies. We're not talking about multinational entities. We're talking about people who live and work in your communities, people who are developing intellectual property and many times are successfully exporting that to markets beyond our borders and bringing that revenue back to Canada. We look at Bill C-10 as a way of really improving that and adding to that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMusic industryWeb giants674294767429486742949674295067429516742952HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1525)[English]Thank you. That's wonderful.One concern that's come up as we talk about Bill C-10, of course, is the need for freedom of expression to be protected. Of course, this is something for which, as you will know, the NDP has pushed for a very long time. I think artists probably more than any other group of people would defend freedom of expression. It's at the heart of their reason for being.Could you tell us more about the economic reality for artists in your industry and why they want web giants to pay their fair share while fully, of course, respecting the freedom of expression and the ability of people to publish content of their choice on the Internet?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMusic industryRegulationWeb giants674295367429546742955AndrewCashAndrewCashAndrewCashAndrew-CashInterventionMr. Andrew Cash: (1525)[English]Right now, the way the Internet sector is working for music is that few companies, few artists, have any leverage in negotiating with YouTube. The music's generally up already. The choice is between licensing and getting a lousy return on that licensing or getting no money at all. That is really a stark choice for entrepreneurs, absolutely, but for the artists themselves, it presents a huge problem.I'm not going to say that it's all terrible news for artists. As I said right off the top, these platforms represent enormous opportunity, but we have to get it right. Part of getting it right is bringing these massive companies, the biggest companies in the history of time, under some kind of regulatory system whereby they can be accountable to the people of Canada.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMusic industryRegulationWeb giants67429566742957HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1525)[English]And contributing to our artistic sector, of course.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6742958AndrewCashAndrewCashAndrewCashAndrew-CashInterventionMr. Andrew Cash: (1525)[English]Yes—100%.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6742959HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1525)[English]You probably know this, but Edmonton Strathcona has an enormous number of artists. I can't wait until we can have live shows again and we can see some of our artists. Thank you very much for what you've done to encourage artists. Thank you for your testimony today.Mr. Chair, I believe that is my time. Is that correct?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674296067429616742962AndrewCashScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1525)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. This is a very interesting debate on a very important bill. I've worked in the broadcasting industry in multiple different ways. I was a professional musician as well, so this is very near and dear to me.To start, I want to ask Mr. Trudel if he approved of the removal of proposed section 4.1. Then I would like to ask you, Mr. Trudel, about net neutrality and how the algorithms affect the concept of net neutrality in terms of the Canadian law on net neutrality. I understand the concepts of throttling, but how do the algorithms affect the law on net neutrality?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulation6742967674296867429696742970ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel: (1525)[Translation]I am among those who believe that section 4.1 was unnecessary. It was confusing because the act already provides all the necessary safeguards to ensure that the regulation of the broadcasting system in Canada is done in full respect of freedom of expression. In addition, the CRTC is obliged to limit its action to those undertakings whose activities and actions have a discernible impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. Therefore, section 4.1 was rightly removed as unnecessary, in my view. In fact, I wrote about it in an article in Le Devoir.The algorithm is interesting. Algorithms, currently, regardless of how they work, determine which types of content will be more visible than others.Whether it's traditional broadcasting or online broadcasting, a fundamental feature of broadcast media regulation in all countries is that there are laws that necessarily balance the commercial interests of companies with other interests that must be accommodated. In traditional broadcasting, this has taken the form of rules limiting the commercial activity of radio or television stations, limiting advertising time, for example. In the case of online broadcasting networks or undertakings, it is foreseeable that the CRTC will develop new ways of ensuring that balance between commercial imperatives and other objectives that broadcasting legislation has always sought to uphold throughout Canadian broadcasting history.What sets Canada apart from many other countries in the world is that we have a radio and communications system that is more than just a conduit for the delivery of material based on strictly commercial or business logic. So it's this type of—AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulation6742971674297267429736742974PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1530)[English]I want to just take a moment to ask Mr. Geist the same question about the concept of net neutrality and how algorithms work. Are they are just feeding us commercial content? How is having Canadian content rules and discoverability as part of that algorithm going to be different? How do these things affect net neutrality and the law on net neutrality?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality67429756742976PierreTrudelMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1530)[English]I appreciate the question.First, for those who are not aware, net neutrality speaks to the need to treat all content in an equal fashion, regardless of source or destination. That's been a core principle, I thought, of successive governments, although it seemed like the heritage minister expressed some doubt on it, at least in one media interview around that issue.Quite frankly, we just heard from Professor Trudel. He said that algorithms determine the type of content that is visible. That speaks exactly to the concerns around net neutrality and the notion that an algorithm can in fact undermine those net neutrality principles.If it is being done at the behest of a government, which is precisely what is being proposed under this bill, the CRTC will be making those determinations. That is where the speech implications and the concerns from a net neutrality perspective arise. That is, I repeat, precisely why no country in the world does this. Nobody thinks it is appropriate to have a government make these kinds of choices about what gets prioritized or not prioritized with respect to content.The algorithmic transparency that Professor Trudel mentioned is something entirely separate. In fact, it is something that is absolutely necessary from a regulatory perspective and is even included in Bill C-11, which the government, for whatever reason, has largely buried and hasn't moved forward.It's not about whether we regulate algorithms; it's about whether the CRTC and the government use those algorithms to determine or prioritize or de-prioritize what we can see.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-11, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality674297767429786742979674298067429816742982PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1530)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Trudel, I'd like to ask you a fairly direct question, and I'd like a fairly brief answer.You've spoke several times about the CRTC as an effective regulatory body, which will ensure that it is a bulwark against the questions of many experts regarding freedom of expression.However, in Le Devoir this morning—you even quoted a letter you sent to the same newspaper—former CRTC officials express an opinion completely opposite to your current reading of Bill C-10. These former CRTC officials are Timothy Denton, CRTC commissioner from 2009 to 2013; Konrad von Finckenstein, CRTC president from 2007 to 2012; Peter Menzies, the CRTC's vice-president of telecommunications from 2013 to 2018; Michel Morin, the CRTC's national commissioner from 2008 to 2012; and Philip Palmer, legal counsel at the Department of Justice and senior counsel at the Department of Communications from 1987 to 1994.Could it be that experts have opinions that are different from yours and that hold water. These are people who were on the ground.Do these people have any credibility, yes or no?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674298767429886742989674299067429916742992ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel: (1530)[Translation]I don't comment on the credibility of competence of individuals.What I see, however, is that the CRTC is governed by legislation. Its decisions throughout its history have been upheld by the courts. The most famous decision that could be invoked by people who think that the CRTC is a censorship bureau or inquisition tribunal is the decision not to renew the licence of a Quebec City radio station in 2004. The Federal Court confirmed that the CRTC properly applied the rules and did not violate freedom of expression. That has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67429936742994AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1535)[Translation]You mentioning the CRTC a lot, but CRTC actors raised a red flag this morning because they feel that they're seeing a one-size-fits-all discourse in the public realm. These people, who were enforcing this legislation, say that it's not working.Excuse me, I want to finish my comment because my next question is for another witness. I only have five minutes.I want to show you that there are different discourses. These people have the right to speak, and they have the right to have a voice in the Canadian Parliament.With that said, I will allow Dr. Geist to explain to us the difference between section 2.1 and section 4.1. The Minister keeps telling us that under section 2.1, everything is protected and user content will not be put at risk. At the same time, Mr. Trudel refers to section 4.1 as a source of confusion, saying that ultimately it should not have existed.Dr. Geist, as a law professor and a great defender of freedom of expression, can you give us your perspective on that?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67429956742996674299767429986742999PierreTrudelMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1535)[English]Sure, I'd be happy to. I find it quite remarkable that we get some witnesses saying that it doesn't mean anything at all and we get others saying that it should be removed. Presumably, then, there was a problem with it.Here's the bottom-line reality as I see it, as many other experts see it and as the department saw it, including in comments made directly to this committee and in memos written to the heritage minister that are now available under the Access to Information Act.First, proposed new section 2.1 speaks, as we've heard, directly to regulating online undertakings. It is true that we are not going to treat a million TikTok users as equivalent to CTV or other broadcasters. They won't have to appear before the CRTC, which makes a whole lot of sense, because they are not broadcasters. However, there's been some concern even around that. Of course we had the heritage minister mention the number of viewers or followers you have might pull you into that scope, and some creator groups have suggested that this ought to be the standard that is used. It doesn't appear to me, however, that this is what proposed new section 2.1 would do.What proposed new section 4.1 sought to do was ensure that the programs themselves, the content, would not be treated as something potentially subject to regulation by the CRTC. There was not significant confusion. There were, to be sure, any number of different online services that would have to go before the CRTC to determine whether the content on their service was captured by this measure. These would include some of the YouTube services. It certainly was within the realm of possibility that those would be captured.If we are such big fans of the CRTC's getting it right, I would have thought we would have confidence that we could both safeguard and protect user-generated content and that critical form of expression and also have confidence in the CRTC to get it right in determining where the application of the law might lie.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67430006743001674300267430036743004674300567430066743007AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1535)[Translation]Thank you, Dr. Geist.I have one last very quick question to ask you.Can we be both for net neutrality, as stated by Mr. Guilbeault, Ms. Joly, Mr. Lametti and Mr. Bains in various speeches, and support the bill as amended?Can both of these things be stated at the same time?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality6743008674300967430106743011MichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1535)[English] I don't believe that the bill, as currently drafted, much less some of the plans that we know the government has talked about with respect to website blocking, is consistent with net neutrality. We should be clear. Canada has been looked to as a leader in this space, as a leading voice on net neutrality. It even has sometimes sought to distinguish itself from the United States and others that have taken a step back from net neutrality. To pass this legislation and give the government the right to prioritize or de-prioritize speech severely undermines our credibility as a voice for net neutrality.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality67430126743013AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien (Toronto Centre, Lib.): (1535)[English]Mr. Chair, thank you so very much.Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today in what has been an excellent discussion.I'd like to go to Ms. Yale first.Ms. Yale, I want to pick up on net neutrality, because we've been hearing a lot about that for the past several minutes. Does this bill risk net neutrality? As pointed out, Canada has been a leader with regard to net neutrality.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality6743019674302067430216743022ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1540)[English]Thank you for the question.Obviously, from my perspective, it does not risk compromising net neutrality. Net neutrality has to do with the ability of primarily telecommunications carriers, in their carriage function, to ensure that they don't advantage or disadvantage particular content. If you think about online Internet services that are offered, if you're a Bell or Rogers customer, you have to make sure that your online subscription to Disney isn't better serviced than your online subscription to Crave or to a different streaming service. The principle of net neutrality is that carriers should be agnostic about the way in which they make sure that content starts at point A and gets delivered to point B without interference, throttling or blocking. In our report, we were very clear that the principle of net neutrality is fundamental.It's quite a different thing to talk about cultural policy objectives, as my colleague Mr. Trudel described. If we believe in cultural policy, we make choices, whether it's on traditional broadcasters having obligations about what shows you watch at what time of day or whether it's cable companies having carriage requirements. The fact that these are now distributed on the Internet doesn't change the fundamental question as to whether or not, for our values and cultural policy purposes, there should be a requirement—in a world, as we say in our report, of fantastic choices and borderless access to content—for Canadians to be aware of the choices that are available to them that are Canadian. I don't see that as being in any way in conflict with the principle of net neutrality. It really is a completely separate subject, in my view.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutralityMedia streaming and webcasting674302367430246743025MarciIenToronto CentreMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien: (1540)[English]Thank you, Ms. Yale.I have another question for you. Dr. Geist has said that with the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now threatens user-generated content and freedom of speech. In your expert opinion, what would you say to those Canadian citizens who are concerned about that?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSocial networking sitesUser-generated content67430266743027JanetYaleJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1540)[English] First I would say that there is nothing in the bill as amended, with the exclusion of proposed section 4.1, that threatens free speech. I've tried to make it clear in my comments thus far in this meeting that users put content on, say, a social media platform. For sure that content may be under the legal definition of a “program”, but as I've said before, programs aren't regulated, so if you are a blogger or someone who makes podcasts, that's content for sure, but how is it distributed? It's distributed because you do an arrangement with Spotify or you do an arrangement with YouTube, and it's carried on those platforms. The platforms are the online undertakings that would be regulated, not the creators of the content, whether they're users or whether they're amateurs or professionals. You are free to put up anything you want, whether you monetize it or not, whether you get advertising or subscription revenues or not. It's not covered by Bill C-10. It's the online undertakings that are, and users are not operating online undertakings. They're not regulated.In my view, there is no threat to freedom of speech, freedom of expression or the ability to put out anything you want on any platform you like without fear that your content could be moderated or regulated in any way. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSocial networking sitesUser-generated content6743028674302967430306743031MarciIenToronto CentreMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1550)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'd like to ask Dr. Geist a question.I see you have every reason in the world to oppose this bill.With respect to the possible infringement on freedom of expression, which is the subject of our meeting today, is there any language that could be used in this bill that would reassure you and allow us to resolve the issue and continue our work?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6743042674304367430446743045ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1550)[English]Thanks for that.On this specific issue, I don't think there is any doubt that we need to put proposed section 4.1 back in or exclude all scope of regulation of this kind of content. That would include discoverability, which does go, without question—as we've heard even from Professor Trudel—to choices and then ultimately to net neutrality. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67430466743047MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1550)[Translation]Mr. Trudel, what is your opinion on that? I know you're not worried about the infringement of freedom of expression, but do you think an amendment should be made to clarify all this, out of conscience and to reassure people who are concerned? BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality6743048MichaelGeistPierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel: (1550)[Translation]First, I would like to make one correction.Internet neutrality applies to the network in terms of the service, the pipes. Internet neutrality is not about platforms. The literature around the world deals with Internet neutrality in terms of the Internet connection, the pipes. It does not apply to Google or to YouTube, which are companies.If I am a doctor practising medicine online, I am still bound by the rules that govern the practice of medicine. If I am punished as a result or if I am prohibited from doing certain things, the issue is not with Internet neutrality. The same applies to broadcasting or to content being sent by the platforms. So the claim that Internet neutrality is affected seems to me to have no basis.Internet neutrality prevents those supplying connectivity from blocking or favouring certain content. Service providers are not the targets of the bill. The YouTube and Spotify platforms of the world are. The principle of Internet neutrality has never been thought to apply to companies such as those.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality6743049674305067430516743052MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1550)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.We've been focusing a lot on the risks Bill C-10 puts forward and concerns that people—experts—have raised about freedom of expression.I wonder if I could ask one quick question, Mr. Cash, of you in terms of the potential of Bill C-10. If a version of Bill C-10 is passed that does provide support for our artistic community, could you talk a little bit about the growing international marketplace and how it could impact the sector if Bill C-10 was passed?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMusic industry674305667430576743058ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAndrewCashAndrewCashAndrew-CashInterventionMr. Andrew Cash: (1550)[English]There's no question that the sector is changing, and it's changing based on a global market. Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian artists and the entire independent music sector could be poised to play a significant role in our country's post-COVID economic recovery, one that's centred around creating good middle-class green jobs, developing Canadian-owned intellectual property by artists and entrepreneurs who have the know-how and the experience to export at scale to every market on the planet, quite frankly. The needs of the sector could very much be helped by the injection of support into the sector that Bill C-10 promises. We need to work quickly to get this through because we have a lot of work to do at the CRTC to make sure this happens. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMusic industry67430596743060HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1555)[English]Thank you. I'm going to ask some questions—I probably don't have a ton of time—of Mr. Geist.Mr. Geist, my colleague Mr. Champoux has just asked what we could do to make Bill C-10 something that you would be able to support. You speak about taking out that proposed section 4.1.My concern is that we need to find a way to do this broadcasting legislation. We know it's 30 years overdue. What are the things, aside from that one, that you would like to see us do to ensure this legislation does what we've asked it to do in terms of levelling the playing field, protecting our artistic sector and our broadcasting sector, and also in terms of protecting freedom of expression?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutralityTaxation6743061674306267430636743064AndrewCashMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1555)[English]As I mentioned earlier today, my view is that the legislation is flawed on a number of levels. Frankly, if the goals you just articulated are important ones, my view, especially on the finance side, is that the best thing we can do is make sure that money is made available quickly. We can do that through things like the digital services tax and other related tax measures.I think that in many ways we have to go back and take a harder look at some of the approaches that are contained in this bill. I'm struggling a little bit with even some of the comments that I've heard today. On this notion, for example, of net neutrality, which is a core principle that ought to be protected, we've had now both Ms. Yale and Professor Trudel say it has nothing to do with that. Their own report specifically notes that there are other emerging issues that go beyond classical Internet access and have much in common with the goals of net neutrality. I don't know if that was written by some of the members who aren't standing with them anymore and have broken away from the BTLR, but nevertheless it's clear that these are issues we need to be thinking about. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutralityTaxation674306567430666743067HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1555)[English]Thank you very much. That is what I intend to do.I want to focus very specifically on comments that you made, Ms. Yale and Dr. Geist. What I'm struggling with understanding is how, if you regulate the online platforms—the media and the forums by which individual Canadians create content and share them with the world—you are not indirectly regulating the content creators themselves. You made the point that you're regulating the platforms and not the content creators, but you are indirectly regulating the content creators, are you not? I'd like Dr. Geist and Ms. Yale to speak to that, please.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation674307667430776743078ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1555)[English]All right.What I've tried to do is draw that distinction. Maybe I haven't done it clearly. The later amendments make it clear that the only thing that will be regulated with respect to platforms.... Let's keep the streaming services aside, because I think the controversy now seems to be more about the social media platforms than the streaming services. Streaming services, as curators, purchase and create the content that they then package and make available to you. If a producer creates a show that is then offered on Netflix, it's generated by a creator, but I don't think we're talking about that in the same way as what we think of on YouTube as user-generated content where people make things—podcasts, songs, dances, whatever—and then post them to a platform. They're user-generated. They're not contracted directly by a streaming service. The platforms are available to people to put things on at their discretion. That discretion doesn't change. People can post whatever they want on social media platforms. There's no regulation. The more recent amendments that Minister Guilbeault spoke to said that there would only be three things that could be done vis-à-vis those platforms—only three. There's been a real contraction of the regulation-making power of the CRTC vis-à-vis those platforms. The three things are that, first, they have to provide information about their revenues, whether advertising or subscriptions. Two, those revenues are used to calculate what their levy will be, or their spending requirement, as the case may be. It's just how much you are making in Canada and what the appropriate amount is to make as a contribution. The third piece is what we've been calling discoverability, which is how to make the Canadian creative content visible. That's it. I have a hard time seeing how that's regulation of the content. It just isn't.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationTaxationWeb giants674308167430826743083674308467430856743086MichaelGeistScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1600)[English]Okay. Thanks. We're running out of time, though, so I want to go to Dr. Geist, if you don't mind. Thank you very much.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6743087JanetYaleMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1600)[English]Thanks for that.It absolutely is, and I think you get it exactly right. What we effectively have is now an outsourcing of that regulation to the tech platforms, which actually provides Canadians with even less protection. It's government doing indirectly what it would think would be difficult to do directly, which is regulate the discoverability of that content.Let's even leave aside the notion of how we would even figure that out. If I do a video with my siblings who live in the United States and in other countries, is that Canadian content? Is that not Canadian content? We have a hard time figuring out what constitutes Canadian content for certified productions. Suddenly now we're going to ask the CRTC to decide which cat video constitutes Canadian content and which one doesn't. When you ask the government to decide what gets prioritized and what does not, that is absolutely regulation. Deputizing tech platforms to enforce those government edicts in many respects is even worse, because they aren't subject to some of the same kinds of restrictions.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation674308867430896743090ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1600)[English]Ms. Yale, do you back all 97 recommendations that you had in the Yale report?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6743096ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1600)[English]Of course, and I would note that those 97 recommendations are unanimous recommendations of the entire committee. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6743097MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1600)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate you all being here for this wonderful discussion. I will start with Ms. Yale, because I believe there was a bit of confusion. We talked about concerns for freedom of speech. You mentioned previously that there's nothing in this bill that threatens freedom of speech. You talk about users putting content online. Even if they are podcasts, they're still called programs. That's fine, but they're still carried on those platforms, and the platforms are the online undertakings that will be regulated. I believe there's a bit of confusion between Canadian artists and Canadian content regarding discoverability. Can you expand on that and maybe clear this up, being the expert that you are?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulation67431056743106674310767431086743109ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1600)[English]I think you've really well characterized the distinction I've been drawing between programs and undertakings. I think the issue of discoverability is not a new one; it's just that the context of being online and the context of being on social media platforms is a new one in the sense of what it means to promote and create visibility for Canadian content on these platforms.The way in which we've done it in traditional media is different than the way we're going to do it, I would posit, in the context of social media. It may be as simple as making sure that among.... If you think of Spotify, there could be Canadian playlists. When it comes to social media platforms, how we ensure that there are Canadian choices among the vast array of choices that you have in front of you is, I think, the appropriate one for a regulator to make over time. You can't crystalize those sorts of things in legislation, because we couldn't have contemplated the Internet when the Broadcasting Act was put in place, and we couldn't imagine the evolution of the business models for streaming services and social media platforms either. It is the very job of the regulator to figure out what is appropriate at a particular point in time, because as circumstances and business models change, so too would the need for regulatory adaptation. I think flexibility is key in such a rapidly changing environment. AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulation674311067431116743112TimLouisKitchener—ConestogaTimLouisKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis: (1605)[English]I appreciate your saying that. I appreciate your bringing up playlists, because, as an artist, I understand how Canadian artists face challenges in competing with American conglomerates and resources. The Broadcasting Act has always ensured that Canadian artists have the resources to grow to become visible locally, nationally and internationally. I feel that when Canadians go online—for example, on YouTube or someplace that has a playlist—they have a hard time discovering any Canadian artists on these platforms. That's a concern for me. I know it's a concern for our Canadian artists and the whole culture sector. Our artists are the voices of Canadians. I don't think that those online should be solely exposed to American culture. You have written, “As originally drafted, the Bill left open the possibility that some platforms, such as YouTube, might be able to avoid its obligations to make appropriate contributions. That oversight has now been remedied and we welcome that correction.” Could you explain your comments in more detail? It's around proposed section 4.1, that balance between supporting our artists and protecting our own free speech.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSocial networking sitesWeb giants674311367431146743115JanetYaleJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1605)[English]Exactly, and I think the removal of proposed section 4.1 makes it clear that social media platforms are within the scope of Bill C-10, which might have been unclear before that. As I've said, it is my view that because the user-generated content, which is still covered by clause 2.1, is exempt from regulation, I believe there is no threat to freedom of speech and that users will continue to be as free, once Bill C-10 is passed, to put whatever content they want online or on social media platforms as they are today.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated contentWeb giants67431166743117TimLouisKitchener—ConestogaTimLouisKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis: (1605)[English] Thank you.Maybe I'll turn to Mr. Cash. I know I only have a minute, but I just want to say thank you. I've been a member of CIMA for a number of years, so I appreciate your advocacy for all artists out there. You mentioned that 80% of the music sector is self-employed. I've been one of them my entire life.Can you explain to everyone the reduced income that happened with the shift to digital? Even CD off-sales would [Technical difficulty—Editor] live, would cover artists—or traditional radio play. Can you explain to everyone the amount of revenue that has been lost? I've talked to artists who I know were making about a quarter of a cent from some of this streaming, and I've talked to them about the amount of income that has been lost.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingMusic industryRoyalties674311867431196743120JanetYaleAndrewCashAndrewCashAndrew-CashInterventionMr. Andrew Cash: (1605)[English]Well, it's been widely covered that the streaming services are paying very little for the content they use. Part of the reason for that is that the market has been deflated, because we have one massive giant that doesn't need to negotiate with anyone. You're going to license it to YouTube because you want to do something, but that affects Spotify and that affects Apple Music, so there's that.There's another aspect to this, too. SOCAN has just released some statistics. In the digital world, 90% of the royalties that they collect in Canada go to foreign songwriters and just 10% stay in Canada, as opposed to conventional media. Over 30% of the royalties conventional media collect in Canada stay in Canada. That's another key aspect to what we're dealing with here.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingMusic industryRoyalties67431216743122TimLouisKitchener—ConestogaTimLouisKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1610)[English]Thank you. I appreciate that.I'm going to Mr. Geist. You just heard that Ms. Yale backs all 97 of the recommendations, including one that I find to be divisive: that members of the CRTC would be recommended to live in the national capital region, which I find problematic.Going beyond that, The Social Dilemma is a documentary out there that many have seen, including my granddaughter. She's very sharp—of course, all our grandkids are smart—and we discussed this particular bill. She is very savvy in technology. She understands how algorithms work and how they direct her from her past listening and what she does. What she objects to is the government's involvement in doing this; she very much does. This is a very sharp young person who objects to the government playing this role. She understands the private sector and their algorithms and how it affects her.Mr. Geist, you talked about the dollars. We've had members saying that this is an emergency. You've described how we can get dollars, too. I think that's the house-burning idea. How do we get dollars out?With regard to the dollar item and what other people have said about the Australian model, would you like to respond to that? How do we get there? How is Australia doing it?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationSocial networking sites67431286743129674313067431316743132RachaelHarderLethbridgeMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1610)[English]Certainly I highlight some of that on the newspaper issues that Australia has moved forward on, but to focus specifically on the issue you raised about the algorithms, which I think is important, I will say that there's no question that there are concerns. Anyone who's seen some of the movies around social media comes away, I think, rightly concerned about some of these algorithms.However, this bill is not a bill that addresses that issue. In fact, it substitutes, in some ways, the government's choices for the companies' choices. What we need instead is more algorithmic transparency on that issue.This notion that somehow one of the problems we have to solve is discoverability.... You know, we've heard it several times. I must say two things. First, Ms. Yale talked, as we heard, cross-country with a lot of people. They weren't able to come up with any evidence—zero—that there is a discoverability issue with user-generated content. There were no studies that cited that this is a problem. I'm sometimes left in this discussion wondering if people actually use these services. If you want to find Canadian content on Netflix, type in “Canada” or “Canadian”. If you don't think that there are Canadian playlists on Spotify, then perhaps you haven't used Spotify, with all due respect. There are numerous choices for precisely this kind of content.That's not to suggest that we can't do better. However, to somehow think that what we need to do is take all the user-generated content, find some mechanism to categorize it as Canadian, and then have the government make choices about what gets prioritized or not is foolhardy. That's precisely the reason there is no one else on the planet who does it.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationSocial networking sitesUser-generated content67431336743134674313567431366743137MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1610)[English] You say “no one else on the planet”, and you've repeated that a number of times, and we've heard it before. Do you hear anybody else even talking about or reacting to the idea of what Canada is attempting to do?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationSocial networking sites6743138MichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1610)[English]I think there are significant risks with what we're proceeding towards. What this bill will do, when you get foreign services looking at Canada.... Obviously some of the big players already here aren't going to go anywhere, but some of the other services that are outside of the jurisdiction may look at some of these regulations and at the costs and say that we are going to block Canadian users from the marketplace.Think of a service such as Molotov, a French-language service that is serving a whole series of French-language African countries. It's not available in Canada right now. Are they going to come into Canada if they face these kinds of regulations? There are India-based services that are the same, Korea-based services that are the same. This is going to hit our multicultural communities particularly hard, as services that might otherwise make themselves available within Canada will look at the costs, look at what we've already heard are clear obligations that they will face under these rules, and say that they're simply not going to operate in the Canadian market.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationSocial networking sites67431396743140MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1610)[English]You refer to a simple tax to support our cultural industries, and you would like to see it done. As a mechanism, could we do it quickly?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationTaxation6743141MichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1610)[English]The government has already announced it. It has said that it's going to implement a digital services tax starting next year. There are some concerns about moving forward in that regard without an international consensus, but the government has made it clear that it wants to move forward with it.They've talked about the revenue it's going to generate. It seems to me there is nothing to stop the government from saying that it is going to take a portion of those proceeds and put them into the very funds we're talking about right now to support the creators and ensure that there is money right now, as distinct from the Bill C-10 approach, which is going to take, as I say, years to sort out through the courts and the CRTC.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationTaxation67431426743143MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1615)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a pleasure to listen to the witnesses today and to the vibrant debate.I also want to say that some people have been heralded as champions of freedom of expression. I believe each and every one of the witnesses is a champion of freedom of expression, as are Canadian artists and as are all of the members of the committee. We are all devoted to and care about freedom of expression.I would point out that at the meeting we had with Department of Justice officials and Minister Guilbeault last week, I was the only member who asked about whether or not there was interplay with section 1 and section 2(b) of the charter when it came to discoverability, which is one of the issues that was raised today by Dr. Geist.I want to walk through with Maître Yale—as I'm going to call her because I'm from Quebec—a couple of the issues that I have, as questions.We're going to start from the premise that I think we all agree that users are not governed by proposed new section 2.1. The users themselves are not governed. If a user's content is governed, it's solely governed through the online undertaking, which would be governed to a lesser extent in very specific ways, provided that Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted by the committee. Those specific ways would be, number one, that they would have to disclose their revenues in Canada. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. Number two, they would be required to contribute to Canadian culture. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. The only freedom of expression issue, in my view, could lie with a third factor, which is discoverability, which is the only other thing that could be regulated if Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted.Maître Yale, would it be true, in your perspective right now, that online undertakings such as social media platforms—and I will use Facebook as an example—can actually censor the content of user posts based on their own documented rules and regulations?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSocial networking sitesUser-generated contentWeb giants6743147674314867431496743150674315167431526743153ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1615)[English]I think we have to be careful about what we mean when we think of social media platforms and the ability of these large tech platforms to intervene in content. If there is content that they consider illegal, they do today monitor content. I think it's a bit of a fiction to suggest that there is no regulation of content online. These undertakings self-regulate, because there are no rules of the game. They are thus quite vigilant—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSocial networking sitesUser-generated contentWeb giants6743154AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1615)[English]I wasn't arguing that; I was actually arguing the contrary. I was saying that beyond illegal content, social media providers will frequently say that certain things cannot be posted that are racist but that are not illegal and not hate speech. Their actual rules go beyond just legality. Isn't that correct?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyContent moderationFreedom of speechGovernment billsSocial networking sitesUser-generated contentWeb giants6743155JanetYaleJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1615)[English] Absolutely. It's really a subject for another day as to whether they self-regulate what I call the lawful but awful content today. Each platform has its own rules and regulations. Some take it down for different reasons and don't make it available. That is going on already, for sure. That was one of the reasons that I made the point that the notion that these algorithms are innocuous is not true. Each platform has its own rules and its own accountability as to what it monitors, what it takes down, what it promotes and what it pushes out at you. I don't buy the argument that somehow freedom of choice on the part of consumers reigns. It's the platforms' commercial interest that dictates to a large extent what you get to see, so I totally agree with you. I think it's better that we make sure some of those choices are Canadian ones.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSocial networking sitesUser-generated contentWeb giants67431566743157AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1615)[English]I understand. Just to go beyond, I agree with you, but getting to the algorithms, we have platforms that are publicly stating that their algorithms will serve their own private interests. They will push people towards different types of content. People will not go only to content that is their preference. In fact, Facebook itself has heralded the fact that if you are searching for Holocaust denial, Facebook will use its algorithms now to redirect you to the Yad Vashem website. It's making the decision that you should now see the truth about the Holocaust, as opposed to the types of lies that you may be stumbling onto on their platform. Their algorithms are not subject to the charter, because they're not a government. Is that correct, Ms. Yale? Can their algorithms be whatever the heck they want them to be?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsSocial networking sites67431586743159JanetYaleJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1620)[English]Right now, on a global basis, they are whatever they want them to be.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationSocial networking sites6743160AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1620)[English] In the event that the CRTC were to have the limited ability to direct the platforms to favour Canadian discoverability of Canadian creators, it wouldn't have the ability to take Canadian creators off the platform based on this amendment. It wouldn't have the ability to tell Canadian creators what to create. It may have to find a way to allow people to search for Canadian artists. That would be.... In the event the CRTC adopted such guidelines, they would have to be in conformity with the charter. Is that correct, Ms. Yale?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulation6743161JanetYaleJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1620)[English]Yes.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulation6743162AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1620)[Translation]Thank you.Mr. Geist, I fully understand that you do not want us to regulate the platforms by imposing requirements on the content they have to provide for us. I feel that your vision overlooks our reality in Quebec. We need to protect francophone culture. This is not only Quebec culture, it is also the culture of francophones outside Quebec. Could you quickly talk about that?Do you think that we can succeed in protecting Quebec and francophone culture at the same time as we protect Canadian content, which deserves to be valued and to be easily discoverable on the platforms?Earlier, you said that it's easy to find Canadian content. Yes, it may be easy to find some Canadian content, but it is not necessarily valued. That is what we are seeking to do, in the same way that Canadian broadcasting enterprises have to do.Are you completely opposed to our imposing those requirements on online platforms?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation67431686743169674317067431716743172ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1620)[English]Sure, I can say a couple of things. First off, when it comes to some.... We need to distinguish between the streaming services, again, and user-generated content.When we're talking about user-generated content, I think the answer, quite frankly, is no. I don't think that we should be requiring, in a user-generated-content world, the CRTC to get involved in making some of those choices through discoverability. In a bit of a response to Mr. Housefather's comments, if you are prioritizing some speech, you are deprioritizing other speech. There was a reason, in his Facebook example, that other content wouldn't be seen. That would be true as well with the CRTC choices for content that is, again, deprioritized.On other kinds of services, on the streaming services, it's a different argument. That's not really what we're talking about here. I do think that there is some of that content available. Netflix, for example, has the film Jusqu'au déclin, which it funded, and it doesn't even count as Canadian content. That's part of the problem with the system itself. I think there are things that can be done, but when we are focused—as we have been—on issues like net neutrality and freedom of expression, what happens is that this bill has slid away from the goals that you've just articulated into, now, the regulation of individual speech. You can say that it's being done through a platform and you can say that it's indirect, but it ultimately is the case. To be clear, from the start of the premise of your question, I repeat I am not against regulating the tech platforms. The issues, especially in the discussions we've been having around algorithms, point to the need for greater transparency so that we know how these choices are made specifically around regulating these platforms. We need better protections around the data they collect. That too is regulating the platforms. We need the Competition Bureau to be more effective in terms of anti-competitive effects. That too is regulation. It is a myth to suggest that this is about whether or not we regulate the tech platforms. This bill, at the end of the day, with these changes, is about whether or not we regulate individuals' speech.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationUser-generated content6743173674317467431756743176674317767431786743179MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1620)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This has been such a fascinating conversation, and I thank all the experts for bringing their perspectives. I know you don't agree on things, but as I said earlier, our goal here is to get good legislation for Canadians.I just have to follow up on something that Mr. Champoux asked.Mr. Geist, do you agree with the principle of supporting CanCon? Do you believe in CanCon?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6743184674318567431866743187ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1625)[English]Yes, I absolutely believe in CanCon. I actually think part of the problem that we have faced is that our rules as currently structured do a really inadequate job of ensuring that they reflect Canadian stories. There is a problem when you get, let's say, a production based on a Margaret Atwood book or a Yann Martel book and the fact that they wrote that book doesn't count for the purposes of Canadian content. There's a problem with film co-productions when films that have virtually no connection to Canada at all are treated as Canadian content. I wish that the government would take a closer look at what it means to tell Canadian stories and support genuine Canadian content. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6743188HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1625)[English]Then it's the definition, but you're supportive of the idea of making Canadian content, making it more available, promoting it, ensuring that our stories are being told or whatnot. When these web giants do not pay their fiscal fair share, I feel like it is a gift from the government to these web giants at the expense of our cultural sector, at the expense of our cultural enterprises and our cultural sovereignty.How would we fix this so that we're not giving the web giants the gift and instead are giving our cultural sectors these gifts?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsTaxationWeb giants674318967431906743191MichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1625)[English]It's tax. The obvious way that we ensure that these companies contribute into the Canadian economy if they are as successful as we've been seeing is by ensuring that we tax them appropriately and have the revenues coming out of that taxation to use as we see fit. That's obvious. The reality is that some of these companies are major investors in the country. Former heritage minister Mélanie Joly went out and got a $500-million commitment over five years to ensure that there was investment in production in Canada. It's not as if they produce nothing. Jusqu'au déclin is a good example, and Trailer Park Boys or others for Netflix. We can cite many of these kinds of examples.I don't think it's correct to say that they don't contribute anything or that they aren't producing in Canada. They quite clearly are, but it is fair to ask whether they're paying their fair share from a tax perspective. There's evidence to suggest that because of the way the system has been structured, they have not been, and we need to fix that. With that tax revenue, we can do all of this without blowing up the Broadcasting Act in this manner and directly implicating the free expression of users. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsTaxationWeb giants674319267431936743194HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1625)[English]You would see taxation instead of broadcasting legislation. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationTaxation6743195MichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1625)[English]Absolutely not. I would like us to update our broadcasting law to be a forward-looking law, not one that seeks to have a false equivalency and say that the only way we can do this is to look backwards and treat Internet companies the same as conventional broadcasters, which is what we are seeking to do, and we are increasingly finding a myriad of problems when that's the regulatory approach you take.Let's get the Broadcasting Act right, for now and for the future, and let's at the same time ensure that there are revenues there through taxation.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationTaxation67431966743197HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1625)[English]Okay. I'll share my time with Mr. Aitchison.To me, the elephant in the room is the CRTC and the lack of confidence that Canadians have in the CRTC. Many of us right now Zooming in here are former broadcasters, but there is little or no confidence in the CRTC. When we see a former chair and vice-chair and others speaking out to this bill, that in itself is the white flag that I think we are all concerned about and must address as we go forward in this bill.Mr. Geist, I'll give this question to you, because I'm a former broadcaster and we had very little confidence in the CRTC at all.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills674320067432016743202ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMichaelGeistMichaelGeistMichael-GeistInterventionDr. Michael Geist: (1625)[English]Well, I think there has been ongoing frustration for many years with the CRTC. I must admit I find it almost astonishing now that people say we can just leave almost all these issues to the CRTC and they can figure it out.As I think, frankly, that many of the members from all parties will recognize that this bill is woefully lacking in detail. It was supposed to be in a policy directive. That policy directive didn't contain much information either. On issue after issue, it left it to the CRTC solve it.You've had the CRTC chair acknowledge that there isn't great expertise necessarily now on these issues either, and anyone who has ever followed the CRTC process will think of some of the telecom issues that have been going on for years. We are talking about very lengthy processes. When I hear Mr. Cash, for example, talk about the urgency of getting some of these issues right, that urgency strikes me as wholly incompatible with this legislative strategy. It is going to take years to ensure that there is actual money on the ground. We are handing these issues over to a commission that groups from across the spectrum have really struggled with, feeling sometimes either that they have been excluded or that the decisions haven't been correct and that the decisions have taken a long period of time. There's a reason that there's that lack of confidence.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6743203674320467432056743206KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1630)[English]Thank you very much.My question might actually be for Ms. Yale or Mr. Trudel.It feels in some ways as though we're trying to reinvent the wheel. I'm wondering if we haven't looked to other jurisdictions. I'm thinking specifically about Australia, where they have come up with a threshold for revenue and the number of subscribers before they get regulated. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. Why wouldn't we follow the same kind of model that Australia has used, as opposed to what feels like, as I think Dr. Geist just said, punting authority to the CRTC to come up with specific regulations and just casting a very wide net? This strikes me as sloppy and maybe even a bit dangerous. Why wouldn't we follow Australia's lead, specifically?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation674320867432096743210KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1630)[English]Let me start.First of all, this is looking-forward regulation, not looking-back regulation. If you look at the way in which streaming services and sharing platforms would be brought into the act, you see that it's not a licensing model but a registration model, which already is substantially less onerous. It doesn't involve interfering with business models or the kind of content you produce or how you offer it. It is really a very simple mechanism. I would say this is—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation674321167432126743213ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1630)[English]Sorry, it is my time, and it feels like you're answering something that Dr. Geist was talking about. I'm specifically asking about.... Sorry, I didn't mean to—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6743214JanetYaleJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1630)[English]Right.What I was going to say is that the fundamental issue that the regulator always grapples with is whether or not the service in question is going to make a material contribution to the objectives of the Canadian broadcasting policy. In our report, and as practised by the CRTC, they do create exemption thresholds. Whether or not you put those in legislation or in regulation, at the end of the day, you're absolutely correct that there will be thresholds below which these rules wouldn't apply—revenue thresholds, subscriber thresholds. That is the job of the CRTC, in my view, and we certainly talked about that in our report, because of course, over time, what those thresholds should be would change.I don't think it's a problem to leave that to the regulator and to focus on the big players. To come up with a reasonable threshold, as you've suggested, has been done in other jurisdictions, below which there would be no regulation.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulation6743215674321667432176743218ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1630)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.My first question goes to Ms. Yale.I was happy because we talked a little bit about not just proposed subsection 2.1 and then the removal of proposed section 4.1 but also the amendment I put forward, G-11.1, which really restricts what the CRTC powers would be as far as obligations go for social media companies to report revenue made in Canada and contribute a portion of that revenue to the Canadian cultural investment fund. The other part is that the discoverability requirement would be different from that which applies to radio and television. It is actually only for the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs and doesn't have the system we think of when we think about traditional broadcasters.Taking into account that very restricted scope that's being proposed for the application to the social media platforms and the full exclusion of the application to people who are posting their content, do you think this bill should move ahead?AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationWeb giants6743224674322567432266743227ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1630)[English]Absolutely. I think there's a real sense of urgency. As a number of committee members have pointed out, these streaming and sharing platforms are extracting huge value from Canada through delighting audiences and reaping advertising and subscription revenues. On a simplified basis, as you've described, they would be required to make a contribution and to ensure that Canadian choices are made visible for people to choose from. I think that's a great thing and a really important step in the right direction.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationWeb giants6743228JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1635)[Translation]Mr. Trudel, I would like to ask you the same question.With clause 2.1 and with my amendment G-11.1, do you think that we should continue studying the bill?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67432296743230JanetYalePierreTrudelPierreTrudelPierre-TrudelInterventionMr. Pierre Trudel: (1635)[Translation]Yes.In my opinion, the bill as amended provides additional guarantees and shuts the doors very well. In other words, it reduces to zero the probability that, at any given time, the CRTC will be making decisions or could, in any way at all, affect the freedom of Internet users.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67432316743232JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1635)[Translation]Thank you.[English] I have only two minutes left, but I want to go back to you, Ms. Yale. You were at the start of this process, with your report and all of the consultations that you did. Did you have a closing comment for us as we end this discussion today?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67432336743234PierreTrudelJanetYaleJanetYaleJanet-YaleInterventionMs. Janet Yale: (1635)[English]I would say that what really struck us was the sense of urgency on the part of the Canadian creative community.It is true that some of these platforms and streaming services spend money in Canada on service productions, but the real test from a cultural policy perspective is whether or not there are investments in production in which the key creative positions are held by Canadians. That's what going to ensure that there is a vibrant cultural sector in Canada, and from a cultural policy perspective we strongly believe this. What we heard from coast to coast to coast was that we needed to bring these online services into the legislation and ensure that they make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural policy. We heard that loud and clear wherever we went.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationWeb giants67432356743236JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1300)[English] Hello, everyone. Welcome back to the 33rd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.Pursuant to order of reference on February 16, and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format as you can see across the screen. Again, I ask for your patience as we try to deal with this. Please only speak when recognized. Talking over each other under normal circumstances doesn't serve well, and, of course, being in a hybrid situation, or a virtual situation, it makes it even worse.That being said, there's also one final rule I neglected to mention last time, and that is screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted, please.One final warning, we are televised today so I hope you are sounding and looking your best as we get on with our meeting.As you know, thanks to a motion we have appearing before us right now the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding Bill C-10. Also from the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Thomas Owen Ripley, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace; and Drew Olsen, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.From the Department of Justice, we invited the Minister of Justice. We received correspondence, and we have been advised that Minister Lametti respectfully declines the invitation. However, we do have from the Department of Justice Nathalie Drouin, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Sarah Geh, director general, human rights law section; and Michael Himsl, legal counsel, also from Canadian Heritage.That being said, we go back to our original format of witnesses. What we normally do is we allow the chief witness up to 10 minutes to speak, and then we have questions and comments from members of the committee. We follow, based on our old regime, our old order of precedence, when it comes to questions.Mr. Waugh, I see your hand up.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6738910673891167389126738913673891467389156738916673891767389186738919KevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Canadian Heritage): (1305)[Translation]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Good morning, members of the committee.I’m joining you from Montréal, on the traditional lands of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.I am pleased to appear before you to discuss Bill C-10, the explanatory document the Department of Justice drafted in response to your request, and the impact of your committee’s amendments to Bill C-10. I have with me officials from my department, as you said, Mr. Chair, as well as senior officials from the Department of Justice. I am delighted to contribute to your review of the bill. I would like to begin by thanking this committee for its important work to date.Since Bill C-10 was introduced, the cultural sector, broadcasters and experts have given us—and you too, I’m sure—much food for thought. They have provided input and support on updating the Broadcasting Act across the country. Our broadcasters, our production sector and the cultural sector as a whole are counting on this new legislative tool to continue to flourish on digital platforms. They are counting on this tool to level the playing field between conventional broadcasters and digital platforms. In other words, the bill is about restoring a balance that the arrival of the Web giants has skewed very seriously in their own favour at the expense of local people and businesses.[English] If we do not modernize the act, within a few years, our creators, artists and musicians risk losing up to a billion dollars annually.However, if we move forward with Bill C-10, the Department of Canadian Heritage predicts that by 2023, online broadcasters could be contributing up to $830 million per year to Canadian content and creators.Let's remember that the audiovisual and interactive media industry employs nearly 160,000 Canadians every year. According to the 2016 census, the median annual income for core artist groups, such as musicians, singers, authors, writers, producers and directors, was only $24,300, which is well below the $43,500 median for all workers.[Translation] To make matters worse, this industry is still suffering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the years to come, the positive impacts of Bill C-10 will stimulate industry growth and increase the visibility of our stories and our artists. Canadians also support this initiative. More than seven out of ten Canadians feel that more needs to be done to promote Canadian and Quebec audiovisual content in the country, and almost half say that this content is not easy to find.[English]Although some have the view that any type of regulation for web giants is too much, most Canadians believe that we must act: 78% of Canadians agree that streamers need the same rules as those of Canadian broadcasters; 81% support the principle that Facebook and Google should pay more for news; and 83% support some form of accountability for these companies for the content shared on their platforms.[Translation]The first objective of the bill is to ensure equity between conventional and digital broadcasters and to ensure that social media platforms that act as broadcasters are also contributing to our cultural industry. Another objective is to promote Canadian cultural expression in all its diversity, including that of indigenous and racialized communities. The goal is not to regulate content generated by users, such as videos of our children, friends and colleagues. It never was. And it never will be.However, one thing is clear: more and more Canadians are listening to their favourite music and artists on social media. Right now, YouTube is the most popular online music listening service in the country. Witnesses who appeared before this committee showed that section 4.1, as drafted in the original version of Bill C-10, could allow social media platforms to get away with just about anything. They also demonstrated that section 4.1 did not take into account how these types of services are used to deliver professional content, such as content put online by record companies. While other online businesses would be required to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, social media platforms would not. How could we justify imposing obligations on Spotify, Apple Music or QUB Musique, but not on YouTube, a Google subsidiary?(1310)Following the constructive debate at second reading of the bill, all opposition parties, including the Conservative Party, deplored the fact that social networks were not covered by the bill.[English]Let me give you a few examples.On November 19, the Conservative MP from Saskatoon—Grasswood, Mr. Waugh, told the House of Commons the following:It is deeply disappointing that the government's proposals are so incredibly lacking. I am going to focus in on four points today. First, the legislation does nothing to address social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, and their various properties, such as YouTube, to pay its fair share.On March 26, he also added—again, this is the beginning of the quote:To the Professional Music Publishers' Association, you're right on about YouTube. It is not regulated in Bill C-10, and everybody is using YouTube. We are going to have an issue. As you pointed out, correctly, this should be regulated and it's not.[Translation]That’s why it was not surprising that on April 23, a majority of the members of this committee, including those of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, agreed that first, section 4.1 should be withdrawn, and that the CRTC’s powers should subsequently be restricted with respect to social media platforms.[English] We know that these platforms are very different from conventional broadcasters. The amendments proposed by my parliamentary secretary last week limit the CRTC's power to three main requirements: Number one, platforms must provide information about their revenues; number two, they must contribute financially to the Canadian cultural ecosystem and, finally, they must increase the visibility of Canadian creators. All of this would be done without ever preventing anyone from putting their own content online and sharing it, or forcing anyone to watch anything against their will. In other words, you and I, like all Canadians, would continue to enjoy the same freedom online that we enjoy now. I've said it before and I will say it again: We're not targeting individuals; we are targeting the web giants, which are almost all American companies. Our goal is simple, to get these multi-billion dollar companies that generate hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada every year to do their part to make sure our creators and artists are better paid and more visible online.We must remember that Canadian radio, television and cable companies have been subject to similar obligations for more than 50 years. In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.[Translation]In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters. Bill C-10 recognizes that there is a large diversity of digital business models. It provides ample flexibility to craft common sense rules that will evolve over time as technology changes and Canadians’ habits for accessing culture change. Once again, let me be very clear: there is no question of censoring what individuals post on social media. I would also like to point out that the Department of Justice, in its updated analysis of the bill as amended by the committee, confirms that the bill is still consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.The Internet is dominated by a few massive American companies whose algorithms dictate what we see, what we hear and what we consume. We are inundated with their information. Many of our artists and creators, especially francophones, indigenous and racialized people, have a hard time being heard.(1315)[English]Far from limiting anyone's freedom of expression, Bill C-10 wants to give more visibility to these artists and creators to ensure a greater diversity of voices and perspectives, to counter homogenization and to assert our cultural sovereignty over foreign companies that are only accountable to their shareholders. I hope the committee will resume its work and quickly move Bill C-10 back to the House of Commons. As always, I would be delighted to support you in your work. I look forward to answering your questions.[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyCultural diversityCultural industryFreedom of speechGovernment billsMedia streaming and webcastingRegulationSocial networking sitesUser-generated contentWeb giants6738931673893267389336738934673893567389366738937673893867389396738940673894167389426738943673894467389456738946673894767389486738949673895067389516738952673895367389546738955673895667389576738958673895967389606738961673896267389636738964673896567389666738967673896867389696738970ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1315)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you, Minister, for being with us. I also thank the officials and legal experts who are here to answer our various questions for being here.As my colleague Mr. Waugh pointed out, we are extremely disappointed that the Minister of Justice is not here, despite the committee's unanimous request that he testify. I think we'll talk about that later, to avoid wasting the time we have with the Minister of Canadian Heritage.First of all, I have a very simple question for you, Minister, and I hope to have a short answer: are you for or against net neutrality?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality6738975673897667389776738978ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1315)[Translation]I am for it.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutrality6738979AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1315)[Translation]That's fine. That's a good answer, especially since the Prime Minister also said he would defend net neutrality wholeheartedly. The Minister of Canadian Heritage before you, Ms. Joly, also said this in the cultural policy she introduced. She even said that the government agreed on the principle of net neutrality.Internet neutrality is defined as “a principle that should ensure equal treatment of all data flows on the Internet”. This includes everyone.Navdeep Bains, while he was Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, said this: “Net neutrality is one of the critical issues of our time, much like freedom of the press and freedom of expression before it.”Mr. Lametti, while serving as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, said this:It is clear that the open Internet is a remarkable platform for economic growth, innovation and social progress in Canada and around the world. It is essential to a modern digital economy and society. Many activities depend on it, including access to health care, education, [...], and entertainment. More broadly, it is vital for freedom of expression, diversity and our democratic institutions. A flourishing and vibrant democracy is possible only when citizens are able to communicate and access information freely.[...]Our government supports an open Internet [...]You introduced Bill C-10. You did mention at the outset that its purpose was to restore the balance, in terms of regulation, between digital and conventional broadcasters. Just so everyone understands, we're talking about Netflix, Disney+ and other digital platforms that compete with broadcasters like TVA, CBC/Radio-Canada and CTV. This could also apply to radio stations.In the process, you chose to delete the originally proposed section 4.1. I would like to know why this section was proposed in the bill in the first place.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutralityUser-generated contentWeb giants6738980673898167389826738983673898467389856738986StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1315)[Translation]The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized, you may recall, was under a Conservative government. That government put in place the entire regulatory ecosystem that we have today for conventional broadcasting. What we are trying to do through Bill C-10 is to adapt the regulations to the Web giants, who are becoming more and more important in the current ecosystem.You mentioned net neutrality. As you know...BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInternet neutralityWeb giants67389876738988AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1315)[Translation] Minister, you are not answering my question. Net neutrality, that was my first question. Secondly, I asked you why section 4.1 was proposed in the bill in the first place, when you introduced it. I would just like an answer to that question.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6738989StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1315)[Translation]But you did talk about net neutrality, in a long preamble...BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6738990AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1315)[Translation]Yes, but you answered that question earlier.Now I would like to know why, in the original version of Bill C-10, you had proposed to add section 4.1 to the act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67389916738992StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1315)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I will certainly answer the question, but the member gave a long preamble on the issue of net neutrality, so...BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6738993AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1315)[Translation]On a point of order, Mr.  Chair. I believe it is my right to ask questions and get answers.My question is simple. I would like the minister to explain to me why section 4.1 was proposed in the bill in the first place. It is simple. That is the only question. Let's forget the preamble and everything else.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsUser-generated content67389946738995StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1320)[Translation]The first version of Bill C-10 that the committee received was at that time our best interpretation of what modernization of the Broadcasting Act should be. However, as soon as the bill was introduced, I was the first to say that it could be improved.All political parties represented on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, including the Conservative Party, as well as many stakeholders, spoke out to argue that proposed section 4.1 created too broad an exemption. As Mr. Waugh said, under this section, the act would not have applied to a platform like YouTube, which is the largest music distributor in Canada today. This exemption was therefore too broad. As a result of these interventions, we decided to delete the proposed section.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsUser-generated content67389966738997AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1320)[Translation]Thank you.By deleting the section in question, you have at the same time removed protection for users who upload content to various social networking platforms.Can you name just one other democratic country that regulates user content on social networks through a broadcasting act?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationSocial networking sitesUser-generated content673899867389996739000StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1320)[Translation]I think there is a mistake in the premise of your question. Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. It is about giving us the tools to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share in cultural matters...BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationSocial networking sitesUser-generated content6739001AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1320)[Translation] Minister, let me stop you there.In proposed section 4.1, there were two sentences written in black and white that dealt with user content. You deleted that.I repeat my question: name one country in the world that, in terms of broadcasting, regulates user-generated content on social networks. Of all the democratic countries on the planet, can you name one?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills673900267390036739004StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1320)[Translation]I'm going to have to keep giving you the same answer, Mr. Rayes. The premise of your question is about content moderation. I would ask you to indicate...BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739005AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1320)[Translation]Minister, I'm asking you a question. Name one single country.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739006StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1320)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses.I was very pleased at the last meeting that I was able to bring forward this motion that was amended by Mr. Waugh, that was adopted by the committee, to have an amended charter statement to address the concerns that people had about section 2(b) of the charter and the removal of proposed section 4.1 from the bill.I'm going to tailor my questions to that issue. I'm also pleased, by the way, that our government has brought in this question of charter statements so that legal information is provided to parliamentarians and the public as we analyze the bill on the potential impact on their rights. I do want to say that that is from the Liberal government.All my questions are going to be to Maître Drouin. Maître Drouin, it's a great pleasure to see you here today.First, I'm going to have some short questions and then some longer ones, so on the short ones perhaps you could stay short.Maître Drouin, would it be true to say that charter statements are non-political documents drafted by career civil servants in the Department of Justice?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6739011673901267390136739014673901567390166739017ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameNathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin (Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice): (1320)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable member.[English]Yes, you're right. They are not political statements. They identify provisions of a bill that may potentially affect charter rights. They are drafted in plain language, and they speak to how you perform your work, but also to support public debate on proposed bills.It is a minister's responsibility. I just want to say that the minister approved the charter statement.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of JusticeFreedom of speechGovernment bills673901867390196739020AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1320)[English]Of course, but he doesn't draft it to begin with.Let me then come back to the question of the charter statement that you provided, and the amended charter statement.The amended charter statement says that there are no additional concerns or considerations that have been raised with respect to section 2(b) freedom of expression of the charter that have been brought about by changes or amendments to the bill.Is that correct?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6739021673902267390236739024NathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin: (1325)[Translation]Yes, that is correct. The supplementary explanatory document is in line with the same approach as the statements about the charter. Because the objectives of the bill, which Minister Guilbeault correctly outlined earlier, remain unchanged, it was concluded that the charter guarantees, in this case freedom of expression, were not infringed upon here.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6739025AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1325)[English] Proposed subsection 2(2.1) of the bill states that I, as a user of social media who posts and uploads on social media and am unaffiliated with Facebook or YouTube or any of the platforms I may post on, am not subject to CRTC regulation myself. Is that correct?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6739026NathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin: (1325)[English]This is a correct question and response, if I may say. Section 2 of the bill has not been affected, so users who are not affiliated to broadcasters and broadcasting service providers are not subject to the Broadcasting Act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6739027AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1325)[English]Perfect.Now I'm going to get to more detailed questions that I think would address concerns that a lot of attorneys may have in reading the charter statement.We all understand that with Ms. Dabrusin's amendment, there would be very limited CRTC regulation permitted. There would only be a couple of things that the CRTC could do: to look at Canadian revenue, to address the question of making them pay for Canadian culture and contribute to Canadian funds, and to look at discoverability.One question I have is the charter statement doesn't specifically address whether section 2(b) of the charter is violated, and whether we need to rely on section 1, the Oakes test, “reasonable limits”, to save the bill.Could you advise me? Does the way the charter statement is drafted mean that the department has determined that there's very little risk that section 2(b) itself is violated, and that we would not need to rely on section 1?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulation67390286739029673903067390316739032NathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin: (1325)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. The new proposed amendment, as you pointed out, really limits the regulatory power that the CRTC may have to a very small group and for specific authorities. What is important to say, when you look at those four heads of authorities for the CRTC, is that to adopt future regulation, they are not there for the CRTC to ask the user to change their [Technical difficulty—Editor. I think this is also a very important element. As I said, the purpose of the bill is mainly to promote culture in Canada and to protect our policy with respect to culture, whether it is in two languages or the indigenous culture. This objective remains. This is why we can conclude that the guarantee under the charter respecting freedom of expression is not limited. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulation67390336739034AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1325)[English]Thank you. Ms. Drouin, if you could once again answer the question, making clear you're not relying on section 1 of the charter to save anything because section 2(b) in itself is not violated, I would appreciate it. My other question relates to discoverability. For discoverability, for social media companies to determine prioritization, arguments may be made that you're now allowing private social media companies that are not regulated by the charter to determine priorities for Canadian content. Does that create any concern?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills673903567390366739037NathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin: (1325)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable member.[English]One thing I will say is that freedom of expression is a very large concept. This is why, when we talk about the guarantee under the charter respecting freedom of expression, we really have to look at the broader context. In Canada, it's not an absolute right when it comes to freedom of expression. You need to look at the broader context. You need to look at the proportionality of the regulation you are putting in place to regulate an industry. This is the exact analysis we have undertaken here to conclude that the guarantee under the Charter of Rights is not affected. That's an important thing. Regarding your question—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills673903867390396739040AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1330)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I thank all the witnesses who are with us today.If I may, Minister, I would like to start by setting the record straight a little bit. For some time now, you seem to have had a narrative that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP were in full agreement to delete proposed section 4.1 in Bill C-10. I would just like to put this in context and explain the process by which discussions take place between the parties in an effort to save time and make our committee work as efficiently as possible.We had amendments to suggest for proposed section 4.1. The Bloc Québécois initially advocated amending proposed section 4.1. We wanted to keep it, but remove the exclusion given to social media, while preserving the exclusion given to social media users.However, in our discussions, people in your party, Minister, suggested instead that we delete proposed section 4.1 and introduce new amendments to add other provisions in this regard, which we agreed with, I admit. However, it should not be said that this was a collaborative proposal and that we were happy with it right off the bat. We would have preferred to amend proposed section 4.1; that was our original proposal.So, there is an important nuance here, and I wanted to make that clear.That being said, we're also hearing a lot lately that the opposition parties as a whole are blocking the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10.Now, Minister, I would like to ask you a question, in all candour.At the very beginning of the impasse that we are in right now, after the first meeting that we had where the Conservative Party members raised the issue of deleting proposed section 4.1, we talked to each other. I told you that a solution that would work for everyone would be to reopen the debate on section 3 of Bill C-10, which proposes the new section 4.1 for the act, that we amend that section, and proceed. I have proposed that.Do you think that would have been a good idea, Minister?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739043673904467390456739046673904767390486739049673905067390516739052ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1330)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.Over the past few weeks, I've given several interviews about Bill C-10, and you'll probably have noticed that I've never mentioned the filibuster that your party is doing. Perhaps...C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6739054MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1330)[Translation]As you know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not sit on the committee. Since the committee is sovereign, it can propose amendments to the bill. In fact, I have invited it to do so on several occasions.We have had discussions, you and I, and you have had discussions with other members of the committee as well. You ask me if we could go back. First of all, to do what you were originally proposing would have required, as I understand it, unanimous agreement of the committee members. Some felt that would have been a very slim possibility.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67390576739058MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1330)[Translation]Minister, we have very little time, so I want to get more specific answers than that.I have told you that I am confident that all parties would give their consent to reopening the debate on section 3 of the bill to amend proposed section 4.1 and continue the work afterwards. Everyone would be satisfied.You know we sometimes have discussions behind the scenes and then it is possible to propose something in committee, knowing that we will have the assent of just about everybody. Yet, this was not even raised or considered.After wasting four meetings dithering, we still find ourselves today in the situation where a certain portion of the requests that the committee had made, among others the invitation extended also to the Minister of Justice, have not been met.If we had reopened debate on this section right after the first meeting where this issue was raised, perhaps we would be working through the sections of the bill today and perhaps we would have an opportunity to finish up the work and pass Bill C-10.In hindsight, do you think this would have been a good solution?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills673905967390606739061673906267390636739064StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1335)[Translation]This is a question based on a series of assumptions, and any answer from me would be highly hypothetical.As we have seen over the past few weeks, there are clearly Canadians who believe that the Internet should not be subject to any form of regulation, whether it be on the cultural issue, hate speech, or media compensation. Some of these critics began their action at the same time the Yale report came out. I recall that the former leader of the official opposition had said that he would not even read the Yale report and would throw it in the trash.Honestly, beyond all the debate surrounding proposed section 4.1, I think there is one political party that has decided to highlight this issue as if the entire bill C-10 revolves around a single section, which it obviously does not...BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills673906567390666739067MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1335)[Translation]Minister, I'm going to interrupt you, because I only have 40 seconds left to ask a question, even though I know the answer to my question anyway.That said, I'm going to ask you a pretty easy question.Do you think it would be a good idea to include provisions in Canadian broadcasting policy that the Broadcasting Act and its regulations must contribute to the exercise of freedom of expression? Do you think that should be included in the act and regulations, in addition to the amendments we are proposing? Do you think that would be a good idea?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content673906867390696739070StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1335)[Translation]I think that element is in one of the sections of the bill that was passed by the committee. That discussion has already taken place and is over.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6739071MartinChampouxDrummondScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1335)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd also like to thank all our witnesses for being with us today. Thank you, Minister, for coming to answer our questions.Minister, you started your intervention today by stating that the cultural sector is counting on us. I thank you for acknowledging that, though I have to express my disappointment in the way you've managed the creation and the communications around this legislation.I, for one, am looking forward to continuing to work as hard as we can to get this legislation fixed and get it through this committee. I know that is not the case with all our committee members. We have seen filibustering and all kinds of things being done to delay and impede this committee's work. I think a lot of it, unfortunately, does have to fall to you, Minister. With all due respect, your mishandling of this bill has put all of us in this committee in a very difficult position.Many Canadians are concerned about the government wanting to regulate the content that they upload on social media. Now, I think we're all clear that the bill would not give the power to the CRTC to regulate users on social media, but experts are saying that the content they upload could be. Even you have said so during some of your interventions with media.The updated charter review received by the Department of Justice seems to say that the respect of the charter is in the hands of the CRTC, instead of making it clear in the legislation. If we don't get this right, the legislation will be challenged in court and it will not be applied for years, which will put all of our cultural sector at a real disadvantage.Do you have a plan to address the concern of Canadians that their content will be subject to CRTC regulations?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationUser-generated content6739074673907567390766739077673907867390796739080ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1335)[English]I won't go through it, but you've probably heard that there is a long list of organizations in Quebec and in English Canada, a list many pages long, that have all come out in the last few weeks in support of Bill C-10, ranging from musicians to independent producers to writers and so on. I have spoken over the course of the last year to thousands of people in the culture sector, and they agree with what we're trying to do with Bill C-10.Again, earlier in my speech I quoted polling results that were released recently showing that 78% of Canadians—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationUser-generated content67390816739082HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1335)[English]Your plan, then, is just to tell us that lots of people support it. That's your plan to reassure Canadians? It's: “Don't worry, I have a list of organizations that support it.” That's your plan?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739083StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1335)[English]No, that's not my plan, but there were many elements in your question, and I am trying to adequately answer all of them. One element you spoke about in your question concerned the cultural sector, so I answered that.On the second part of your question, there is no situation in which a user has to respect any type of CRTC regulation. There is no situation in which a user, even with millions in revenues and dues, has to deal in any shape or form with the CRTC.Let me remind you that the sole regulation the CRTC can impose on a social media platform is the discoverability of Canadian creators. The Internet is infinite—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationUser-generated content673908467390856739086HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1340)[English]But it's the content piece that we're looking at—not the user, but the content piece. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyContent moderationGovernment billsRegulation6739087StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1340)[English]Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. The CRTC, in its last 50 years of existence, has never done content moderation, and Bill C-10 doesn't give the CRTC the ability to do content moderation.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyContent moderationGovernment billsRegulation6739088HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1340)[English]I think we have a charter statement that is pretty clear about Bill C-10's respecting section 2 of the charter. We've also heard from deputy minister Drouin, who has been very clear on that as well. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6739090HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1340)[English]We've just heard you mention your list of organizations that support Bill C-10. Obviously, everyone on this committee has met with organizations that have expressed their concern about this legislation and their support for having good legislation. We all understand that this legislation is not as strong as it needs to be. This is why there are 120 amendments to the bill that the committee is trying to get through.In your recent interviews on Bill C-10, Minister, you seem to want to go after experts who want to protect one of the most important rights in our democracy, and that is the freedom of expression. The experts who are working on this issue and have been working on it for a very long time have expressed concerns. They have expressed the view that there are problems within the legislation.What is the goal of attacking them, when we should be working with them to find a solution? It feels to me very much as though we have you saying, “Don't worry, it's not a problem” and the Conservatives saying, “Let's not do anything at all; let's not provide legislation for our broadcasters.” Even the cultural sector doesn't obviously want to regulate user-generated content.It feels very much as though you're trying to divide Canadians on this issue and not to work collectively to find a solution. I am wondering why that is.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6739091673909267390936739094StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1340)[English]I would beg to differ with the premise of your question. Many experts have come out in Quebec and in English Canada saying that Bill C-10 was not an infringement on freedom of speech or an attack on the charter. In fact, we now have a statement by the independent civil servants of the Department of Justice saying exactly that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67390956739096HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1340)[English]I recognize that there are people who believe there should be no regulation whatsoever when it comes to the Internet; that there should be no regulation on cultural issues, on issues such as hate speech or on fair remuneration of media, and part of the Canadian population agrees with them as well. I recognize that. My government and I disagree with that point of view. We believe there should be regulation on all of these elements, and so do many other countries. I have had conversations with counterparts in Germany, in France, in the U.K., in Finland, in Ukraine—I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content673909867390996739100HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1340)[English]Thank you.Minister, let's just have a bit of fun. I know you're on the hot seat, so we'll just take it easy here for a moment.There were three movies that were graded by the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, CAVCO, which of course rates the Canadian-ness of videos. One of the videos was called Ultimate Gretzky. It's a film that showcases Canada's very own Wayne Gretzky and his career in the NHL. Is this a Canadian film?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739105673910667391076739108ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]As you rightly pointed out, there is an organization whose mandate it is to do this.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739109RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]It's just a simple yes or no. Is it a Canadian film?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739110StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]It's not up to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or any other politician to make that determination.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739111RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]Okay. I was just curious as to whether you knew. Canadian Bacon has also been given a rating. It stars Canadian actor John Candy. It was filmed in Canada and it's about Canada. Is that a Canadian film?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills673911267391136739114StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]I love that film, but again, it's not up to the Canadian Minister of Heritage or any other politician to make those determinations.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739115RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]Okay. I know. I just thought that because it falls under your department maybe you would know.The third film is called Who Killed Gandhi? It's an investigative documentary of the death of Gandhi. Is it a Canadian film?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills673911667391176739118StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]You keep asking the same questions. Unfortunately, the answer will be the same.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739119RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]Okay. Interestingly enough, Ultimate Gretzky isn't; Canadian Bacon isn't; but Who Killed Gandhi? is. Minister, you keep talking about wanting to protect Canadian content and further Canadian culture, yet I just listed two films, Ultimate Gretzky and Canadian Bacon, that should be classified as Canadian content. They're not. You're not even able to identify that, so what confidence should Canadians have in your ability to legislate this?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739120673912167391226739123StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]It's important to remember that the committee is sovereign, and if the committee identifies a potential problem, and we're a minority government, the—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739124RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]—committee can introduce elements to correct the bill.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739126RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]There are two sections in this bill that were of significance: proposed subsection 2(2.1), which protects individuals; and proposed section 4.1, which protects their content. Proposed subsection 2(2.1), on individuals, was kept in, but the section that protects their content, what they post online, was taken out. Therefore, they no longer have that protection. Why?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyContent moderationGovernment billsRegulation67391276739128StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]You might have heard, like I did a few minutes ago, Justice Deputy Minister Drouin answer that question very clearly, specifying that the powers given to the CRTC are very narrow and targeted and don't have to do with content moderation.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyContent moderationGovernment billsRegulation6739129RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]Okay.Will the CRTC then be given the responsibility under Bill C-10, the power to regulate the algorithms used by social media platforms to decide what type of content that people can and cannot see on their Facebook feeds or the information that appears on Google or YouTube? BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInformation collectionRegulationWeb giants67391306739131StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]The concept of discoverability is about—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739132RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]I'm just curious. Will the CRTC be given that power?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739133StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]I just wonder if the CRTC will have the power to regulate algorithms.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739140ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]Again, the concept of discoverability is ensuring that, as part of these platforms, Canadian content becomes more visible for Canadians, or actually any audience, to watch. There won't be any requirement, obviously, for users, just like is the case right now with YouTube—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsInformation collectionRegulationWeb giants6739141RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English] That's a yes, then. They will have the ability to regulate.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationWeb giants6739142StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1345)[English]That is not a yes.When you go on YouTube, three-quarters of what is viewed on—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsRegulationWeb giants67391456739146RachaelHarderLethbridgeMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1350)[English]Thank you.Mr. Philip Palmer and Mr. Len St-Aubin were both at the table when the Broadcasting Act was originally put together. They're now available and able to offer their expertise on this subject matter. Did you consult them when creating Bill C-10?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67391576739158ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1350)[English]I would be happy to provide the committee with the list of all Canadian experts and organizations that have been consulted for the preparation of the Bill C-10.I'll also remind the members and the committee that, prior to Bill C-10 being tabled, there was an almost two-year consultation leading up to the Yale report that was done, and close to 2,000 papers were presented.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67391596739160RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1350)[English]Thank you.It's interesting, because I had the opportunity to meet with them. I'm a backbencher, and they made time for me.I found it interesting that you didn't take the time to reach out to them, because I think they would have been more than happy to give you some time.What they have to say about the bill is this. “The arrogance of taking this huge vehicle of expression, commerce and learning—in other words the Internet—and stuffing it into an act that was designed to regulate a technology that is now more than century old is an offence to reason.”Minister, they have huge issues with Bill C-10, and they've asked you to scrap it. I would request the same.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6739165StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien: (1350)[English]Mr. Chair, thank you so very much. Thank you to the minister and deputy minister for joining us here today.Deputy Minister Drouin, when we last heard from you, my colleague Mr. Housefather was asking you a question. I just want to give you the time to finish it, so please go ahead.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulationUser-generated content673917067391716739172ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameNathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin: (1350)[English]Thank you. I guess the question you are alluding to is the discoverability question.As I said, because the purpose of the bill hasn't changed, and because the four authorities in this one in particular are not a regulatory power that the CRTC can ask indirectly to broadcasting service providers to change the content of an individual, of an unaffiliated user, this is why we conclude that this power in particular does not affect the guarantee freedom of expression.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsRegulationUser-generated content67391736739174MarciIenToronto CentreMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien: (1350)[English]Deputy Minister Drouin, thank you so much for that.Minister Guilbeault, I'll move on to you right now.At committee we heard from several witnesses from the BIPOC community—Black, indigenous, people of colour—who expressed deep concerns about their voices being considered in this bill.How will reforms lead to increasing those voices and make sure that there is more diversity in this sector? Can you paint a picture for us, please?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCultural diversityCultural industryGovernment bills6739175673917667391776739178NathalieDrouinStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1350)[English]I think achieving this goal is about three things, and not necessarily in this order. Certainly, it's who we nominate to take part in many of our institutions—the Canada Council for the Arts, our national museums and various other organizations. As minister, I've had the pleasure and privilege of nominating Jesse Wente, an indigenous person, an accomplished artist and producer, as chair of the Canada Council for the Arts. It's the first time ever, in the history of Canada, that we have an indigenous person at the head of the council. Gaëtane Verna, who's originally from Haiti, is also now on the board of the council. Isha Khan is the first Muslim woman to head a national Canadian museum. We have to ensure that those organizations are a good reflection of what Canada is in its diversity. I think it's about ensuring that our programs are adapted to the needs of those communities. Again, in the audiovisual sector, we now have a fully funded indigenous screen office as per budget 2021. We are working on a Black screen office as well. I have been meeting with many of those witnesses who appeared in front of the committee to work with them to see how we can do this.Third, it's about putting our money where our mouth is, ensuring that groups, that racialized Canadians and indigenous Canadians, have access to the resources they need to tell their stories, to express their arts, and to be visible, here and abroad.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCultural diversityCultural industryGovernment bills673917967391806739181MarciIenToronto CentreMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien: (1355)[English]Is it your opinion, Minister, that these reforms will help to amplify those voices even more?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCultural diversityCultural industryGovernment bills6739182StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1355)[English]Yes. I think we still have a long way to go. There's still a lot of work to do, but Bill C-10 will enable us, as I said in my remarks initially, and will mean that around $830 million in additional money is added for the cultural sector and certainly for BIPOC communities and under-represented groups in our arts and culture sector.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCultural diversityCultural industryGovernment bills6739183MarciIenToronto CentreMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien: (1355)[English]Minister Guilbeault, thank you.Madam Drouin, the Minister of Justice has provided this committee with an amendment update. It outlines quite clearly that there are safeguards to protect social media users. I wanted to ask you to explain how that happened despite the removal of proposed section 4.1.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67391846739185StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieNathalieDrouinNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin: (1355)[English]First of all, I think Minister Guilbeault said it very clearly. When this committee decided to strike one of the sections of the bill, it was not made in a vacuum. The intent was to re-table amendments. This amendment is quite clear. It restricts the CRTC power on broadcasting service providers, on the type of regulation they can adopt to, as I said, very limited for a head of authority powers. I think it's important not to read the bill just as the first amendment that this committee adopted but in light of the other amendments that Minister Guilbeault wanted to bring—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content67391866739187MarciIenToronto CentreScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameNathalieDrouinNathalie-DrouinInterventionMs. Nathalie Drouin: (1355)[English]Maybe I would add one thing, in terms of new content, about what I said before. It's also important to say that the CRTC is also bound by the charter and has to respect the charter. The CRTC has a discretionary power and will have to exercise its authorities respecting the charter. There are also some mechanisms to make sure that the CRTC will respect the charter.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment bills6739189ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1355)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Minister, at the end of my first turn, I asked you about the possibility of specifying, in the Broadcasting Act, that the regulator's decisions had to promote, safeguard and ensure freedom of expression.Freedom of expression is mentioned in the bill, but in relation to broadcasting undertakings. Before objecting to your position, I wanted to revisit the subject because, now, we are talking about users, regular folks.Don't you think those who are worried might find it reassuring if you were to add an amendment that built such a statement into the Broadcasting Act going forward? I am talking about something specifying that the Canadian broadcasting system has to provide Internet and social media users in general with an additional layer of protection for freedom of expression.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6739194673919567391966739197ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1400)[Translation]Thank you for your question.It requires a multipart answer.First, as repeatedly stated, Bill C-10 will not apply to individuals. You are right to say that new subsection 2(3) of the act refers to undertakings, not individuals, because the act will apply to undertakings, not individuals.You no doubt heard the deputy minister, Ms. Drouin, very clearly say that the Department of Justice issued a statement indicating that Bill C-10, as amended, respects the charter, on one hand. On the other hand, as she just explained, the CRTC also has an obligation to respect the charter in exercising its authority. Mechanisms are in place to ensure that happens.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyFreedom of speechGovernment billsUser-generated content6739198673919967392006739201MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1400)[Translation]I'd like to say one more thing.The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not on the committee. In addition, we are a minority government. The committee can decide to propose amendments to Bill C-10. It is true that the bill has already undergone a hundred or so amendments, which, by the way, is not unusual for a bill. As lawmakers, I think we can always do better; a bill can always be improved.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67392036739204MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1400)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Again, I would like to thank the minister for being here with us today.Minister, as you know I am the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona. As you probably know, Edmonton Strathcona is the heart of the creative sector in Alberta. This legislation is vitally important to so many members of my constituency and so many members across Canada. We know that if a solution is not found to protect freedom of expression, this law will not go forward. It will go to court. It will not be enforced for years. This will have a huge impact on the cultural sector in Canada.The members of this committee have been pushed hard to work quickly on this bill because it needs to get done. I, for one, supported the Liberals' motion to have extended sitting hours and to have additional meetings added. The only reason we really feel this time crunch is because your government has not ruled out calling an election in the middle of this pandemic. Otherwise, we would still have months ahead of us to ensure that we get this right and that we do our job properly.Can you assure the committee and the stakeholders who are so desperate for good legislation that we can take the time to do this job right and that your government will not call an election?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67392096739210673921167392126739213ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1400)[English]I would like to address the first element of the question, which is about freedom of speech. As you've seen, and as you've heard today, we have a charter statement that was written by the independent civil service—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739214HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1400)[English]I am sorry, Mr. Minister, I know that you're trying to address all that I brought up. We're going to run out of time because I only have two and a half minutes.Will you commit to not calling an election before we can get this legislation done?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67392156739216StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1400)[English]Could I be allowed just to finish my answer on the charter statement? You have a charter statement in front of you. You've heard Deputy Minister Drouin explain very clearly that Bill C-10 respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,. Not only that, but there are mechanisms in place for the CRTC to ensure that it does that. It has discretionary powers, but these powers are not absolute. They have to be exercised in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739217HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1400)[English] I certainly don't mean to be rude, but I think that you're not going to answer the question about whether or not you would stop plunging us into an election during the pandemic.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6739218StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/14171StevenGuilbeaultHon.Steven-GuilbeaultLaurier—Sainte-MarieLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GuilbeaultSteven_Lib.jpgInterventionHon. Steven Guilbeault: (1400)[English]My government is not interested in having an election. I think we've seen that some parties have been fundraising around the controversy they created around Bill C-10. We haven't been doing that. We've been hard at work trying to do everything we can to help the arts and culture sector.I would remind you that the budget that was just presented by Deputy Prime Minister Freeland is a historic budget when it comes to the arts and culture sector in this country. We have never seen such an important budget to help our artists, our musicians, our creators. It is a historic budget. I think we've seen that we are there for our artists, and Bill C-10 is another clear example of that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67392196739220HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1415)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank Mr. Rayes. I was going to listen to what the justice department had to say, but I think it's important to go back to Monday, May 10, when Mr. Housefather brought the motion out and I made subamendments to that. If possible, Mr. Chair, could we have the clerk read the three sections of our motion, just to get an idea of who we invited? We did invite, I believe, the justice minister, and the department officials, and we do not have the justice minister here. Part of my concern, Mr. Chair, is when I went on the web page of Justice...you know, it's the Broadcasting Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and this is the old one. They're still citing clause 3.This is why we needed to get the minister here today. We need a point of clarification. When I see the charter statement on the web page of the justice department and it's an old one, which is it? Are we using the old one? You sent an email out and this is what we have, so I do believe we need to hear from the Minister of Justice. We need a clarification on this because it's my recollection on the Monday that we asked both ministers to come, and we want to thank Minister Guilbeault on behalf of the committee for fulfilling his obligation for one hour. However, we also asked for the Minister of Justice to come. When I look at the Justice website now, I am totally confused about where we're going on this. They haven't updated it, or if they have, let us know. It is the minister who is responsible for the charter. I appreciate the department officials in the first round of questioning and we're going to question them in a minute, but as a committee, all 11 of us agreed, including the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, to have both ministers appear before the heritage committee, before we even moved on to our panel. The clerk has done yeoman service trying to get the panel ready for Monday, but now I would say that we need to hear from the Minister of Justice himself before we move on, on Monday. I would like a clarification on our amendment to the motion by Mr. Housefather, and we all agreed to the subamendment on Monday, so what happened to the justice minister today?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67392386739239673924067392416739242673924367392446739245ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1415)[English] There are just a couple of things. Let me start with the second point first, which was the statement that is currently posted.A motion was passed on March 8 and I will read it for you:That the committee publish on the committee's website written responses to questions provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage.What is put on our website is exclusive to that.Now, that being said, I am a servant of the committee itself, and humbly so. If you wish to have what was released recently by the Department of Justice regarding Bill C-10—the revised—we can have that published, but I pretty much need permission from all to do that.Do I have permission to post on our committee website the recent opinion by the Department of Justice as we just discussed?Seeing no resistance and a plethora of thumbs, I'm going to say that we will publish it. I will ask the clerk to publish it following this meeting.Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotions67392466739247673924867392496739250673925167392526739253KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodAlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAiméeBelmoreAimée-BelmoreInterventionThe Clerk: (1420)[English]Thank you, sir.As adopted Monday, May 10, 2021:That the committee: (1) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee's changes to the Bill related to content uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter Statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (2) Invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant departmental officials, and an expert panel consisting of one witness from each recognized party to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter Statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill. (3) Suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsGuilbeault, StevenLametti, DavidMinister of Canadian HeritageMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to membersUser-generated content673926367392646739265673926667392676739268KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1420)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have one last comment. I'm not trying to prolong the meeting. I know the honourable members may have questions for the witnesses, but I need you or the clerk to clarify something for me, please.On Monday, just before the vote, I asked a question. I checked the transcript to make sure I was remembering correctly, and here's what I said.I want to make sure that we are all agreeing on the same thing: we are going to hear from the experts after we have heard from the two Ministers. That order is important, because the experts will be reacting to the Ministers' comments.I see nodding.I just want to make sure that, if, for any particular reason, the Liberals are not able to convince the Ministers to be here on Friday, they will come on Monday and the meeting with the experts will simply be put back.After that, I said thank you, because I could see members nodding.Then, Mr. Chair, you said this:[English]“I don't need to repeat that, correct? I see enough nodding heads around the room. It's a critical mass of nods, if I could use the term, to proceed in that way.”[Translation]I just want to make sure that I am clear on what all the members of the committee agreed on.Once we get the information from you, Mr. Chair, and once all those who wish to comment have, we can proceed and hear from the witnesses who are here today.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673927267392736739274673927567392766739277673927867392796739280ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1420)[English]Here's what I have: I have direction from the committee and what we have done in the past.If you recall the last witness meeting we had, instead of doing the two separate hours, we did one two-hour block with the ministers—if they were there—and accompanying officials. I'm more or less following what you're saying, but I'm also following what we have done in the past regarding Bill C-10 witnesses. However, I'm open to suggestion as to whether you would like to change that or not. If I misinterpreted what you said at the end, Mr. Rayes, I sincerely apologize. I thought the direction of the committee was that we would have two ministers accompanied by officials appear before the committee, as well as four experts and the revised charter statement that was asked for. That's from the amended motion.Let me now go to Mr. Waugh.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6739282AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1425)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Let's, as this committee, agree unanimously to get both ministers here. I think the Minister of Justice is showing a lack of consideration for the charter, to be honest with you. Issuing a charter statement may be fine, but come and explain yourself to the committee of heritage as we study Bill C-10, amending the Broadcasting Act. I've just talked about this. All committee members unanimously last Monday agreed to bring both ministers to committee. There is a lack of consideration by the Minister of Justice.Mr. Chair, I'll bring up another issue. When Mark Zuckerberg decided not to show up at committee, the biggest uproar in the committee was from Liberal MPs sitting around the table.I think that, for consideration, we need to hear from the Minister of Justice on this. Doing a press release and sending out an update charter statement is fine, but come. We've asked him to come, it was agreed to last Monday, and that's the least the minister can do.Ms. Drouin, thank you for filling in, but we want to see the minister. We got that co-operation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but we did not get it from the Minister of Justice. Out of consideration, faced with this important bill that has been discussed for months I think he owes it to the committee to come, as we have asked him to come.We have next week open before we can get to the panel. We need to hear from the justice minister first and then go to the panel. As you said, we have three meetings scheduled next week. We can delay until the minister decides whether he wants to come Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and then we can move ahead with the panel.Thank you.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6739296ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1425)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have to agree. I'm deeply disappointed that the minister isn't here to join us. The reason for that disappointment is that his not being here does not comply with the motion. This motion was brought forward at the beginning of this week. It was important for us to stop the filibustering and the logjam that had happened within this committee; it was a way we had all worked together to try to move forward on this legislation. Without the minister's coming, the potential for us to fall back into that logjam, to fall back into a position in which none of the work that needs to happen gets done at this committee, is enormous.I think it's vitally important that he come. I strongly support making sure that the minister comes and shares his perspective with us and lets us ask him questions, so that as parliamentarians we can do the work that our constituents and Canadians have tasked us with.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67393046739305673930667393076739308ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1425)[English]Thank you.I would just like to point out to everyone that we actually have the Justice officials here and that Madame Drouin is available. We have another half hour in this meeting.My question to the other members would be: what are the questions you want to ask, and why not ask them of the officials who are here?It's also my understanding from a review of the blues—and I would like to clarify this—that there was not unanimous agreement of the parties that we must hear from the ministers first, before the panel. I don't really see there being a reason to delay the panel's being heard on Monday.Again, as I pointed out, we have people here who are ready, willing and able to answer those questions. Why don't we put those questions to them?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotions67393106739311673931267393136739314ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1425)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I'm at a loss. I have to be honest with you. I don't know what's happening. I'm not sure where the dithering is coming from, but apparently someone, somewhere, doesn't really want the study of the bill to continue.The motion the committee adopted on May 10 is clear. I have been going over it for a while now. It called on the committee to “invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials”. It doesn't get any clearer than that, Mr. Chair.The committee has been at an impasse for weeks. We have lost precious time. No one doubts the good faith of the Liberal members on this committee. I know they are all committed to moving this bill forward. I know Mr. Guilbeault is also committed to moving it forward. He cares about the cultural sector. I don't doubt it for a second.Nevertheless, someone, somewhere, does not appreciate how urgently action is needed or understand what we are asking. We asked for the Minister of Justice to appear. Why isn't he here? The request didn't come out of the blue. We have been talking about this for weeks. Surely, he would have been prepared. He must have anticipated that he would have to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as part of this study.I really don't know what the roadblock is. Frankly, the situation is ludicrous.The Minister of Justice was supposed to be here today. I have the utmost respect for Ms. Drouin and her team, and I have no doubts as to their knowledge or ability to answer all of our questions. The fact remains that we asked the minister to appear. That was the condition we had agreed on in order to break the impasse at which we found ourselves.I don't know what the roadblock is, but there just might be someone, somewhere, who needs to get things straight and realize how urgently we need to deal with this matter.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members6739316673931767393186739319673932067393216739322ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): (1430)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I just want to reiterate. To Ms. Dabrusin's point, she is absolutely correct that we have departmental officials here, and I have no doubt that Ms. Drouin is a very capable lawyer and very learned, but we did ask for the minister. The minister himself is an impressive individual. He is a very impressive lawyer. He is a legal scholar. He taught law at McGill, and he has written many articles on property law and intellectual property. I think he could, in many ways, really be seen as an expert in this field. We asked for him specifically. I think everyone agrees that he was supposed to be here. I think he has made some really interesting points in the House of Commons over the years about things like the importance of net neutrality. I think he is quite knowledgeable, and it's one of the reasons we wanted him here. If the committee has a role in this Parliament, and we get to ask ministers to come to us, that's great, but the Minister of Heritage has fumbled an awful lot of the answers to these things and created more confusion, as Ms. McPherson quite justifiably pointed out. I think Mr. Lametti would be able to help clear an awful lot of this stuff up. The fact that we have a Liberal, Ms. Dabrusin, suggesting that we should just move on and talk to the officials makes me wonder if maybe Mr. Lametti can't defend what's going on, and he just chooses not to be here.If we've asked for the Minister of Justice to be here, he should be here. I think it shows contempt for this committee.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673932467393256739326673932767393286739329ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1435)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.It's interesting that you read that, because that means this committee's work could, effectively, be stalled out indefinitely. According to the motion that was passed by this committee, as amended, the justice minister does need to come and appear before this committee before we can proceed to clause-by-clause. And I believe clause-by-clause is necessary in order for Bill C-10 to make it into law.I would put forward the same request that my other colleagues and the members from the NDP and the Bloc have put forward, and it is that the justice minister, according to the motion that was passed at this committee, does need to appear.I recognize that there are expressions made when using verbal communication, and then there are expressions made in other ways. In committee, it's common to often pass things or agree upon things based on a head nod or a hand put up, especially in our virtual world. And it was agreed upon at this committee that the Minister of Justice would come before we hear from the other expert witnesses.Again, I would plead with you, Mr. Chair, that this should take place first.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67393446739345673934667393476739348ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1435)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a couple of things.First of all, I am also disappointed that the justice minister is not here.Second, the motion is not quite as people are saying it is. The motion was to invite them. It was not to not proceed if they didn't attend. Inviting is not the same as forcing someone to attend. That's compelling people to attend, which can't be done in the case of a minister.In this case, we do have a very competent deputy minister who is here, who can answer the questions. I have heard Madame Drouin on many occasions—I used to be the chair of the justice committee—answer questions very effectively. If we do have questions on this issue, I think the first step is to ask them of Madame Drouin, which I did on my questions related to the charter statement.We have a panel coming up on Monday. Those people have already been invited. The panel has been set up. I think we should proceed with that panel. If the committee wishes to re-invite the minister and to reiterate its invitation to the minister, I think that's totally reasonable, asking him to come on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.For the most part, my argument is this. What the motion said was that we were to get a charter statement. We got it. We were to invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Heritage, and their officials. We invited them. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and his officials came. The officials for the Minister of Justice came. Now we're at the point where we have people here who could answer questions, and we're not asking them the questions.I think we should ask the questions. We should proceed with the panel on Monday. Again, if the committee wishes to reiterate an invitation to the Minister of Justice, I will support it, as I did on Monday of this week.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673935267393536739354673935567393566739357673935867393596739360ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1440)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'd like to point something out in response to Mr. Housefather's comments. With all due respect to him, point 3 of the motion, as unanimously adopted by the committee, clearly states that the committee will “[s]uspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.” We all agreed on the fact that the committee should meet with both ministers. The Minister of Justice has refused thus far. I will go even further and say that, before we voted, I went to the trouble of asking for clarification. I wanted to be sure that we would hear from both ministers before hearing from the panel. Everyone nodded their head. I'm not saying that we necessarily need to cancel Monday's meeting; we can make a decision on that. However, I want to underscore the fact that I went to the trouble of seeking that clarification.Everyone has said they want to work together in a collegial manner, but we had agreed on the motion as a way out of the impasse. Today, we find ourselves at that same impasse, which has lasted for two weeks. On Monday, the committee finally adopted the very motion that members had refused to support two weeks prior.I want that to be clear. What's happening is truly unfortunate. I thought for sure that we would be hearing from both ministers today, that the four witnesses would be appearing on Monday of next week and that we could then move things along. That does not seem to be the case, however.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6739370ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1440)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I really appreciate the conversation. I think the deputy minister who is here is a very learned person, but she made one critical statement—that whatever this document was that was provided, it was approved by the minister. The buck stops there. That's why it's critical that the minister is the person that we meet with. I think that's why we're unanimous. He approved this document. Somebody else may have written it, but it's under his signature. That's why it's very critical that he is the person who then speaks with us and answers our questions, as we unanimously asked for. As the deputy minister said, it's under his approval.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members6739375673937667393776739378ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1445)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have the solution for us today.My solution is that we propose another invitation be sent to the Minister of Justice and that we postpone the guests we have here today until Tuesday or Wednesday, when the justice minister can come to committee. I think we all agree that we'd like to hear from him. If we can do that, I'll propose that this committee sends another invitation to the justice minister, and thus we postpone the guests we have here today until they can come with the minister.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673939267393936739394ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English]The motion states—and I'll paraphrase here, Mr. Waugh, for the sake of time—that you extend an invitation to the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee. Did you say Tuesday, or Tuesday and Wednesday?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members6739397KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1445)[English]I said Tuesday or Wednesday, along with department officials.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members6739398ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1445)[English]I just wondered whether we could put a time constraint on that. My worry always is that we get bogged down and don't do the work that we need to do. Would Mr. Waugh be willing to accept a limit in how long we postpone, regardless?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotions6739409ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1445)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I want to respond to what Ms. McPherson said. The biggest delay is due to the fact that we cannot move forward as long as the minister has not appeared.If the Liberals genuinely want to move this bill forward, they will make sure the Minister of Justice appears before the committee for one hour. Point 3 of the motion clearly stipulates that clause-by clause consideration will be suspended until the committee has heard from both ministers. Points 1 and 2 have to be completed in order for us to resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.It's hard to set a stricter time limit than that. It's quite surprising that the minister isn't here today.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members6739418673941967394206739421ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1450)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.May I propose an amendment to this motion, that it read that the minister actually appear before the committee, rather than our just inviting him?Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67394386739439ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1450)[English]If I may, Mr. Chair, what I'm saying is not that we're issuing a subpoena to the Minister of Justice; we're saying that we won't continue with clause-by-clause until he comes. If that compels the government to send him or compels Mr. Guilbeault to get on the phone and say, help me out; you're my partner in whatever here, so come.... I think it compels the government to be a little more engaged with us on this issue.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67394436739444ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1450)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I find it incredible that the committee has to include a note stating that it must hear from the minister before hearing from the experts. If we must, we must.I repeat, I checked the transcript from Monday's meeting. I did indeed go to the trouble of asking all the committee members before we voted. Everyone agreed before the vote. I asked the question explicitly to be certain I understood what we were voting on. I asked whether we would be hearing from both ministers before hearing from the experts. No one objected. No one made a single comment. I even pointed out that everyone had nodded their head. With all due respect, Mr. Chair, even you pointed it out.It's fine to repeat it, but I do want to point out to everyone that that was what we had agreed on. I have the transcript in front of me. Even though we all received it, I can email it to anyone who may have doubts.I wanted to make that clear, Mr. Chair.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67394466739447673944867394496739450ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1455)[English]All right. You want to delay Bill C-10. You want to delay the expert panel.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6739470ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1455)[English]All right.Does everyone hear the amendment clearly? Extend an invitation for Tuesday or Wednesday, and we do not continue with Bill C-10 until said minister arrives.Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673947267394736739474ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1455)[English]Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.I would have agreed, and I do agree with Mr. Waugh's original motion. I do not agree with Mr. Aitchison's amendment.We have a panel of four people who are very busy, highly respected, influential people who have put time aside in their schedule to come on Monday. I don't believe that anything justifies delaying that expert panel on Monday. I am totally comfortable with an invitation that says the Minister of Justice should be asked again, re-invited by the committee, to come on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. It is perfectly within the purview of the committee at that point, if the Minister of Justice doesn't come, to not proceed to clause-by-clause. Nothing that we say today binds us next Tuesday. Even if we were to adopt Mr. Aitchison's amendment today, it wouldn't stop anyone from putting forward a motion after the expert panel on Monday to proceed with clause-by-clause.Let's see what happens. Let's agree to invite the minister for Tuesday or Wednesday. Let's proceed with the panel on Monday. The chair will tell us on Monday the status of the minister's invitation after the expert panel, and then we'll decide what more we need to do or not do.I thought we had consensus to proceed with the expert panel on Monday and invite the minister for Tuesday or Wednesday. Then, it's always up to the committee at that time what they choose to do. Our Conservative colleagues have shown us that they can delay meeting after meeting, anyway, if they don't want to proceed.I don't think the amendment is necessary. Again, I think there was a consensus on Mr. Waugh's motion. We're at three o'clock. Mr. Chair, if Mr. Aitchison would perhaps withdraw the amendment, my suggestion is that we adopt Mr. Waugh's motion, we do the expert panel on Monday, and we see then what happens with the minister's response to our invitation. If we finish early enough, perhaps the clerk can send it out this afternoon.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673947567394766739477673947867394796739480673948167394826739483ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1500)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I, too, thought we had reached a consensus on Mr. Waugh's motion, which I think is entirely reasonable. The ball is in the Liberals' court. It's up to the government, the party decision-makers.We will send the minister another invitation, in the hope that he will appreciate the sense of urgency and the fact that his refusal to appear or delayed appearance puts the committee's work on shaky ground.I was quite happy with the compromise that would have the committee hear from the witnesses on Monday. As Mr. Housefather pointed out, they are extremely busy and credible people. That's why we chose them. I appreciate Mr. Waugh being receptive to that. I think we can come back to the motion, hear from the panel on Monday, as scheduled, and cross our fingers that the Minister of Justice shows up on Tuesday. If not, I will be floored. It will show that he truly does not grasp the urgency of the situation.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673949067394916739492ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1500)[English]Thank you.I just wanted to say that I, also, in a very cross-partisan way, support Mr. Waugh's motion, Mr. Housefather's rationale and Mr. Champoux's process on it. I think I would be very supportive of having our expert panel on Monday, and then having the minister join us on Tuesday. I think that is an excellent compromise that will allow us to continue to do the work we need to do. That will be where my support would land. It's very cross-partisan to be collective and collaborative together.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67395086739509ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1500)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I apologize for wishing to talk.I thought, actually, that what I heard all across party lines, including from my dear friend, Mr. Housefather, was eminently reasonable. I will actually withdraw my subamendment, if that makes everybody happier, and we can proceed back to Mr. Waugh's motion. Clearly, he is a far more seasoned veteran at this and more knowledgeable, better looking, all those good things, and it makes more sense.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotions673951567395166739517ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1505)[English]I'm beginning to think you write his householder, Mr. Aitchison, with all due respect.Seeing that we have unanimous consent across the board, now we go to the main motion that was put forward by Mr. Waugh to extend the invitation to the Minister of Justice to arrive either Tuesday or Wednesday, and we would continue with Monday's witness testimony with the four-expert panel.Seeing no debate, all those in—Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesDecisions in committeeGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members673951867395196739520ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaJulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthAiméeBelmoreAimée-BelmoreInterventionThe Clerk: (1505)[English]Mr. Waugh, please do correct me to make sure I have this written down properly. You propose another invitation be sent to the justice minister and officials for either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week—and the days will be put in when the minutes are written—and we continue with the expert panel on Monday, May 17.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members6739525ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1505)[English]Correct.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members6739526AiméeBelmoreAiméeBelmore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1505)[English]Okay. Do we have a general understanding now? Yes. Let's proceed to the vote. (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Remember what I said earlier about implied consent? Let me return to that. It is now six minutes past our expiry, pardon the expression, so I'm going to be so bold as to say that the meeting is now adjourning and we'll be back on Monday.Madam Clerk, could you just mention who we have as witnesses, please.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesDecisions in committeeGovernment billsLametti, DavidMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to members67395286739529673953067395316739532AiméeBelmoreAiméeBelmore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1100)[English] I call the meeting to order. Welcome back, everybody.Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as we take a look at, are concerned with and are enveloped in Bill C-10 and clause-by-clause consideration.Before I give the floor to Ms. Dabrusin, I want to say that we likely will be interrupted towards the end of the meeting. Now, I'm going to use Eastern Time, of course. We are anticipating that the bells will ring at 12:30 Eastern Time for a vote. The way this normally works is that if we want to extend the meeting into bells for a period of time that is okay with us, we have to ask for consent to do that. Otherwise, I just adjourn the meeting right there and then so that we can go and vote. I'm not asking you about this right now, obviously. We'll figure that out when we get there, as we are masters of our domain.Let's go back to the topic at hand. We are considering Bill C-10 in clause-by-clause consideration.Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills671774167177426717743671774467177456717746JulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1100)[English]Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence. I'd like to propose a motion. I listened very carefully to what happened last Friday and I'm hopeful that this motion will end the impasse that we have had. Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose the following motion:That the Committee:1) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee’s changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that limiting the motion to those two points that I've heard every member of the committee support should yield a motion that we can all adopt.The clerk has a copy of the motion, Mr. Chairman, in both official languages, and I will wait to speak until everybody receives it.Thank you. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsGuilbault, StevenLametti, DavidMinister of Canadian HeritageMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to membersUser-generated content67177496717750671775167177526717753671775467177556717756ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1105)[Translation]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.We have all realized that, in the last three meetings, we have accomplished almost nothing. We kept talking and talking, and then talking louder, but we even had no success in passing proposals on which there seemed to be consensus. In fact, we had clear consensus on two items.First, we want the Minister of Justice to give us a revised charter statement as quickly as possible. That will help us to address the comments we have seen in the media and heard from some members of the committee.Second, after we have received that statement, we want the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to testify before our committee as soon as possible.Opinion is divided on what we should do from now until those two conditions are met.If we could at least adopt this proposal, we could move forward by asking the legal people to give us a new charter statement and by choosing a date for the Ministers to appear.[English] I do this, colleagues, in the hope that this is something we can all support. There is no reason to filibuster a motion like this, because this motion is exactly what everyone is saying they want, and it doesn't presuppose what the committee will or will not do with respect to clause-by-clause study on the bill—which is where we've had our differences—before the time we receive the charter statement. I'm hopeful, Mr. Chair, that this will receive the unanimous support of the members of the committee. It's yet another effort. I think we can all work together. We have worked together well in the past. I'm trying my best and I think all of us are trying our best to find that solution. I hope this is the case.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671776167177626717763671776467177656717766671776767177686717769ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1105)[English]Fantastic.I just wanted to echo Mr. Housefather's opinion. We have all been working well together, and I think that the motion that he's put forward has really blended together everything we've talked about. We've heard from our arts organizations looking for support. We all support free speech. I think that this motion strikes the balance and lets us keep working together in a way that we know we can.I just wanted to add my support to this motion from Mr. Housefather. I think we can continue working forward together and get this done as soon as possible for the right reasons.I appreciate that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717773671777467177756717776ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien (Toronto Centre, Lib.): (1105)[English]Mr. Chair, good morning.In fact, this is a team sport. It is about working together. We have done so extremely well until this point. I look forward to working with my fellow colleagues to continue doing just that. I'm in full support of what Mr. Housefather has put forward here and hope that this really means we can move forward and do what needs to be done.Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671777867177796717780ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1105)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would like to congratulate Mr. Housefather for his efforts. As always, he is trying to find a compromise that is acceptable to us all. We also intended to propose an amendment to try and find common ground.Consequently, much as my colleague Mr. Shields did at the last meeting, I would like to ask whether it is possible to take five or 10 minutes for my party colleagues and myself to discuss Mr. Housefather's proposal. We could then compare it to the one we wanted to introduce ourselves and see whether any small amendments to it are appropriate.I am not confirming anything right away, but I sincerely believe that we could find some common ground. I would like the members of our party to have some time to consult together before expressing an opinion on it.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717785671778667177876717788ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1125)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our colleagues, Mr. Champoux and Ms. McPherson. First off this morning, I want to thank Mr. Housefather for bringing another motion forward. That's good. I think the clerk has what we have drawn out by now—at least, I hope the clerk has it. If so, Mr. Chair, I'd like to read it into the record. Is that okay? Good. Everything is there. Hopefully, the members of the committee, all 11 of us, have what I'm going to propose here as a subamendment, both in English and in French. I move the following: That the motion be amended by replacing the word “programs” with the word “content”; by replacing the words “Justice and the Minister” with “Justice, the Minister”; by adding the words “, and Dr. Michael Geist” after the words “relevant department officials”; by adding the word “separately” after the words “to appear”; and by adding the following: 3) Will consider, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, additional amendments to the bill, including to clauses previously disposed of, arising from the evidence received through points 1 and 2 above, provided that the amendments are submitted no later than 7 days following the completion of both points 1 and 2. I know that on the government side they're going to reach out to the justice minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I would like just to say that I hope that this happens as soon as possible. If we have three proposed meetings for next week, which is a constituency week, hopefully we could fit all three into Monday, Wednesday or Friday. In essence, Mr. Chair and members of the Canadian heritage committee, we too would like to move on. We've seen in the last two weeks a lot of talk and not a lot of action. By the same token, Mr. Chair, the three people we would like to hear from are very important: theMinister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and, as we also would like to get the other side, Dr. Michael Geist. Many of us here have followed him on social media in the past. I can tell you that when the Conservatives were in government, he was a thorn in their side, and likewise now with the Liberals. This is not partisan. This is just a person who we think has been pretty balanced on this issue, and I would think that all committee members who have followed him would think so.When you're in government, you don't agree, but when you're in opposition, you kind of do. I can say from the Harper years that Dr. Geist was pretty hard on the Conservatives too, but he also has a very good view that I think we've seen on social media in the last several weeks, a view that is gaining a lot of traction. He has knowledge. I think that if we could get the justice minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Dr. Geist for next week, that would be great. There you go, Mr. Chair. I was fairly short on that. Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671781067178116717812671781367178146717815671781667178176717818671781967178206717821ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1130)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.My thanks to my Conservative colleagues. I acknowledge that there has been some openness on their part, which is something I have not seen for a few meetings. That is refreshing.The first part of the amendment proposed to Mr. Housefather's motion, which is intended to replace “programs” with “content”, is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. However, I have serious reservations on the issue of inviting witnesses.If we invite Mr. Geist, I feel that we will also have to agree to invite other witnesses.Mr. Geist is certainly a credible witness. Our Conservative colleagues have quoted him a lot in recent weeks. In a real sense, he has somewhat joined the debate. He has expressed his opinion a lot on social media. So we are very familiar with his position and we have a good idea of what he would tell the committee.However, I feel that Mr. Geist is not necessarily the supreme authority or the supreme arbiter for the committee's work. As I understand it, he would be invited more or less to counterbalance the testimony of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. He would provide the opposing view to any proposals made in the charter statement or in answering any questions that the members of the committee might have.Whatever the case, I feel that the natural counterbalance to the testimony of Ministers is not testimony from outside experts but from members of the opposition parties. In our teams, we have people who are also experts on these matters. If we are not experts ourselves, we have references at hand who are familiar with our activities.While I am grateful to my colleagues for the openness they have shown this morning to move our work forward, I do not feel that it is a good idea to open the door and invite other witnesses. I know various people in arts and entertainment, for example, who were invited to testify before the committee and who have been contacting us a lot for several weeks. They are concerned by the way the committee's work is going and by the obstacles we are currently experiencing. They would also like to be heard just as much as Mr. Geist, and rightly so.So I am uncomfortable with that part of the proposed amendment. I do not feel that it is a good idea to open the door and invite witnesses again on this issue. I feel that we have the resources we need in our teams to get a proper handle on the issue and express a very clear opinion about it. Hearing from the Ministers, as has been requested from the outset, would accommodate the initial request of our Conservative friends and we would also have the assurances we require. I feel that we could move this important bill forward in that way. That's my opinion. Of course, we are only just starting to discuss it, so I will stay tuned.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717829671783067178316717832671783367178346717835671783667178376717838ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1135)[English] We have received the proposed subamendment and the legislative folks have had a look at it and we just had a discussion. They brought up a good point. On the first part, about content, we're fine. Providing Dr. Michael Geist as an extra guest is fine. The problem is with number 3. If you're proposing to go back to do this, you know that unanimous consent is required. What this tries to do is seek a majority decision to revisit these points. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. In the spirit of co-operation, I don't know if you would like to have another run at that, but obviously since number 3 is inadmissible, it makes the amendment inadmissible.Before I go to Ms. McPherson, I'm going to go to Mr. Waugh to seek his opinion, since it is his amendment, but as I've just noted, it is inadmissible because of number 3, and we cannot circumvent a requirement of unanimous consent.Go ahead, Mr. Waugh.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717840671784167178426717843ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1150)[English] Welcome back, everybody.It is as I suspected. I did check with the legislative staff here, and I want to point something out. I understand that within the House there are many times when we use the term “notwithstanding” in reference to certain Standing Orders or usual practices. In other words, we put aside certain rules because we want to put something forward. Let's bear in mind that at committee, things run differently.If the rule had been made by the committee, then we could do as you asked, notwithstanding a certain provision created by the committee. However, there is this thing, our bible. This is what is dictated to us by the bible, so we cannot do the “notwithstanding” because it is part of the Standing Orders, and the House—not the committee, but the House—will not allow us to do that. Therefore, it remains inadmissible.I see that Ms. McPherson is next, but Mr. Waugh, we broke with you when you asked whether it was admissible. With the patience of Ms. McPherson, may I return to Mr. Waugh? I'm going to ask you to please keep it brief. I don't want to start arguing your point of content. Try to keep it just to what you discussed before we broke.Thank you.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671785467178556717856671785767178586717859ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1155)[English]May I propose that points 1 and 2 stand, and that point 3, then, would read “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2”? It's very simple. I hope the clerk has notification of that by now. Points 1 and 2 would still be the same. Point 3, because you've made the ruling, would be that we suspend the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill until the completion of both points 1 and 2. That's as short as I can make it for you.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67178626717863ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1155)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.It is really nice to be here today and to have us all working collaboratively to get some work done on this legislation and to actually start to do our jobs. It's also nice that we are hearing from more than one or two members of this committee today.I have a couple of questions about the subamendment that Mr. Waugh has brought forward. First of all, I'm wondering whether or not it is necessary for us to do those meetings separately. That seems to me like a very big waste of time. If we could have one meeting for the ministers to come, that would be preferable, from my point of view. I feel that as we try to move forward with this, to hold three solid meetings aside for this seems excessive. It seems a bit—if I'm feeling cynical—like maybe a delay tactic, so I would be interested in hearing from Mr. Waugh, perhaps, about why he feels that there need to be three separate two-hour meetings.The other question I have is that if the ministers aren't able to come next week, for example, would that mean that we would just completely stop the work we're undertaking within this committee? That seems problematic to me as well. I'm wondering if the clerk, the analysts or anyone could provide some clarity on whether or not we could use unanimous consent to pass the original number 3 that Mr. Waugh had put forward and if that might be a way that we could get around this so that we could continue to do our work. We could continue to look at the legislation but also make sure that we are addressing the concerns that are being raised in Mr. Waugh's amendment.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671787867178796717880671788167178826717883ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1200)[English]I'd actually just like to put that question to the clerk to see if that is a way in which we could in fact deal with it, if that would meet what Mr. Waugh and his colleagues were trying to achieve in the initial amendment. This is getting a little complicated and a little bit into the weeds, so I'd like some perspective from some of the specialists that we have on this call, but I'd also like to just encourage us to continue the work and find a way to do that.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717885ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1200)[English]I can provide some clarification, because I've had this discussion already. There is a way by which you can. I'll do this very slowly so that everybody understands.Ms. McPherson was asking if we can seek unanimous consent to go back to other amendments that we've already covered under Bill C-10. There is a path to do that, and I'll go to the clerk in just a few moments to seek clarification, but this is how it can work.You could adjourn the motion with a clarification. If you adjourn this motion—the debate on the motion—provided that you also have a clarification that you want to seek unanimous consent, it's not a dilatory motion. We can debate it if you wish, and then go to that very thing that you want to get to. Then, upon that, following that, we can go back to Mr. Housefather's motion or the amendments that have been proposed.I hope that was somewhat clear.I will ask the clerk. Go ahead, Aimée. Rescue this poor man.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671788667178876717888671788967178906717891HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaAiméeBelmoreAiméeBelmoreAimée-BelmoreInterventionThe Clerk: (1200)[English]Thank you, Chair. You're doing quite well.What Mr. Simms was saying is that if it's the desire of the committee at this point to deal with the unanimous consent provision in order to allow itself the latitude to reopen decisions that were already taken, you can't really circumvent that without having unanimous consent. It can't be decided by a majority decision.One way to get to determining whether or not there is unanimous consent would be to adjourn the debate on the motion currently under consideration and any proposed amendments, deal with the unanimous consent issue and then resume debate on the motion. The way to do that in the same meeting is to not propose a dilatory motion.On the difference between a dilatory motion and not, voting to adjourn debate on a motion is a dilatory motion. You can't go back to it on the same meeting. By voting to adjourn debate on a motion provided that we do these other things afterwards, it becomes debatable and amendable. The minute you put a qualifier in there, it no longer becomes a dilatory motion. When you've satisfied the terms of the qualifier, when you've dealt with the unanimous consent provision allowing you to reopen provisions of the bill, you would then return to consideration on the motion before you, if that is the condition that you have put in.If we require more clarity on this, I'm happy to provide it. Honestly, it's the difference between dilatory and non-dilatory and debatable and non-debatable. If you choose to put a qualifier in, it's not dilatory. It is debatable and amendable, and you would be able to return on the same meeting to what you are currently considering.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67178926717893671789467178956717896ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1205)[English]Mr. Waugh, I just wanted some clarity on why “separately” is in your motion. I'm wondering whether or not it would be possible for us to ask questions of your guests or the witnesses you've suggested within one meeting. I don't understand why all three of them have to be separate.Thanks. It's not that hard a question.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67179116717912ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1205)[English]Yes, let's remove the word “separately” in the second motion here that I have. I agree.The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that maybe the NDP and the Bloc want to bring one too. We have proposed Dr. Michael Geist as our witness; maybe they want one, and I see no reason why they couldn't do that.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67179146717915ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1205)[English]Okay, then I'll be as quick as I can be.What I like about this is I'm hearing a lot of agreeing and I'm hearing a lot of people coming up with solutions, and that's great. It's a demonstration of us all trying to move forward here. I think it is important to have Dr. Geist. He's the research chair on Internet and e-commerce. He's an expert. I think we all agree that this is important for the cultural sectors in our country. We absolutely all agree there, but I think we would also all agree that we don't want to do anything that might have the potential or the opportunity to infringe upon freedom of expression, and that's why we need to take this pause. It's to make sure our charter statement is correct and to hear from a non-partisan expert who seems to have distaste for Conservatives as much as anything else, so that's probably positive for everybody at the committee. I think that pausing our clause-by-clause consideration puts the fire to the feet of the ministers. It's important for them as well, so they'll get here as quickly as possible and we can keep moving.I think this is a reasonable compromise that demonstrates that we're happy to keep moving as well, but we want to hear from the ministers and we want to hear from Dr. Geist, and until we do, we won't continue, because we want to make sure that we're not infringing in any way whatsoever on Canadians' freedom of expression.Thank you, Mr. Chair.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67179216717922671792367179246717925ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1210)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would like to go back over what has been suggested. I too will try to be brief.As a consequence of the motion that Mr. Housefather introduced this morning, I feel that all parties have a real willingness to find an acceptable compromise.First, as you can see, we have been assured that point 3 is in order.Second, Ms. McPherson pointed out that separate meetings could give the impression that we want to delay the process. That is not the case. Given the importance of this issue, the goal is actually to give everyone the time to ask questions without feeling pressured. However, if that is your feeling, taking out the word “separately” would not be a problem in any way. Mr. Waugh has already confirmed that. I feel that one meeting, perhaps two at the most, would be enough to hear the three witnesses.Now, with all due respect to Mr. Champoux, I would like to pick up on his comment about Michael Geist. We are at this point today because the bill took a different turn following the removal of the original section 4.1. I do not want to go back over the long arguments I made during the three most recent meetings, but, at the start, the proposal in the bill was to add that section to the Broadcasting Act. Then it was eliminated. I could go back on the attack, and so on, but let's just say that, after we have been told that the fears we had were not warranted, the government finally submitted new amendments to correct the situation.Why do we want to invite Michael Geist? As Mr. Champoux correctly explained, it is because he is an expert in this area, an extremely critical one. We are well aware on our side that he was just as critical of the former government. So for us, it is not a partisan issue. He is not Conservative in any way and he has not been appointed by Conservatives. Actually, he is an emeritus professor in this area of law. He receives financial support from the government for his research chair and his work on this issue. To add to Mr. Champoux' comments, I must say that we all agree that we have to help our cultural milieu. All parties agree on that. Some try to accuse us of being anti-culture, but I don't want to get into partisan games. That is not the issue; the issue is freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's why we would like to have some explanations and a counterbalancing view. All members could ask questions. When we started, the witnesses we heard from came to discuss the bill, but that changed as we went along. That's why we would like to invite a witness of that calibre who could tell us about the other side of the coin. We would then be free to continue our work together.As I said I wanted to be brief, I will bring my comments to a conclusion. We would have no objection if the other parties wanted to propose a witness of their choice to come to talk to us about the issues of freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am certain that Mr. Waugh could change his amendment, if needed. If we were to add a session and, above all, if we were to take out the word “separately”, as Ms. McPherson has asked, we could very well hear from the Ministers at one meeting and two or three witnesses at another meeting. In that way, we could hear from witnesses who would provide explanations consistent with the perspective of the other opposition parties. That might even apply to the Liberal government. In the case of the Liberals, however, as two of their Ministers would be appearing before us and would be accompanied by their senior officials, I don't see how it would be possible for them to find witnesses with greater expertise. However, I feel that it would be legitimate for the Bloc Québécois and the NDP also to propose an expert of their choice to come and testify.Let me repeat that we are making this request strictly because the bill has evolved since we started and has taken a different turn after section 4.1, as initially proposed, was removed. If that key item, which affects users of social media, had not been removed, we would not be here today.I will conclude my remarks here because I certainly don't want them to be considered as obstruction. I would just like to tell the other opposition parties that we are ready to make this very acceptable compromise that will get us out of the impasse we have been in for almost two weeks. If they had agreed to hear from the Ministers when it was first requested, we wouldn't be here, of course, but I don't want to go back over that. We are reaching out to the other parties so that, together, we can come to an acceptable compromise.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67179276717928671792967179306717931671793267179336717934671793567179366717937ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1210)[English] Before I go to Ms. Harder, I'm starting to read the room a little better now in terms of what you just mentioned.Mr. Rayes, were you suggesting to subamend Mr. Waugh's amendment to take out the word “separately”? I'm seeing a lot of nods, because if a committee so desires, we can dispense with that right away.Do I see any objection with subamending that right away?There are no objections. (Subamendment agreed to)The Chair: We're taking the word “separately” out of his amendment.For those who have just joined us, such as Ms. Harder, Mr. Waugh is proposing to do the following with Mr. Housefather's motion: In point 1, he takes out the word “programs” and replaces it with the word “content”, and in point 2, he would invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Dr. Michael Geist to appear before the committee, and not separately.In point 3, he would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.Ms. Harder, you have the floor. Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717938671793967179406717941671794267179436717944671794567179466717947AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1215)[English]Thank you, Chair. I have a brief comment here. First off, I think this motion is being strengthened as we go along. Ms. McPherson has offered to change it from “separately”, and we've obviously agreed to take that out. I think that's fine. I think point 3 is very important. It is that we would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2. We know why this is important: It is because we feel that this charter statement is absolutely necessary in order to make the best decisions going forward.Hearing from those witnesses is going to also give us a better understanding of this bill. Here's why that is of utmost importance: We see that the Minister of Heritage himself is struggling to answer some really basic questions about this bill. If he himself doesn't have a full understanding of what this legislation does and does not do, and is not able to clearly communicate on that point, then I'm confused as to why this committee would be expected to have a clear understanding of this piece of legislation. I think it's incumbent upon all of us, then, to seek the input from those who would be able to give us better insight and help us to clearly understand the parameters of this bill and what it does. Within that, I'm talking about witnesses, but I'm also talking about the charter statement, which we know will have fundamentally changed since the bill was first introduced in the fall, which was when the original charter statement was provided.Obviously, because of those changes, a new charter statement is the responsible thing to seek, and it will help us do a better job as legislators and rightly represent Canadians.Thank you.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717964671796567179666717967671796867179696717970ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1220)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I put forward the motion, I tried to create a consensus on two points: one, that we get a charter statement; two, that the ministers testify about a charter statement put out by the Department of Justice. It wasn't to create ministers as a panel of witnesses that were partisan. The ministers were there to deal with a statement put out by the Department of Justice. However, if there is a desire, I can also think of many experts who are as proficient in this matter as Michael Geist is. If there is a desire to have an expert panel for each of the four parties represented on the committee—not three of the four, but all four—can I suggest that we subamend Mr. Waugh's proposal to say that we would have two different panels? We would have one with the ministers and their officials, hopefully on Friday of this week, so that we can move forward, and one at our next meeting, on the Monday of the next week, with each party putting forward an expert witness to testify on that panel.If we could subamend Mr. Waugh's proposal to do that, hopefully then we would have a consensus to move forward and get everything done. We could then move back to clause-by-clause study after the charter statement, the ministers' appearance, and the expert panel. Even if I wanted to continue clause-by-clause study at this point, I can see, based on our last three meetings, that we're never going to have the ability to actually do that until these things happen. I look to Mr. Waugh, but I would be happy to subamend his amendment to do that. Maybe I just did. Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717972671797367179746717975ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1220)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The same thought occurs to me. After all the time we have spent on this, if the Ministers are not ready to come and testify as soon as possible, and if the new charter statement is not yet ready, we have a problem.So, basically, I agree. I had a former colleague who used to say that, often, to come to a decent agreement, everyone needs to leave a little blood on the table. Compromises have to be made and this one seems acceptable to me. We will count on our Liberal colleagues to put all the pressure they need for the Ministers to be ready to come and testify before the committee as quickly as possible. We all agree that “as quickly as possible” is this Friday. Then, at the next meeting, as Mr. Housefather proposed, we could welcome one witness per party represented around this table. We could then finally resume our work and hope to be able to see Bill C-10 adopted. The bill is so important for our industry. The compromise is perfectly acceptable, I feel. So I am in favourAmendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717977671797867179796717980ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1220)[English]Certainly, Mr. Chairman. As opposed to Mr. Waugh's original amendment, which simply added Dr. Geist, I would propose to replace the words “Dr. Michael Geist” with “an expert panel consisting of one witness from each party that would testify”.So that everyone understands my meaning, we'd have one panel with the two ministers and their department officials and one panel that would consist of one expert named by each party on this committee. Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67179846717985ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1225)[English]That's a good statement, clear as mud. I mean, when was mud clear? That's interesting.What I do find is interesting in the discussion about adding witnesses from all, and Mr. Housefather would know this, is that often when things change during the process of dealing with an issue in court, lawyers often ask for recalling of witnesses because more information and more testimony has come forward.I understand what he is doing by adding those witnesses, as has been asked for, because that's what you would want to do. That's why we had suggested that at the beginning.I think that's important, and I appreciate his work to try to facilitate our work. We are in a process in which things are changing, and everybody gets the opportunity to recall on this particular issue because it has changed significantly in the last few weeks. I appreciate that.Thank you, Mr. Chair.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67180006718001671800267180036718004ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1230)[English]Maybe he can actually answer my question. I mean no disrespect, sir, but you didn't answer my question. I'm wondering if we need to put some time frames around the expert panel. Is it going to be one meeting? Do they need more than one meeting? That's what I'm wondering about.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67180476718048ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1230)[English]To my good friend Mr. Aitchison, what I had said was that I was hoping the ministers could come on Friday and that the expert panels could be convened for Monday.I would see two meetings, one with the ministers as soon as possible and one as soon as possible after that with the expert panel.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67180496718050ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1235)[Translation]I will be quick so that Mr. Champoux can ask for the vote.I want to make sure that we are all agreeing on the same thing: we are going to hear from the experts after we have heard from the two Ministers. That order is important, because the experts will be reacting to the Ministers' comments.I see nodding.I just want to make sure that, if, for any particular reason, the Liberals are not able to convince the Ministers to be here on Friday, they will come on Monday and the meeting with the experts will simply be put back. Is that the case? Thank you.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671806567180666718067671806867180696718070ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1235)[English]I don't need to repeat that, correct? I see enough nodding heads around the room. It's a critical mass of nods, if I could use the term, to proceed in that way.My goodness, I don't see any hands up. What is going on with this world?Anyway, seeing that there is no further discussion or no further debate, that brings us to a vote. Let's be clear. We're voting on Mr. Housefather's subamendment to the motion put forward by him. What it states, very simply, is that we're going to take out the part that suggests Dr. Geist as a witness and replace it by saying that we're going to have an expert panel with one witness proposed by each recognized party—one from the Liberals, one from the Conservatives, one from the Bloc, and one from the NDP—along with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We will do this as soon as possible over the next little while, before we go on to anything else. That is the subamendment. I am pausing to see if anyone has a question for clarification. I don't see one. We will go to a vote.(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Now we will go back to the amendment put forward by Mr. Waugh. There are three paragraphs. In paragraph 1, he takes the word “programs” out to put in the word “contents”. In paragraph 2, the subamended amendment is, instead of Dr. Michael Geist, we now have an expert panel of four people in addition to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Paragraph 3 would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2, which I just read. That is the amendment from Mr. Waugh. Seeing no discussion or debate—I see a lot of thumbs up—we will go to Madam Clerk for the vote. Shall the amendment carry?(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings] )The Chair: Now we will return to the main motion of Mr. Housefather, which now includes three points, not two. I don't need to talk about this again. We are all clear as to what it is. Shall the motion of Mr. Housefather carry?Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsMotionsRecorded divisionsUser-generated content67180716718072671807367180746718075671807667180776718078671807967180806718081671808267180836718084AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1240)[English] Yes. (Motion agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsMotionsRecorded divisionsUser-generated content67180866718087AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1235)[English]This is really important because I think most Canadians would agree that Clearview AI's situation was very concerning. We could see many more examples of this as this technology becomes more commonplace, yet we have legislation that seems to be going backwards. It's willing to protect Clearview AI rather than citizens.I ask this because we have Bill C-10, which should have been a pretty straightforward bill about making the tech giants pay their part. Instead, it has turned into this legislative dumpster fire with the minister running around looking like a chicken with his head cut off. Our committee had brought forward really clear recommendations on the issue of privacy rights.You're telling us, with Clearview AI, that this law is actually not taking the lessons we learned on issues like facial recognition and from the big data giants ignoring their obligations under Canadian law, but actually writing in more protections for that abuse because we're not looking at it in a human rights frame. Is that correct?BiometricsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsPrivacy and data protection6723313DanielTherrienDanielTherrien//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1300)[English] Welcome back, everybody.This is the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.As we get into it, I now see a whole host of hands, which is now routine for us [Technical difficulty—Editor]. How about I just say that I'll go over to the floor, and I see that Mr. Housefather has his hand up.Mr. Housefather.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717367671736867173696717370AnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1300)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Having gone through the last couple of meetings in the hopes of trying to come to a consensus, I would like to move a motion, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move:That the Committee: 1) Will consider all amendments proposed on Bill C-10 and should points 2 and 3 below not have been completed at the time the amendments on the Bill have all been considered, the Committee will pause in its deliberations and not dispose of the Bill until points 2 and 3 below have been completed.2) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee’s changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 3) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.4) Shall take all votes necessary to dispose of the Bill, once points 2 and 3 are completed and all amendments have been considered.Mr. Chairman, I have sent a bilingual version of the motion to the clerk to distribute to the committee. Then I'll speak to it, when you give me permission and presumably once the clerk has distributed the motion to the committee.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsGuilbault, StevenLametti, DavidMinister of Canadian HeritageMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to membersUser-generated content671737167173726717373671737467173756717379677620467762056776206ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1310)[English]Thank you, colleagues. I don't plan to speak very long.What I wanted to say is this. We are a committee that has generally gotten along very well. We're a committee that has normally tried to find practicable, pragmatic solutions to see whether we can satisfy everyone's desires. There's been a clear desire to have a charter statement. I think we're all agreed that we want an updated charter statement. There's a clear desire that we want the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee. That again is something I've incorporated into this motion.We believe—at least I think the majority of the members believe—that there is no reason we shouldn't continue clause-by-clause study, provided that we do not dispose of the bill. That means that until the second and third items in my motion have both happened—namely, that we receive the charter statement and that the Minister of Justice and Minister of Canadian Heritage appear before the committee—we do not take the final votes on the bill. We will stop.It's possible that we'll do amendments today, and maybe by next week the ministers can appear before the committee and we'll have a charter statement. That may be in the middle of amendments. It may be at the end of amendments. There's no reason that we should completely halt the work of the committee, however, if we all agree on the majority of things: that we need to finish the bill, we need to make sure we have the charter statement and we need to make sure the ministers appear.I believe that rather than having hours and hours of debate and filibustering and never proceeding anywhere, this motion gets us to where we want to go. I would hope to have the support of my colleagues.[Translation]I took into consideration all of my colleagues' requests. I think this is an honest effort to find a balance. It will help this committee continue to operate properly, and it has actually always operated well. At the same time, we will be reassured by the fact that the Minister of Justice will provide a new charter statement. In addition, we will hear from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage before the committee votes on the bill. This way, if they note something in the new charter statement or when the ministers appear, the committee members will have an opportunity to propose other amendments. At the end of the day, this will help the committee move forward. That is the goal.[English] We have all worked really well together. I strongly believe that this motion will allow the committee to continue to move forward and work together to fulfill the needs that committee members have expressed and that Canadians have expressed.Personally, I do not believe that everybody opposed to the bill is an extremist. I do not believe that all people from one party have the same views. Not all Liberals are the same. Not all Conservatives are the same. Not all New Democrats are the same. Not all Bloc members are the same. Everyone has a right to their own views. I think it's important that we look at that, as opposed to judging everybody as part of the team they're on and judging people as either enemies or friends. We're all legislators trying to work together to achieve a common purpose.To draw back to what Mr. Aitchison and I have said many times, we can disagree without being disagreeable. I found that yesterday was sometimes quite disagreeable. I'm hoping that today, regardless of our differences and views, we will all be agreeable.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671739767173986717399671740067174016717402671740367174046717405671740667174076717408ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1325)[English]Thank you.I appreciate the time, but in the interest of moving things forward, I believe my colleague has said everything I would have said anyway, so I would cede the floor. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671741967174206717421ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1325)[English]Thank you.I understand the intent of this motion, which would be to proceed to looking at the clauses within the bill as they stand now. The member is suggesting that we would then go back at the end and we would seek a charter statement at that point in time. He's committing that, if there are any changes that would be needed, they could be done at that time.I just think it's worth noting, however, that in order to go back and visit those clauses that have been carried, they can only be revisited with unanimous consent. If we get to that point where we've gone through this bill from start to finish and then we get a charter statement that tells us it's not compliant, the only way we can make changes is if we have unanimous consent. That then allows certain individuals or parties to hold this bill hostage and to have veto power to determine that actually, no, they're not going to let us go back and make changes.That seems a little scary to me. I don't know that I trust the intent of the Liberal Party with this bill, with all due respect, Chair. I haven't seen evidence that would suggest that I should be able to trust their intentions. For days on end, Minister Guilbeault, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary insisted that this bill was crystal clear in terms of its protection of individuals' content posted online. After several days of insisting on that, it was then stated that amendments would be brought forward in order to make it “crystal clear”.That is a little wishy-washy. Having done that, it makes me question, first off, the intentions of the party that put forward this bill—the governing party. It also makes me question their commitment to following through on their word because they've told Canadians they're committed to protecting their content, yet this bill doesn't do that.Further to that, when I read the amendments that were suggested yesterday that would make it “crystal clear”, there are legal experts who are coming out, including two former CRTC commissioners, who are saying that, no, the amendments that are suggested by Ms. Dabrusin actually don't clarify this piece of legislation. They don't bring greater clarity. They actually muddy the waters further. They don't provide the protection that Canadians are seeking.That's a problem because then it begins to feel like the Liberal members are trying to mislead the members of this committee and mislead the Canadian public. Again, that's a problem.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717423671742467174256717426671742767174286717429ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]Thank you, Chair.Again, I would contend that it is unhelpful, possible but unhelpful, to consider the motion that has been brought forward without understanding the greater context of the bill. After all, the motion is being brought forward in reference to the bill, the legislation. The fact that all of my points have been directly related to Bill C-10, I believe, puts me on the right track and within the confines of what this is all about.I'll go back to Dr. Geist because, like I said, I think he has some very helpful things for us to consider. He goes on to say:The amendments establish some limitations on regulation that restrict what the CRTC can do with regard to user generated content, but the overall approach is indeed “crystal clear.” He goes on to explain what that crystal clear looks like. He says:User generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10 with the result that the content of millions of Canadians’ feeds on TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube will now be CRTC approved as it establishes conditions to mandate discoverability of Canadian content.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6717475ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]Let me revisit the motion here. I'll just read it out loud so that we all understand what we're talking about and I can also refresh my own memory. It says:That the Committee: 1) Will consider all amendments proposed on Bill C-10 and should points 2 and 3 below not have been completed at the time the amendments on the Bill have all been considered, the Committee will pause in its deliberations and not dispose of the Bill until points 2 and 3 below have been completed.2) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter statement on Bill C-10Good. We're talking about Bill C-10. That's good.—as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee's changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided—We're talking about social media use. We're talking about the regulation of those programs. We're talking about a charter statement. Got it.—in particular, as it relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.That's great. We're talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms too. 3) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible—I love that language. It's so descriptive and precise.—to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.4) Shall take all votes necessary to dispose of the Bill—Now interestingly enough, “all votes necessary” would mean basically just one vetoed vote after another.—once points 2 and 3 are completed and all amendments have been considered.Good. I've refreshed my memory, I now understand the scope of this amendment and I believe that everything I have talked about thus far still fits within this amendment, so I will proceed. Dr. Geist.... I'm sorry, folks. I got interrupted. I'm going to start over.In his statement, he said:The amendments establish some limitations on regulation that restrict what the CRTC can do with regard to user generated content, but the overall approach is indeed “crystal clear.” User generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10 with the result that the content of millions of Canadians’ feeds on TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube will now be CRTC approved as it establishes conditions to mandate—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts671748667174876717488ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1350)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Again, the motion that has been put forward has to do with Bill C-10 and it has to do with whether or not we are going to continue to consider it in its current state and then, at the end, ask for a charter statement, or if we are going to vote this down and go with the amendment that I've proposed, which is to stop this imminently and seek that statement now. Perhaps we are going to go with neither of those motions. Perhaps there's a different motion that someone else would like to bring forward, or perhaps we'll just continue as if there is no motion at all.Again, it is impossible to talk about this motion and my position on this motion, which I believe is what this debate is all about...allowing me to state my position and to try to rally support. It is impossible to do that without actually diving into Bill C-10. It would be irresponsible of me. In order to make an educated decision, it is important to consider the things that experts are saying, so that's what I'm doing. I'm providing context and I'm making my argument, stating my position, which I believe, as an elected member of Parliament, I am permitted to do.Of course, I believe I am also permitted—although this might be censored as well, soon, but I don't think it is yet—to use the words of another and to quote him in my statement. Dr. Geist makes it really clear, then, that the content of millions of Canadians—the things that they post on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram—would in fact be regulated. That content would be mandated to discoverability criteria, which then would allow for some content to be prioritized over other content.Again, that's a problem. It's a problem because it allows some values to be set at a higher place than others, which is an imposition on people's freedom.If we were to seek a charter statement, it would allow us to understand the implications of the bill as it stands.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts67175096717510ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1415)[Translation]Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion of my colleague Mr. Housefather. As I said before when I took the floor, I really like Mr. Housefather, and not only because he is a Quebecker and a Canadian. The openness he has shown in various debates and his willingness to work in partnership have often been highlighted by the members of all parties in the House of Commons. However, that does not mean we are always in agreement. I see him smiling; he knows what is coming. I don't have only praise for him, but I don't want to criticize him, either.Before I begin, I want to come back to the fact that he raised a point of order to underscore that, had my colleague not taken time to speak, the committee could have already voted on his motion, and even on Ms. Harder's motion, if necessary. I have two things to say to him. First, we would have liked to vote on Ms. Harder's motion, but the Liberals ended the debate by moving a motion to adjourn. So we did not even have the opportunity to do that. Second, since the beginning, we have been calling for the committee to suspend its operation, while waiting for the Minister of Justice to provide us with a new statement and for the two ministers to appear before the committee. Had this proposal been agreed to, we would have already had the minister's new statement and we would already be working on the amendments to the bill—in other words, proceeding with the clause–by–clause consideration of the bill.However, that is not the decision the committee made. A motion to adjourn was proposed to end the discussion on Ms. Harder's motion, even though the NDP and the Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment to impose a deadline on the minister to quickly submit a new statement to us, so that we could continue our work. We are now dealing with a new motion. Some people feel that this is an acceptable compromise to Ms. Harder's proposal. The motion enables us to continue with the committee's operations and to avoid slowing the process down. What is more, depending on the minister's new statement, we will have an opportunity to propose new amendments, as needed, at the very end of the process.That said, Ms. Harder highlighted one of the major flaws of Mr. Housefather's motion. I sincerely don't think that Mr. Housefather acted in bad faith. I think that, when he moved his motion, he truly wanted to find an acceptable compromise, so that we could get back to our clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Nevertheless, an element was forgotten, although I am sure it was not intentional. We found that flaw upon reading the House of Commons Procedure and Practice—the big green book.The motion proposes that we work together on amendments before we even get the minister's statement on the central element of this debate, the deleting of the initially proposed clause 4.1. After we finish our work, if, in light of the minister's statement and despite the amendments that have been adopted or rejected, we note that the bill still has real flaws, we could amend the bill further. However, since we need unanimous consent to return to an amendment, members of the government or of another party will have the power to block the process. I think that is the motion's major flaw. We are not pausing committee work while we wait for the statement from the Minister of Justice and hear from him and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as it was requested. The motion also does not impose a deadline to avoid this taking too long. A deadline would help our work mover forward nicely, as the case was before the fateful moment when clause 4.1 was deleted and clause 3 of the bill was proposed. I want to tell people who are listening to us that this is not a debate between culture and freedom of expression. Those are two important elements. We all agree with defending culture. Unfortunately, the minister and his parliamentary secretary, I think, are saying things in the media that are misleading us. I apologize, Mr. Chair, I should not be saying this. Even the minister tried to accuse me of misleading people during question period, and he had to apologize for that. Let's rather say that the wrong message is being sent to cultural stakeholders by making them believe that culture is not important to us. Our desire to defend freedom of expression, which is the very foundation of our job as members of Parliament, is implying that we are opposed to culture, and that should not be the case now. This is why it is important to clarify that matter before going further. I am personally not comfortable continuing the process, knowing that, at the end of the day, we may not be able to make the amendments we deem necessary, based on the Liberal minister's statement, to protect users who generate content on social networks.(1420)This is not about creating a war between major social networks, on the one hand, and users, on the other hand. I think users' freedom of expression must be protected and precedent setting avoided. We must avoid a well-meaning group being able to decide what is good and what is not. I think this is important and want to point it out. My colleague Mr. Shields felt the need yesterday to show his love for culture. I also felt that need. I was sincerely offended, upset and shocked to see our will to protect the French fact and Canadian culture questioned. In reality, we have been responsive to organizations in these areas. We have even proposed a number of amendments and subamendments that show this. Two weeks ago, a shocking event occurred that no one saw coming. On a Friday afternoon, with no warning, the government proposed that a clause from Bill C-10 be deleted. That took us by surprise. The change caused a huge outcry across Canada by citizens, experts and university professors. Some well-known experts have already been named, but I could name some others. I took the time to name a few during oral question period.Among those who are often named is Peter Menzies, former commissioner at the Canadian Radio–television and Telecommunications Commission. He made a scathing comment, which is making me reluctant to support Mr. Housefather's motion. I am not fully convinced that we could ultimately make changes to the amendments, as that would require the committee's unanimous consent. So I implore my NDP and Bloc Québécois colleagues to be careful about this element, which I did not see coming right away either, when we received in our emails the idea of Mr. Housefather's amendment.Mr. Menzies said this was a full–blown attack on freedom of expression and the very foundations of democracy. He finds it difficult to understand the level of pride or incompetence, or both, that may lead someone to believe that such an infringement of rights is justifiable. Those are pretty strong statements from someone who has been commissioner of the CRTC, when we consider all of that organization's powers.Michael Geist was all also named numerous times, and I will talk to you about him a bit later to explain why Mr. Housefather's motion worries me. Mr. Geist said that this was the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history. Unfortunately, I have still not heard any Liberal members attack Mr. Geist by saying that his statements were demagogic or inappropriate. I don't know whether the Liberals are afraid of provoking him or they are all simply fully aware of his expertise level and of how right he is. It is true that, every time an issue is raised in his area of expertise, Mr. Geist is quick to react thanks to his relevant knowledge on international matters.So I would like people to stop saying that we are opposed to culture because that's not true. Here is what I have to say to the committee members and to people listening to us. The government has been in power for six years. It prorogued Parliament for reasons I don't want to get into, as I will be told that I am getting off topic, but there have been scandals related to the WE Charity, which the government wanted to bury by trying to halt the project.By the way, some are blaming us by saying that we are now filibustering. However, if we look at the list of committees, we see that a number of them currently have their work completely blocked because the government wants to avoid discussions on Liberal scandals, such as the allegations against Mr. Vance, the WE Charity, and so on. We are speaking out to defend freedom of expression. I don't feel that I am filibustering, but rather fighting for Canadians who feel that Bill C-10 attacks their freedom of expression. What I am getting at is that the Liberals have been in power for six years, and that is how long it took them to introduce this bill.We have been debating in committee without issues since the beginning. I challenge anyone to find a single moment, before the proposed clause 4.1 was deleted, when the consideration of the bill was delayed. Despite what the minister and his parliamentary secretary said in the media and on social networks, can a single moment be found when the legislative process, which is managed by the government leader and his team, was delayed?We agreed to conduct a preliminary study of the bill, so that the committee would start hearing from witnesses at the same time as members were using their legitimate right to express themselves on the bill in the House of Commons. Some felt that the bill was incomplete, or that it was a bad bill, while others thought the bill was basically good, but they wanted to improve it through amendments. Everything was going well, even in committee. Liberals were supporting Conservative amendments, the NDP was supporting the Bloc Québécois amendments, and vice versa. Mr. Chair, I am hearing the interpretation in English. It's okay, I think the problem has been resolved.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content671758867175896717590671759167175926717593671759467175956717596671759767175986717599671760067176016717602671760367176046717605671760667176076717608671760967176106717611ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1425)[Translation]I was saying we have been waiting six years for the Liberal government to bring forward this legislation.Everything was going smoothly. The minister was the one who gave the instruction to remove an element from the bill. In a major interview, he couldn't even explain why the section had been included in the first place or why he had asked for it to be removed. Then, he assured us that everyone would be protected. Two or three days ago, the minister announced in a tweet that further amendments would be brought forward to clear everything up. Then, we—not the minister—are accused of lying and misleading Canadians when we say that the bill does not protect users. The Liberals, however, are the ones bringing forward further amendments in an effort to remedy the problem they, themselves, created by removing the section. That means they put forward bad amendments, on top of it all. I find that worrisome.To be frank, as I said at last night's meeting—which was added—I have lost confidence in the minister. As happens in regular life, we sometimes lose faith in friends and loved ones, so that confidence has to be rebuilt. People often say it takes years to build a friendship but only an instant to destroy it. It is incumbent upon the minister to regain that confidence. It is up to him to show us that he is being sincere, and the best way to do that is to not stand in the way of the committee hitting the pause button for a few days.I would say that, since we started talking about this, the Minister of Justice has begun preparing a written opinion. He has to consider everything that is going on to prepare that opinion. Like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, he must have a multitude of public servants and political advisers watching each of our meetings to know what's being said. Regardless, in his motion, Mr. Housefather is ultimately calling on the minister to issue a new opinion.If the bill is as clear as the government says, why not take a short pause, so we can get everything cleared up and go back to making good progress like before?Some are even saying we should go back to the drawing board. That says a lot. The loss of confidence is so great that some experts on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of expression are starting to point to a serious problem. Are we being hoodwinked? It feels that way. That confidence goes to the heart of this very work, as we try to get answers to all of our questions.Mr. Housefather's motion suggests a genuine desire to find a compromise, but a compromise in response to what? We already had a compromise, and everything was going fine.The government caused all of this by deciding to remove proposed section 4.1. Had the government not done what it did, we might have been finished our study of Bill C-10 by now. Nevertheless, the mistake was made, and it has to be fixed. We need a new opinion from the minister before we can go any further. What's a few days after a six-year wait?Enough with the accusations that we are pushing culture to the side and that we don't want to help those in the sector. We even submitted a unanimous report regarding our study on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors so the government could make good budget decisions.The organization Friends of Canadian Broadcasting had even raised a red flag over proposed section 4.1, pointing out that it also applied to users, so they needed to be protected. The organization did not recommend removing the proposed section altogether. Worst case, it could have been amended, if necessary.The minister was aware of those positions and explanations. He consulted the same groups we, the opposition parties, consulted before we got to this point.I am very concerned about where the committee goes from here. It's clear where things are headed. Some would have us keep going, amendment by amendment, but freedom of expression is too important of an issue to sidestep.(1430)I repeat: this is not about pitting culture and freedom of expression against one another. We must stand up for both. The Minister of Justice issued a charter statement relating to freedom of expression on November 18 or 20 of last year. I don't recall the exact date, but it's available on the federal government's website. The people following our proceedings right now may not know this, but every single government bill has to undergo a review by the Minister of justice for consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.The minister issued his recommendation taking into account proposed section 4.1, which the bill would have added to the Broadcasting Act. Now that the proposed section has been deleted, the opinion has no leg to stand on. It's like pulling the foundation out from under house. It reminds me of that game where you construct a tower with a bunch of wooden blocks. Those who have played before know how it works: players pull out blocks one at a time, but as soon as someone pulls out a block from the bottom, the tower comes crashing down. Allowing this to go forward would be akin to cheating, holding up the tower with our hands to keep it from crumbling.We are asking for a pause. We want the Minister of Justice to quickly issue a new opinion so we have the clarity we need to move forward. It would show a modicum of good faith to put Mr. Housefather's motion aside and move forward accordingly.Why do I say that?I brought up Peter Menzies earlier. After our meeting yesterday, comments were posted on Twitter. I'm sure all the committee members read what he posted, given his eminent expertise in the field. I will try to recap what he said.Mr. Menzies wondered how Mr. Guilbeault's amendment to Bill C-10 clarified the CRTC's regulation of user-generated content. He stated that, for the past week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Guilbeault, promised to address widespread concerns over Bill C-10, the bill to reform the Broadcasting Act. After the issue became the subject of growing debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Guilbeault indicated that the Liberals, too, wanted to make sure content uploaded by users to social media would not be deemed programming under the act and thus not be regulated by the CRTC. He added that that was why the Liberals would be bringing forward another amendment to ensure that this was absolutely clear.The Prime Minister reiterated the message on Wednesday in the House of Commons, saying and I quote:We have been clear that this is not about individual users or about what individual Canadians post online. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, we will be bringing forward an amendment to ensure that this is absolutely clear. He had just contradicted his own minister, who actually contradicted himself by denying that users were impacted by the removal of proposed section 4.1 from the bill.I want to cite Mr. Geist, because the sequence of events is crucial to understand why we cannot keep dealing with the bill one amendment at a time and hoping for unanimous consent in the end to revisit certain amendments. It would be more reassuring if the Liberals were to agree in writing, in the presence of counsel, to give us the ongoing ability to revisit amendments at the end of the process, should we wish to propose others. I doubt they would, however.Last night, at a somewhat strange Canadian heritage committee meeting, Liberal member Ms. Dabrusin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, brought forward the promised amendment. Instead of confirming that the content Canadians upload to social media would not be deemed programming under the Broadcasting Act, the amendment does precisely the opposite.First, the amendment does not reinstate the exception that was set out in proposed section 4.1, which was touted as a safeguard against the regulation of user-generated content. Second, not only does user-generated content continue to be subject to regulation, but the amendment also confirms the CRTC's regulatory authority, including a new power specifically designed for social media. In other words, instead of backing down in the face of public criticism, the government doubled down on its plan to regulate the Internet. It's madness.I am trying to untangle it all. The minister and his officials initially proposed adding section 4.1 to the act to protect users, but then took it away on the pretext that users were protected regardless. At the end of the day, that is not true, and the government is putting forward a new amendment. According to the experts, the government is actually making things worse with its new amendment, G -11.1(1435)We agreed to set amendment G-11.1 aside in order to consider Mr. Housefather's motion.As Mr. Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and subject matter expert, goes on to explain, amendment G-11.1 adds to the list of conditions the CRTC can impose on online undertakings. As amended, the provision would read as follows:9.1(1) The Commission [the CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting(i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programsAccording to Mr. Geist, the proposed amendments establish some regulatory limits that restrict what the CRTC can do in relation to user-generated content, but the overall approach is indeed supposedly crystal clear. User-generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10, and as a result, the content of millions of Canadians' feeds on social media will be subject to regulation.What I just told you is madness. When an articulate and eminent expert in the field makes a comment like that, I understandably have concerns about the honourable member Mr. Housefather's motion.Mr. Geist points out that content on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube will now be approved by the CRTC, because it sets the conditions to mandate discoverability of Canadian content. By regulating user-generated content in this way, Canada will be an outlier with respect to Internet regulation. In a previous post, Mr. Geist stated that even the European Union, with its extensive regulations, ensured that video sharing platforms were not subject to regulatory requirements to prioritize some user-generated content over other content.Mr. Geist goes on to say that there is good reason to not regulate user-generated content in this manner, since it has implications for freedom of expression and raises a host of questions. I want to stress how important those questions are, questions we have every right to ask. For example, how will companies determine what constitutes Canadian content? Will Canadians be required to surrender more personal information to big tech companies as part of the new rules? What requirements will be established for individual feeds?Now we are getting into people's personal information—information the tech giants could force users to provide. That is to say nothing of the algorithms these companies use, which raise a whole slew of other questions. We don't have the necessary expertise at this time to arrive at an informed opinion.As someone who used to represent educators, I cannot overstate how much it bothers me to make a decision that is uninformed.That brings to mind an important rule of project management. It has four parts. First, know the project. Second, understand the project. Third, support the project. It will then be possible to, fourth and finally, implement the project. Since I'm having trouble knowing and understanding just what the government is proposing, I can't go on to support or implement it. It's basic decision-making.I'm conflicted right now. Given what the experts are telling me, I am not in a position to make an informed decision on Mr. Housefather's motion.Mr. Geist's analysis of amendment G-11.1 doesn't stop there. I might add that amendment G-11.1 is the next amendment we are supposed to examine, despite the fact that we don't know where the Minister of Justice stands. If we adopt Mr. Housefather's motion, we will be going ahead without the benefit of the minister's expertise or the answers to our questions. Later on, if we feel the need to backtrack, it won't be possible to do so without unanimous consent.(1440)Given the attacks of Mr. Guilbeault and his parliamentary secretary over the past two weeks, I don't feel confident that I would get the unanimous consent needed to propose amendments, if the Minister of Justice came to the conclusion that any part of the work we were doing here was not compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I say that, I have trouble believing that anyone would be against charter compliance.Back to Mr. Geist's post. He states that Canadian Heritage officials removed any doubt about the implications of the amendment. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to repeat this next part, given the critical tone, but these are the professor's comments. Regardless, criticism is a necessary part of the process to move forward and make things better. I'm sure departmental officials have already seen what he had to say. I don't mean to suggest that there was any bad faith on their part. I am simply saying that people's thinking is informed by their own understanding and by the people who influence them.According to Mr. Geist, department officials told members of Parliament that the amendment to proposed section 9.1 of the bill would give the CRTC an additional power, the power to make orders with respect to online undertakings that provide a social media service. That order-making power would apply only to a social media service. It would give the CRTC the ability to make orders with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators' programs.Mr. Geist points out that, in response to another member's question—it might actually be a question I asked, I'm not sure—officials reiterated that proposed section 4.1 was intended to exclude programming that was uploaded on social media by someone who was not affiliated to that social media. The motion put forward by Ms. Dabrusin, amendment G-11.1, defines what regulatory tools under proposed section 9.1 can be used vis-à-vis social media.I'm nearing the end of Mr. Geist's analysis. I'll wrap up by telling you where I stand on the motion.Minister Guilbeault and the government promised to remove the parts that give the CRTC the power to regulate user-generated content. Instead, yesterday, they effectively confirmed that denials about the effects of the bill were inaccurate and left a regulatory framework in place.As Navneet Alang states in the Toronto Star, in a column critical of Facebook, the right to speak on social media includes the right to be amplified and to be free to have an audience. That part is key. It means we should be requiring greater algorithmic transparency from Internet companies, not substituting their choices for those crafted through government regulation. That is the difference. That is the hook around which demagogues rally, making people believe—because the issue is so complex—that users, big tech, culture and freedom of expression are all at odds.I have shown nothing but good faith since I have been on the committee. I was elected vice-chair and even had the privilege of standing in for you a few times, Mr. Chair. I can attest to what a feat it is to run a meeting like this, ensuring its orderly conduct in accordance with all the rules. Although we challenge your decisions at times, it does not mean that we question your ability or authority. I can certainly speak to that.No matter how you slice it, despite Mr. Housefather's genuine desire not to delay the bill's passage, it is clear to me that this is a specious debate. All we are asking for is to hit the pause button for a few days. It would take just a few days to obtain the Minister of Justice's legal opinion.Had there been support at the outset for what this motion seeks to do—obtain a new legal opinion—the matter would have been settled by now. Today, we would know whether the removal of proposed section 4.1 has any repercussions on freedom of expression. If the minister determined that there were none, we could have carried on with our study as per usual. If not, I think we would have had one heck of a problem. I think we have one heck of a problem right now, for that matter. That is why I am so adamant about finding some way to put the study on hold. We are not trying to delay helping the cultural sector. I repeat, all we need is a few days.(1445)The expert panel that had previously endorsed Bill C-10 even had to write another letter of support because some of its members no longer wanted to support it. Right now, people across the country are opposed to the bill. I can tell you that I feel pressure, not from my party, but from Canadians and Quebeckers who feel attacked. I must respond to them.It doesn't matter whether the minister likes this or not. He's trying to grandstand. By the way, it would be nice if a Liberal member could send him the message that his attacks slide off me like water off a duck's back. They really don't work. They won't change my commitment to freedom of expression at all costs.As I said before—I can't remember whether it was in this committee or in an interview—my parents are Egyptian. You may say that my comments are off topic. However, my point is important because it explains why I'm so strongly opposed to this motion. My parents came to Canada from Egypt. When I had the opportunity to speak to my father about why he and my mother decided to move our entire family from their beloved home country to Canada, I remember his answer like it was yesterday. He often repeats it when we talk about major political and social debates. He and my mother came to Canada so that we could enjoy freedom of expression and religion; choose our own paths, whatever they may be; and access the Canadian justice system. Although this system isn't perfect, we should always strive to change it. This is in my DNA.During the oral question period, the minister tried to attack one of the values that I hold so dear by suggesting that I was misleading the public. Goodness knows the Speaker of the House quickly called him to order. He then tried to sidestep the issue, but he subsequently respected decorum. I want to thank him for that.I can't go on like this. I'll do everything in my power to defend freedom of expression. I invite the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats to do the right thing if they really want to make progress on our work for the sake of Canadian culture and creators, whether the creators are Quebeckers, francophones, anglophones, indigenous people or other people. The very basis of the Canadian, Quebec, francophone and Acadian identity in this country is freedom of expression. This freedom has been attacked.I know Mr. Guilbeault a little bit. He isn't a bad person. He has an activist background. We all wondered why he joined the Liberals. We all thought that he would run for the Green Party—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6717621671763167176426717662ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1500)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I must admit that I find it a little hurtful to see that some people are asking for the meeting to be adjourned when we have talked so long about freedom of expression and the importance of being able to speak. To me, that also includes an obligation, if only out of respect, to let others speak, which I am happy to do at this time. I'll still try to keep it short. How did we get here? It's quite worrisome. First, we agree that the Liberals fell short by removing the proposed section 4.1 without immediately taking precautions to reassure users of their freedom to share their content. Various anti-Internet-regulation advocates jumped on the bandwagon and pointed to this loophole as a potential threat to freedom of expression. The cultural industry is caught between the Liberals' negligence and the Conservatives' reaction. I have heard my colleagues Mr. Rayes and Mr. Shields testify and profess their love for culture, and I don't doubt it for a second. I don't think anyone can sit on this committee without a deep affection for culture. Having said that, culture is currently paying the price for this struggle we are having a hard time resolving.We often quote Mr. Geist, whose expertise I recognize, but other experts have said other things as well. Let's talk about Pierre Trudel and Monique Simard, who published a letter in Le Devoir. Pierre Trudel is not just anyone. You know the content of the letter, and I am sure that everyone is aware of their opinion: “Bill C-10 creates no risk that the CRTC will one day start regulating videos produced by individuals...” That's it; you can read the letter. I don't want to take up too much of your time doing so. Pierre Trudel is also a law professor, at the Université de Montréal. He has written books on the right of access to information and media law. He works extensively on the subject of Internet regulation. He and Ms. Simard were part of the federal expert panel on the review of the legislative and regulatory framework for broadcasting. So I think they have some credibility too. I agree that we must rely on experts. However, when you want to listen to the views of experts in a field in which you don't have expertise yourself, you have to listen to those who advocate a point of view that is not necessarily the one you spontaneously adopt. You have to be open. Wanting to better understand the issue also means wanting to understand the point of view of all parties. Right now, the cultural industry is wondering why we are wasting so much time talking when there is an urgent need to act. Ms. Yale mentioned this urgency last year in her report, which was co-signed by Ms. Simard. We all agreed on that. At this point, I think we must not speak for the Liberal Party, the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, but we must speak for those who will be most affected by this bill: the people in the cultural and media industries. The Internet giants are doing a lot of damage to our industry and to our Canadian broadcasting system, and that is why we are here. Yes, concerns need to be addressed. We need to reassure those who fear for their freedom of expression, I agree with that 100%. That's why, up until now, I've been keen to have that point clarified. I think Mr. Housefather's proposal today is a compromise that deserves to be considered by all parties. I want to pick up on the point that Ms. Harder and Mr. Rayes made earlier. It would be impossible not to go backwards if the Minister of Justice did not provide us with a new opinion on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that supported Bill C-10. It would be impossible not to go backwards, because refusing unanimous consent to change sections would be tantamount to killing the bill. No one who wants to see this bill succeed would refuse to come back and change sections of the bill if it did not have the full support of the Minister of Justice through his new statement on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is room for good will and good faith. We will get the new statement on the charter, we will have a visit from the two ministers, we will have the answers to our questions and we will not have to put this bill to a vote until we have those guarantees. The Bloc Québécois would never support any bill if we had the slightest suspicion that it posed a real risk to freedom of expression.(1505) In the meantime, we can work on other clauses to move this bill forward for the benefit of the cultural industry, which is crying out for us to do so. I know that the Canadian and Quebec cultural industry is important to you. I also know that, regardless of the party affiliation, you all want to make progress. So I invite you to be open. We will ensure that freedom of expression is protected by all means necessary and by all means that satisfy us. In the meantime, I believe we have a duty to continue to work to improve this bill, which we all agree needed a lot of love to become acceptable to everyone. We also have a duty to respect the democratic process, my friends. In this regard, if we respect the democratic process, we must accept that the members of the committee can all vote together on a motion that seems acceptable to me. In any event, even if we wanted to go back to Ms. Harder's motion, as the Conservatives seem to be asking, we would first have to deal with the motion before us now. So I think we should vote on that motion and give the committee a chance to continue the democratic process. I think that's reasonable and makes good common sense. We owe it to our creators in Quebec and Canada. We owe it to the media and cultural industry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's time to move on, with this good compromise.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6717718671771967177206717721671772267177236717724671772567177266717727671772867177296717730671773167177326717733ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1510)[English]Thank you, Mr. Champoux. That puts us back into the same situation, folks. We have now gone over two hours. I am looking at everyone to see who wants to say goodbye. I see a lot of hands waving in this direction, so I'm assuming that you want to call it a week and get ready for your weekend.I will put something on your radar, though, if that's okay. It won't take very long.As you know, we passed a motion on March 26. It says, “That the committee extend the hours of its meetings during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10”. That's on the extension of hours. The second thing it calls for is that we “hold any additional meetings required to make the necessary changes to the outdated Broadcasting Act and move the bill to third reading”. That was adopted by the committee, and that's why we had the meeting last night. It tells me that I should endeavour to find meetings during the break week if we are still on Bill C-10 and considering clause-by-clause.I'm saying this because it is the will of the committee, and I just want to give you a heads-up a week and a bit before the break week, so that you can plan accordingly when we get close to that date.Thank you, everyone. It was a great debate. It's good to see you all. [Translation]Have a good weekend.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6717737MartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1830)[English] Welcome, everybody, to the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Of course, when we left off at the last meeting, there was an adjournment put forward by Mr. Shields. Therefore, we follow the dots and go back to clause-by-clause consideration.Before we do that, I would like to point out that I see a multitude of hands in the air, so I'm going to take this in order.Ms. Harder.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6703758670375967037606703761RachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1830)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Chair, it may be a surprise to you, but I am going to move that we now proceed to debate on the motion that was moved by MP Harder on Friday, April 30.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsGuilbeault, StevenLametti, DavidMinister of Canadian HeritageMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to membersUser-generated content67037626703763ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1830)[English]You are correct.Let's get right to it since it's a dilatory motion. (Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)The Chair: Okay, folks, I did not get a chance to say this at the beginning, but I want everyone to know. From the point of view of proceeding with this debate, I ask that you please try not to talk over each other. I really try my best to make sure that Hansard is able to recognize who's speaking. On top of that, the fact that we are in a virtual world makes it very difficult. I ask that if you want to be involved, please do not shout into your microphone. If you feel your electronic hand isn't enough, you can wave at the screen if you wish, but when you yell into the microphone, somebody's ear is right there. They are the interpreters, and this isn't an easy world for them to be wading through.The amended motion is on the floor. We have an amendment put forward by Madam Dabrusin, which is where we left off last time.Madam Dabrusin.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsMotionsRecorded divisions6703767670376867037696703770670377167037726703773RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1835)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I am actually going to start by seeking unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The reason I say that is that I believe there are some important pieces that we need to be able to move to, in order to review this entire bill and to see the amendments that we are going to be coming to as part of the clause-by-clause. I think that's an important piece that we really need to do.As a point of clarity, I would like to seek unanimous consent, and then, depending on that result, I would like to go on further to talk about some of the issues that I think are important for this debate.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content670379367037946703795ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1840)[English]Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin. Let's get to that right away. Just for clarification, everyone, what Ms. Dabrusin is asking for is unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment. We all remember her amendment. It's been shared by the clerk, so we don't have to go over that. If I get someone dissenting, please say no.Does Ms. Dabrusin have unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment?Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content670379667037976703798JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1840)[English]No.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6703799ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1840)[English]Thank you. That's unfortunate because there's a lot that we need to get to as part of this clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10. I would like to be able to see us move to it because there are some important amendments that I will be moving once we get to clause-by-clause.For example, one of the amendments that I think is important for all of us to be discussing and voting upon will be the amendment that Bill C-10, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 7 the following:(i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programsThen it continues by adding after line 10 on page 8 the following:“(3.1) Orders made—Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content67038016703802670380367038046703805ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1840)[English]Thank you.I'll continue:(3.1) Orders made under this section, other than orders made under paragraph (1)(e.2), (i.1) or (j), do not apply in respect of programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—if that user is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.This amendment would go to restricting the CRTC's order powers for social media web giants with regard to expenditures, discoverability of Canadian creators, programs and financial information for these web giants. However, the other part that's really important to be considering and another amendment that I'm really looking forward to moving once we get to clause-by-clause is going to be that Bill C-10, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 10 the following:(4) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(c) do not apply with respect to programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—if that user is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.This amendment would be limiting the CRTC's regulatory powers for social media web giants to business information and registration.I think it's very important that we—Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6703810670381167038126703813670381467038156703816ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1845)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Chair, maybe I'll just back up here for a moment. I think we seem to have forgotten what motion we're discussing. The motion we're discussing is one that is necessary because proposed section 4.1 in clause 3 of Bill C-10, the bill being discussed, was removed. Because this proposed section was removed from the bill, it therefore presents the question of whether this bill is still compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the question at hand.That question can be answered in one way, and that is by allowing this bill in its current state to go before the justice minister, the justice department, for a charter review. At that point, then, a charter statement would be granted to the committee, and that charter statement would tell us whether or not it is charter-compliant. If the Minister of Justice says that, yes, it is compliant with proposed section 4.1 missing, then we would proceed accordingly. However, if the justice minister says that, no, this bill, with the missing proposed section 4.1, is not compliant with the charter, then it's incumbent upon us, as members of this committee, to pause and make the necessary changes to the bill to ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in fact respected, and that Canadians' freedoms are honoured.The motion that I have put forward, then, asks for that charter statement to be redone and to be provided to this committee. That's the motion that we are discussing. In order to get that charter statement, it would mean that the committee would need to be paused where it is right now. While it is paused and we seek that charter statement, my motion suggests that we ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee.The amendment that the honourable member has made to my motion would suggest that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice do not come to this committee. Rather, they'd simply provide a written statement. Her amendment further suggests that instead of pausing right now in order to seek that renewed charter statement, we would continue to debate a flawed piece of legislation, and then we would seek that charter statement at the end.I would suggest that is a misuse of our time, given that many experts have already spoken out and, I would suggest, argued that this bill is deeply flawed. One thing that the party in government presents to us over and over again when we ask questions in the House of Commons concerning this piece of legislation is that individual users are protected. Meanwhile, Conservatives contend that's not entirely the case now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed from the bill. When members of the governing party argue this, they point to proposed section 2.1. Proposed section 2.1 does say that users who upload programs onto social media sites like Facebook, YouTube or TikTok are not considered broadcasters and so are not personally subject to conditions like the Canadian content requirement or the Canada Media Fund contributions that would be imposed by the CRTC on streaming services like Netflix or Amazon, as examples. That's fair. However, proposed section 4.1 dealt with the program, the content that individuals—you, me, your uncle, your aunt, your mom—upload to social media sites. Proposed section 4.1 originally protected those individuals and their content from being regulated by the CRTC. When we removed proposed section 4.1, when that proposed section was removed from the bill, the protection for the content that individuals place on social media platforms was, therefore, taken away.(1850) Although the CRTC can't treat individuals as broadcasters because of proposed section 2.1, with proposed section 4.1 gone, it can regulate the content—your mom's video, my mom's video, your uncle's video—that is uploaded to social media and perhaps even to apps. The content uploaded by individuals is treated the same as if it were from CTV News or Global, which is wrong. It's just wrong.Let's just take a moment here. Again there seems to be some confusion in the room. We seem to be discussing proposed section 2.1 as if it does what proposed section 4.1 once did. It's just not true. Proposed section 2.1 is not the level of protection that Canadians deserve. It's not enough. We need section 4.1. We need that section that was taken out. This is what I'm contending for, and this is what many experts have said. My motion would ask for an official opinion in the form of a charter statement.Let's go back a moment. Just how could the CRTC regulate social media with proposed section 4.1 removed? That seems to be the issue at hand here. Using the powers in the Broadcasting Act, which is the point of proposed section 4.1, these powers, particularly in proposed subsections 9(1), 9.1(1) and 10(1), could provide the basis for the CRTC, among other things, to adopt regulations that would require social media sites such as YouTube to take down content that it considers offensive and adopt “discoverability” regulations—Ms. Dabrusin used that term—that would make them change their algorithm to determine which videos are seen more or which are seen less. The fines for violating these regulations could be as high as—Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6703831670383267038336703834670383567038366703837670383867038396703840670384167038426703843670384467038456703846ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1855)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The point is that with proposed new section 4.1 removed, the bill allows the CRTC to regulate the content that an individual might post on their YouTube channel or their Facebook page or in a TikTok video that they might put up. I have stated that I am contending for a new charter statement. Ms. Dabrusin has put forward the amendment that we not do that until the end of the bill. I believe that it is absolutely essential now because of the damage that can be done to individuals and to their ability to speak freely within what we now call the “new public square” that is social media. Because that impact is so severe, we have to stop now and consider whether or not this is actually in alignment with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—particularly with section 2(b), which of course protects thought, belief, opinion and expression.That is what I'm contending for, but there are many experts who would also contend for this. They would say, “Whoa, this bill in its current state goes too far.” It is incumbent, then, upon the members of this committee to push the pause button and seek a legal opinion. That legal opinion comes in the form of a charter statement. I'm talking about Professor Michael Geist, Emily Laidlaw, the former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies and many individuals—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670385367038546703855670385667038576703858ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1855)[English]Thank you.I didn't realize that the supposed motions that could possibly be brought forward in order to amend this bill were relevant. Meanwhile, the things I'm talking about are in the bill as it currently stands, and somehow Mr. Housefather doesn't find them relevant.I'll continue.I believe that voices of experts are worth hearing and that they are worth tuning into. Therefore, as we consider my motion, and as we consider the amendment to the motion, which would try to put a pause on what I'm asking for, I would like to show why it is urgent that we do, in fact, seek this renewed charter statement.The original charter statement directly cites the social media exemption in its argument that the bill respects paragraph 2(b) of the charter. Because that proposed subsection has been removed from the bill, then it can be argued and should be argued that the bill no longer holds up to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Experts are warning of this. They are warning that, with the amendments to the bill, it could give too much power to the CRTC to regulate or control what we put on our social media pages. Again, it's an infringement on our charter rights under paragraph 2(b), an infringement on our freedom, and therefore, I would say, it is thwarting our ability to engage in what is now the public square, and that's wrong.Former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said about Bill C-10 that it “doesn't just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” That's a pretty big statement. That's big. That seems reason for moving to a charter statement immediately, rather than waiting for several weeks.Furthermore, Laura Tribe, executive director of OpenMedia, had this to say. She said, “Voting for Bill C-10 in its current form will give the government the power to regulate speech on the Internet. C-10 was supposed to be about supporting artists and creators. But this Bill has totally lost the plot.”That's interesting, because in the House of Commons, in question period, the Prime Minister has stated numerous times, and the Minister of Heritage continuously states that is what this bill is about: It's about supporting artists and those who create content. Actually, artists are able to exist and thrive when their charter rights and freedoms are most protected. If we move forward with this bill in its current state, and it does in fact breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then it's not helping artists and those who are creative. It's actually applying greater restrictions to them. It's hindering them from being the creative beings that they are meant to have the ability to be. It's actually inhibiting their ability to put the content out there that they would wish to put out there. No, this doesn't support struggling artists, as the government would want Canadians to think.Ms. Tribe goes on to say, “For a country that made a department dedicated to 'innovation'—it's amazing to watch how regressive, overreaching, and oppressive their policies have become.... This government is a straight up disaster for Canada's internet.” James Turk, the director of the Centre for Free Expression at Ryerson University, said, “The Trudeau Government is planning to give the CRTC the right to regulate user-generated content on sites like YouTube by amending Bill C-10—a dangerous government overreach that must be stopped.”(1900) Timothy Denton, a national commissioner of the CRTC from 2009 to 2013 wrote:The freedom to communicate across the internet is to be determined by political appointees, on the basis of no other criterion than what is conducive to broadcasting policy—and, presumably, the good of our domestic industry. As always, the interests of the beneficiaries of regulation—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670386267038636703864670386567038666703867670386867038696703870670387167038726703873ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1900)[English] Since I was interrupted, let me rebegin with that quote: The freedom to communicate across the internet is to be determined by political appointees, on the basis of no other criterion than what is conducive to broadcasting policy—and, presumably, the good of our domestic industry. As always, the interests of the beneficiaries of regulation are heard first, best, and last. Consumers and individual freedoms count for little when the regulated sector beats its drums....For the narrow clique of broadcasters, CanCon producers, and their lobbyists, it is always all about broadcasting. For Canadians, however, it is about the right to use the internet to communicate. We do not have to have our freedom of speech squelched by a government determined to protect an obsolete industrial structure.Forget about “broadcasting”: C-10 is clearly intended to allow speech control at the government's discretion. Ignore the turn signals, look at where the wheels are pointed. They are pointed at your right to communicate freely by means of the internet.Dwayne Winseck, who is a professor at the school of journalism at Carleton University and director of the Canadian media concentration research project, states, “I support the idea that online video-on-demand (OVOD) services can be regulated, as Bill #C10 contemplates, but...the bill was already a mishmash of dishonest representations of OVOD services as b'casting (they are not)”.He continues, “Proposed amendments adopted unanimously [at the committee]...would drop that distinction & sweep user generated content under the new broadcasting act...a terrible idea, not least because it subjects individuals' expressions to the [greatest] low” and “W/o these guide rails, the disc of #C10 is being driven by lobby groups & think tanks tied to incumbent telecom & media industries interests & the Liberal Govt+a tiny group of academics poorly versed in the terrain they seemed to have gained unwarranted authority to speak on.” Emily Laidlaw, Canada research chair in cybersecurity law and associate professor of law at the University of Calgary, has this to say: “While broadcasting regs used to be about programming related all our favourite TV shows, news, sports, it would now cover that home video of your kid winning a track meet that you uploaded to YouTube. Here’s the free speech problem: Bill C-10 forces social media companies to censor speech. While you might think—hey it’s a cesspool and we should clean that up—remember this is broadcasting reg, not all the other regulatory qs about online harms...platform power or data protection. Why does it force social media companies to be censors? Because of the reg it requires. The only option to comply with Bill C-10 is for social media to heavily reg content”. She goes on to say, “I am genuinely shocked by this. What does subjecting individual YouTube videos to CRTC regulation achieve in terms of regulatory objectives? These kinds of blunt approaches wreak havoc on internet governance, especially through a human rights-centred lens.”Again, I would draw this committee's attention to her very important words there: “human rights-centred lens”. Here in Canada, our rights are largely guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That charter, under paragraph 2(b)—and I have a copy. Mr. Housefather, please don't call a point of order. It's just the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It says this: 2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association.Let me draw your attention to paragraph 2(b) again, which, of course, is the subject at hand: “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.(1905) This is our charter. This is Canadians' charter. This is the document that was put in place by the former Trudeau in order to protect our rights and our freedoms as Canadians.The responsibility of this committee is not to kowtow to industry stakeholders. The responsibility of this committee is to adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to contend for Canadians. They are the ones who elected us. They are the ones who have entrusted us with the responsibility to advocate for them.For this committee to continue forward without taking this responsibility seriously is to bring shame on us. To suggest that we should just continue ramming this legislation through, that we should just continue considering one clause after another without giving sober second thought to whether or not this legislation does indeed continue to abide by the charter is wrong.Mr. Michael Geist is a lawyer—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670387967038806703881670388267038836703884670388567038866703887670388867038896703890670389167038926703893670389467038956703896670389767038986703899ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMarie-FranceLalondeOrléans//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/92209Marie-FranceLalondeMarie-France-LalondeOrléansLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LalondeMarieFrance_Lib.jpgInterventionMrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, Lib.): (1910)[English]On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would like to know the relevance of Ms. Harder's comments.Also, could you please read back to us what we're actually debating Ms. Dabrusin about? Could you actually read that motion to show the relevance of Ms. Harder's speech versus what I understand Ms. Dabrusin's amendment to be?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67039006703901RachaelHarderLethbridgeScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1910)[English]I'm going to do a couple of things at this point. Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.Let me start with the second part. Ms. Dabrusin is amending the original motion as amended. I know that sounds confusing. Let me try that again.Ms. Harder had a motion. It was amended by Ms. McPherson. The amendment that was already accepted was specifically about the 10 days, that there would be a maximum of 10 days for doing that, which is what Ms. McPherson brought in. It was accepted. It was amended, and here we are at this point. Madam Dabrusin brought in several amendments, chief of which was that the first part was to be negated, the part that talks about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and down to part (c). In other words, the part that says “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10”, which Ms. Dabrusin would like to amend as well. Plus, she wants to bring back, to have explained in writing, what both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage would like to reply to this, as soon as possible after clause-by-clause is completed. I hope that clears things up substantially. Ms. Harder—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670390267039036703904670390567039066703907Marie-FranceLalondeOrléansJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1915)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly didn't mean to raise my voice. I do apologize.My point is this. If we restrict ourselves only to the few words that make up the amendment, then the only words that I am permitted to debate are “explain in writing” and “as soon as possible after clause by clause is completed”. Those are the only phrases that I would be permitted to debate or discuss.Mr. Chair, I think you would agree with me that it would not make for a productive conversation if those were the only phrases that I was allowed to discuss. Indeed, I do reference the motion that houses the amendment that has been brought forward, as is appropriate to do so, because it is the motion that gives the amendment context. Otherwise, we would all be wasting our time.I will continue.Mr. Geist is a legal professor and he has said quite a bit about this piece of legislation. He has raised some very serious, very significant concerns. He says, in reference to the removal of proposed section 4.1, “This is a remarkable and dangerous step in an already bad piece of legislation.”He goes on to say:The government believes that it should regulate all user generated content, leaving it to regulator to determine what terms and conditions will be attached to the videos of millions of Canadians on sites like Youtube, Instagram, TikTok and hundreds of other services. The Department of Justice's own Charter analysis of the bill specifically cites the exclusion to argue that it does not unduly encroach on freedom of expression rights. Without the exclusion, Bill C-10 adopts the position that a regulator sets the rules for free speech online.What he is saying here is that, with the removal of proposed section 4.1, this bill, in its current state, would allow regulators to set rules around free speech, which then infringes upon paragraph 2(b) of our charter. Again, what I'm asking for is that we push the pause button and that we give opportunity for the justice department, for the justice minister, to take a thorough look at this legislation as it currently stands and to determine whether or not it does in fact fall in line with the charter. That's not a lot to ask. I'm asking the elected officials around the table to give consideration to the rights and freedoms that are granted to Canadians. I'm asking the elected officials around this table to put the well-being of Canadians—their rights—before the interests of industry groups, before the interests of lobbyists, before the interests of friends. I'm asking this group to listen to the voices of experts, but not just to stop there, not just to stop with the voices of experts, but to actually refer this legislation even higher to the Department of Justice, to the justice minister, to seek a formal legal opinion.Again, I'm not the only one asking for this. There are people who are far wiser than I am who understand this legislation to a far greater extent than I do who are advocating for this.(1920) They include former CRTC commissioners, who, I would imagine, have a pretty good understanding of what is necessary and what would fall within the charter and what would not, and how we should go about this. If they're raising a red flag, then I think it's incumbent upon all of us to do the same.While Ms. Dabrusin would like to continue to consider this bill in its current state, and while there are a couple of members here tonight who would like to silence my voice and take away the opportunity I have to speak to this important point, I would appeal to the committee that we take this bill and we allow it to undergo a thorough examination. The reason for this is that Canadians have concerns. Ultimately, we are accountable to them. Again, I would say that it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that the charter rights of Canadians are protected.One thing I find interesting, of course, is that today there's been an attempt made to silence me. In addition to that, what I've noticed is that whether it's on platforms of public media or in the House of Commons in question period, there is this attempt to silence. There is this attempt to incriminate those who would speak out about this legislation, or even those who would ask questions, maybe even just curious questions, but questions. Heaven forbid that you would ask a question. Heaven forbid that you would disagree. Fall in line.I have an issue with that. In the House of Commons, any time a point has been raised that has been verified by any one of the experts I listed off earlier, the Minister of Heritage calls it fake news. Well, really, is it fake news? The piece of legislation is right in front of us. Legal experts have spoken out. I don't know that it's fake news. If questions are asked, if curiosity is had, if concerns are raised, the minister refers to those individuals as “extremist”. Really? Since when did we become a country that doesn't allow for disagreements?Again, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects that dialogue. We should be able to have it here at this committee, but Canadians should also be able to have it out there on social media platforms, in what they call the public square. In addition to that, the Minister of Heritage went a level deeper, took a step lower and launched attacks on me—my personal beliefs, my personal values—because I dared to ask a question about this legislation. That's wrong. Again, I think it says a lot about the minister and his creation of this legislation, and whether or not it does in fact respect the charter. I mean, just the responses within the House of Commons certainly have not. Why would we trust that the legislation itself does? Again, the experts are calling for a review. They're saying this is “dangerous”—their words.Further to that, Ms. Dabrusin said—and the Prime Minister has as well—that this legislation is crystal clear. They're basically saying that those Canadians and those experts who are raising concerns with this legislation are just silly, they just lack intelligence, and that this legislation is crystal clear that it protects their freedom—crystal clear.(1925)Then, Ms. Dabrusin comes today and talks about amendments that they would like to eventually move should they be given the opportunity to do so. The heritage minister, you know, he promised that it's crystal clear and there is nothing to see here, but that they are also going to amend it.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670392967039306703931670393267039336703934670393567039366703937670393867039396703940670394167039426703943670394467039456703946ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1925)[English] Mr. Chair, I very much accept your point. That's excellent. He is Dr. Geist. My point is this: You cannot, on one hand, say that this legislation is crystal clear and that it clearly protects individuals and their use of social media platforms, while simultaneously saying that amendments are needed and that you're going to bring further amendments in order to create further clarification. If it's already perfect, if it's already crystal clear, then it's good to go, but I think what is being admitted here is that this bill isn't perfect and this bill isn't crystal clear in its protection of individuals and the content they post online.Again, it is important that we put this forward for that charter review.I think Ms. Dabrusin would like to move that we have the charter statement at the end of this study, and I've been made aware that perhaps Mr. Housefather intends to move a similar motion that we would move the review to the end of clause-by-clause. Ms. Dabrusin has indicated that she would like to bring forward some other amendments to the bill as we go through clause-by-clause.No. The review needs to be done now, because we're wasting our time if we talk about a piece of legislation that is so deeply flawed and we wait until the very end to get that review. We need that review now. Canadians deserve to know now. Canadians deserve to have us stand up for their charter rights now. That's not something that you put off. That's not something you wait for. That's not something you get around to when it's convenient. No. We're talking about Canadians' charter rights. We're talking about the supreme law of the land. We're talking about contending for Canadians. We're talking about the Canadians who elected us to be their representatives here in the House of Commons. We're talking about the Canadians who have entrusted us to put good legislation in place on their behalf.We're talking about people who trust us to protect as much of their freedom as possible and about being able to justify concretely every tiny ounce of freedom that we might legislate or chip away at. We had better be able to justify that, because if we are not able to justify that, if we are not able to show that it is with good reason, then we are on our way to becoming a propaganda machine. We are on our way to becoming like China. We are on way to doing away with free press. We are on our way to doing away entirely with free speech, free expression and the ability to have our own opinions.Mr. Housefather shakes his head, but history tells me that I'm right.It's incumbent upon this committee to stop the clause-by-clause. Proposed section 4.1 was removed. It's an extremely important clause. This piece of legislation, in its current state, needs to go to the Department of Justice, to the justice minister, and it needs to be thoroughly reviewed.Ms. Dabrusin would suggest that we need to be co-operative, that we need to collaborate, but the definition of collaboration that is being implied there is to do what she and perhaps the others on her team want us to do. Collaboration doesn't equal getting your own way. Collaboration means we have the discussion. It means we engage in robust debate. It means that we disagree. I mean, for crying out loud, this is how innovation works, folks. Someone puts forward a hypothesis, someone puts forward an antithesis and then there is a synthesis of new information.(1930) This is how we grow. This is how we engage. This is how we become more sophisticated as a society. To shut that down, to ask us to turn off our minds, to fall in line, that's wrongAs much as I've just spoken of what is required here at committee in terms of respecting the voices that are around this table and allowing for dissent to rightly take place here, the bill at hand is far more about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms held by the Canadian public. It's not just a piece of paper. It's theirs, their rights, their freedoms. Again, it's incumbent upon us to protect them.I yield the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670395867039596703960670396167039626703963670396467039656703966670396767039686703969ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1935)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman.The previous speaker talked about respect. One thing that I've been very proud of as a member of this committee is that, until today, I found that the members of this committee showed incredible respect toward one another. There was never a time where someone asked to withdraw an amendment and unanimous consent was not granted. What happened today was that Ms. Harder refused to grant unanimous consent for Ms. Dabrusin to withdraw an amendment that Ms. Harder is actually against, and then she proceeded to speak for an entire hour, wasting the time of the committee. We're not even going to get to the motion that Ms. Harder put before us because there's an amendment from Ms. Dabrusin that Ms. Dabrusin doesn't even want us to debate any longer. It's totally not acceptable.Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I'm very disappointed, and because I feel that this will just continue perpetually—and there's no purpose in debating Ms. Dabrusin's amendment because she does not even want it debated—I move to adjourn debate on Ms. Dabrusin's amendment.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6703979670398067039816703982ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAiméeBelmore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1940)[English] That's correct.(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: The debate is now adjourned.As we pointed out earlier, that adjourns the motion and the debate itself. Now we go back to the other regularly scheduled programming, which was of course clause-by-clause consideration. I see a lot of hands up. Since we have done a reset here, I'm going to ask that everyone put their hands down. Otherwise, I'm going to assume there's a point of order at some point. We're now proceeding to clause-by-clause.Mr. Aitchison, go ahead.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsMotionsRecorded divisions670398467039856703986670398767039886703989AiméeBelmoreScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1945)[Translation]I would like to understand what the difference is between the first vote, where unanimous consent was required for Ms. Dabrusin to ask to have her motion in amendment withdrawn, and the other process where she was able, without having to obtain unanimous consent, to not only withdraw her motion but to stop the whole process. Perhaps the clerk can explain that to me. Perhaps I am not sufficiently versed in the rules, but with my rational mind as a math teacher and administrator, I can't figure out the sequence of events as far as our rules are concerned. I would like clarification, because from what I am hearing right now, I voted without knowing what the vote was on.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67040306704031ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAiméeBelmoreAimée-BelmoreInterventionThe Clerk: (1945)[English]Certainly, sir.It's just to say that a motion, once it has been moved by a member, belongs to the entire committee. Therefore, a member does not have the right to unilaterally decide that they do not wish to move that motion anymore. As it belongs to the committee, unanimous consent of the committee is required to be able to withdraw it. If unanimous consent is not received, a decision must be taken on the amendment. It can be negatived. It can be adopted. That is why unanimous consent is used for withdrawing a motion.What Mr. Housefather proposed was a dilatory motion and the motion to adjourn debate. While he did say it was a motion to adjourn debate on the amendment of Ms. Dabrusin, the reason I clarified is that, once you propose an amendment to a motion, the amendment must be disposed of before you can return to consideration on the motion. Therefore, the act of adjourning debate on the amendment also means the act of adjourning debate on the motion. I apologize if my precision was not more clear, but that is why I did say it before we proceeded to a vote—to be clear that we were also adjourning debate on Ms. Harder's motion at the same time.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6704033670403467040356704036ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1950)[English] Please don't look at this as something nefarious that we have cooked up between us. This is the way it works. I'm sorry if there was confusion. Folks, now we have to move on to clause-by-clause.I assume that everyone received the newer version of G-11.1.I'm looking to Mr. Méla to confirm that's where we are starting. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6704037670403867040396704040AiméeBelmorePhilippeMéla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1950)[English]This was one of the amendments I mentioned earlier this evening. It deals with two separate issues.It restricts the CRTC's order powers for social media web giants to expenditures, discoverability of Canadian creators of programs and financial information for web giants. This is restricted order powers for the CRTC in respect of social media web giants specifically.Specifically the wording in respect of discoverability would be that:in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs; This will add clarity. When we talked about what the entire bill would look like as we were moving forward on this piece about social media web giants, this adds to that picture about the restricted CRTC powers.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670404867040496704050670405167040526704053ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1950)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The department is with us tonight. I would love to have their opinion of what this particular addition means. If it is the crystal clear piece that the minister has been talking about for days, the crystal that we're looking through, I would like to have the department respond as to exactly the meaning of this particular clause, which we have not had much time to deal with.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670405567040566704057ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1950)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Mr. Shields. I would be happy to speak about what the effect of the amendment would be. What the amendment would do is in proposed new section 9.1 of the bill. It would add an additional order-making power for the CRTC with respect to online undertakings that provide a social media service. That order-making power would only be with respect to social media services. It would give the CRTC the ability to make orders with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs. In addition, the amendment would clarify that with respect to social media services, only specific order-making powers apply. There are three of them that are listed. The first is a reference to an order-making power that was introduced through BQ-21, if I'm not mistaken. That speaks to expenditures to be made by persons carrying on broadcast undertakings for the purposes set out in section 11.1. In other words, the CRTC would have the ability to seek expenditures or financial contributions from social media services. The second order-making power that would apply with respect to these services is the new one that Ms. Dabrusin laid out with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators. The third power speaks to proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(j), which is information-gathering powers that are provided to the CRTC. In other words, the CRTC would be able to seek certain information from online undertakings that are social media services in carrying out its duties. All the other order-making powers listed in 9.1 would not apply to social media services.Thank you, Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills67040596704060670406167040626704063670406467040656704066ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1955)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would like the officials to explain the difference between this amendment being proposed by the government today, the one we received this afternoon, and the new section 4.1 that was originally proposed and the Liberals removed.If feels like the government is trying to close the gap that was pointed out almost two weeks ago, even though the minister and his parliamentary secretary have repeatedly said that we were wrong and that it is not true that users are going to be regulated by the CRTC.I will clarify my question.What is the difference between this amendment and the section 4.1 that was originally proposed and then removed? I would imagine that the officials and experts in the department had a good reason for proposing the new section 4.1 in the bill in the first place.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67040696704070670407167040726704073ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1955)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.[Translation]Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.As we discussed earlier, the original section 4.1 was intended to exclude programming uploaded to a social media service by someone not affiliated with that service.The amendment just introduced by Ms. Dabrusin sets out the regulatory tools in proposed section 9.1 that can be used to regulate social media. These are the three tools I named in response to Mr. Shields' question. The three mechanisms will apply to social media, but the other mechanisms in proposed section 9.1 will not.I hope that answers your question, Mr. Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills67040756704076670407767040786704079ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (2000)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.My question is related to the answer I got earlier from Mr. Ripley, if I'm not mistaken. I would appreciate it if Ms. Dabrusin could enlighten us when it is her turn to speak, since, as parliamentary secretary, she must be quite familiar with this subject.I am on Twitter right now, and I see a post by Michael Geist. He's an expert in the field who has been quoted here several times. The senior officials will be able to confirm this, but I want to point out that I have never heard the minister or the parliamentary secretary criticize his expertise in the field. I imagine it must be precisely because of his expertise that the government has subsidized many of his projects. He has received several amounts of money in the past two years to continue his research and work in the area of freedom of expression and on various issues.So, on Twitter, Mr. Geist writes that it's wrong to suggest that amendments G-11.1 and G-13 being considered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage address the concerns about user-generated content. He clarifies that it is not the case, as he mentioned in a previous tweet.So, I would like someone to explain this to me. The information we're getting is very technical. I'm not an expert in the field, but we have an expert here who is following this very closely, regularly posting on Twitter and doing interviews about it. He tells us that these amendments don't match what the Liberal government is implying with Bill C-10, and that they don't protect users who upload content to social networks. I'm not an expert, but I'm trying to figure this out myself. We are getting tons and tons of letters. Former commissioners, experts, and university professors are commenting on the issue and saying that it doesn't make sense.As we speak, the government is refusing to allow us to get a new opinion from the Minister of Justice that will tell us whether the bill still complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed.They are trying to put the blame us, the opposition. On top of that, the minister posted on Twitter that we are obstructing. I would like to tell everyone watching and listening that the one and only reason we are still here talking about this is because the minister had the gall to remove the original proposed section 4.1. He can't even explain to us why that section was originally proposed or why he removed it. He has been insulting us for two weeks, and then, all of a sudden, he tries to add things to correct his mistake.I'm willing to listen to everyone, but I would sincerely like someone to explain to me how it is that this professor emeritus of law from the University of Ottawa is telling us that amendment G-11.1 will not fix the problem. I don't know if anyone can help me. I'd like to believe the department's experts, but other independent experts are saying the opposite right now.As parliamentarians, freedom of expression is our responsibility.Everyone is trying to make it sound like we in the Conservative Party are anti-culture, but that is not true. I am extremely insulted. The minister is watching us right now, and I hope he hears what I'm saying. He needs to stop repeating this to everyone over and over.Right now, we are here to defend a fundamental aspect of our democracy, freedom of expression. We have experts stepping up and raising red flags. Some Canadians are concerned. I feel it's perfectly legitimate for us to stand up, ask questions and require further clarification, although the Liberals are trying to stop us from doing that right now.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6704095ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (2005)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I hear a lot of mention and discussion about experts, but I think it's interesting that in this conversation I don't hear the Conservatives referring to other experts as well who have been very much in support of the approach we've taken, including Pierre Trudel and Monique Simard, who put their opinion in Le Devoir recently.[Translation]I'm talking about their article “Pas de risque pour la liberté d'expression avec le projet de loi C-10”.[English]Also, Janet Yale worked with Monique Simard on the Yale report, in which it was also recommended that social media be included in our modernization. There are experts who, perhaps, Mr. Rayes would also like to consider when he's talking about this.[Translation]Pierre Trudel is a professor in the University of Montreal's Faculty of Law.[English]He is quite an esteemed expert as well. As far as the original point is concerned, I will reiterate that proposed section 2.1 remains and has already been confirmed as part of this bill, and specifically—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6704105ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (2010)[English]I'm sorry. I wanted to get through it and not hold up people on it.The point is that we've quoted many experts, and Ms. Dabrusin was again referring to experts on one side of the opinions as we maybe referred to different ones. I just want to bring to light that our citizens are our shareholders. They are our stakeholders. They are why we are here. This is a constituent I've never heard from before, who has never written to an MP before, and I just want to bring that real voice.We've quoted experts. Ms. Dabrusin quoted experts in support of her amendment. Many experts have been quoted, so I want to quote who I believe are the true experts: the people who read the media out there. She didn't follow me and get this from me. She read it in one of our major media publications, and this is how this person feels in this time of COVID and frustration and confusion. She feels that Bill C-10, from what she has read, really is the last straw.I just want to bring the voice of a person, a citizen, and how they feel that this piece of legislation personally affects them.It isn't the experts we've quoted that we think are the doctors and academics. It's a citizen and how she feels. I think that is so valuable. We must not forget that the experts are our voters. They are the citizens in our country. How they perceive this legislation to affect them in their places, in their lives in this country... That's a voice that hasn't been represented when we've talked about experts and this particular amendment.Thank you.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6704144ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (2015)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I guess I'm probably going to speak again about my state of confusion still. What I'm struggling with here, Mr. Chair, is.... I understand that this amendment has been proposed by Ms. Dabrusin, because of the removal of proposed section 4.1, in an effort to make things, I guess, more crystal clear than they were before. I guess I remain frustrated by my confusion about the committee process, because I still think that what we ultimately need to do here is to get that new charter statement on where we're at.What I would suggest is that perhaps these new amendments Ms. Dabrusin has proposed can form part of our request to the Minister of Justice. We had a charter statement based on Bill C-10 back in November before it came to our committee, and that was all well and good. Then we took out proposed section 4.1, and all these questions got raised. We were told that it was crystal clear. Apparently, it's not crystal clear, and now we're bringing this back. It begs the question: Does this new amendment actually do what proposed section 4.1 did as effectively? Does it do it at all?I only got this earlier today. I don't think that is entirely fair for a rookie like me to truly get my head around it. I'll be honest, Mr. Chair. I'm so used to municipal politics, where we can disagree without being disagreeable, where we get along and are all about the good of our communities. I don't have a lot of trust right now. I feel like because I.... I've been called an extremist because I've expressed some legitimate concerns from the people I represent about whether this bill does, in fact, infringe upon freedom of expression. All of a sudden, I'm wondering if I am I not an extremist now and was quite reasonable in my earlier request, because now Ms. Dabrusin has brought this latest amendment forward. Am I not an extremist? Maybe I'm looking for an apology from Mr. Guilbeault for calling me names. However, if I'm not an extremist and my concerns were legitimate about the removal of proposed section 4.1, then I have to assume that everyone understands that my concern remains on this latest amendment brought forward by Ms. Dabrusin, who last week was telling us that we were all crazy. Maybe “crazy” is not the word—I apologize—but she was telling us that we were all overreacting and that the Conservatives were spreading misinformation about this situation. Now she is bringing an amendment forward to address those concerns, and I'm just supposed to sit back and say, “Hey, that's great. You've addressed our concerns,” without having a chance to really dig into this. As I said, I don't know who has the time to do a thorough analysis in the course of a couple of hours in the middle of a regular workday on Parliament Hill, but I certainly don't. I just think that it is unfair to call us extremists one day and say it's crystal clear, and then come back with an amendment, saying, “Oh, this will make it more crystal clear. You have nothing to worry about. Just trust me. Everything will be fine.” I don't. I simply don't.I don't know if I can do this or not, Mr. Chair, but I would move that we put Ms. Harder's motion back on the table and send this to the Minister of Justice. Whether there are new amendments to replace proposed section 4.1 or not, we've fundamentally changed this bill. Canadians are justifiably concerned. I think we can probably establish that I'm not an extremist and that it's a legitimate question. The justice minister should have a look at where things are at—including these latest proposals that have been thrown at us in the final hours—to see whether, in fact, with these proposals, the charter statement we had before is still valid or whether we need to make even more changes.(2020) I struggle with this, Mr. Chair. I'm not used to being called names by a cabinet minister, but if the concerns were legitimate enough to bring forward a new amendment, then I think the latest amendment that is being proposed should be reviewed by the justice minister as well. We should take the time to do that, because I fundamentally believe, and I think you all do, that doing this right is far more important than doing it quickly. Canadians expect nothing less of us.Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope my frustration wasn't too long.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6704151ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (2020)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Before I ask my next question, I'd first like to get an answer to what I asked the officials earlier. After I asked my question, we went to the next person on the list, Ms. Dabrusin, who took the floor and replied. I don't hold it against you, Mr. Chair, because I know things move very quickly.My question was about Michael Geist, a recognized expert whose work and statements I have been following. I asked if they thought he had any credibility in this area. I asked not only Ms. Dabrusin, who did not answer me, but also the officials. I'm trying to get my head around the advice of outside experts in any area that is opposed to the advice of senior officials, whom I respect as well. It's possible that there will be confrontations. That's why people sometimes go to court; the parties offer testimony on both sides, and we try to find common ground or a solution.So I would first like to hear whether or not officials at the Department of Canadian Heritage consider Michael Geist to be a credible expert. Then I'll ask my next question.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6704162670416367041646704165ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (2020)[Translation]Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.Unfortunately, I'm not here to give my opinion on such an issue, but rather to support the committee by providing technical explanations of its work.There is definitely a difference between the effect of the originally proposed section 4.1, which was withdrawn by the committee, and the amendment proposed by Ms. Dabrusin. Without the proposed section 4.1, social media that meets the definition of an online business is subject to the act. The purpose of Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is to clarify the three powers of the CRTC that would apply to these online companies. Proposed section 4.1 stated that these powers would not apply to social media that only offered social media programming. Now, the three powers mentioned in Ms. Dabrusin's amendment would apply to these companies.I think that's the difference between the exclusion that was initially stated in the proposed section 4.1 in the bill and the approach proposed here by the government.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6704168670416967041706704171ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (2025)[Translation]Given what Mr. Ripley just explained to us, I think everyone needs to understand the state of mind we're in.As just explained, proposed section 4.1 initially changed the way the act did or did not apply to social media. It was removed. I think everyone saw the outcry that ensued. Even the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were pressured, so amendments were made to Ms. Harder's motion. We tried to find a compromise by setting a deadline, so as not to delay the process too much. We are asking to pause only long enough to get a new legal opinion from the Minister of Justice, to be clear on whether, now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed, the bill infringes on the freedom of expression of Canadians.I think everyone understands our frustration. For over a week and a half, we were told that our statements were false. Then Ms. Dabrusin and the Minister attacked us by saying that we were anti-culture and that it was not true that this government decision was hurting users. Now, we feel that the Liberals are subtly trying to calm things down by proposing other amendments without our having the necessary expertise to judge them properly, and at a time when we have lost confidence in this government. Indeed, it has been engaging in demagoguery and spreading confusion by suggesting to people in the cultural community that we are anti-culture. I salute Mr. Shields, who has shown us his love for culture.I invite Ms. Dabrusin and Minister Guilbeault to come to my riding to talk to my constituents about everything I've done, as mayor of Victoriaville, with my municipal council, to serve our local cultural sector. We have worked on the construction of a cultural megacentre, the first of its kind in 40 years. We have also supported the Festival international de musique actuelle de Victoriaville, as well as the Théâtre Parminou, which performs guerilla theatre, particularly in indigenous communities. We have also set up exhibition halls. These are just a few examples.So I find it deplorable that we are being attacked in this way by suggesting that we are against culture, when we simply want to defend freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is our responsibility. Actions like this certainly make us lose confidence in this government.This brings me to what I wanted to say about University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. A few minutes ago, he tweeted that Ms. Dabrusin was talking about a new amendment that the government believed would address public concerns. However, as department officials just explained, that's not even close. In fact, according to Dr. Geist, it would create a new power for the CRTC to deal with user-generated content as social media or programming companies.So you can understand our confusion after we heard this expert say that.By the way, I'd like to say that it wasn't my intention to put officials in opposition to an expert like that. I understand Mr. Ripley's uneasiness, or at least his response that he couldn't comment on the issue.When the government attacks us at at time when we want to defend freedom of expression, and in so doing shows partisanship, it isn't just us that it's attacking, but all the experts who don't share its opinion. In fact, the government has changed its opinion along the way, which undermines its credibility in this regard. It's attacking these experts and the Canadians who have written to us. Canadians didn't just write to us. I know of Liberal members who have received feedback from their own constituents telling them that they are making a mistake.When I read what Michael Geist is writing online, warning us that this isn't true, that this amendment won't address public concerns, and that it will even give the CRTC more power over user-generated content, I'm totally confused.All we're asking for in Ms. Harder's motion is a new opinion from the Minister of Justice, who is also a Liberal. If the minister is so confident, before we continue the debate on all the other amendments of Bill C-10, which means that this loss of confidence—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6704185ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (2030)[English] I will be short. Thank you, Mr. Chair.I want to thank Mr. Ripley and the staff. It's been a difficult time. I think this bill is even more of an issue, because—let's face it—it has been three decades since it's been looked at.As a member of Parliament, I am so proud of our youth in this country. It was a week ago today that all the papers in this country flagged proposed section 4.1. Within the last seven days I have never seen the outburst that I have seen from our youth in our country. I am so proud of those who use social media. A lot of them, as we know, are the younger generation. As politicians we sometimes forget that we are going to leave the broadcasting bill eventually in their hands. They are going to be the ones who own this. I am so proud of all the young people in this country who have phoned, emailed and written—some of them here even in Saskatoon—to the minister about their concerns on this bill. It wasn't until last Thursday that it hit the fan. Yes, we've had our experts and Ms. Dabrusin, you had yours. We've talked about Dr. Geist. The experts, though, are the citizens—especially the young ones in this country. For the first time that I can remember in decades, they have stood up and said that's enough. They want free expression. They want to have social media and use it the way they've been using it today. They do not want big government looking over their shoulder.I was concerned when I asked the question to the current chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, and he replied back that he needed to go to Treasury Board. Now we're giving them more powers and I know he said at our committee that he can't do anything until he gets a lot more money from the Treasury Board. I know we are going over time here, but I just wanted to make the point that I am so proud of our youth in this country. Sometimes, as politicians, we forget who we serve. They reminded us in the last 10 days that they are out there, they are watching us and they don't like what they see in this bill. That is evident with the feedback that the current government and all opposition members have received on this bill. Remember, we have one mouth and two ears. The ears are ringing because the youth in this country have signalled to us, as politicians, that they don't like this bill. They do not like what is going on. We have an obligation to the youth of this country, because they are going to be leading it very shortly.Thanks, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills670419767041986704199670420067042016704202670420367042046704205ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (2035)[English]I'm moving to adjourn.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotions6704208ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (2035)[English] We have a motion to adjourn.(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)The Chair: We will see everyone tomorrow at one o'clock eastern time. Thanks, everyone.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsMotionsRecorded divisions6704209670421067042116704212MartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88867VanceBadaweyVance-BadaweyNiagara CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BadaweyVance_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1730)[English] Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury. Well done.It is 5:30, members, and I'm going to go on for the next 15 minutes. I'd like to go on as long as we can but, unfortunately, the heritage committee has the resources at 6:30. They're into clause-by-clause for C-10, so we're looking at a 5:45 shutdown. I just wanted to give everybody a heads-up on that.I now have Mr. Iacono. You have the floor.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6730800FayçalEl-KhouryLaval—Les ÎlesAngeloIaconoAlfred-Pellan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96350EmmanuellaLambropoulosEmmanuella-LambropoulosSaint-LaurentLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LambropoulosEmmanuella_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Emmanuella Lambropoulos (Saint-Laurent, Lib.): (1700)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you very much, Mr. McGuinty and team, for being here with us today to answer our questions, and thanks for the work that you do on this committee to protect Canadians.My question is about the spike in online hate and online hate groups. I can't help but notice the concern that people have with Bill C-10 and people's belief that it would infringe on their basic rights to express themselves and freedom of expression, which obviously our government has said it wouldn't do. Because this is the current fear, I'm wondering how our government could go forward. What would you recommend or what ways that could you see our government going forward with legislation to stop people who organize hatred online and push that kind of an agenda on social media and online? In what ways can we limit the ability of these groups to have a negative influence on Canadians?8560-432-1222-01 Annual Report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians E-tabling for the year 2020C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsHate propagandaInternetNational security6725745JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodDavidMcGuintyHon.Ottawa South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/9486DavidMcGuintyHon.David-McGuintyOttawa SouthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McGuintyDavidJ._Lib.jpgInterventionHon. David McGuinty: (1700)[English]Ms. Lambropoulos, I think you're raising the $64,000 question: What is the appropriate balance between free speech and when that free speech crosses a line and becomes something else? It's not something the committee examined in terms of what's the remedy or what's the recommendation. In fact, this report was agnostic this year on recommendations. It wanted to present the magnitude of the risks, but we really hope that a committee like public safety, for example, might apply its collective mind to figure out what the best way forward is. We haven't examined Bill C-10. It's being debated. We haven't applied it to this particular set of challenges, but we may have more to say about this when we release our report on cyber-activities, which we hope will be by the summer. We may also have more to say about this when we are finished the review of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's federal policing mandate, given their role as the national organization with the primary responsibility for national security investigations and organized crime, for example.8560-432-1222-01 Annual Report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians E-tabling for the year 2020C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsHate propagandaInternetNational security6725748EmmanuellaLambropoulosSaint-LaurentJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1100)[English] I call the meeting to order.Welcome back, everybody. Happy Monday to all.There are a couple of very important points I want to start with before we get into the gist of what we're doing today. Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, which we certainly are used to by now. I guess it's been over a year. I think we can call it that. As you know, there are a couple of rules to point out to everybody. They're not official rules in the book, but nevertheless they help us in our committee.First, try to avoid talking over each other. If you want to get my attention, you know how to do it on the side here. Just raise your hand electronically. If you're not hearing interpretation or you're not getting the volume or you're not hearing the speaker, you can do that, or just wave your hand to get my attention if something technical goes wrong. If that happens, please get my attention, and obviously we'll try to fix it. We've had some technical difficulties from the Ottawa side of things. I've had a few difficulties of my own with sound. I don't want to alert the IT people in Ottawa. This is a thing that's originating from my office here in Grand Falls-Windsor in Newfoundland and Labrador.We have to address something that is extremely important to this committee, and we have to do it, I think, right away. It won't take too long, but we really have to wish a happy birthday to the member for Drummond, Mr. Champoux. Happy birthday, Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6694917669491866949196694920669492166949226694923669492466949256694926MartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1105)[English]Now, on Bill C-10, we last dealt with amendment G-10 and we're now going to deal with amendment G-11. There is just a quick note about G-11 that I want to bring to everybody's attention. If G-11 is adopted, amendment BQ-22 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. I'll go to the speakers list, starting with Ms. Dabrusin.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66949356694936ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1105)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I am moving amendment G-11. This builds on the ownership clauses that we were working on earlier, and it would allow the CRTC to obtain ownership information from all types of undertakings. Bill C-10 as it was originally drafted didn't account for corporate structures such as co-operative trusts or partnerships, so this would allow for that broader ability to take into account different corporate structures.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66949376694938ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1105)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'd like the experts among us to explain the impact of this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66949506694951ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen (Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1105)[English] Thank you. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.The current wording in Bill C-10 would have allowed the CRTC to obtain ownership information related to corporations that hold licences, but there are some ownership structures out there that are not corporations, such as partnerships and trusts, so we are just trying to make sure this doesn't unintentionally limit the CRTC's ability to get ownership information from licensees that may not be corporations.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills66949536694954ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1105)[English] Is there any further discussion on G-11?Seeing none, we'll go to a vote.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: As G-11 is now adopted, BQ-22 cannot be moved because of a line conflict. Ms. Harder, you have the floor. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeRecorded divisions66949556694956669495766949586694959DrewOlsenRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1110)[English] Thank you for seeking clarification. I very much appreciate that.Mr. Chair, I wish to return to a motion that was brought forward to the committee on Friday, at the last meeting.The motion that I moved at that point in time was that we would request the Minister of Justice to produce an updated charter statement under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10, as amended to date, on the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.This motion further said that we would invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee to discuss the implications of Bill C-10, as amended to date, for users of social media services, and that we would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, notwithstanding the committee's decision of March 26, 2021, until it has received the updated charter statement requested under paragraph (a) and has heard from the ministers invited under paragraph (b) of this motion.The reason I moved this motion on Friday was that the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-10, has undergone significant change since it was first brought forward in the fall, and at that point in time, in November, was provided with a charter statement. Of course, that charter statement was up to date at that time. However, because section 4.1 has been removed, and thereby protections for the content that an individual might post to their social media account is now subject to government scrutiny, I do believe that it is in the best interest of this committee to seek another charter statement in order to make sure that it is in compliance.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsGuilbeault, StevenLametti, DavidMinister of Canadian HeritageMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to membersUser-generated content66949806694981669498266949836694984ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1115)[English]I do.Chair, I would move that we debate the motion that was originally brought forward on Friday.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66949886694989ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1115)[English]Just so that everybody is clear, the dilatory motion is the resumption of debate that took place on Friday. The reason that it's dilatory is for the same reason that a debate should be adjourned, so we have to go to the debate right away.You've now heard the clarity around the motion. We're going to proceed to the vote on the resumption of the debate on the motion from Ms. Harder.(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We now go to the resumption of debate following that motion. I have the list here. Ms. Harder, you're up first.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeRecorded divisions66949906694991669499266949936694994RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1115)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that very much. I also return my thanks to the committee for hearing me out on this. Mr. Chair, as stated, this piece of legislation, Bill C-10, has undergone significant change with the removal of proposed section 4.1. As a result, it is questioned whether an individual will actually be allowed to put up content of their choice on their social media platform or use apps on their phone, based on Bill C-10. In other words, it is presumed—not just by me but by other experts—that individuals' rights will actually be brought under attack by this legislation. It seems, then, very important for the members of this committee to receive an updated charter statement. Of course, what this would do is take the bill in front of us—Bill C-10 as it exists now, in its amended form—and put it up against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This charter statement would be delivered by the justice minister and it would state whether or not this bill holds up.The reason this is so important is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of the land, and paragraph 2(b) protects freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and freedom of belief. When we are at a point in Canadian history where we are using social media platforms as the public square, it is important to protect the voices of Canadians and how they express themselves in those spaces. The government has gone too far when it imposes itself—or empowers the CRTC, which of course is directed by the government, to impose itself—on people and their freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of opinion and starts regulating what people are saying or posting.Of course, I am offering my own take on it, as well as the takes of many other experts who have analyzed this piece of legislation. What I am asking is that this committee also request the take of the justice minister. Again, this would be accomplished by a charter statement. One of the reasons this is so crucial is notwithstanding the most important one, which is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. It's been interesting over the weekend as I watched as the Minister of Heritage responded to the concerns raised around Bill C-10. One of the accusations that was brought out by Minister Guilbeault is that all of the individuals expressing opposition or raising questions or concerns with regard to Bill C-10 are suddenly being called “extremists”. If you disagree with the government, if you have a question about a bill being brought forward by the governing party or are opposed in any way, you are now labelled an “extremist”. If that is happening in this small fraction of time, I can only imagine the types of stipulations that would be put in place by this same minister should the legislation be successful. If he and his department are responsible for telling Canadians what they can and cannot post, then anything that might be against the ideology of this government would be flagged. Anything that would raise questions with regard to a government decision would be taken down. Any material that an individual posts that would make someone feel uncomfortable or at which someone might choose to take offence would be removed. It has a silencing effect, and it's wrong. It must be stopped. Canadians must be protected. Their charter rights must be preserved.I am asking for something that I believe is extremely reasonable, which is that we push the “pause” button on this committee for a very short time and that we seek this statement from the justice department. We would be looking for an opinion as to whether Bill C-10 does, in fact, align itself under the charter. If it does, okay, but if it doesn't, this committee has some work to do in terms of making sure the charter rights of Canadians are indeed protected. (1120) With that, I have put a motion on the table asking for that statement and asking to hear from the Minister of Heritage. I would ask the members of this committee to vote in favour of it.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66949956694996669499766949986694999669500066950016695002669500366950046695005ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1125)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I will now set aside the debate over poutine and return to Bill C-10. I'll start over more or less from the beginning because I don't know at what point the interpretation stopped. First of all, I'd like to thank all the committee members for having agreed to continue to debate the motion put forward by my colleague, Ms. Harder. The principle she is defending in her motion—freedom of expression—underpins the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that it is an issue that all members of Parliament, whatever their political party may be, should take into consideration in any future plans.Some people listening in may not know it, but for every bill, the Minister of Justice has to table recommendations, or at least an opinion, to ensure that the bill complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and freedom of expression.That being the case, I would ask all committee members and those who are listening to consult the public statement published by the Minister of Justice on November 18, 2020, concerning BillC-10. He had done an analysis of the bill's proposed clause 4.1. However, now that the Liberals decided just over a week ago to delete this proposed clause, the minister's analysis of issues pertaining to freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can no longer be applied in the same manner.Last weekend, in the media and on social networks, the Liberals, in this instance Minister Guilbeault and his friends tried to convince Canadians and Quebeckers that the Conservatives were against culture, did not want to defend culture and were opposed to the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. I want to emphasize that this is not at all the case. That's not what the debate is about. On the contrary, from the very outset, I think everyone would agree that all members of the committee showed a genuine desire to move this admittedly imperfect bill forward. This is demonstrated by the fact that after various consultations, 118 amendments were put forward, including 27 by the government itself and by Liberal MPs on the committee. This shows just how poorly the bill had been cobbled together from the getgo.According to our analysis, by deleting this clause from the bill without prior notice just over a week ago, the government gave the CRTC the power to regulate social network users who stream content, instead of going after the major players, the GAFAs of the world, as it claims to be doing. Basically, we agree that regulation is needed to make online undertakings subject to the Broadcasting Act, on the same basis as conventional broadcasters.We're not at war against culture; the motion we're debating today has nothing to do with that. By deleting clause 4.1 as proposed in clause 3 of the bill, the government itself is in violation. We can now no longer continue our work without obtaining a new opinion from the Minister of Justice who, in passing, is a Liberal. I therefore have trouble understanding why my Liberal colleagues and the department are opposed to our request, which is that we obtain a new opinion from the Minister of Justice. We would like him to appear before our committee to clarify the matter and tell us whether the deletion of this clause from the bill constitutes a violation of freedom of expression Furthermore, it's worrisome to see that the minister, while taking part in a broadcast over the weekend, was unable to explain why the bill had proposed the addition of this clause to the act initially, nor why he had afterwards decided to completely delete it without providing any other information or context. If the opposition parties, namely the Conservative party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green party, were the only ones to ask questions about it, then the people listening to us might think that they are only doing so on a partisan basis. However, numerous experts on freedom of expression or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including university professors and former CRTC commissioners and administrators, raised a red flag to say that a genuine violation had been created by the government itself.Some previous quotes from the Prime Minister and the minister himself indicated that they were in favour of Internet regulation and Internet content. That, believe me, is scary. So when that in last Friday's debate on freedom of expression, the government tried to muzzle us by putting an end to the debate, it became even scarier. (1130)We need to take the time to do things properly. Even if, in order to protect freedom of expression, we have to prolong our study of Bill C-10 by a week or two weeks or even three weeks, then we will be able to feel very proud of having done so.We are not challenging culture. We want to protect our culture and our broadcasters. We all want to make sure that regulation is fair and equitable for online undertakings and conventional broadcasters. At the moment, a violation has occurred in the process through which we are ruling on amendments clause by clause. We will not be able to continue our work until we have received an answer on this matter. As I said earlier, former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said in an interview that Bill C-10 not only contravened freedom of expression, but was also an all out attack on it, and consequently on the very foundations of democracy.We also heard from Michael Geist, emeritus professor of law at the University of Ottawa. He is so well known in his field that the government funds his projects. He is anything but a Conservative or a Liberal; he is completely non-partisan. He was even very critical of the former Conservative government. Anyone who has done their homework properly and checked his comments on Google will know this. He said that he had never, in the history of Canada, seen a government that was so anti-Internet.There were also all the other witnesses and groups that defend rights and freedoms that made public statements, including the director of OpenMedia.I'm also thinking of James Turk, the director of Ryerson University's Centre for Free Expression, who said that the Trudeau government, by amending Bill C-10, was planning to give the CRTC the power to regulate content generated by users of websites like YouTube. He believed that this was dangerous, that the government was going too far, and that it had to be stopped. I'm not making any of this up. I'm not even citing all the policy analysts who deal in such issues. Unfortunately, I must say that we're not hearing much about this in Quebec yet. The idea is only beginning to percolate. However, I believe that analysts in English-speaking Canada have understood what the Liberal government tried to do.I hope that my colleagues will be able to set partisan considerations aside. God knows that there ought not to be any when it's a matter of freedom of expression. We need to wait until we have a clear opinion on this matter before we can continue to do a clause-by-clause study of the bill.If anyone should feel responsible for the fact that the process is taking a long time, it's the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself. To begin with, his government prorogued Parliament. Secondly, this government, which has been in power for almost six years now, spent all this time introducing a bill to enact broadcasting legislation. Thirdly, it decided on its own to delete an entire clause from the bill, the end result of which was an attack on freedom of expression.For all these reasons, we need to take the time required to do things properly. The minister can attack us all he wants, but at least I'll be able to sleep at night because I know that I'll be working to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers. I can rest easy for having done so when faced with a government that is trying to attack these freedoms. I hope that my colleagues will support us so that we can ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice for clarification, on the one hand, and also ask the Minister of Justice for a new legal opinion so that we can continue to do our work as the Parliament of Canada's legislators.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66950256695026669502766950286695029669503066950316695032669503366950346695035669503666950376695038669503966950406695041669504266950436695044669504566950466695047ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1130)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleagues for bringing forward this conversation. Obviously, for me as well the charter is one of the most important things to ensure that we are in alignment with and are supporting. The NDP has always fought for freedom of expression. It's very, very important that we protect that and work on that. I think it's also very important that we get this right. This is very important to broadcasters across the country. This is very important to all Canadians. I agree very much with some of the things I've heard my colleague Mr. Rayes say today. I'd like to propose a subamendment to Ms. Harder's amendment. I think one of the things we need to ensure as a committee is that we are trying to move this bill forward as rapidly as we can, that we are doing our due diligence and that we are doing what we need to do to ensure that we have the best legislation coming forward. This is—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669504966950506695051ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1135)[English]Really all that I am looking at is imposing a bit of a time constraint on the request to the Minister of Justice to produce the charter statement so that the committee can continue to work once we have received the information back from the minister.I would be proposing that we would request to have that information back within the next 10 days. In paragraph (a) of Ms. Harder's motion, it would say: request that the Minister of Justice produce an updated “Charter Statement” in the next 10 days, under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice ActIn section (b), the addition would be:invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the Committee to discuss the implications of Bill C-10, as amended to date, for users of social media services, in the next 10 days In section (c), I would be including:suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 for a maximum of 10 days, notwithstanding the Committee's decision of March 26, 2021, provided that it has received the updated “Charter Statement”It's simply adding a time constraint, because I know everybody on this committee is very keen to get back to work to make sure that we are doing the job that our constituents have sent us to Ottawa to do and that we are in fact improving what I think we can all agree is a very imperfect bill that does need, as Mr. Rayes pointed out, almost 120 amendments from various parties.That would be my recommendation. I certainly hope that we can move forward and continue to work. I struggle, of course. I'm a new parliamentarian, Mr. Chair, and I struggle when I see filibustering within committees. Unfortunately, I've experienced it in a number of committees I sit on, so I would hope that we could move forward and make a decision on this and continue our work for the people of Canada. Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsGuilbeault, StevenLametti, DavidMinister of Canadian HeritageMinister of JusticeMotionsUser-generated content6695062669506366950646695065669506666950676695068669506966950706695071ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1140)[English] Thank you. I'm waiting to see the exact wording of the proposed amendment to the motion, but I may be seeking to subamend that amendment once I actually see the proper wording.There's been a lot of talk. I want to emphasize the importance of the charter right to freedom of expression, which I believe in very strongly, as I believe our government does as well. The 4.1 amendment dealt only with social media companies when they act as broadcasters. I think sometimes that when we're having this conversation, we're veering further away from that. That was originally what the exemption was. It would have prevented social media companies from ever being included as broadcasters, even if they were acting exactly as broadcasters. That was raised and flagged to us by a stakeholder, with the example of those in the music industry, who specifically said that to allow that to happen would actually put them at a disadvantage, specifically when we see that YouTube is the number one streaming service for music in Canada.The change that was proposed was that social media companies—not their users, because their users are specifically excluded in 2.1—would be subjected to the same rules as other broadcasters if they're acting as broadcasters. As I mentioned with the YouTube example, this is really just about creating a fair platform and evenness in the way that we are treating different services that are doing the exact same thing and working in the same field. I want to highlight the urgency of this bill. The cultural sector has been very clear that these changes are needed and that they want to see this bill passed. I am very concerned about the delays that are proposed by the Conservative motion. I will add that having a charter statement before the bill is complete in its review and in all of the amendments doesn't really make sense because, as they know, there are amendments coming that will further address some of the concerns they have raised about user-generated content. There are amendments—for example, G-13—that will be going to some of the issues that they have raised. To have a charter statement in advance of that would be very tricky. I'll just underline this because I'm having a bit of a tricky point with the Conservative upset about the removal of 4.1 and the statements about being taken by surprise. The Conservatives themselves proposed an amendment that would have brought social media companies in line and included as broadcasters if they were acting as broadcasters. The only difference was that they had a carve-out for the social media companies based on the number of users. CPC-5 clearly also covered that, so we would have the same impact of having social media being included as broadcasters when acting as broadcasters. I'm not sure how they square that circle, if they started out also believing very much that social media companies acting as broadcasters should be included. Again, I will need to see the exact wording before I can propose a subamendment. Just so people know—Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669508766950886695089669509066950916695092669509366950946695095ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1145)[English]Thank you.I'll present what I'm seeking to do, and then perhaps Ms. McPherson and I might be able to strike something on the wording. We can see. Given that there are amendments still relevant that need to be considered, if we were going to be getting the charter statement, we do not actually have to suspend clause-by-clause consideration. We should ask for the charter statement once the review is complete so that we are putting the full amended bill before the lawyers for review. Without the full amendments, they would not be providing us with.... They wouldn't have a a full picture on which to assess the charter statement. That was the first part. I would suggest that instead we put it to the end and not suspend the clause-by-clause study. That's because of the haste that is being asked of us by the cultural industries; they're very concerned about anything that will add any further delay in going ahead with this bill. We want to be assured that we do it right, absolutely. We absolutely should be aiming to get it right, but all of these moves to suspend clause-by-clause consideration go contrary to what the stakeholders are asking us to do, which is to move this along as quickly as we can. I would suggest that we strike out paragraph (c) in its entirety, rather than follow the amendment proposed by Ms. McPherson, if I understand correctly what she said, and then ask for the charter statement to be provided after the complete review of the bill.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669510666951076695108669510966951106695111ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1150)[English]We do have the other language. It's being distributed as we speak.Mr. Champoux, you had a question about connectivity and losing your spot. I believe you are next in line. That's not according to what's on the screen, but since you did lose connectivity for a short period of time, I will give you the floor.In re-examining the amendment put forward by Ms. Dabrusin, I see that it's substantially different enough that it does make a change, so it has to be ruled as an amendment, not a subamendment. My apologies.Therefore, we are still on the amendment put forward by Ms. McPherson. We have to dispense with it before we get to the other one. Again, I say that because it's substantially different from the other. My apologies.Mr. Champoux, go ahead. The floor is yours.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66951336695134669513566951366695137ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1150)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to go back to the fact that it's been frequently said that it was a very imperfect bill when it was tabled, hence the 120 amendments, including several from the government itself. Now when we decided to agree to study the bill in committee, we were also committed to improving it, and that's what we did. I think we have a responsibility to people in the cultural industry, who need Bill C-10 to become a reality. My view is that we ought to keep forging ahead to achieve that. We need to put our energy in the right place and do what we can.I suspect there might be some political manoeuvring going on behind the Conservatives' comments about the deletion of proposed clause 4.1 from the bill. I think everyone knew that amendment G-13 would dispel any concerns that might arise. Nevertheless, when we are asked to deal with questions as fundamental as a charter statement, we have no choice but to listen to what's being said and to ask the appropriate questions.This motion was introduced on Friday. The rumour was that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois would very likely support it. We might do so reluctantly, but it's nevertheless legitimate to do so. The Liberals might get the opportunity to speed the process up on Friday by agreeing for one of the two ministers to appear today. In short, there are, as it turns out, ways to avoid slowing down the process.Today is the second time we are spending an entire meeting discussing this amendment, when there are ways of considerably speeding up the process without slowing down or suspending the work. We have before us a legitimate request for ministers to come and clarify the situation, and we need to show that we are willing, because there are options available.For example, in the discussions I had over the weekend, the possibility was even raised of once again considering the clause in the bill under which the addition of clause 4.1 was proposed. Our friends in the Liberal party did not really like this idea much, but it remains an option that is perfectly conceivable. It would also be possible to propose considering amendment G-13 a little earlier to see if that would dispel the concerns of people around the table. In any event, I'd like to remind everyone of how important it is not to slow down the work unduly. If there is still hope that Bill C-10 might be adopted before the end of the parliamentary session, we have a duty to make every possible effort to get there.Well, Mr. Chair, I think that we should rule quickly on the amendment proposed by Ms. McPherson, so that we can move on to the next question as soon as possible. We need to show the best of intentions and respond to this legitimate request. We could then continue with the urgent work required on Bill C-10. Thank you.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669513866951396695140669514166951426695143669514466951456695146ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1155)[English]I'm so sorry.Mr. Chair, with regard to the amendment on the floor, I am, of course, the member who moved the motion, so I would like to convey my support for Ms. McPherson's request. I think it's very reasonable.I would also like to comment on what Ms. Dabrusin has said. One of the comments she made is that the Conservatives were in support of the regulation for social media companies that act as broadcasters. That's a fair statement. However, the context in which she is making that statement is unfair and makes the statement incredibly false, because right now we're not talking about that. We're not talking about social media companies acting as broadcasters. We're talking about individuals who are posting videos of their kids or their dogs or their cats on social media platforms. We're talking about user-generated content. That is what we are discussing when we talk about proposed section 4.1. That being the case, let's maintain truth when we're talking about the terms on the table.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669515266951536695154ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1155)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.As a member who rarely gets riled up or rarely tries to be very partisan, I have to express some discomfort as to some of what has been said already today.The idea that somehow Liberals—and in this case also the Bloc and the NDP, because all three parties voted to remove clause 3—are somehow less dedicated to freedom of expression than the Conservatives is somewhat shocking to me. I can point to numerous examples over time of the Conservatives being less charter-prone than the other parties, but I won't right now. I find that to have been an unfortunate type of allegation that really should be withdrawn, and if I wanted to point to support of a law that was recently adopted that uses the notwithstanding clause, I could.With respect to the question of what happened the other day, we had a clause that is going to be dealt with by other amendments to the bill. There's an original clause in the bill that deals with user-generated content. There's G-13. There's another amendment that we intend to introduce. They all deal with user-generated content and ensuring that users are not subject to CRTC regulations. They are not broadcasters.The Conservatives suddenly have raised the issue of the removal of section 4.1 and argue that this is potentially the ultimate violation of freedom of expression in the charter. They fail to acknowledge exactly what Ms. Dabrusin said: When we came up with section 4.1, the Conservatives proposed their own amendment, which Mr. Rayes put forward—CPC-5—which would in itself have eliminated the provisions of 4.1 for those people who are using online undertakings that have more than 250,000 subscribers in Canada or receive more than $50 million per year in advertising, like Facebook, for example.This section would have thus said that Facebook, with 24 million users in Canada, was not covered by proposed section 4.1. Essentially, they're saying if you are a larger undertaking, you could be a broadcaster and yet you'd be outside 4.1. If this was such a violation of freedom of expression, why would they say that a larger online undertaking could then be outside the exemption?It's a frustrating type of thing to hear. I just feel that it was a manufactured issue to try to scare and confuse Canadians about something that is not the case. Personally, I think a reasonable solution would be to do a charter statement once we have all of the amendments adopted in the bill. Then we stop. We don't put the bill back to the House. We wait. Once all the amendments are adopted, we have a charter statement that then calls upon the Department of Justice to review their initial charter statement. We say that in light of everything that's been adopted as amendments to the bill, we direct them to amend the charter statement and then either confirm to us that there's been no impact or else tell us what the impact has been. We don't send the bill back to the House until we get that.If that charter statement causes us to rethink things, we then go back and review those clauses in the bill. However, I don't believe that it makes sense to have a charter statement in the middle of amendments on the bill. That essentially says that although we're halfway through our work and we don't have amendments that cover this subject, they're asking us in the interim to give a charter statement. It's very strange to me.Therefore, I don't think we should suspend work. I think clause 3 should be eliminated for sure. I know Ms. Dabrusin has to put that forward at a future date. I have no problem that there's a time limit for charter statements when it's the time to do it, or a time limit for the ministers to appear when it's time to do it, but it does seem weird that we're accepting the premise that somehow the removal of this one clause, without considering other amendments coming forward, should halt the work of the committee. (1200) I find this to be an exceptionally partisan manoeuvre and a really unfortunate one, given the good collaboration on this committee up until now. It doesn't seek any type of consensus whatsoever, but instead assumes the worst for something that was never intended that way and that three of the four parties on the committee supported. The members of the fourth party themselves did not propose to include everyone, but rather, they proposed something that would exempt people from section 4.1. It is not fair where we are now; I get it, but I also want to work with my colleagues to find a solution. To be honest, I think the right solution would be to go through the bill, adopt whatever amendments we want to adopt, and stop. Don't send the bill back to the House. Don't approve the bill. Ask for a charter statement from the department at that point and say that we want to know what the effect is of all the amendments, and then call the ministers to appear before the committee at that point. If we're satisfied, we go on and send the bill back. If we're not satisfied, we go back in the bill and fix whatever we think we need to fix. That would be my humble request to committee members. I just don't see why we're accepting a false premise, and I think this is taking us on a false premise.Thank you very much.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66951566695157669515866951596695160669516166951626695163669516466951656695166669516766951686695169ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1200)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Before asking my question, I'd like, if I may, to make two brief comments.I'd like to begin by answering Ms. Dabrusin. It's true that the cultural sector says that it is urgent to approve this bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, but it shouldn't be done at any price. Just because there is some urgency doesn't mean we should adopt a bad bill. We were being criticized for asking questions in the House of Commons about this bill on second reading. However, the many amendments introduced clearly indicate that the initial bill had some serious shortcomings, even before we got to the deletion of proposed clause 4.1, which we have been discussing for a while.I have a great deal of respect for all my Liberal colleagues, who have been fighting like the devil to reject this legitimate motion, which requires a new legal opinion from their own Minister of Justice. In fact, although he may be a member of the Liberal party, he's the Minister of Justice for Canada, and hence also my Minister of Justice. For a week now, I've watched all these experts and university professors raise red flags to say that a violation has occurred. I apologize for saying so, but the fact that the Liberal experts are saying the opposite of what these experts are saying shows unequivocally that we need to have a look at the issue we are currently considering. The Liberals have continued to argue that we have to listen to the experts and the senior officials, and everyone who sent us messages. Well, we have seen these messages. All you have to do is go out on social networks to see that credible people have raised red, not orange, flags to say that there has been a violation. All the motion does is ask the Minister of Justice to come up with a new charter statement. To the best of my knowledge, Ms. McPherson's amendment, which allows an additional 10 days, is altogether legitimate. If the minister were to file his legal opinion and come and see us before the end of this time period, things would move along much more quickly. We're talking about a few days. The Liberals are making a show of rending their garments as if everything was going to fall apart if it takes a few extra days, whereas we've been waiting for this bill for 30 years. They've been in power for six years and it took them that long to introduce it. Not only that, but they prorogued Parliament, which slowed things down even more. The government and the Liberal members of the committee themselves introduced 27 amendments out of a total of approximately 120. The bill was flawed from the beginning, and that's why the process has been taking so long and why we're still talking about it now.Ms. McPherson, congratulations on your amendment or subamendment—I don't know which term to use—in which you suggested adding some time. It will be all to the good if this additional time reassures members of the committee and puts pressure on the Minister of Justice to give us a new legal opinion on this matter, on the one hand, and to put pressure on him and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to come and explain everything to us. It would better prepare us for our legislative work given the expertise each of us has in our respective fields.Mr. Housefather, you're aware of the high esteem in which I hold you. You were educated as a lawyer. I have no schooling as a lawyer, but I have been trained as in administrattion. I come from the world of education and, like you I'm sure, I'm a fierce defender of rights, freedoms, and freedom of expression.When I hear other credible experts raise red flags, I feel legitimately entitled to request further details. I don't think that what the motion is asking for is out of line. Moreover, Ms. McPherson's amendment would give an additional10 days to the Minister of Justice to produce his new charter statement and come and speak to us about it, after which we could continue with our work. I'm pleased that she added this detail, because God knows that the deadline might have been stretched out otherwise. So once the 10 day deadline is up, it will be out of our hands.If the Minister of Justice wants everything to go smoothly, I believe that he will be able, thanks to support from all the experts and senior officials available to him, to come up very soon with a solid opinion. I don't think that we will draw out the process excessively. As my colleague Mr. Champoux said, this is the second meeting at which we've been discussing our motion, which is asking for clarification about the status of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't know what else we could say. Let's stop talking, adopt the amendment, and then adopt the motion we introduced. Let's ask the Minister of Justice to give us his opinion and to come and explain it to us, together with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We could then get on with our work, as we have pointed out clearly, by working collaboratively as we have been from the outset, by trying to find accommodations to ultimately come up with the best possible bill. In the end, we might not all vote for the bill, and there might be dissent, but that's all part of Parliament. We represent Canadians with differing opinions from all walks of life, and from every part of the country. That's what democracy is. That's why I'm proud to be a Canadian and a Quebecker. That's why my parents left Egypt to settle here. Every day that they had the opportunity to do so, my parents repeatedly told us that they had moved to Canada so that we would have the right to express ourselves freely. That was the main reason why my father, my mother and their whole family came to Canada. It's also why I am now an MP who was elected to Canada's Parliament by citizens in my riding.(1205)People can say whatever they want and call Conservative MPs all kinds of names, but I sincerely believe that we've spoken long enough about Ms. Harder's motion. In the name of freedom of expression, it seems clear to me that we should ask for a new legal opinion. Ms. Harder's motion, improved by Ms. McPherson's amendment, is totally legitimate. We've had the opinion of experts of all kinds, and they raised red flags. In view of our own modest areas of expertise, and out of respect for our work and concern for professionalism, we should adopt the motion on behalf of Canadians.I will conclude, Mr. Chair, because I don't want to draw out the debate unnecessarily.One sometimes hears it said that Conservative party MPs are demagogues and try to get people to believe certain things. If I were sitting where my Liberal colleagues are, I'd be a little bit embarrassed, because they are attacking legal experts, outstanding university professors and experts in freedom of expression who fiercely defend, with public funds no less, issues that are extremely important to us. They should therefore feel just a little bit uncomfortable.Let's forge ahead, request this new opinion and do our work afterwards.Thank you, Mr. Chair.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6695171669517266951736695174669517566951766695177669517866951796695180669518166951826695183669518466951856695186ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1210)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Firstly, I must apologize for last Friday. Normally we had been, for many years, sitting in committees, and all sorts of MPs sitting around tables might not have been the official ones. Mr. Chair, I apologize for my mistake and not remembering that under this video world that we're in of Zoom, we are in a different practice.Moving on, I appreciate a lot of the information that has been shared, and the debate and the emotion. We have a lot of smart people sitting around the table, and usually I like to listen to a lot of the smart people we have on this committee. I would agree that there's been a lot of conciliatory work done, and lots of votes that may not agree, but it's been done professionally. I always appreciate working with people who want to do it in that way. I'm a little concerned about the delays that supposedly this is creating. It's been mentioned that it's taken six years to write a piece of legislation. That's a long time, so there's been lots of time. I'm not sure there's a reason that we won't be here next week, next month, this fall, next spring. I don't see anything about an election being proposed, so I don't think we're going anywhere, so we have some time. Ten days, maximum, is not a lot of time in that framework.What is astounding to me and a lot of other people is that there were so many amendments. Sure, I've been in situations in which people have written policy without thinking of all the consequences, and that's why you share it, work it through and find the consequences of the policies. It's so you can make those corrections. However, in my history in the House, I've never seen a piece of legislation come from the government with the number of amendments that they've brought here. These are huge numbers. Who was drafting this thing?We were conciliatory to a point, but the reaction that I have seen since Friday in the media.... This is not me, but all the various media out there reporting it. This precipitated, then, my inbox just filling up with things that people had read in the media. I wasn't causing it; the media were reporting on this, and the experts were then quoted. A lot of people who have responded to this particular amendment didn't feel it was right, and a lot of media have been reporting. There's been a lot of attention. I haven't had this much attention in a committee over an amendment in the number of years that I've been here. This is huge in the sense of responses that I've received, but it was because of the media that they were seeing this. It's just a real challenge. When you talk about stakeholders pushing it, I have 115,000 stakeholders, and trust me, I heard from a lot of them. I think a 10-day maximum that MP McPherson has put forward gives us an opportunity to deal a little more with this, because the public isn't seeing it as something that makes sense.We've had goodwill, and I think this is a motion that continues to give us goodwill in proceeding in a very volatile situation. There are lots of opinions. I have nine to 10 weekly newspapers in my riding, and those letters to the editor are pretty volatile on both sides of many issues. Somebody asked if those newspapers that have digital formats are going to be at risk of being taken off because of letters they produce in a digital format? I have no answer for that. We have people who are expressing their opinions in the weekly newspapers in my riding who are the owners of those papers. They are independent, many of them. They are a little concerned that when they put that on social media platforms—that's where they're putting their digital papers—they're at risk. I don't have an answer for that. These are some more of the questions that we haven't had a chance to discuss and to get a legal opinion on.(1215) We have a motion here. I know Ms. Dabrusin, whom I've known for some time, has a further motion that she's going to make, but I think the one that we have on the table now is a positive one, and I hope that we pass it. I'm not sure that the one that Ms. Dabrusin is considering putting on next does what needs to be done now. We need to take a break and take some time to get an expert opinion. We need to have some time to get things clarified. If we don't, we are not going to get good, rational thoughts and questions answered. It's time we do exactly what this motion says. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66951916695192669519366951946695195669519666951976695198669519966952006695201ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1215)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I want to comment briefly on some of the language I've heard today. I will admit that I am not a lawyer like Mr. Housefather or Ms. Dabrusin; I'm just an old small-town mayor. One thing I do know is that language matters. Language counts. The way clauses are worded matters and what people say in committee matters. I would suggest quite strongly, to what Ms. Dabrusin said about aiming to get this right, that it's not good enough to aim to get it right; we have to get this right. The concern that's been raised, and not by me, because I certainly didn't catch it, but by other people who are far smarter and more knowledgeable on this issue than I am, is that taking proposed section 4.1 out opens a window for the potential to regulate individual users' content by regulating the forums they use or the platforms they use to post their content. Despite Minister Guilbeault's rather fumbling attempt at trying say he didn't want to do that, the intention to not want to do it isn't enough. We have to make sure that this window is not opened in any way. This has to be airtight. This is a fundamental freedom. The freedom of expression has to be protected. I think Ms. McPherson has proposed an excellent amendment to our motion by proposing some time frames to this. We agree with that. We're not trying to delay things. We're not trying to filibuster, as we've seen go on in so many other committees. This committee has worked really well. I like all of you. Mr. Housefather and I have been on television together, talking about how we can disagree without being disagreeable. We're not trying to be disagreeable. We're trying to make sure we get what all Canadians want, what I think all members of this committee want, which is to make sure that we get this right so that those protections are there and there's no wiggle room anywhere to affect Canadians' rights online. I recognize the comments that have been made about waiting until the very end and we've done clause-by-clause study, but my concern is that this is fundamental enough in terms of changing the intent of the bill. What we hear from the minister of Justice, the legal decision and the legal opinion on this change, I think is substantive enough. The charter statement may affect some of our decisions going forward on some of these other amendments, so it's well worth taking 10 days to make sure we get it right, because we're not merely “aiming” to protect Canadians' freedoms of expression; it is an absolute. We must do it. To my friend Mr. Housefather, who suggests that this is a manufactured crisis, respectfully, it's not manufactured. You, as a former mayor.... This is something we do have in common. When you hear concerns raised by your constituents, you don't just dismiss them as manufactured; you address them. That's what we have heard as Conservatives. I've heard over and over again about this, so it's important for us to address those concerns. That's what we're doing. That's my approach to this issue, and I think it's the approach of every other member. I think Ms. McPherson's amendment is a respectful approach to it as well in that it keeps the ball rolling, because we all recognize the importance of getting this done. We all want to level the playing field. We all want to protect that Canadian cultural industry, and not just protect it but enhance it. I'd love to see the rhetoric toned down a little bit and see us work together. I love Ms. McPherson's very constructive amendment. I think this is the way committees are supposed to work—constructively, across party lines, to make sure we get this right and that we protect Canadians while also ensuring that there is a level playing field and that Canadian culture is not lost in the mix. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669520466952056695206669520766952086695209669521066952116695212ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1225)[English]To that point that Mr. Housefather raised, and I think Ms. Harder actually addressed it a bit as well, the concern has arisen based on the removal of this clause. In regard to asking for an updated charter statement based on the removal of a clause that has caused such consternation among people who are far smarter than I am, I agree fundamentally that it's well worth making sure, before spending any more time going through it clause by clause, that we haven't made some fatal flaw in the legislation. If this is some fatal flaw in the legislation that we're reviewing, we'll waste an awful lot of time going through other amendments if this negates the whole thing. As well, I fundamentally believe an updated charter statement, an updated analysis from the country's top lawyer, might actually inform many of the discussions on these next clauses. It's well worth taking the time to get it right, as opposed to potentially wasting time that we didn't need to waste.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66952286695229ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1225)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.We need to move forward as fast as possible. We have amendments proposed from all sides that will improve this bill. What the opposition is doing here, especially in studying this motion with no time limits, is literally stalling, when we need to be working together. We have been working together. We have amendments from all sides. We need to move faster on this bill and work together. As for the idea that we need a charter statement now, I don't understand that. We have amendments protecting user-generated content. That's not the intent of this bill. That's not what's going to happen. We have further amendments coming that are going to further protect user-generated content. That's not the scope of this bill. We have an arts community that needs our support, and these stall tactics are not helping. I wish we would move together. I don't understand the idea of getting a charter statement now. A rough analogy would be that of a restaurant critic trying to get a review on a meal, and after every ingredient is added, you wouldn't bring it to the restaurant critic and say, “Here, review this meal”. We have a chance to fix and improve this bill. We have a chance to work together to do this. I'm concerned that the opposition will do this every step of the way before these amendments are done. Let's wait until these amendments are fixed, and then bring in the charter statement.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66952316695232669523366952346695235ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1230)[English]Seeing no further debate, we're going to go to a vote. I'm going to recap what we're voting on. I'm not going to go through the whole thing. Suffice to say, from the main motion by Ms. Harder, we are voting on the amendment proposed by Ms. McPherson. To paragraph (a), she adds “in the next 10 days”. In paragraph (b), again she adds “in the next 10 days”. In part (c), there are two changes: “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 for a maximum of 10 days” and “provided that it has received the updated charter statement.” Is everyone clear on what we are voting on? Let's go to a recorded vote.(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We're back to the main motion by Ms. Harder, as amended.Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.Amendments and subamendmentsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeRecorded divisions6695239669524066952416695242669524366952446695245HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1230)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.As I mentioned at the outset, I had a few amendments to this motion that I was going to be proposing as well.The first part would be to strike the (c) part to this motion, which would suspend our clause-by-clause study. We have further amendments, as I have mentioned several times, including G-13 and others, that would be relevant to this, and stakeholders have indicated that they want us to continue working on this and to get this done. To show that we are still doing the work that needs to be done, that we are ready to roll up our sleeves and keep doing the work and that we absolutely believe a charter statement is helpful but that we want to make sure we are not stopping the important work we're doing, I would propose removing paragraph (c).In addition, I would propose the removal of the preamble, which is the “That, given that the deletion of section 4.1” sentence. The reason is that if we are sending for a legal opinion without presupposing what the legal opinion would be, they know what they need to do with a charter statement. I would remove that.In paragraph (a), the proposal would “request that the Minister of Justice produce an updated charter statement as soon as possible after clause-by clause is completed.” That wording would be repeated again in paragraph (b). Instead of “to appear before the Committee to discuss”, it would be “to explain in writing the implications of Bill C-10 for users of social media services as soon as possible after clause-by clause is completed”. It would be changing it to “as soon as possible”, allowing us to continue the work while we do it, and removing the preamble.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6695246669524766952486695249669525066952516695252ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1235)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Chair, the amendment that has been made to the motion that I presented on Friday substantially changes its intent. The intent is to get the charter statement sooner rather than later, and that, of course, is so that we know the foundation on which we are debating this legislation. Does it hold up to the charter, given that proposed section 4.1 has now been removed from the bill? I believe that the only way we can answer this question is by submitting it for review and requesting the statement.Given that the member opposite has asked for that request to be removed, I cannot support the amendment that she has brought forward.In addition to that, if I understood her amendment correctly, it says “as soon as possible” rather than “the next 10 days”. I'm not sure, and maybe I misunderstood it, but if that is the case, I'm confused as to why we would move in the direction of removing the amendment that was just approved, which is the 10-day clause. I think it's appropriate. The previous amendment strengthened my motion, so I was more than happy to support the 10 days, and it has already been passed.Again I'll draw attention to the fact that this charter statement is of great importance. A number of qualified individuals have indicated that they have significant concerns. Indeed, I believe that Canadians are rightly concerned, as we have heard over the last number of days and seen reported in the media.We can also see that the minister, Mr. Guilbeault, is clearly unable to defend the removal of proposed section 4.1 and is unable to communicate to Canadians clearly why that would be necessary. He's also unable to communicate to them where their individual rights to post content of their choice still remain protected. That being the case, I again ask that this review be done.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669526666952676695268669526966952706695271ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1240)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I take the government and Ms. Dabrusin at their word when they say they want to get this done quickly. If that is in fact true, her motion doesn't really.... It's not required. What guarantees that the committee will get back to the clause-by-clause review and get this done is by keeping part (c) in particular and suspending clause-by-clause consideration. If it's that important to the minister, he'll get here quickly. If we take that part out and just keep going, he can drag his feet and this will become a war of words. This holds the government's feet to the fire, which I think we need to do so that we can get back to getting this work done.I do not support Ms. Dabrusin's amendment. I might have been able to support parts of it, but not removing part (c), and since she's bunched them all together, I'm stuck with not being able to support it.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669527366952746695275ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1240)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor to discuss the new amendment, the one put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.I don't understand. We're being asked to speed things up, while introducing a new amendment just when we finally achieved a compromise. Everyone voted in favour of Ms. McPherson's amendment. We can move quickly. As I was saying earlier, the Minister of Justice has access to a wide range of legal and other experts. If everything is so clear for the Liberal government, they should come and explain it to us as soon as possible. We have a meeting on Friday. If the minister were to give us a legal opinion, we could stop talking about it. The minister could come and answer our questions, which would clarify the situation for everyone, and not just for the committee members.We have an important decision to make about a bill which was flawed from the very outset. Allow me to repeat that there were 118 amendments. That's why everything is taking so long.With our small teams, we consulted organizations, people in the field and people from the cultural sector, all of whom submitted reports. Basically, the bill was not doing what they wanted. The government also ignored some of the warnings that had been sent. We're not talking here about a minor detail that could be dealt with later, at the end of the process, as we are being told. We're talking about an entire clause in the bill that the government deleted without prior warning on a Friday, hoping that no one would notice.Ms. Harder's motion is simple. We want a new legal opinion and we want the minister to answer our questions about it. We, the opposition MPs, are not the only ones to request this. Allow me to repeat that some outstanding university professors, legal experts, policy analysts and experts in freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sounded the alarm following a government decision. It therefore seems to me that the very least we can do would be to wait for this opinion before continuing our work.I think the Liberals are trying to remove everything that might be harmful to the minister. I'm sorry, but the minister doesn't have to deal with it alone. He has access to all the resources needed. He's the one who introduced the bill that he took so much pride in. And yet, in an interview over the weekend, he was not even able to explain why the bill had initially included this proposed clause, nor why it's no longer there. In November, the Minister ofJustice tabled an opinion according to which the bill was supposedly compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In spite of this, there were shortcomings. The Liberals deleted an entire clause that had been proposed, which upset all kinds of people. It was not something minor. Many people condemned it, saying that it was a direct attack on the freedom of social network and Internet users who streamed content. Not everyone was aware of this, because the language is highly technical. We ourselves were sometimes confused about it. We've been asking experts to clarify things for us and we've asking a number of organizations some questions to help us understand the issue. The people being targeted are influencers, people who have a YouTube channel, or who download content from social networks. We're not talking about companies like Facebook, Google, YouTube or TikTok. We're talking about ordinary Canadians who use these networks to speak to one another and to share content. Some artists share their own performances directly over these networks and use them to get exposure. Now, these people are being directly affected by the deletion of proposed clause 4.1 of the Broadcasting Act under clause 3 of the bill, because the CRTC has just been given the power to subject these people to regulation on the same basis as the major digital sector broadcasters and players. We don't know whether it will use this power, but it has it now. That's the door that the government has opened by deleting this proposed clause. So we can't carry on with our own work while waiting for an opinion from the minister. We need clarification on this point. It's not just a minor amendment or clause that has been deleted. It's not true that the required changes could be made at the very end. We have already gathered some opinions. If some of the other amendments studied previously had been so urgent, red flags would have been raised. In this instance, it was clearly an ill-advised decision by the government. That's clear, because it doesn't even want us to review its decision.(1245)I repeat that Ms. Harder's motion is altogether legitimate. Ms. McPherson proposed an amendment to prescribe a time limit. As she pointed out so correctly, there is nothing to prevent the minister from responding even more quickly so that we can move forward. If he wants to table his legal opinion sooner, then so much the better, because it will speed up the process of helping our cultural sector.The Minister of Justice needs to do his work and the Minister of Canadian Heritage should appear beside him to explain the ins and outs of this decision to us. The minister needs to give us a legal opinion so that all of the experts and we can analyse the situation that we are currently going through, which constitutes an attack. It's not Alain Rayes who is saying so. If you want to attribute these comments to me, feel free to do so, but they are more than anything else comments from Professor Geist, from the University of Ottawa. He said that he had never seen a government as anti-Internet as this one. That was also the opinion of several former CRTC commissioners, administrators and policy analysts. For the past five or six days, all these people have been publicly making a fuss and telling us to stop.I'm not even talking about all the Canadians who have been writing to our offices. I'll admit to being a minor player on Twitter, and I don't have as many followers as the Prime Minister, and my tweets had never ever got 400 likes before until I talked about this issue. In my 15 years in politics, I've never seen so many people share the political information I publish.So it's not just a minor mistake being made by the government, but rather a major one. To set things right, we need accurate information.I hope that we will stop talking and adopt Ms. Harder's motion. I hope that the minister is listening to us. At the very least, I hope that some policy advisors and senior officials are monitoring our work and are already busy writing the requested legal opinion and preparing speeches for the ministers who are going to appear, so that we can do our work properly. I'd like to send a final message to everyone listening, and God knows that people in the cultural sector are listening. We all want to adopt a good bill. From the very beginning, that's what we all wanted. The problem is basically that this bill was not a good one. The MPs who sit on the committee, from all political parties, have been trying everything to come up with amendments and subamendments to fix things and make the bill better, before ruling on it and sending it back to the House of Commons.However, in view of what's been going on for just over a week now, we can't continue our work without having a clear legal opinion on the matter. I hope that we'll adopt Ms. Harder's motion and retain its essence. Ms. Dabrusin suggested amending the motion to ensure that the legal opinion and the appearance of the ministers would occur as soon as possible, so that they could provide clarification not only to the members of the committee, but to all the experts as well. Only the government can get things moving as quickly as possible. Believe me, the more time goes by, the greater the number of experts who are listening. Everyone will be commenting on what the two ministers have to say and on the opinion that will be tabled.It's almost 1 p.m. I usually suggest a short break, but debates today were too heated and expansive. I trust that we'll be able to finish with this topic today and that we will not return to it Friday. At the rate things are going, we will still not have ruled on Ms. Harder's motion by the end of the meeting and will have to debate it again on Friday.Thank you, Mr. Chair.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669527866952796695280669528166952826695283669528466952856695286669528766952886695289669529066952916695292669529366952946695295ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1250)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.It was interesting listening to the amendments that MP Dabrusin made. I might have been like Scott Aitchison, my colleague, in the sense that he thought maybe there was something there that he might have supported, but when she lumped them all in, it became just untenable. I thought I might have seen a motion that said we would guarantee that once this was done, it would not be sent to the House and that we would guarantee a review, but that motion wasn't there. She had mentioned it many times, and Mr. Housefather had mentioned it many times, but it wasn't there. I got a little concerned. What she was saying didn't happen, yet she did numerous amendments, a number of them. As to the urgency aspect, you know, I'm an old guy. I remember when the Prime Minister implemented the War Measures Act in 1970. That was an emergency. A few years earlier than that, I was on Parliament Hill, and there was a Vietnam War protest. There wasn't urgency, but it was allowed as free speech. Yes, I go back a day or two, so when I see the movie The Trial of the Chicago 7, that brings back real concerns that I have about free speech. In the amendments that have been put forward, what she has put forward is just not good enough to fix what she says, and there has been no explanation of the urgency. We have co-operated in the House on a number of things to do with the pandemic, when things had to be passed quickly—absolutely, you bet. Nobody from that party has talked about why it's so urgent and why this has to be done today or tomorrow with a flawed bill. I don't see a house burning down. I don't see the War Measures Act needing to be implemented. This is not a pandemic piece of legislation to provide funding for people who need it. There has been no explanation of the urgency that they continue to mention. I am absolutely a huge supporter of culture, and we have great culture in this country, but when someone talks about urgency with no rationale as to why it's urgent, that really leaves it vacant. Again, freedom of speech to me is a personal thing, and I learned how valuable it is a long time ago, when I stood in front of the Parliament Buildings in 1967 and when I saw what happened in our country in the sixties and seventies. This is really important to me.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66952976695298669529966953006695301669530266953036695304ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1250)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I just wanted to set things straight on a number of facts.My colleague and friend Mr. Rayes said several times that the government had made a mistake. It's not the government that rejected clause 3 of the bill, but rather the committee members. We are all independent members of the committee. All MPs on the committee, whether from the Liberal party, the Conservative party, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, voted in favour of removing clause 3.And then even the Conservatives wanted to amend clause 3 of the bill to limit the scope of the proposed clause to certain users, while ensuring that others were not subject to it. Now if the proposed clause was so terrible that the Conservatives wanted to introduce amendment CPC-5, why do they feel so strongly about the deletion of this clause?It's too bad that the debate has taken this turn.(1255)[English] The other thing I want to say is that regardless of the scope of the amendment that is proposed, I maintain the position that I stated. I'm not seeing that it is absolutely desperate to finish things in one or two days. I am saying that without seeing the scope of all the amendments on the section that has been amended, it would be impossible to make sense of a new charter statement. We need to finish the amendments and continue the clause-by-clause study so that at the end of the results.... We know there are other amendments coming forward that have not yet been debated that deal with the exact issue of the removal of section 3. There are other amendments that deal with exemptions from the CRTC for users of social media and posts that are put up. How can any attorney then give a charter statement without having the full scope of those amendments? It doesn't make sense.The reason to continue with clause-by-clause consideration is to finish all the amendments so that the person doing the charter review can then look at the overall context of the bill, including any and all amendments and including those amendments that are still to come forward that deal with this very same issue. It makes no sense to say that we're stopping now, that we can't consider further amendments that we know are coming forward, but we want a charter statement.I support what Mr. Shields said, which is that we stop at the end of the amendments. We don't send the bill back to the House. We then get a charter statement taking into consideration everything that happened during clause-by-clause study. From my perspective, we do whatever we want with the ministers and their presence or non-presence. Then, if need be, because we haven't sent it back, we return to other clauses of the bill if the charter statement tells us something that I don't expect it to tell us.However, it doesn't make sense to stop clause-by-clause consideration to get an interim charter statement when there are other relevant amendments that deal with the very same issues. That is my perspective. I just don't understand why there's such a desperate need to have the charter statement before those amendments are brought forward and before the public and, most importantly, the lawyers drafting the revised charter statement can consider those amendments vis-à-vis the deletion of clause 3 of the bill.If there were no other amendments coming forward on this issue it might make sense, but amendments are coming forward on the very same issue that would definitely change the position of any lawyer reviewing the bill. I'm not going to speak to the wording of this particular amendment, but that is what I think should happen.Mr. Chairman, I would like a brief word from you. Are we continuing past 1:00? If we are, perhaps we could have a suspension so we could all just take a brief break and come back.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Amendments and subamendmentsC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content669530766953086695309669531066953116695312669531366953146695315669531666953176695318669531966953206695321ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1305)[English]I move to adjourn.The Chair: All right, let's go to a vote, Madam Clerk.Just so I'm clear, adjourn what?Mr. Martin Shields: The meeting.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyMotions6695361669536266953636695364ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1305)[English]Madam Clerk, we will have a vote.(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: The meeting is adjourned. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeRecorded divisions669536566953666695367MartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1305)[English] Welcome back, everybody.This is meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.We are doing this, of course, virtually—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6677390667739166773926677393RachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1305)[English]Mr. Chair, I wish to move a point of order. It has come to my attention that this committee was provided with a charter statement from the Minister of Justice, and that this charter statement was prepared on the bill based on its original form on November 3. At that point in time, our party was largely in favour of making the proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act and other acts in order to modernize them and create a level playing field between streaming services like Netflix and the Canadian broadcasters, and the justice minister's charter statement was in good standing. However, that was before the bill was amended, and as you know, there are some significant changes that have since taken place.One of the things that was stated in the justice minister's charter statement was that, and I quote, “clause 3 would specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded by unaffiliated users [for example, you and me] to social media services for sharing with other users, and in respect of online undertakings whose only broadcasting consists of such programs.”When the bill was amended, however, to remove clause 3—the portion that I just read his opinion on—the entire scope of the bill was changed. Given that the entire scope of the bill has now changed with the removal of that clause, the statement no longer stands as accurate.Last Friday, those changes were made, taking away the protection for individual users—again, such as you and me—for the things we post on Facebook, the things we post on YouTube, the things an aspiring artist posts and the cat video that my grandmother posts in order to share with her friends and engage with them. When this change was made, it removed the protections that were once offered to individuals who use these platforms.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotions66773946677395667739666773976677398ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1305)[English]Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.The removal of proposed section 4.1 from Bill C-10 fundamentally changes the legislation and dissolves the ground on which the charter statement stood to justify charter compliance. Therefore, the original charter statement should be considered null and void if this committee wishes to do due diligence. Therefore, I would propose to you that we need a new charter statement from the justice minister, based on the transformational edit that was done on Friday.Mr. Chair, I believe this is extremely important, because it's about protecting Canadians and their freedoms.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6677402ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1305)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Chair, the original intent of this legislation was to modernize the Broadcasting Act. However, by removing this clause 3 of Bill C-10—the proposed new section 4.1 of the act—there's a significant difference in what this is now, and I would argue that it potentially impedes upon the freedoms of Canadians that are granted under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Social media platforms are the new public square. That's where people engage in conversation.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6677431ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1330)[English]Indeed.Okay folks, we're back to the meeting.Thank you very much. I'm sorry for the technical difficulties in between. They happen from time to time, but this is the first time this has happened to us.As you know, we're picking up clause-by-clause once more. Don't forget about your “raise hand” function, as I mentioned earlier.We left off last time on amendment G-10.Ms. Harder.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667747166774726677473667747466774756677476RachaelHarderLethbridgeRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1335)[English] Mr. Chair, I understand that this committee is doing, I believe, its best to get through this legislation quickly and to move it to a point that it can be voted on in the House of Commons. I believe, however, that there are some things that need to be considered before getting to that point.As I've outlined previously, clause 3, or proposed section 4.1, was removed from the legislation last week. When that took place, the nature of this bill changed. There is a charter statement that was provided by the justice department under the name of the justice minister. That charter statement determines whether or not this piece of legislation, Bill C-10, would be in agreement with or within the purview of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.That statement is now null and void, because a significant portion of the bill was removed last week. That being the case, I believe this committee needs to seek another statement with respect to the charter and whether the charter rights of Canadians are in fact being respected within the new outline provided within this bill.I would draw the committee's attention to a few opinions or viewpoints that have been offered by experts. Most notably, former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said that this legislation “doesn't just infringe on free expression; it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.”Mr. Chair, that is an incredibly damning statement in regard to this piece of legislation as it stands now, because that clause was removed last week. That being the case, I believe this committee needs to take the responsibility of seeking another charter statement. The argument has been made by some members at this table—and by other members of the governing party when this has been raised in the House of Commons during question period—that Canadians shouldn't worry; that there would never be an imposition on their freedom and what they post on social media. At the end of the day, however, if it's not there, it's not there. In other words, if the protection isn't granted, then there's no protection. It's that simple. If the protection is not outlined in this legislation, then there is no protection for Canadians. We're talking about a regular component of their daily lives. We're talking about a video they post of their cat, about a video they post of their kids, about a conversation they're having with a friend on a social media platform. This is a new form of public square, and based on the charter, our right to freedom of expression should not be imposed upon. I would argue, and many other experts have argued, that they are being imposed upon. That being the case, I believe we need to seek a new charter statement based on this legislation as it stands now. I want to move a motion for this committee's consideration. If I may, I would like to read it into the record. It reads: That, given that the deletion of section 4.1, clause 3 of Bill C-10, would extend the application of the Broadcasting Act to programs uploaded by users of social media services, which in turn could violate paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and given that the current “Charter Statement” required under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10 directly states that “users of social media who upload programs for sharing with other users and are not affiliated with the service provider will not be subject to regulation” as part of its argument that Bill C-10 respects section 2(b) of the Charter, the committee: (a) request that the Minister of Justice produce an updated “Charter Statement” under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10, as amended to date, on the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (b) invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee to discuss the implications of Bill C-10, as amended to date, for users of social media services; and (c) suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, notwithstanding the Committee's decision of March 26, 2021, until it has received the updated “Charter Statement” requested under paragraph (a) and has heard from the ministers invited under paragraph (b). Mr. Chair, that is the end of my motion. I would reiterate how vitally important it is that this committee composed of legislators do its work responsibly and seek this statement from the justice minister.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsClause-by-clause studyCommittee witnessesGovernment billsGuilbeault, StevenLametti, DavidMinister of Canadian HeritageMinister of JusticeMotionsReferences to membersUser-generated content667747966774806677481667748266774836677484667748566774866677487667748866774896677490667749166774926677493667749466774956677496ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1340)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two points. I would like to be very clear, because it keeps being talked around. There is a clear exclusion, which has already been passed by this committee, to exclude individuals posting to social media. I need to make that absolutely clear. There is an exclusion for individuals posting content to social media. Beyond that, the Broadcasting Act does not cover content. This is not about moderating content. I will, however, go one step further and also indicate that we are in the middle of clause-by-clause study. We do not have a completed bill before us. We are still in the process of a clause-by-clause study, and it is simply premature to be taking any moment to review what the impact of the bill would be until we have actually completed the process of determining what the bill will look like.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content667750166775026677503ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1340)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I'd like to start by saying that I agree entirely with Ms. Dabrusin. The preamble of the motion takes a position that I don't agree with. I think it's a flawed interpretation of the removal of clause 3 of the bill. I also believe, as Ms. Dabrusin said, that the bill will continue to be amended, so for us to stop at each point in the bill, which may not reflect the bill at the end, to ask for updated charter statements is illogical. Furthermore, and more importantly, let me direct you to the Department of Justice website as to what the rules are with respect to charter statements. These charter statements, which were put into effect by our government, the Liberal government, basically originally included charter statements only for justice bills. Then, on December 13, 2019, through amendments to the Department of Justice Act, we created a new duty on the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in Parliament for every government bill. The charter statements are a transparency measure intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a bill and help increase awareness and understanding of the charter. The website explicitly states:Charter Statements are intended to provide information to the public and Parliamentarians. Although a bill may change over the course of its passage through Parliament, Charter Statements reflect the bill at [the] time of introduction and are not updated.Let me repeat that. Charter statements reflect the bill at the time of introduction and are not updated. It goes on to say, “Charter Statements are not legal opinions on the constitutionality of a bill.”For a multiplicity of reasons, then, Mr. Chairman, I am against this motion: number one, that the legislation does not contemplate ever updating a charter statement, and it is explicitly stated that charter statements “reflect the bill at time of introduction and are not updated”; and second, because we are in the middle of a clause-by-clause debate on the bill, and if it were to be updated at any point for whatever reason, if that were permissible, it would make sense to do so only at the end of debate on the bill, once all the amendments had been adopted and one knew what the legislation would look like. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content667750566775066677507667750866775096677510667751166775126677513ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): (1340)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a very wise move. To Ms. Dabrusin's point about a new subsection proposed in this bill that protects users—she's referring, I think, to proposed new subsection 2(2.1), which does protect users specifically—the removal of proposed new section 4.1 refers specifically to the programs that users use to upload their content. We need to be really careful here. Effectively, I think what this is doing is pushing the regulatory impacts onto users. They're actually shifting them to the programs themselves. I think we need to be careful, and frankly, having a new charter statement—a review of this matter—may have tremendous impacts as we continue the clause-by-clause. I realize the Liberals really want to rush this through and want to get it done, because they didn't do it in the first five years they had, but I think it behooves us to make sure we do this very carefully and make sure that something as fundamental as freedom of expression for Canadians is not hindered in any way by any moves we make here. This is fundamental to our democracy and our way of life, and to ask a Liberal justice minister for a review of it is, I think, a very reasonable compromise to make sure, as we proceed and continue to go clause by clause, that we're doing so while ensuring that we're not in any way infringing on Canadians' fundamental freedom of expression—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content667751566775166677517667751866775196677520ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1345)[English] There's none taken, anyhow.I was summing up my point that making sure we get this right is far more important than getting it done quickly. I have real concerns that shifting the onus onto the programs that individual Canadians use opens up too many questions. It is very concerning that the CRTC, while it maybe wouldn't do so, would have the ability and the authority to start regulating the content that individual Canadians post to social media. This is the fear I have. Freedoms aren't taken away in one fell swoop in societies. They're chipped away bit by bit, all under the cover of some important protection from some fear that we should have.It is well worth taking a pause and asking for a review by the justice minister to make sure we're not getting this wrong. This is so fundamental to our way of life and to the freedoms Canadians expect. We need to make sure we get it right, and that's the reason I think this is a wise pause. We're asking a Liberal minister of justice as well. This is not a partisan issue, I don't think. This is just good governance and making sure we take the time to get this right. That's all we're asking for.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content667752766775286677529ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1345)[English]Mr. Chair, to Ms. Dabrusin's point, originally there were two sections within this bill that had to do with individuals. One had to do with individual users, and one had to do with the programs those individuals might use to convey their message or the material they're wishing to share.The section having to do with users is still intact. The section having to do with the programs that users use was removed. If an individual were to use YouTube, Facebook, TikTok or Twitter, they would be held to the regulations within the CRTC in terms of how those programs are used. That is a direct imposition on their freedom.I'm not necessarily one who is arguing this on my own. In fact, when Ms. Dabrusin first brought forward the idea that clause 3 should be removed from the bill, Mr. Owen Ripley had comments to make in that regard. Mr. Owen Ripley, of course, is the director general of the broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch at Canadian Heritage. These are his words. He said, “Ms. Dabrusin has signalled, the government intends to...repeal...section 4.1”.At that point, it was only an intent. Now it's been followed through on. He went on to say:...meaning that there would no longer be any exclusion for social media services at all.He explained:For the benefit of the committee, in our previous sessions, the committee upheld the exclusion for users of social media companies. In other words, when you or I upload something to YouTube or some other sharing service, we will not be considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act. ...The CRTC couldn't call us before them, and we couldn't be subject to CRTC hearings.However, Mr. Ripley continued by saying that if the exclusion were to be removed and the proposed new section 4.1 struck down, as it was last week, “the programming we upload onto YouTube, the programming we place on that service, would be subject to regulation moving forward but would be the responsibility of YouTube or whatever the sharing service is.” It is very important to note his words when he said, “it would be subject to regulation moving forward”. Those were his words. This is an expert.For Ms. Dabrusin to try to mislead this committee, and for the government to try to mislead Canadians into thinking they wouldn't be impacted by this change, is wrong. If they are not scared to have this challenged, then why not allow for a charter statement to be redrafted based on the change that was made last week?Of course, Mr. Ripley is not the only one who provided that type of commentary. In addition to him, former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies—and I would hope if we're going to listen to any expert, we would want to listen to him—said that this legislation, “doesn’t just infringe on free expression; it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” That is an extremely strong statement.He also stated, “It’s difficult to contemplate the levels of moral hubris, incompetence or both that would lead people to believe such an infringement of rights is justifiable.”Mr. Chair, this is a huge issue. For us to move forward as a committee with little to no regard for wanting to protect the charter rights of Canadians is frightening.We like the charter. We post it proudly on our walls, as members of Parliament. We talk about it in the House of Commons with passion. We defend it rigorously. At least, that's what we used to do. For us to treat it as if it's just a suggested document rather than the supreme law of the land, is a shame on us.(1350) To suggest we can just move forward, that it's not a big deal or that we will just wait until the end, which probably isn't true, is wrong. It's so wrong. Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve to have their charter rights protected. Canadians deserve to have the members of this committee wish to seek greater clarity. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, said, “The government believes that it should regulate all user generated content, leaving it to [the] regulator to determine on what terms and conditions will be attached the videos of millions of Canadians on sites like Youtube, Instagram, TikTok, and hundreds of other services.”He is an expert in this field, and that is what he is saying. He is raising a massive red flag with regard to the part of this bill that was removed last week, which thereby removed protection for individuals and their use of social media and the content they post on the various platforms that are available to them. For us to move forward with little regard for the words spoken by former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies, or Michael Geist, an expert in this area, or Mr. Owen Ripley, who is the director general of the broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch, and pretend that somehow as individual members of Parliament we know better is incredibly pompous and incredibly irresponsible of us.We have an opportunity here to do the right thing, so I'm confused as to why members wouldn't wish to do that. Why wouldn't we wish to push the pause button and seek a charter statement? That's simply what we're asking for here. If the charter statement says there is no problem and the bill aligns with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then I guess it's the prerogative of the government to put the legislation through, if they have the votes within the House of Commons.The whole point of clause-by-clause is to carefully analyze the legislation that is before a committee, and to ask good questions, seek clarification and make sure we are doing the right thing and acting in the best interests of Canadians. As of right now, based on the things that have been said by the experts I have listed, I am concerned that this bill, as it stands right now with the amendments that have been made, goes too far, and that it does infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians.My request is very simple. I am respectfully asking that we push the pause button, seek a charter statement, move forward after we have that statement and do so in the best interests of Canadians, fighting for their freedom, defending their voices and ultimately standing by what we call the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which in subsection 2(b) offers protection for people's “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”. That thought, belief, opinion and expression can take place in the reality we call “nonvirtual” and in the reality we call virtual, such as social media platforms or apps. I believe we need to make sure we're contending for that and protecting it, and that we are on the side of Canadians and the supreme law of the land.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66775316677532667753366775346677535667753666775376677538667753966775406677541667754266775436677544667754566775466677547667754866775496677550ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1355)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would like to make a comment on Ms. Harder's request, which I consider perfectly legitimate.We all started out with a willingness to review the Broadcasting Act, which is many years old. When we started, everyone wanted to collaborate with the government. Those who came to talk to us expressed their concerns. They told us about aspects of the bill with which they agreed or disagreed, or which, in their opinion, should be amended.All members of the committee, from all parties, unanimously agreed to allow members of Parliament the privilege of expressing their views on this bill in the House. Some saw the bill as basically bad, some raised concerns. Members of the committee even agreed to conduct a preliminary study of the bill in committee so as not to hold up the process. The Liberals hinted in the media that we had tried to hold up consideration of the bill, but that was false. It had been agreed that the committee would begin to study the object of the bill and, once the debate in the House was over, the committee would consider the information that had been gathered as it began its official study of the bill.Everyone was ready to work together, with the objective that the major players in the digital world, such as Netflix, be regulated in the same way as our traditional Canadian broadcasters, as we so dearly like to call them. Everyone shared in that salutary and commendable objective, at the outset.Subsequently, some criticized the government for not requiring the GAFAs of this world, companies like Facebook, to redistribute money. It was also criticized for not including the CBC's mandate in the bill. We also had the whole issue of hate speech on social media, which the Minister proposes to deal with by means of another bill that will be introduced later.Through it all, we did our work. Experts came to testify before the committee. A few weeks ago, we then began the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. If my figures are correct, about 118 amendments were proposed by all parties: 37 by the Green Party, 37 by the Bloc Québécois, 27 by the government itself and by the Liberal members of the committee,14 by the NDP and 13 by ourselves in the Conservative Party. As I said, that's 118 amendments. It shows that the bill had a number of gaps from the outset. All the members of the committee worked together to find an acceptable compromise by proposing subamendments. The issue of Canadian content in French, that everyone brought up, as you recall, also had to be dealt with. So what happened last Friday was a shock for everyone, I would say. No one saw it coming. Although committees are supposed to be independent, the Minister, through his Parliamentary Secretary, and other Liberal members who represent him on the committee, decided to eliminate one whole section of the bill, which will have consequences on internet users and influencers specifically. People do not realize that and are only just starting to talk about it. I can tell you that the media in Quebec are not talking very much about what is happening at the moment. However, freedom of expression and the very basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are at play for all users, influencers, youtubers, people with a little YouTube channel, who do it as a second job or just as their passion. By taking out that whole section, the power to regulate has just been handed over to the CRTC.I have a lot of respect for Ms. Dabrusin. She repeated what the Minister said in question period, that such is not the government's intention and I want to believe it. If that is the case, the government would not have had to come to that decision, because now we are not talking about the same thing at all. It is no longer a bill intended to submit the major digital players to the same regulations as conventional broadcasters. A big hole has been opened up, with no guidelines, by giving the entire power to the CRTC, which is out of our control. Actually, as soon as we have anything to say against that organization, we are told that we have to listen to it and let it do its work, because it's independent.Basically, our work is to make sure that the bill imposes a tight framework to protect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That should also be the raison d'être of every member of the House of Commons.(1400)Some might wonder whether this is an opposition attempt to prevent the bill from being passed. That is not the case at all. The opinions we have heard this week have come from experts. Ms. Harder named some of them, and I don't want to quote their comments again, but they include Michael Geist, an emeritus law professor at the University of Ottawa. Some might wonder whether that professor is going overboard when it comes to the bill, but no. I am sorry to disappoint you, but he is very well recognized in his area. He is so well recognized that, as I dug into the registry of grant programs supporting research and professors in their work, I found that the Liberal government had paid that professor several hundred thousand dollars. I am not saying that he received money to which he had no right. On the contrary, he received it because of his expertise in the area. In 2020, or to be more precise, on April 1, August 15, February 8, and September 1, he received more than one hundred thousand dollars for his work. He is therefore a credible expert who is showing us a warning light when he states clearly that we have before us “the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history”. I am not an expert in the area, but I can say that the warning light is yellow and may even be about to turn red. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to put a foot on the brake and examine the situation.We can add what Mr. Menzies said. He is a former commissioner of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, whose reputation in the area cannot be questioned.I would also like to draw the attention of all committee members and to the people listening to us that Daniel Bernhard, the Executive Director of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, who has come to talk to us on several occasions, has been sending warning signals since we started. Just look at page 3 of the report that the organization submitted to the committee. Before we even started to propose amendments, the organization was already shedding light on the risk posed by eliminating subsection 4.1, which the bill was proposing to add to the Broadcasting Act. By eliminating it, we have ripped away an essential element of protection from internet users all over the country.Let us not even mention the host of experts, university professors and political analysts who have been waving red flags, not yellow ones, since the beginning of the week, telling us that, by agreeing to eliminate this section, we have just dug ourselves a hole.With all due respect to my colleagues, I consider that Ms. Harder's request is perfectly legitimate. There's nothing partisan about it. It asks the Minister of Justice, himself a member of the Liberal Party, to submit a new Charter statement to follow the one, which he himself wrote, stating that the bill we are currently studying is supposed to provide protection for the users.I venture to think that our committee, whose members have been working together from the outset, will have the wisdom to say that it has made a mistake. If theMinister is operating in good faith and, as he states, the consequences of eliminating that section are not those that he wants, let's look at our decision again. It will not prevent things from moving forward, because I don't think we will be passing Bill C-10 in a week. The Liberal government will soon have been in place for six years. During that time, it has prorogued Parliament. The committee has done everything it can to make sure that things roll along. We have wasted not one minute in the legislative process. Let me emphasize that all members of the committee have worked to move this bill forward.I hope that the Minister will stop his empty rhetoric, in suggesting that we may have said things in the past when we have not. Right from the start, the minister told us that the GAFAs were going to be included in the bill, which was completely false. Today, by trying to correct a mistake, he has made another one by asking the committee to eliminate subsection 4.1.I repeat, if we want things to roll along nicely, let's just pass this motion. Then, first, we will be able to ask the Minister of Justice to provide us with an updated Charter statement and, second, we can listen to what the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice have to tell us. Then we will be able to resume our work with a view to passing the bill on the Broadcasting Act, so that the major players in the digital world are subject to the same regulatory framework as the broadcasters we like to call traditional.(1405)Ms. Harder, thank you for your expertise and your work. I hope that the message you are sending us will allow the committee to make a wise decision, the right decision.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content66775526677553667755466775556677556667755766775586677559667756066775616677562667756366775646677565667756666775676677568667756966775706677571ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1405)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.As you know, I'm a former broadcaster, like many on this committee.We all know, whether you're from the government side or the opposition side, that C-10 needed to be updated. It hadn't been updated in over 30 years. In fact, the Internet wasn't even around the last time this bill came forward. In the last several months we've all talked about this bill.It was interesting hearing from all the stakeholders. That's all I'm going to say. The stakeholders have been looking at this bill for the last five years. They want a good bill to come out of committee so they can put it on the wall and follow the regulations.We know that the conventional broadcasters—and we've heard from them in committee—are deeply hurting in this country. It doesn't matter if you're a big supplier of television and radio like Bell or Rogers or if you're just a local radio station by yourself in Kamloops or wherever; you know this bill is major in the industry right now. This is not only because of COVID-19, although that slowed it up a little, but Mr. Chair, as a former broadcaster, I think you too would agree that the landscape in this country has changed dramatically. It's changed because of the Internet. It's changed because of the digital players. All of us know that. Many of us in this country no longer subscribe to cable. We've seen the numbers drop, and maybe for good reason. They're getting their news now from Facebook. They know what their families are doing across this country because of Facebook.When you seek a charter statement on this.... I don't know about you, but I've had literally 200 to 300 calls and emails this week, specifically since last Friday, from constituents really worried about the rights and freedoms of Canadians.Many of us go on and upload messages to family. In my statement.... I have a brother out in Vancouver who I haven't seen in maybe four or five years. I have a nephew right now that has made the Prince Albert Raiders. I'm just going to share this with you. They had a bubble in Regina, so I could have maybe gone to see him play. They had a 24-game schedule here in Regina. I couldn't go because of COVID, which I understand.How do I reach out to my nephew, Niall Crocker, and his family? This is not only me; this is every family in the country. They want the freedom socially to do some of what we have done for years now.When the proposed section 4.1 was removed last Friday and changed the field, then all of a sudden, holy man.... We've gone into uncharted territory. It's uncharted because when you have a former chair of the CRTC raising a flag.... I can tell you that Ian Scott, the current chair of the CRTC, read his statement. What we don't want, I think, as legislators is the CRTC non-elected telling people in Canada what they can and can't do on the Internet with respect to what they can upload and so on.I think Michael Geist was right on. Every newspaper in this country—not only the Sun newspapers, but the National Post, the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and so on, has really come to the forefront with this story this week, because it matters to Canadians. The newspaper industry, as we know, is hurting in this country. I would say this, as a former broadcaster. They probably had more input this week because of this bill than on any other government bill that has been debated in Parliament in the last two weeks. They know it's an infringement of rights.I agree with Ms. Harder and Mr. Rayes. Maybe we should get a legal opinion from the justice minister on the charter statement on rights and freedoms.(1410) For people in this country, because they've been locked down, Mr. Chair—and you know it more than anybody because you're back in the Maritimes right now—this is really hard on them. Particularly in this country, we're fighting anti-maskers and people who don't believe in vaccines, and then all of a sudden this bill hits the airwaves from last Friday and in particular the last five days in this country, and people are up to here. They want their rights and freedoms restored if they've been diminished. This bill, by removing the proposed section 4.1 last Friday, has diminished rights. You might not say that, but it's there. When you have a former chair of the CRTC raising awareness before we even get to the finish of clause-by-clause, that's enough for me. Mr. Menzies was a well-respected chair of the CRTC for years. Mr. Scott, in his position, I am sure, has had the dialogue over what is happening in committee. I want to say thank you to Mr. Ripley and all the Heritage staff. You have been magnificent on clause-by-clause, giving an opinion on our amendments going forward and giving us a sense of what is needed in this bill, because we're only going to get one shot at this. This took 31 years to get renewed, and it may take another 31 years to move it forward. The stakeholders are watching. We know that. We're still getting emails from all our stakeholders who want one-on-one meetings. I'm getting them every day from everybody, in particular over what happened last Friday, with the government removing 4.1.I'll wrap it up there. I think we need to pause this right now. We can get a clarification from the justice minister. I've seen quotes in newspapers. Let's get this bill right. That's why we're here; that's why we got elected. We got elected to do the right thing for Canadians—to bring a bill forward that needs to be updated. All of us on the committee, all 11 of us on this committee, agree that this bill needs to be right. When we saw what happened this last week with Canadians up in arms over this bill—and they are up in arms over it—I think that was the flag for all of us to say, “Look, let's get an interpretation. Then, once we get that interpretation from the justice minister, good or bad, we can move on with this bill.”We all agree on this committee. We've gotten along so well, and we still are, but we want this broadcasting bill to be right. I see no problem pausing, getting a clarification, and then picking it up and moving it out. We have seven or eight weeks in the House of Commons. What's the difference if we bring this out May 10 or June 10? The difference is that we'd better get it right. Canadians are looking to us to get it right. That is my comment, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your time and your willingness to hear from all of us here today. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotionsUser-generated content6677573667757466775756677576667757766775786677579667758066775816677582667758366775846677585667758666775876677588667758966775906677591667759266775936677594ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1415)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the debate be now adjourned. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment billsMotion to adjourn the DebateUser-generated content66775986677599ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1420)[English]Ms. Dabrusin just moved a motion, Ms. Harder, which means she goes first. Now, if this doesn't work, then the other hands will be recognized. It's fairly clear.Madam Clerk, please go to the vote.(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsMotion to adjourn the DebateMotionsUser-generated content667762366776246677625RachaelHarderLethbridgeScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1430)[English]Thank you, Madam Clerk.Now we go to C-10 for the day.As mentioned earlier, we're going to talk about G-10. It's where we left off last time, if you recall.Do I see Ms. Dabrusin raising her hand?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6677649667765066776516677652AiméeBelmoreAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgInterventionMs. Rachael Harder: (1435)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Chair, believing the motion I've laid out on the table is of utmost importance, I would move that we return to debate, that debate resume with regard to the motion that I have put before this committee, which, of course, asks for a new statement from the justice minister in regard to whether Bill C-10 in its current state does in fact respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66776656677666ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1440)[English]Ms. Harder, just so you know, page 1062 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states that if the debate “is adjourned without the committee taking a decision, the committee may resume the debate...at another meeting.” I hope that's clear. We can't resume with the same debate at this point. We have to do it at another meeting. That's quite clear within the third edition.Seeing nothing further, I'll go to Ms. Dabrusin.(On clause 7)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667766766776686677669RachaelHarderLethbridgeJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1440)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The next amendment, the next motion we're dealing with, is G-10. This concerns Canadian ownership, something we had focused on as being a very important issue. This is the power that would allow the CRTC to review changes in ownership to make sure Canadian ownership rules are being properly respected.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66776706677671ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison: (1440)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would actually propose a subamendment to G-10, to add the words “that is not an online undertaking”. In G-10, it reads, “any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking”. Insert there the words “that is not an online undertaking”, and then carry on.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66776746677675ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1440)[English]Okay. Proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(h.1) would then say “any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking that is not an online undertaking, carried on under a licence”.Mr. Aitchison, I'm looking to you for confirmation. You're including “not an online undertaking”. Am I correct?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66776766677677ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1440)[English]Yes. I'd like to understand what the carving out of online undertakings from this section means. I'd like to just confirm with Mr. Ripley that it would mean that online undertakings that are broadcasting undertakings would not be covered; therefore, the commission would not be able to look at the change of ownership or control of such an online undertaking. Would that be the sense? It would be a complete carve-out, and the CRTC would no longer have the power to look into the ownership or control of an online undertaking.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667768466776856677686ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1440)[English] Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. The amendment as currently drafted, as members of the committee will note, talks about undertakings that are carried on under a licence. The way that Bill C-10 is structured, as you may recall, is that online undertakings actually do not need to hold a licence, and so the amendment that Mr. Aitchison is proposing is actually already in line with the amendment as currently drafted, because an online undertaking is not required to hold a licence to begin with. The CRTC, as you may know, does indeed review ownership transactions in the conventional broadcasting world—that is, conventional broadcasters, cable and satellite companies—and this is to just ensure that it can continue to review those transactions moving forward, given that we're moving to a condition of a service model instead of a condition of a licence model. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills66776886677689ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1445)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a question for Mr. Ripley.Crave is owned by Bell. Could you speak to that situation? Right now in Canada that would be probably the only one that I can relate to. Bell owns Crave. Would this change anything at all on this?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667769266776936677694ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1445)[English]Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh.The question would hinge on whether Crave is a licensed undertaking or not. It's an online undertaking, but because it's part of a larger corporate family, it would depend on exactly the way it is operated. My understanding is that right now, it does operate under the exemption order and therefore is not part of any licensed activity of Bell. Again, this power would not apply in the case of an ownership transaction involving the division of Crave, so to speak. Just to confirm that, Mr. Chair, maybe my colleague, Mr. Olsen, wishes to add to that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667769566776966677697KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen (Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1445)[English] It's no. That was what I would have said. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills6677700ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English]Yes, I know. You would think so.We are on the subamendment to amendment G-10 put forward by my fellow Scottsman. Shall the subamendment carry?(Subamendment agreed to) The Chair: We will now go to the main amendment, G-10. Go ahead, Ms. McPherson. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66777076677708667770966777106677711ScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1445)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. As another Scot, I'll jump in with another subamendment, if I can.I would like to subamend the wording to say, instead of a “broadcasting undertaking carried on under a licence”, “a Canadian broadcasting undertaking”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66777126677713ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English]Just so I get this right, it would be, “(h.1) any change in the ownership or control of a Canadian broadcasting undertaking”. Did I get that right?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66777146677715HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1445)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Can the senior officials with us tell us about the impacts of this subamendment?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66777206677721ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1445)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.The answer is actually similar to the one I gave Mr. Aitchison and Mr. Waugh. Currently, as you know, there is a directive stipulating that only Canadian enterprises can hold licenses in Canada. I would say that the amendment is much in the same spirit, because it is impossible for a foreign company to obtain a license to operate a broadcasting enterprise in Canada.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667772466777256677726ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1450)[English]Mr. Chair. I would just want Ms. McPherson to consider, based on that answer, that this may create confusion. I don't know where else in the act we talk only about Canadian broadcasting undertakings, and by referring to “Canadian” here, we might imply that those broadcasting undertakings other than Canadian may be eligible to get a licence, which under the act they are not. I would be a bit concerned about doing that, because then we would be saying that somebody other than a Canadian broadcasting undertaking could perhaps be eligible for a licence, but I leave it to her to consider.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6677728ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1450)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleagues.What I see with this subamendment is that this will protect Canadian ownership of Canadian online companies. It's just going to strengthen it, and I think that's important. It provides that additional coverage. That's why I put forward the subamendment. I don't think it causes confusion. I think, if anything, it strengthens the bill.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667773066777316677732ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1450)[English]I have to get a clarification here. Let's take TSN, owned by Bell and partially owned by ABC/ESPN in the United States. How would this affect them if they decide some day to pull TSN off conventional television and just go like they are right now in the United States, doing a lot of streaming? I guess maybe I'm asking department officials for a clarification on this, because TSN is partially owned, I believe, in the United States by ESPN/ABC. They have agreements. I am concerned that when you come to Monday night football or Thursday night football, all of a sudden TSN Canada has the rights, and they've decided to not put it on conventional television and instead just stream it. Does adding the word “Canadian” bring anything into effect here? Maybe Mr. Ripley or Mr. Owen can answer.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667773466777356677736ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1450)[English]Again, to the extent that a broadcasting undertaking was to migrate to being an online undertaking—i.e., does not require a licence to operate—there would be no.... This power, this amendment, for the CRTC to make orders respecting changes in ownership or control would not apply to that online undertaking. The reason for this amendment is that right now, when there is an ownership transaction, there is typically a change in licence, and that change of licence provides an opportunity for the CRTC to assess whether there needs to be any changes in condition as part of that ownership transaction. What this is doing is seeking to ensure that if there is an ownership transaction in the conventional broadcasting market—a cable or satellite company or something like that—the CRTC continues to have the ability to impose conditions as part of that transaction, so if you want to sell that business division to this other company over here, CRTC will look at whether it authorizes that or not, but it may decide to impose conditions as part of that transaction for a variety of reasons. This power makes sure that the CRTC can continue to do that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills667773866777396677740ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1455)[English]One other point is that because we have seen Rogers and Shaw talk about a merger, I wonder if this plays to Shaw. They're kind of out of the business now, although they still have community television stations. How would this amendment affect Shaw if they are sold to Rogers? I know that's maybe a year away, or whatever. I'm just throwing it out there because all of a sudden now Shaw would own the local community stations across the country. They own several right now. Would this be affected by the change proposed here today by Ms. McPherson?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66777496677750ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen: (1455)[English]Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for the question.Shaw operates many broadcasting distribution undertakings, or what we call cable systems. Most of those are operated under licences, unless they're small cable systems that have been exempted by the CRTC from being required to hold a licence. Since they hold a licence, they would still be covered under the amendment, which would apply to the change of ownership or a Canadian broadcasting undertaking carried on under a licence. They would still have a licence, and then the CRTC would thus have the power under this subsection to put conditions of service around any change in ownership.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66777516677752KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1455)[English]Okay. Madam Clerk, please conduct the vote.(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Now we go back to the main amendment as amended. This is G-10.Seeing no further discussion, we now go to a vote.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6677760667776166777626677763AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaPhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1455)[Translation]Here is the amended wording:h.1) toute modification relative à la propriété ou au contrôle d’une entreprise de radiodiffusion canadienne, qui n’est pas une entreprise en ligne, exploitée aux termes d’une licence;BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66777706677771ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1500)[English]We'll now go to a recorded vote.(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66777766677777AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: (1640)[Translation]Great. We have less than two months before the summer recess. At the moment, work on Bill C-10, introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to amend the Broadcasting Act, is not very advanced. In addition, the minister wants to propose a bill against hateful content online. And that's not counting the bill on the web giants that he promised you this spring. That's a lot of work to do in less than two months.Furthermore, we know that an election will be called this summer. Are you concerned that the bill meant to support you will not be introduced until after the election, unfortunately?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCOVID-19PandemicPublic finance6693549WayneEasterHon.MalpequeBenoitChartierBenoitChartierBenoit-ChartierInterventionMr. Benoit Chartier: (1640)[Translation] Yes, that's our concern. We would like to see the priority given to the bill to support the media. In our opinion, it is even more urgent than Bill C-10 and the bill against hateful content online. It is a matter of survival. Not just the weekly newspapers are in trouble; every newspaper in Canada, from the smallest to the largest, is in a state of crisis. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCOVID-19PandemicPublic finance6693552GabrielSte-MarieJolietteSylvainPoissonBenoitChartierBenoit-ChartierInterventionMr. Benoit Chartier: (1710)[Translation] The results will be the same in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. The issue is national, not provincial. As mentioned earlier, the government must provide legislation right away. It could introduce a mammoth bill that would encompass Bill C-10, the anti-smear bill, and the bill against Facebook and Google to help Canadian newspapers. Whatever happens, it needs to happen as soon as possible. In terms of the media, the equivalent of the Australian legislation that was passed this winter needs to be implemented in Canada. I am speaking on behalf of 100 weeklies in Quebec, but I also include all the newspapers associated with News Media Canada, of which Hebdos Quebec is a part. It includes all the weeklies and community newspapers across Canada. They are in every riding. All of the members of Parliament here on the Standing Committee on Finance have a special relationship with the newspapers in their ridings: they know the editors and the reporters, and the reporters know the members of Parliament, their press secretaries and political staffers. Newspapers across Canada are under great strain right now, and the COVID-19 pandemic is not helping.We cannot wait a few years, or even six months. Legislation must be introduced by the end of this parliamentary session in Ottawa, before the summer recess, so that there is some hope for the summer, and before an election is called. If an election is called, the process will take even longer, because we will have to wait to find out whether there will be a majority or minority government, which ministers will form the new cabinet, and so on. I think the Minister of Canadian Heritage needs to speed up the process and introduce legislation as soon as possible.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCOVID-19PandemicPublic finance6693655PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1100)[English] Folks, welcome back. We are still on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.Most of you now must know the rules, of course. For those of you who are listening outside and for whom this is your first time joining us, welcome. This is Canadian democracy at its best. We go clause by clause through the bill. We've had some amendments thus far, and we're continuing. I'll get to that in just a moment, but just as a reminder to everybody about the way we do this, if you hear us talking about letters and numbers, those are for the particular amendments put forward by each group with us at the committee. In other words, if you hear us say, “PV-1”, that would be a Parti Vert—Green Party—amendment. We have CPC ones, which would be from the Conservative members on the committee; LIB would be from the Liberal members, BQ from the Bloc Québécois, and NDP amendments come from the New Democrats. Finally, G amendments, as in G-1 or G-2, would be amendments from the government. Are there any questions before we start? Are there any issues? I'm going to start this one fairly quickly, since I think we know most of the machinations that happen.I'll get to our guests from the department later, but I will say thank you again for joining us. I want to say all the best to everyone. I hope you have a safe week, no matter where you are. Let's get back to the business at hand. We will go back to clause-by-clause study.(On clause 6)The Chair: We are currently at—and this is a newer version of what we had before—amendment BQ-15(N), so we go to the new page and BQ-15(N).I am going to Mr. Champoux. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664552666455366645546664555666455666645576664558666455966645606664561MartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1100)[Translation]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Good afternoon, everyone.In amendment BQ-15(N), we want to retain a regime of conditions of licence and to prevent any relaxing of the regulatory framework.We're also proposing provisions to establish registration categories for online undertakings. We obviously aren't talking about the same conditions of licence as for conventional broadcasting undertakings. We think registration categories for online undertakings would be entirely appropriate in facilitating the CRTC's efforts to oversee the broadcasting system.To establish registration categories for online undertakings, we must obviously be able to determine the term of the registration's validity, whether fixed or indeterminate. We must also be able to renew licences in the same way and for the same terms. Lastly, we have to be able to regulate undertakings, which means having the power to suspend or revoke an undertaking's registration if it fails to comply with conditions of service.I'm prepared to discuss this.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666456266645636664564666456566645666664567ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1100)[English]My grave concern with this proposal is with its overbreadth, that it would simply cover all of the Internet in the end, rather than only the ones that have the larger impact that we would be concerned about. Everyone would be required to register in the first instance.Perhaps the department can help to clarify what the impact of this amendment would be. How broad would its scope be for requiring registrations?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66645696664570ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1105)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning everybody.If I understand the amendment correctly, perhaps I'd comment on two elements of it.The first element relates to reintroducing the idea that there could be conditions of licence that take the form of contributing to the policy objectives of the act. This is similar to a Green Party amendment that we spoke about on Friday.To perhaps recap, Bill C-10 seeks to move away from a regime whereby the expenditure contributions that broadcasting entities are required to make are contained within their licence, which is their actual authorization to operate.Instead, as I think the committee is aware, Bill C-10 creates new order-making powers for the CRTC in clause 9.1, and new regulation-making powers. Those order-making and regulation-making powers are meant to substitute for the old conditions of licence.If you look at the wording of clause 9.1, for example—the order-making powers—you will see that they are able to apply to a category or a class of undertaking, but they're also able to apply to an individual undertaking if the need requires. Just as in the old world when you had a condition of licence and maybe you needed a unique condition of licence specific to one company, the CRTC still has that power at clause 9.1.The concern would be that if the committee reintroduces the idea of conditions of service, it muddies the waters about the type of instrument that should be used to impose conditions on companies. Moving forward, not only would a company potentially be subject to regulation and relevant orders, but it could also be subject to additional requirements specific to their conditions of licence.We heard from Mr. Manly on Friday that one of his concerns related to the idea of enforcement. How do you know that companies are actually meeting the requirements of their licence? This generally waits until the renewal of the licence. Bill C-10 outlines a different vision whereby, as we outlined, companies would be subject to an administrative monetary penalty where they're not in compliance. The idea behind that is the CRTC takes a much more active, regular enforcement stand vis-à-vis broadcasters.The idea behind Bill C-10 is that broadcasters shouldn't have to wait until the renewal of their licence to be able to go to the CRTC and say that a company is not compliant. Rather, Bill C-10 outlines a perspective that you should be able to go to the commission and say that a broadcaster is not meeting their requirements and the CRTC would be able to do an investigation on that right away.The second piece relates to the registration requirements. Perhaps I would just indicate on this one that Bill C-10 took the stance that registration is not intended to be permission to operate in Canada.Once again, Bill C-10 starts to regulate various online undertakings—various Internet-based companies—and the government was very clear that it didn't want to set the CRTC up as a gatekeeper before a company could launch its business online. The CRTC would have the ability to say yes or no. That stance goes against the idea of an open and free Internet. On the registration regime contemplated by Bill C-10, I would remind the committee that at paragraph 10(1)(i), the CRTC can make regulations respecting the registration of broadcasting undertakings in Canada. That was intended to essentially facilitate them knowing the contact information and the way to get in touch with these companies. It was not intended to be substituted for a permission to operate in Canada. (1110) My understanding, based on what Mr. Champoux outlined, is that, if the idea is to suspend or revoke a registration or something like that, it seems to be setting the CRTC up much more for a gatekeeper role with a permission to operate. That would have implications for a free and open Internet and the ability for online undertakings to offer their services without first having to go and seek permission from the CRTC.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills666457266645736664574666457566645766664577666457866645796664580666458166645826664583ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1110)[English] Mr. Chair, I read the amendment. I am opposed to this amendment completely because I think this is a broad overreach. It is essentially regulating all of the Internet. It's going to kill small businesses. It seems to say that every website would have to register with the CRTC, no matter how small. I think this just goes too far.To the department, given the excessive amount of power that seems to be given to the CRTC here, is there any other country that you're aware of that would have such an overreaching scope of regulation on the Internet, if this were adopted the way it is now?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66645866664587ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1110)[English]Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. As far as I'm aware, when we look at comparator countries, liberal democracies, the answer to that would be no. Those countries that are, like Canada, moving forward with broadcasting regulation that seeks to include streaming activities within its scope.... When you look at the EU, for example, there is a recognition in those jurisdictions as well that the business model between a conventional broadcaster that traditionally has to hold a licence and the business model of streaming services is different. Bill C-10 seeks to ensure a level playing field, a more fair system and have these players contribute, but Bill C-10 was very intentional about not extending a licensing model to Internet-based companies.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666459066645916664592ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1110)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Many things have been said, and they've triggered many reactions. I'll try to be brief.First of all, with respect to the question that Mr. Housefather just asked Mr. Ripley, I'd like to say that we haven't always felt compelled to wait for other countries before taking action. In 1999, we decided to exclude online undertakings from regulation. That resulted in the mess we found ourselves in for years thereafter and the unfair system in which our Canadian actors were forced to try to survive. Now we're trying to regulate what we didn't regulate 20 years ago. I think we have a responsibility to do that without being forced to wait for an inspirational model to emerge somewhere in the world. Let's do something on our own for once, based on what we want to put in place. I think we have a duty to do that.Now, as regards the registration of undertakings, I understand that we have concerns about what the CRTC may want to regulate. That's why we're proposing that it be given the authority to establish categories. I'm not saying all undertakings must be subject to registration. The CRTC would have the power to establish categories.Incidentally, our amendment BQ-16, which we'll discuss later, would provide that an undertaking that doesn't have a significant effect on the Canadian broadcasting system would not have to be subject to registration, and that decision could be reviewed in the event the undertaking in question began to have a more significant effect on the Canadian broadcasting system.We'll be introducing amendment BQ-34 later on, and I hope we have a chance to get there during this week's debates. Under that amendment, an online undertaking would be allowed to operate without a licence, without registering and without being exempted by the CRTC from the obligation to hold a licence or to register. That would obviously apply to undertakings that don't have a significant effect on the Canadian broadcasting system.I think we also have a duty to bring fairness to the market in which our Canadian broadcasting undertakings, both conventional and online, operate. The idea here is not to prevent free Internet services; we're talking about our broadcasting system, which foreign online players are entering. Foreign undertakings that come and operate here, in our broadcasting system, which I think has characteristics that are unique in the world, must abide by the rules we put in place. We have to establish rules, not to please those undertakings, but to ensure we have a system that's fair for all participating players.That's why I think amendment BQ-15 is entirely appropriate.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66645946664595666459666645976664598666459966646006664601ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1115)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a question for the officials on this point. What, in their view, is the consequence of withdrawing paragraph 9(1)(g) as initially proposed in the amendment?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66646116664612ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1115)[Translation]Thank you for your question, Mr. Rayes.From what I understand, the initial amendment provided that the CRTC would have authority to regulate contract practices. That would definitely have affected the bill because it currently doesn't provide for that power to be granted to the CRTC.The withdrawal of this initially proposed paragraph obviously alters the scope of the amendment proposed by Mr. Champoux. However, as I just explained, the idea of conditions of licence is being reintroduced in order to contribute to Canadian broadcasting policy. There's also the registration element.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666461566646166664617ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1115)[English]I see no further conversation or debate, so we'll now go to a vote. Once again, I will ask for it to carry, and if I hear silence, it will be carried. If I hear a “no”, I will go to a vote unless otherwise instructed to do it on division. You can say, “on division”, which means carried on division, or “no” or “negatived, on division”.We will vote on amendment BQ-15(N).Shall amendment BQ-15(N) carry?Some hon. members: No. The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote, Madam Clerk. (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6664618666461966646206664621666462266646236664624Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1120)[English] Now, folks, we go to, in your hymn book, CPC-8.I see it's submitted by Mr. Rayes. Will you be speaking to this?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666462566646266664627ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1120)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Amendment CPC-8 concerns the CBC, as all of you have clearly seen. We think the modernization of the Broadcasting Act should have addressed the CBC's mandate. Consequently, we're proposing a series of amendments under which the CRTC would require the CBC to act as the public broadcaster and not to compete unfairly with private broadcasters.We hope you'll support the amendment so that the CBC conducts itself fairly with all other players in the market.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666462866646296664630ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1120)[English] Mr. Chair, as a member of Parliament and as a member of the arts community, I do not think this amendment is in the scope of the bill, because the Broadcasting Act is not focused on the CBC. We're talking about web giants contributing their fair share. I'm concerned about this motion's intent to have recourse to actually attack the CBC.In my riding, constituents care deeply about the CBC. We're proud of the work it does and the stories it tells. This issue came up in my riding in 2017 when a Conservative MP at the time voted to defund the CBC, so this amendment is worrisome, in my view.CBC is an independent Crown agency. It has a board. It has an ombudsperson. It reports to Parliament. It has a demonstrative process to ensure that it follows its mandate. Adding CRTC as a watchdog to the CBC, which already licenses them, is not necessary in my opinion. The CRTC already goes through a wholesome process to provide the CBC and Radio-Canada with its licence to operate.For the reasons above, I do not believe that it's up to the CRTC to decide what the CBC's mandate is. I submit that for discussion.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664632666463366646346664635ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1120)[Translation]I'd be curious to hear more details from Mr. Rayes.As I understand the amendment, the CRTC would be asked to ensure that the CBC carries out its mandate. I don't think that's so scary.I'd like to hear what Mr. Rayes has to say about the intent behind this amendment, to see whether there's any concealed intent.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666463766646386664639ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1120)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'm pleased to be asked that question.I find it hard to understand how the Liberals could resent us for moving an amendment that asks the CBC to abide by its mandate as the public broadcaster. We aren't talking about funding here. There's nothing binding. We're simply asking the CBC to abide by the mandate for which it receives government subsidies, period.If the Liberals want to vote down an amendment designed to ensure the public broadcaster abides by the mandate Parliament has given it, that's their own business, but I don't know how people would understand that. It would be quite surprising.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664642666464366646446664645ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1125)[English] We'll now go to a vote.(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We'll go to BQ-16 with Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions666464966646506664651TimLouisKitchener—ConestogaMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1125)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.First of all, amendment BQ-16 proposes the following wording:(4) The Commission shall, by order, on the terms and conditions that it considers appropriate, exempt persons who carry on broadcasting undertakings of any class specified in the order from any or all of the requirements of this Part, of an order made under section 9.1 or of a regulation made under this Part if the Commission is satisfied that compliance with those requirements will not have a significant effect on the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1).So we propose to replace "contribute in a material manner to the implementation of" with "have a significant effect on the implementation of".We also propose to add, after line 26 on page 6, the following:(5) The Commission shall review the exemption order if it considers compliance with the order to have a significant effect on the implementation of the Canadian broadcasting policy.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666465266646536664654666465566646566664657ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1125)[English]We're in a virtual world and sometimes this stuff gets confused. What I'm going to do then is call the question again. So that there's no confusion, we haven't advanced. We are still on BQ-16. (Amendment agreed to)The Chair: That brings us to the end of clause 6, which invites the inevitable question. Shall clause 6 as amended carry?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664671666467266646736664674AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1130)[English]We'll go to a recorded vote. My apologies, sometimes I forget that the interpretation needs to catchup.We're going to go to a recorded vote.(Clause 6 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Before we go to clause 7, I believe our legislative clerk, Mr. Méla, has a comment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6664682666468366646846664685AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaPhilippeMéla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1130)[English]Without further ado, if you're as excited as I am, we're going on to clause 7. We're just moving right along.We are going to start with amendment PV-19. It's deemed moved, as it is from the Green Party. If amendment PV-19 is adopted, BQ-17 and NDP-11 cannot be moved, as they are identical. If PV-19 is negatived, so are BQ-17 and NDP-11 for the same reason, that they are identical.Let's proceed with debate.Mr. Manly, this would be you, sir.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664694666469566646966664697PhilippeMélaPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1130)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The bill introduces conditions of service, and this amendment applies a seven-year maximum on conditions of service, the same term that currently applies to licences under the existing act. Conditions of service should be subject to periodic mandatory review. The organizations that supported this were the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expression and la Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma.I hope the committee will support this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664698666469966647006664701ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1130)[English]Thank you.Amendment PV-19 would end up having the impact that all of the orders, even non-controversial ones, would have to be reviewed every seven years, which is quite a burdensome approach to take. I want to direct the committee's attention to amendment G-15, which would impose a duty on the CRTC to, at least once every seven years, engage with parties to figure out which ones should be reviewed and then publish a plan for conducting the reviews. It is an approach that would be able to direct attention to what needs to be reviewed without requiring every single piece to be reviewed by the CRTC.My recommendation is that this is not a strong way to go, but I am not opposed to doing it. I'm just putting this out as a thought. I would agree with it. It just seems like a lot of review.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664707666470866647096664710ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis: (1135)[English]I have a quick question, perhaps for the department. I'm just curious to see, then, whether amendments BQ-17 and NDP-11 are similar enough that they would not be consequential. Is my understanding correct? I just want to get clarification.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666471266647136664714ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen (Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1135)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.In answer to Mr. Louis's question, you answered it. Indeed, amendments PV-19, BQ-17 and NDP-11 would all have the same impact of requiring the CRTC to review the conditions of service every seven years—that's every condition of service that it might put on every broadcasting undertaking. It would require the CRTC to do a full review of all of it.As Ms. Dabrusin indicated, I believe there's an amendment coming later that would have a slightly more flexible approach, should this committee choose that approach. The CRTC would then be able to consult with stakeholders to determine what conditions of service need to be reviewed and review those ones, setting out its plans so that stakeholders would know what the plan is and be able to prepare for it, rather than requiring that every single condition of service be reviewed every seven years.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills6664719666472066647216664722ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1135)[Translation]Yes, Mr. Chair, I would've liked to ask the legislative clerks whether the adoption of amendments PV-19, BQ-17 or NDP-11 would nullify amendment G-15 or whether this last amendment might be complementary.As Mr. Rayes has already said, you can't be too careful. It's not the end of the world if you have amendments that share a single objective, provided they don't contradict one another.Some say the provisions we're introducing are too restrictive. We're creating regulations and setting rules, but I think we get gun-shy when it comes to establishing the tools we need to put them in place and enforce them. Seven years is an eternity in the digital world. We already know that. Personally, I don't feel the period for reviewing conditions is excessive.In short, I'd first like to know whether we'd wind up with duplicate amendments if this amendment were adopted or whether it would conflict with amendment G-15. Then I'll give others a chance to speak.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664727666472866647296664730ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1135)[English] My view is that the spirit of them is the same. As the committee is aware, in the conventional world, licences had to be renewed at a maximum of seven years. Bill C-10 as tabled did not have a cap on the length of orders and conditions of service, and I am aware that the committee heard from stakeholders who expressed concern about that. As Mr. Olsen highlighted, the government recognizes that there are certain very important elements that will be done through orders. If you look at the kinds of things that are listed in proposed section 9.1, we talk about presentation of Canadian programming and certain things along those lines, and it will be important that those things have an opportunity to be reviewed on a periodic basis and that stakeholders have an ability to provide input on that. If you also look, there are more administrative things. I would point out to you, for example, the carriage of emergency messages. The spirit of the government's amendment that Ms. Dabrusin alluded to gives the CRTC some flexibility to, again, tease out the issues that stakeholders want to engage on and let those orders that are more administrative in nature not be subject to a process whereby it will be more burdensome for both the CRTC but also the stakeholder community that would be expected to engage on those processes. The spirit was to tease out those things where there is strong interest in them being reviewed but acknowledge that there are going to be orders that are more administrative in nature. The amendment before the committee right now would subject all orders to having to be renewed every seven years, regardless of their administrative nature or not.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66647366664737666473866647396664740ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1140)[English]Madam Clerk. (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) The Chair: For those of you who are following along on your agenda, since PV-19 has been negatived, we also have to negative both BQ-17 and NDP-11. That means we now move on to BQ-18.Mr. Champoux. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66647486664749666475066647516664752AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1140)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Under amendment BQ-18, we would clarify an aspect that has not often been clarified with respect to francophone content. We would ask broadcasting undertakings to make their contribution, but we want them to do so by creating new material, new programs and new content.Consequently, in this amendment, we propose paragraph 9.1(1)(a.1), which would follow proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(a) of the bill:(a.1) the proportion of Canadian programs to be broadcast that shall be French language original programs, including first-run programs;The objective here is to prevent the broadcasting of previously broadcast content, meaning old translated television series or old Quebec or French Canadian series that are rebroadcast just so they can count as Canadian content. We want to establish a new content percentage that must be produced by broadcasting undertakings, particularly online undertakings.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66647536664754666475566647566664757ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104694LyneBessetteLyne-BessetteBrome—MissisquoiLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BessetteLyne_Lib.jpgInterventionMrs. Lyne Bessette (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): (1145)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Champoux's amendment is a valid one. We feel it's wise to include this measure in Bill C-10 rather than in the order. So we'll be supporting this amendment.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6664760ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1145)[English]Madam Bessette, is your hand still up? No.We will now go to the vote on BQ-18. (Amendment agreed to) The Chair: We will now go to amendment G-8. Just of note to everybody, if G-8 is adopted, BQ-19 and NDP-12 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Ms. Dabrusin.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66647646664765666476666647676664768AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1145)[English]This one is actually important to make sure that there is discoverability across the spectrum for programs and programming services. For example, this would ensure that Canadian programming services like apps, which are quite popular, and channels and programs themselves be discoverable or at least highly visible on broadcasting undertakings. It's a piece to make sure that it is captured as well. I see there are others who want to speak, so I'll leave it to the others for now.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666476966647706664771ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1145)[English]I'll read the entire clause.It would say:the presentation of programs and programming services for selection by the public, including the showcasing and discoverability of Canadian programs and programming services; BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666477666647776664778ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1145)[English]Mr. Chair, this question is for the department. I think “discoverability” is a term that has been used. What would their view be on adding the word “showcasing” in the sense of what this would mean? That's another adjective that has been added into it. How would they view this change in the sense of adding that word into it as to what discoverability is?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666479566647966664797ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1150)[English]Mr. Shields, thank you for the question. The two terms seem related in the sense that both speak to increasing the visibility of Canadian programming or programming services.“Discoverability” perhaps is a broader term. From my perspective, “showcasing” speaks more to thinking about when you log on to a home screen or something like that and you have the showcase of programs that are being displayed or advertised. To me, “showcasing” has more that promotional element to it; “discoverability” is a broader term.My view is that showcasing, in some respects, would be one way to increase the discoverability of Canadian programming or programming services.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664799666480066648016664802ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1150)[English]I can go to the marketing sense that if you walked into a store, you might see displays in certain sections that would show discoverability, but what you're talking about is the storefront out there in a sense of showcasing something in the window on the street to get somebody to come into the store. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664808ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1150)[English]I'm guessing that's how you're interpreting this to happen. The question then is who is determining what goes in that storefront window? BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664809MartinShieldsBow RiverScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1150)[English]Thank you, Mr. Shields.That would be my view of it, again that “showcasing” has a promotional aspect, although I certainly defer to Ms. McPherson in terms of her reason for putting it forward and what she understands the amendment to be on that.It would be the CRTC, so we're in the context again of where the CRTC has been given certain order-making powers. For example, the way this could work in practice, you could imagine the CRTC making an order to require a certain number of Canadian programs to be surfaced in terms of programming that's offered to Canadians. However, this could also speak to requiring them to showcase, have the thumbnail, for example, on the landing page when you log into your streaming service, have a proportion of that needing to be Canadian titled or Canadian programming.That's how I would understand what's on the table.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66648146664815666481666648176664818ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1150)[English]Thank you. Mr. Shields, I'm assuming that you don't want anything else. Your hand is still raised. Thank you, folks. Seeing no further conversation, let me remind everybody that we are still on amendment G-8, but we are currently on the subamendment put forward by Ms. McPherson, which adds the word "showcasing" before "discoverability". We'll now go to a vote on the subamendment by Ms. McPherson to amendment G-8. Shall the subamendment carry?(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Mr. Champoux, I believe you have something to add.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66648216664822666482366648246664825666482666648276664828HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1150)[Translation]Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like to put forward a new subamendment to amendment G-8, which was just amended. The purpose is to add the element shown at the end of amendment BQ-19, which says, "such as French language original programs". We would thus keep the wording of amendment G-8 as amended, but it would end as follows:—Canadian programming services and programs, such as French language original programs;BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66648296664830ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1155)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to read the French version first. For my colleague interpreters, I'll do the English version afterwards. [Translation]The French version would read as follows:b) la présentation des émissions et des services de programmation que peut sélectionner le public, y compris la mise en valeur et la découvrabilité des émissions canadiennes et des services de programmation canadiens, notamment les émissions de langue originale française;BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664833666483466648356664836ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1155)[English]Is there any further debate? Seeing none, let me remind you—I think we're all clear now on what's being proposed—that this is the subamendment by Mr. Champoux regarding amendment G-8.(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We now return to the main amendment, G-8, as amended on a couple of occasions. (Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Amendment G-8 now being adopted, proposed amendments BQ-19 and NDP-12 cannot be moved because of a line conflict. I'm sure that comes as no shock to any of you. Now we'll go to amendment PV-20. Mr. Manly. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666484266648436664844666484566648466664847666484866648496664850AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1155)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. [Translation]This amendment specifies that the CRTC could make orders that impose official languages conditions.[English] Specifically, this amendment adds that the CRTC may impose conditions of service respecting the proportion of original language programs to be broadcast in each official language.The bill currently has a long list of what the CRTC can make these orders about, but official languages were not included in the first version of the bill. It's important to ensure the presentation of original French language content in particular. This amendment would give the CRTC greater ability to ensure that original language presentation is occurring in both official languages.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664851666485266648536664854ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1155)[Translation]Mr. Chair, could we ask a departmental official to tell us whether these two amendments are redundant? It's true that we addressed the matter in amendment BQ-18, but perhaps the lines being addressed in both are not exactly the same. Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in both.I'd like to hear what the department's officials feel about this.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66648596664860ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKathyTsuiKathy-TsuiInterventionMs. Kathy Tsui (Manager, Industrial and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1200)[English] Thank you for the question.I agree that the wording is quite similar. BQ-18, however, speaks to French language original programs, whereas PV-20 speaks to original programs to be broadcast in both official languages.I will also ask about BQ-24, which I believe passed on the first day of study and also had a similar element, but I'm a bit confused about the process there. There may be some connections to be made to BQ-24, as well.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills666486266648636664864ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1200)[English]Mr. Chair, you had ruled when we adopted the definition in BQ-1 that it was ancillary to BQ-24 and that BQ-24 was also adopted.Again, I just want to come back to the question Mr. Champoux just asked. I'm not against the concept in PV-20, but it seems to me that we've dealt with this concept in a broader way already with respect to French language original programming in BQ-18, in exactly the same area of the bill where we're seeing that the CRTC can already make regulations on how much original French language programming, including original programming, should be carried. I understand that this one adds English programming to it, but it doesn't include the same words. I'm just wondering, if we wanted to deal only with French language original programming, does PV-20 add anything to BQ-18 or not. I guess that's my question. Is there something about this being in a different location that adds something or, as I understand it, isn't it in exactly the same place, and essentially, can't that regulation already be made by the CRTC? I hope that was clear enough for the department.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664869666487066648716664872ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1200)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.If the intention is to ensure that the CRTC has an order-making power to require that there be a proportion of French language original programming, BQ-18 covers you. If that is the intention and the spirit behind PV-20, I do not believe it adds anything.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66648746664875ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1200)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.According to Mr. Housefather, It would appear that we have already covered this element in another amendment. I'd like the officials to confirm this, because what my colleague has just mentioned leaves me very puzzled. I don't mean this in a nasty way. I simply want confirmation that the two amendments are redundant and that amendment PV-20 doesn't add anything moreBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66648776664878ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1200)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for your question, Mr. Rayes.We discussed the intent of amendment PV-20. The two amendments are not identical, because amendment PV-20 adds the idea of giving the CRTC the power to ensure that a specified percentage of French language programs, and also English language programs, is broadcast. If the intent of amendment PV-20 is to ensure that the CRTC will have this power for French language original programs, then I'd like to point out that the committee has already adopted amendment BQ-18, which gives the CRTC this power.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666488066648816664882ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1210)[English] I was going to ask this question before, but with the health break, it's fine. This is a first for this particular session on Bill C-10, but I would like to ask the department a question, if I may.Just so we're all clear, there has been some discussion about amendments BQ-18 and PV-20 and the remarkable similarities between them. I think, Mr. Ripley, you may be prepared for this. In amendment BQ-18, it seems to me at first blush that what we are looking at is a distinct way of describing the presence of French language as one of the official languages. Amendment PV-20 covers both languages. In amendment BQ-18, is it the case that, when adopted, the English aspect would be covered as well—meaning that you've only identified that part, but does it follow logic that the rest would be covered under this particular bill, in the department's interpretation?Mr. Ripley.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666489266648936664894666489566648966664897ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1215)[English]Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.The answer would be no, amendment BQ-18 as drafted only covers French programming. It adds a new order-making power for the CRTC. I would point the committee to new subsection 9.1(1), paragraph (a) of the Broadcasting Act, which already in Bill C-10 has provided the commission with the ability to make orders with respect tothe proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be Canadian programs and the proportion of time that shall be devoted to the broadcasting of Canadian programs;Then it continues in paragraph (b) with “the presentation of programs for selection by the public”, etc.Bill C-10 had already provided the CRTC with the ability to make orders with respect to Canadian programs, which would include English, French, third language and indigenous language programs. In some respects, amendment BQ-18, which includes a new proposed paragraph (a.1), is putting a special emphasis on the importance of the CRTC having special order-making power with respect to French language.You are absolutely correct that amendment PV-20 is broader, in that it speaks to both official languages. My question with that would be for Mr. Manly, in the sense of the intention or spirit of the amendment. Was it specifically a concern rooted in French language? If so, amendment BQ-18 may already have covered you off. Is the intention to be broader?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664898666489966649006664901666490266649036664904ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1215)[English]Mr. Chair, I had some very similar questions. I'm sure Mr. Manly will be able to answer them. I'm wondering what the impacts would be for indigenous or non-official languages. If you could provide that clarity, that would be great.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66649076664908ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1215)[English]Originally, this was to ensure that the French language was included. They said my original draft was inadmissible. That's why we went for both official languages.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664910ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1215)[English]There is a proposal to negative the amendment on division. Are we okay with that?(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We now go to amendment BQ-20.Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6664915666491666649176664918JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1215)[Translation]The intent of amendment BQ-20 is to clarify an element in paragraph 9.1(1)(e) that the bill is proposing to add to the act. The English version of the bill states[English] “a requirement for a person carrying on a distribution undertaking to carry”, and so on. [Translation]In the French version the wording is "l'obligation pour les exploitants de ces entreprises d'offrir certains services de programmation".We want to amend the wording to clearly specify that the term "ces entreprises" means broadcasting undertakings.That said, if our proposal does not reflect the intent of clause 7 of the bill, then I would ask the departmental officials to make any needed corrections or additions.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666491966649206664921666492266649236664924ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1215)[Translation]Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.In fact, paragraph 9.1(1)(e) proposed in the bill refers to operators of distribution undertakings such as cable companies. The CRTC absolutely has the power to regulate under the Wholesale Code, which governs relations between cable companies and programming undertakings.My understanding is that your amendment would broaden this power to extend it not only to distribution undertakings, but also to all broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666492766649286664929ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1220)[English] If everyone looks forward they'll see there is G-9, which is about a similar kind of discussion point. My main concern here is about trade risk.In G-9, rather than imposing, there is a good faith negotiation part that's in the last subclause of that motion. The difference really is the imposition of these requirements on international companies and the potential for a very real trade risk that we would have to worry about. That's certainly not something we would want to bring into this because that would cause all sorts of extra complications for the system to work. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66649316664932ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1220)[English]Seeing no further conversation and no further debate, shall BQ-20 carry?An hon. member: No. The Chair: We'll now go to a vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)The Chair: Now it's off to G-9, briefly referenced before.Ms. Dabrusin. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions666493366649346664935666493666649376664938JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1220)[English]I just referenced it, and I won't go too long into the conversation about this point, except that this seeks to cover the same ground that BQ-20 sought to cover, but this time negating the trade risk and taking into account good faith negotiations. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664939ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1220)[English] Before we go to Mr. Champoux, I just want to point out to everyone that the vote on amendment G-9 applies also to amendment G-16, as they are consequential to each other. Now we'll go to Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66649406664941JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1220)[Translation]I have a question about the proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(e.1): (e.1) a requirement, without terms or conditions, for a person carrying on an online undertaking to carry programming services...Specifying "without terms or conditions" means that these undertakings—online broadcasters—should also provide Canadian programming services, but would not be required to pay anything, irrespective of any revenue they would derive. I agree with this principle.My problem is with the fact that our Canadian broadcasters, which are already subject to conditions of licence, have to pay into the Canada Media Fund. In other words, a condition is imposed upon them to finance programming services that they are required to provide. At a time when we are trying to make the system more equitable, they are being told that they have to continue to pay, except for the online portion of their activities, and that other online undertakings will not have to pay either.So I'm wondering whether the words,"without terms or conditions" are really required. If we can't impose terms or conditions, whether financial or otherwise, there should certainly be obligations tied to the requirement to disseminate and present Canadian programming services.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66649426664943666494466649456664946ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1225)[English]I think that point goes exactly to the trade risk point, which is imposing obligations. I think, actually, that Mr. Champoux even, when he was speaking about it, spoke about “Canadian” versus “international” and about what we can impose on international actors, taking into account the trade obligations and good relations between countries. That is the main piece that I would put to this, that even in his question he rather drew the distinction as to where that trade risk would lie.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666495066649516664952ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1225)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose a subamendment, but I haven't drafted it yet. I might need Mr. Méla's help to find the appropriate wording. I'd like proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(e.1) to say something like " a requirement, with certain terms or conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, for operators of online undertakings". The idea is to replace the words " without terms or conditions" by " with terms or conditions", but I'm open to any suggestions that might improve my wording.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664968ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1230)[Translation]Your suggested wording, Mr. Méla, namely "a requirement, in accordance with terms or conditions specified by", strikes me as perfectly acceptable.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664976ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1230)[English]Hearing no and only no, we now go to a vote.(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)The Chair: We now return to G-9, which is the main amendment. Mr. Shields. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6664981666498266649836664984JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1230)[English] Mr. Chair, could we have the department explain the role that the CRTC would have with this change that's being proposed?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6664985ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1230)[English] Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.To clarify, what is on the table through this amendment is an extension, with some changes, of what we call mandatory distribution in the conventional system.Right now the CRTC has the ability to require cable and satellite companies to carry certain TV channels, such as APTN, CPAC or your provincial legislative channel. The CRTC has the ability to impose terms and conditions on that, requiring Canadian cable and satellite companies to, in some instances, not only carry APTN but also actually pay a per subscriber fee to APTN, for example.The committee heard from certain witnesses who felt that it was very important, as Bill C-10 moves forward, that the CRTC have a lever, as it has in the current system, to require online undertakings to carry certain channels. The amendment that you have before you would allow the CRTC—and yes, it would be the CRTC that would make this kind of order—but it could allow, for example, such services as the Amazon channels or Apple or something like that, to carry APTN, for example, as part of their lineup. The difference—and this is where the debate has been focusing—is whether the CRTC should have the ability to require terms and conditions for that contractual arrangement. The amendment before you proposes that the CRTC not be granted that power, but rather that the parties be required to negotiate in good faith and that the CRTC be equipped to facilitate those negotiations when appropriate, and if ever you had a party not negotiate in good faith, the CRTC would have the ability to levy administrative monetary penalties against the party acting in bad faith.The reason for this is that the context and the marketplace are quite different between the conventional system and the new system. In the online world, there is less of an issue of shelf space. In many circumstances right now, in the commercial arrangement between services like Amazon channels or Apple, they'll come to a revenue-sharing agreement. The goal here is to require those services to potentially carry certain Canadian services and require them to negotiate in good faith to come to a reasonable revenue-sharing agreement, which typically these days looks like being approximately fifty-fifty, in most cases.I hope that helps to clarify.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666498766649886664989666499066649916664992666499366649946664995ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1235)[English]Thank you.Proposed subsection 9.1(7) reads in part, “The Commission may facilitate those negotiations”. I would like it to say, “The Commission may facilitate those negotiations of the parties to the negotiations”, or even just to end it at “negotiations”. I haven't got it in my head yet. What I'd like to remove is “at the joint request”. I don't think that's required or necessary. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6665017666501866650196665020ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1235)[English]I do, and I will probably defer to Mr. Méla on the drafting.To clarify, there would indeed be a substantial change. Right now, as drafted, facilitation could only be invoked at the joint request of the parties, meaning that if one party wanted facilitation but the other party didn't, you wouldn't meet the test for engaging the facilitation.My understanding is that Ms. McPherson's change would allow one party or the other to potentially engage in a facilitation. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666502666650276665028ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1240)[English]So that everyone is clear, what Ms. McPherson is proposing as a subamendment is to subamend proposed subsection 9.1(7) to say: The Commission may facilitate those negotiations at the request of the parties to the negotiationsThe proposal is to remove the word “joint”.I now have Mr. Shields. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6665032666503366650346665035HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1240)[English]To clarify, you're talking about binding arbitration. Is that what you're moving to? Will it be binding arbitration by doing that?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66650366665037ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1240)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Ms. McPherson. I actually think the right way to say it would be “at the request of either party”. What you want to do is to allow one party, the weaker party in the negotiations, to have the right to do this. I think I support that.I want to ask the department, in the context of these negotiations—and Mr. Chair, you can allow that question to go to them whenever you think it's appropriate based on the sequencing of the order—would there be any problem with allowing—presumably one side is going to be a weaker party here—that one side, the weaker state, to ask for the CRTC's intervention? I cannot see a trade risk in doing it that way. I just want to check to make sure that the department also doesn't see that this would be a trade risk. I think the right way to word it, if Ms. McPherson agrees with me, would be “may facilitate those negotiations at the request of either party to the negotiations”. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666504166650426665043666504466650456665046ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1240)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. While I won't comment on the trade risk, what I would say is that the effect of this would be to allow either party, one or the other, to request facilitation, and it would prevent, as you pointed out, a party from signing the process by refusing to go to facilitation. With regard to the concerns you've raised about whether this risks increasing trade tensions, I would say the outcome would require, again, online undertaking to submit to facilitation at the request of the other party. It would take a little more of an interventionist stance, but I would highlight—and perhaps this is actually responding to Mr. Shields' question—that the outcome of this process is not binding arbitration. What the government has put on the table is very explicitly a facilitation exercise and is different from binding arbitration, which does exist in the current environment, whereby the CRTC actually has the power, at the end of the day, to impose a deal. What this amendment drives to is slightly different in the sense that it is trying to help the parties reach a mutually good deal, so to speak. Again, if ever there were an instance of a party engaging in bad faith or not engaging in good faith, that is backed up by the CRTC's ability to respond to that bad faith behaviour by imposing administrative monetary penalties on the party that may not be playing fairly, so to speak.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66650496665050666505166650526665053ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1240)[English]I would, only to say that I appreciate Mr. Housefather's intervention. That wording makes more sense. It's always a challenge to try to write these things in our heads as we go, but his legal background has helped me out there. I still think it would make a lot of sense to make sure there was a more equitable ability to request the negotiations. I do like the subamendment put forward by Mr. Housefather that says “the Commission may facilitate those negotiations at the request of either of the parties to the negotiations”. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6665058ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1245)[English]You mean the shiny new one? It reads:The Commission may facilitate those negotiations at the request of either of the parties to the negotiations.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66650676665068ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1245)[English]Okay.(Subamendment agreed to on division)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66650786665079ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1245)[English]Okay. (Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: The vote on G-9 applies to G-16, as I mentioned earlier, so if you're following along in your hymn books, folks, we now go to BQ-21.Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6665087666508866650896665090AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1250)[Translation]I just want to mention to Mr. Rayes that the recycle bin would be fine. However, if he printed on both sides of the paper, I would suggest that he be careful, because page 12 contains important content that he might want to consult later. The purpose of amendment BQ-21 is to add the following paragraph:(e.1) the expenditures to be made by persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings for the purposes set out in subsection 11.1(1));We want to make sure that the CRTC has the tools required to establish a framework for broadcasting undertaking operators with respect to the expenses they would be required to make under the subsection mentioned.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6665107666510866651096665110ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1250)[English]Madam Clerk, please go ahead. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)The Chair: I declare BQ-21 carried. This brings us to PV-21. It is deemed moved.We now go to Mr. Manly.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66651186665119666512066651216665122AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1250)[English]Mr. Chair, I proposed this amendment because a small number of big broadcasters control access to broadcasting and disproportionately impose their conditions on independent producers. The Yale report noted this major “power imbalance” and recommended that the CRTC regulate these relationships.This amendment adds that that the CRTC may impose conditions of service to establish a framework for contractual practices between broadcasters and independent producers. A framework would serve as a tool to better support independent producers in contract negotiations. This amendment is related to amendment PV-23, which would also enable the creation of regulations to establish contractual frameworks. The organizations that supported this are the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada and the Canadian Media Producers Association.I hope committee members will support this amendment.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66651236665124666512566651266665127ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1255)[English] Mr. Manly, when you're talking about a framework, do you want to expand on what you mean by a framework? Are you talking about an extensive piece of documentation? This is something that you've been talking about a bit as we've gone through this process. Can you describe what a framework would be? What are we talking about? Is it a bureaucratic one? I'm a little concerned when you use the word “framework”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6665131ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1255)[English]Sure. A contractual framework would set some parameters around how these contracts would be set up between the big broadcasters and independent producers. As the Yale report identifies, this is a power imbalance, and it's something that has been identified as needing to be fixed.It would be up to the CRTC to determine what that framework looked like.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666513366651346665135ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1255)[Translation]I'd just like to draw a parallel.We are in the process of reforming the Broadcasting Act because of an imbalance in the market. At the moment, major Canadian broadcasting undertakings are being treated unfairly. That's why we are reforming the act by means of bill C-10. However, there are some much smaller players in that same market. They are even more deeply affected than the major undertakings, and will be affected even more unless we take immediate action to support them, now and for years to come. It's not at all a bad amendment. It deserves support.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills666514066651416665142ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1255)[English]Mr. Chair, I want to speak to this because I'm of two minds. I am actually also very sympathetic to the idea of the independent producers and the lack of power they have in relationships. I listened to both sides, and that is why I actually drafted amendment LIB-7 in the way I did, because the main issue was the exploitative nature of the relationship, which led the independent producers to not be able to retain their intellectual property. I tried to find a balance. In LIB-7 I tried to incorporate what would constitute a Canadian program for the purposes of the act. In so doing, I said that the commission must consider whether Canadians own and control intellectual property rights over Canadian programs for exploitation purposes, and that they have to retain a material portion of the value.I also stated that one of the requirements is whether online undertakings and programming undertakings collaborate with Canadian independent producers. I think the way I did it in LIB-7 is preferable to the way it's set out in PV-21, so I will vote against PV-21 because I support LIB-7, but I am sympathetic to the request, and I appreciate Mr. Manly's efforts here.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6665144666514566651466665147ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1300)[English]Can we say negatived on division?(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]) BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66651616665162ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1300)[English] Ladies and gentlemen, I think that brings us to a conclusion.We will see you at the next meeting, of course, on April 30, this coming Friday, at the same time.As I mentioned before, we were unable to get extra hours for Friday, so we will be meeting in our normal two-hour block. Following that, on May 3, we have two meetings scheduled on Bill C-10. If we finish with Bill C-10, we can discuss at that point. We'll see how we're doing on April 30. I think April 30 will give us a far better indication of how we're going to do for May 3.In any case, I will say thank you to our officials from the department. Thank you to everybody participating virtually here and abroad.Thanks, everyone.The meeting is adjourned.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6665165JulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1300)[English] I call this meeting to order.This is meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, as you see before us. We're also being webcast for those watching us from.... I was going to say around the country, but I suppose you could say from around the world.That being said, very quickly I want to go over some of the rules that we've put down so far, for those of you who are observing this committee. We are going to go through clause by clause. Each amendment will be signified by letters and numbers. For example, PV is Parti vert. PV-1 would be the first of the Green Party's amendments. We have amendments from LIB, from the Liberal members on the committee. CPC is from the Conservative members. The Bloc Québécois' will be BQ. NDP is the New Democrats. The final category would be G, which would be amendments coming forward from the government.Before we pick up with that, there are just a couple of rules. Remember, please no taking any photos of this for distribution. That's for this particular meeting and for all of the meetings, really.To clarify something on the votes, folks, when we vote on an amendment or a clause, I will ask for it to carry. If I hear silence then it carries. If I hear a “no” I will go to a recorded vote. If I hear a “no” and then someone says “on division” then I will carry it on division signifying that someone is not in support of it, but we'll go ahead without a recorded vote. If you want it to be negatived on division, just say “negatived on division”, or “no, on division”.I hope that's clear. It was last time, I just thought I'd repeat that for everyone's benefit.Let's get to scheduling for just a moment. As you know, we passed a motion to see if we can seek out extra hours or meetings for Bill C-10. You've already received the notice. We'll proceed and go ahead and try to find the space where we can. We found an evening of May 3 as a placeholder.Just so you know, we attempted today to go for three hours, but that was not possible. We know that the Senate is also sitting. We also attempted for next Friday to do three hours. That too was unsuccessful. We were only able to obtain two hours, because multimedia services weren't able to cover it. So far we just have the extra meeting on May 3. I think you have received a notice for that. Nevertheless, we can talk about that later, if you wish.I think it's time for Bill C-10. We'll go to clause-by-clause. We'll pick up where we left off.(On clause 2)The Chair: We're on NDP-8.Ms. McPherson, it's your amendment. Would you like the floor?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665229066522916652292665229366522946652295665229666522976652298665229966523006652301665230266523036652304HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1305)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'm happy to speak to it. I think we have discussed the amendment already. I can provide some arguments.Basically this is to make sure that the Canadian broadcasting policy is innovative, that it supports the development of Canadian creative talent and reflects Canada's indigenous and multicultural culture, while reflecting its communities and regions. There's been an enormous loss of community channel archives and closures of studios. This is something that we've put forward to combat that, to some degree.If anyone has questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I think we had already discussed the amendment to some degree before we adjourned last time.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652305665230666523076652308ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1305)[English]Yes, we had, Ms. McPherson.Based on a precedent of the ruling that I did prior, I'm going to have to make the following ruling. For any programming to be made available to the public through archival means such as the Library and Archives of Canada, unfortunately that goes beyond the scope and principle of the bill. It was not covered in the original bill.For those watching, when we accept the bill in the second reading and send it to committee, it gives us a broadly narrow—if I can use that term—scope by which we can operate. We cannot bring in something from the outside that is brand new. Therefore, in this particular case, to be consistent with the ruling of the last amendment, I have to rule this way.If you notice, folks, on NDP-8, on page 45, subparagraph (vii). That last one makes reference to that. Therefore, that ties the whole amendment into this.Ms. McPherson, again, that is no reflection on the content or the intent of where you wish to go. Unfortunately, I have to rule that to be out of order.We move to CPC-4.Mr. Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652309665231066523116652312665231366523146652315HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1305)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I think that the proposed wording is fairly clear:(u) online undertakings that are not owned by or subsidiaries of undertakings licensed under this Act to provide English language only programming and are subject to an original Canadian programming requirement shall ensure that, as part of that requirement, the proportion of their original French language programming corresponds at a minimum to the proportion of the French-speaking population in Canada.I'm sure that Mr. Housefather is going to love this proposal.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652316665231766523186652319ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1305)[English]Thank you.The intent of making sure we have French representation is something that's come through in a lot of the amendments that we've looked at, and it's great, but tying it to population numbers is not really, I would think, the best way to go. First of all, that could be a dropping number. It could be.... It creates a floor—potentially a ceiling—for that representation, so I'm not really in favour of quotas, certainly not tied to population numbers.I do think that BQ-18 seems to do perhaps a bit of a better job at trying to get that representation for French programming. My thought is that the quota system is a little off.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652321665232266523236652324ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1310)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.In response to Ms. Dabrusin's comments, I'd like to point out that there is no quota or ceiling. On the contrary, it is clearly written that the proportion in question corresponds “at a minimum to the proportion of the French-speaking population in Canada”. At the very least, it should be done in the same proportion. It could be a lot more, but it cannot go below this proportion.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66523266652327ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1310)[Translation]I have to candidly admit that I'm having trouble determining which undertakings are being targeted.Could you tell us, Mr. Rayes, which specific undertakings or types of undertakings you are alluding to in this amendment?Besides which, we have always tried to avoid floors that reflect the number of francophones in Canada, precisely because what is generally requested and required is higher than the proportion of Francophones in Canada. It's usually between 30% and 40%.I would like to know what the underlying intent of this amendment is, and in particular, at whom it is being specifically addressed. If it came to that, would we be open to an amendment saying that all the requirements placed on broadcasting undertakings should represent a more equitable proportion?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652329665233066523316652332ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1310)[Translation]I heard you, Mr. Chair. I'll make sure I do that.For the first question, regarding the ceiling, I'd like to repeat that it is clearly indicated that at minimum, it should be in proportion to the Francophone population. There's nothing to stop it being higher. I don't see how this is ambiguous or contrary to everything that's been done. We're simply making sure that the country's French-speaking population will be properly served in French.As for determining which undertakings are at issue, I wonder whether one of the clerks, analysts or officials with us today could help me. I find that the wording clearly indicates that we're talking about all of the following undertakings: “online undertakings that are not owned by or subsidiaries of undertakings licensed under this Act...”. I don't know how to put it any more clearly. We're lapsing into the jargon of resolutions. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665233766523386652339ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1310)[Translation]Thank you for the question. I could perhaps ask my colleagues, Mr. Olsen and Mr. Smith, to help me out.Our understanding of the amendment's intent is that it targets undertakings that are not owned by undertakings licensed under the act to provide services in English. For me, this indicates that it is meant for online services, whether Canadian, or in some instances, foreign. I believe that the intent is to target the major online undertakings, like those that offer streaming services, except for those owned by a Canadian undertaking licensed to provide services in English.I'm not sure whether Mr. Olson has something to add.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills665234666523476652348ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen (Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1315)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Ripley. That is correct. That is my interpretation of the amendment as well. It would be “online undertakings that are not owned by or subsidiaries of undertakings licensed under this Act to provide English language only”. There are a number of those undertakings in Canada that are licensed to provide English-only content, so that is what I believe this amendment would do.Given that French is not my first language, I'm just looking to see whether there's a difference in the French and the English between the phrase “entreprise autorisée” and “undertakings licensed”, because a licence and authorization to broadcast are not exactly the same thing under the Broadcasting Act. I'm trying to check that right now, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills665234966523506652351Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.): (1315)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question also for the department. [Translation]I'm very sympathetic to Mr. Rayes' proposal, and understand the importance of having a percentage of French, but I preferred the Bloc Québécois' amendments on this matter, because they allowed flexibility.[English]My question for the department was this. Given the different nature of the amendments, this one, as I understand it, would require each and every online undertaking that is not licensed to only provide programming in English to provide exactly the same hours of French-language programming equal to the percentage of French-speaking people in Canada at any particular time. It would not give flexibility to the CRTC to have different rules for different online undertakings, depending on their own unique positions.Is that a correct interpretation of this amendment?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66523556652356665235766523586652359ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1315)[English]Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.Yes, based on what I understand the amendment to be, that is accurate. What we understand this would do, as currently drafted, is to subject, again, all online undertakings—so all streaming services—that aren't owned by a Canadian service that only offers English services.... We can imagine that this would capture both non-Canadian services such as Netflix, but likely also services owned by, say, Bell Media, which has both French and English services, so a service such as Crave. They would all be subject to that base minimum obligation, irrespective of, for example, their penetration in the French market or other unique characteristics that they might have. I think Mr. Rayes is certainly correct in stating that this is being framed as a minimum, and indeed, it would always be possible to go above it. This base minimum, however, would indeed apply across the board, regardless of the nature of the service. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652363665236466523656652366ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen: (1315)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Normally when we discuss “authorized to broadcast”, it says it's both authorized currently under a licence or under an exemption order, and this amendment only talks about “licensed under this Act”. I think there's a slight difference in this. There are programming undertakings that are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence from the CRTC now. They're typically some of the smaller undertakings, and they operate under an exemption order under section 9. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66523686652369ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1320)[English]Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I have one more question for the department so that I better understand.Are there indigenous broadcasters, for example, those who produce only in indigenous languages, that also have an original Canadian programming requirement for broadcasters, where the broadcasting language is other than English? For example, I presume some broadcasts that are coming in Hindi wouldn't have an original Canadian programming format, but is there anybody else, other than English broadcasters, that provide programming in English that would have a requirement to original Canadian programming that would fall under this provision, such as an indigenous broadcaster?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665237266523736652374ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen: (1320)[English]Thank you.Mr. Housefather, thank you for the question.Yes, there are indigenous broadcasters that have requirements to broadcast in indigenous languages and/or in other languages such as English or French. As I read it, this amendment would basically say those types of undertakings are not ones that are providing English language only. I believe the way this is worded those online undertakings that were owned by, say, indigenous broadcasters would be subject to the requirement that is proposed in this amendment. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665237866523796652380Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1320)[English]Madam Clerk, we'll have to proceed.(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We now go to amendment G-4.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions665238666523876652388AiméeBelmoreMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1325)[English]We'll cross off G-4.That brings us to the end of clause 2, which begs the question.... Sorry, I see some hands going up. Ms. Dabrusin, I see yours. I'm assuming you're okay.Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652409665241066524116652412JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1325)[Translation]No.[English](Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)(On clause 3)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions665242166524226652423ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1325)[English] According to the list, we're going to CPC-5.I see Mr. Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66524246652425AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1330)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The amendment begins by asking that the bill be amended by replacing line 35 on page 4 with the following:and reception by other users of the service, provided that such programs are uploaded by a user of the social media service that has fewer than 250,000 subscribers in Canada and receives less than 50 million dollars per year in advertising, subscription, usage or membership revenues in Canada;The amendment also proposes amending the bill by adding after line 37 on page 4 the following:(1.1) This Act does not apply in respect of online undertakings that have fewer than 250,000 subscribers in Canada and receive less than 50 million dollars per year in advertising, subscription, usage or membership revenues in Canada.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66524266652427665242866524296652430ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1335)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This was one of the main things I brought up during testimony. We are seeing a lot of non-broadcasters going on Facebook and so on. Even now YouTube has major league baseball and yesterday offered a game with the Houston Astros on YouTube. Could I get a ruling from the department on this, as we are actually seeing more and more former broadcasters going on Facebook. I think CPC-5 is a very important amendment I see going forth with this Broadcasting Act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665246066524616652462ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1335)[English]Right now, as Bill C-10 currently stands—and as the committee is aware—it excludes social media services from the ambit of the act, unless there's a situation of an affiliation contract or a mandatary relationship in place.CPC-5, if it was adopted—if I understand correctly the spirit of the amendment—would impose certain limitations on that to the effect that if a social media service crossed a certain threshold in terms of the users of the service, the subscribers in Canada, etc., then suddenly it would get pulled into the ambit of the act and would be subject to the act like any other broadcasters. In other words, the social media exclusion would not apply to them.If I understand correctly from the debate that's currently taking place, as Ms. Dabrusin has signalled, the government intends to suggest the repeal of proposed section 4.1 altogether, meaning that there would no longer be any exclusion for social media services at all.Just maybe for the benefit of the committee, in our previous sessions the committee upheld the exclusion for individual users of social media companies. In other words, when you or I upload something to YouTube or some other sharing service, we will not be considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act. In other words, the CRTC couldn't call us before them, and we couldn't be subject to CRTC hearings and whatnot.However, if the exclusion here is removed and 4.1 is struck down, the programming we upload onto YouTube, the programming we place on that service, would be subject to regulation moving forward but would be the responsibility of YouTube or whatever the sharing service is. That programming that is uploaded, then, could be subject to things like discoverability requirements or certain obligations like that.Again, if the way forward ultimately is to maintain the exclusion for individual users but to strike down the exclusion for social media companies, it means that all the programming that is on those services would be subject to the act, regardless of whether it's put there by an affiliate or a mandatary of the company.I hope that helps clarify.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652465665246666524676652468665246966524706652471ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1340)[English]Thank you, Mr. Ripley.Seeing that we have two things going parallel with each other regarding process and content, I hope everyone is clear on both and I don't have to go back to it. We thank you for your input.Seeing no further discussion, we go to a vote.Should CPC-5 carry?(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66524726652473665247466524756652476Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1340)[English] I propose that we negative on division.(Clause 3 negatived on division)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66524786652479ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1340)[English]Yes, thank you for clarification. I didn't have the bill in front of me, which is what I was looking for, and I apologize. Otherwise, I would have made the ruling. Thank you, Mr. Housefather, for that. I appreciate it.(On clause 4)The Chair: We're moving on, as said earlier. We're now going to clause 4, and we're going to start with G-5.Mr. Housefather.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652486665248766524886652489JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1340)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.This amendment is simply to modify proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) to add words at the end to make 5(2)(a) consistent with what this committee has already done in earlier parts of the bill.[Translation]We'd like to add the following words, which we used previously:including the minority context of French and Indigenous languages in North America—and the particular needs and interests of official language minority communities;Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66524906652491665249266524936652494ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1340)[English]Okay. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we now call for a vote.(Amendment agreed to)The Chair: This now brings us to PV-16, and for those of you wondering about “PV?”, it's Parti vert, a Green Party proposed amendment.Before we go to Mr. Manly, just note that if PV-16 is adopted, NDP-9 cannot be moved as they are identical. If PV-16 is negatived, so is NDP-9 for the same reason. It follows the same logic. Also, if PV-16 is adopted, BQ-12 and G-6 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. For those of you just joining us, that means BQ-12 and G-6 would be amending something that no longer exists because it has been amended. I hope that makes sense.Nevertheless, we're back to PV-16.Mr. Manly.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66524956652496665249766524986652499665250066525016652502AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1345)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The bill adds that the broadcasting system should be regulated in a flexible manner that “is fair and equitable” between undertakings that provide “services of a similar nature”, taking size variations into account, but “services of a similar nature” is too vague. It would result in the CRTC, the commission, grouping together services that are different enough to warrant different regulation. This amendment replaces the paragraph so that regulations should take “into account the nature and diversity of the services”. It takes into account “their size” but also their “impact on the Canadian creative and production ecosystem”.The organization that supported this was the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. I hope the members of the committee will support this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652503665250466525056652506ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1345)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I don't have anything against the Green Party, but our amendment is much more complete, and contains much more substance that we could discuss. I therefore move that we reject amendment PV-16 and move directly to consideration of amendment BQ-12.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66525086652509ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1345)[English]Yes, I just want to note, on the Bloc amendment, PV-24 covers the things in the Bloc amendment that are missing in this amendment. I divided out the amendments to different parts of the bill, so we're going to hit on that amendment later on, which will pick up on BQ-12.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652515ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1345)[English]Sure, just to make it go faster, basically.(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66525246652525ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1345)[English] Now we go to BQ-12. If BQ-12 is adopted, G-6 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. I'm just reiterating what was mentioned earlier.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652526JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthPhilippeMéla//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1350)[English] I should have mentioned that. In my own mind, I said that, but apparently, that's not for everyone else, is it? That's just for me. You have my apologies. NDP-9 has been negatived as well. Thank you, Philippe, good catch.Now we're back to BQ-12.Did I see Mr. Champoux? Okay, go ahead.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652531665253266525336652534PhilippeMélaMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1350)[Translation]I'm sorry. I forgot to raise my hand.Along the same lines, amendment BQ-12 proposes that the bill be amended by replacing lines 8 to 12 on page 5 with the following:(a.1) takes into account the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings, as well as their size, their impact on the Canadian creation and production industry and any other characteristic that may be relevant in the circumstances;(a.2) requires any broadcasting undertaking that cannot make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming to contribute to these Canadian resources in an equivalent manner;We are therefore proposing one more paragraph than is in the previous Green Party amendment.The objective of our amendment is to have online undertakings, when they are unable for one reason or another to make use of Canadian resources, contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system by other equitable means, to be determined by the CRTC, whether financial or otherwise.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665253566525366652537665253866525396652540ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1350)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The subamendment I'd like to propose is to add, in proposed paragraph 5(2)(a.1), after the words “the Canadian creation and production industry”, the words “and their contribution to the implementation of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives”, just to ensure that Canadian resources are used as much as possible for Canadian programs.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66525566652557ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1355)[English]Okay. It will read, “(a.1) takes into account the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings, as well as their size, their impact on the Canadian creation and production industry and their contribution to the implementation of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives and any other characteristic that may be relevant in the circumstances.” BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652579ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1355)[English]I'm sorry. I'm just trying to process what all of that was.I don't know whether the department has that wording. If they have, can they share their thoughts on what the impact is of the subamendment?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66525856652586ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1355)[English]Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.If I understand it correctly, the subamendment by Ms. McPherson would have the impact that, as part of regulatory policy, the system should be regulated in a way that takes into account the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcast undertakings. It's asking the CRTC to look at the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcast undertakings, as well as their size, their impact on the Canadian creation and production industry, and their contribution—i.e., the contribution of the broadcasting undertakings—to the implementation of the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives. The impact of it is that one of the factors the CRTC would consider in looking at the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings is their impact in essentially giving effect to the policy objectives of the act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665258966525906652591ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1355)[English] Thank you, Mr. Ripley.I'm just trying to gauge the comfort level of comprehension once more amongst all of our colleagues here. Shall I proceed with a vote on the subamendment by Ms. McPherson?Seeing no questions and no further conversation, we will go to the vote.(Subamendment agreed to)The Chair: We go back to the main motion, BQ-12, as put forward by Mr. Champoux.Mr. Louis.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665259266525936652594665259566525966652597Thomas OwenRipleyTimLouisKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis: (1355)[English]Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment that I would like to propose. It is a change of one word in new proposed paragraph 5(2)(a.2).To save everyone time, I will read the last two lines as they are currently:programming to contribute to these Canadian resources in an equivalent manner;In the last line, I would like to change “equivalent” manner to “equitable” manner.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652598665259966526006652601ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1355)[English]Thank you.Whether it's “equitable” or “equivalent”, could we have the staff respond to how this would be evaluated? Would the CRTC then have to evaluate what's equitable?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66526056652606ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1355)[English]Yes, Mr. Shields, it would be left up to the CRTC to determine, whether it's equivalent manner or equitable manner, what that means in practice.That said, there is a difference between “equivalent” and “equitable” in the sense that “equivalent” really means like for like. One of the challenges that Bill C-10 seeks to address is the greater diversity of broadcasting services that we all subscribe to now. One of the challenges the CRTC will have moving forward is that it has to think about our traditional TV channels, like Global or CTV or TVA, and now it has to think about online sports streaming services or online third-language broadcasting services. Bill C-10 seeks to establish a framework whereby we want all those services to contribute to the policy objectives of the act, but it starts from a premise that how they do so may not look exactly the same. Depending on the nature of the service, the CRTC could say that this service may need to spend a certain amount of money each year on Canadian programming. For this other service, given the nature of the service, maybe it's more appropriate that it contribute to cultural production funds like the Canada Media Fund.If the term “equivalent manner” is used, it suggests that, notwithstanding that a sports steaming service looks very different from, say, TVA or CTV, they should contribute in exactly the same way. My view is that “equitable” manner seeks to send the message that they should make a contribution that is of equal importance in terms of contributing to cultural policy objectives, but understanding how they go about making that contribution may look different at the end of the day.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652607665260866526096652610MartinShieldsBow RiverScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1400)[English]Thank you, Mr. Shields.Seeing no further conversation, we'll go to a vote. This is on the subamendment by Mr. Louis regarding BQ-12.(Subamendment agreed to)The Chair: We are once again back to BQ-12.Seeing no further conversation, we will go to a vote on the main motion by Mr. Champoux. Shall BQ-12 as amended carry?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665261466526156652616665261766526186652619MartinShieldsBow RiverAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1400)[English]I am seeing no push-back on that.(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: BQ-12 is adopted. You will notice that the next one is G-6, but G-6 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. According to our schedule, we are now on LIB-5. Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66526236652624665262566526266652627JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1400)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I see that great minds think alike because LIB-5 is essentially identical in a lot of respects to Bloc Québécois-13, PV-17 and CPC-6, so it looks like almost all the parties had the same idea, which is that we want to facilitate the provision of Canadian programs created in both official languages, including those created and produced by official language minority communities as well as in indigenous languages to Canadians. The only difference between LIB-5 and the others is that I've added, “including those created and produced by official language minority communities”, because we've included earlier in the act the reference that we want to encourage programming in both languages including from those communities. I would hope that we have unanimous support on this because, again, it is equivalent to what we said before and it's an idea that I think all parties heard expressed from many witnesses. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665262866526296652630ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1400)[English]Thank you, Mr. Housefather.It was substantially covered by Mr. Housefather. It bears repeating from a technical perspective. If LIB-5 is adopted, BQ-13, PV-17 and CPC-6 become moot as they contain, of course, the same provisions as LIB-5, as was just pointed out.Is there any further conversation on LIB-5?Seeing none, we are going to proceed to the vote.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We now go on to NDP-10, and before we do, just a note, if NDP-10 is adopted, CPC-7 and BQ-14 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.Ms. McPherson.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652631665263266526336652634665263566526366652637AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1405)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the CRTC's supervisory and regulatory duties are not relaxed to the point of creating regulatory loopholes on the basis that a company does not make a significant contribution to Canadian broadcasting policy. The later condition is not clearly defined and for this reason we're proposing that this provision of the bill be deleted as it may constitute a regulatory loophole that could be used by broadcasting undertakings to circumvent their potential obligations, which would also constitute unfair competition to undertakings that are subject to the act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66526386652639ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104694LyneBessetteLyne-BessetteBrome—MissisquoiLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BessetteLyne_Lib.jpgInterventionMrs. Lyne Bessette (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): (1405)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'd like to ask the departmental representatives what impact this change will have on small broadcasters. Will it result in more barriers for them?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66526416652642ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1405)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for your question, Mrs. Bessette.As the committee knows, Bill C-10 would add this paragraph to the act by creating a new class of broadcasting undertakings: online undertakings. Many undertakings are thus concerned here. Since the definition of online undertaking includes undertakings that provide audio and audiovisual services, if the provision is adopted, it will therefore embrace a large number of businesses.[English]In recognizing that Bill C-10 is enlarging the responsibilities, enlarging the scope of the act and the responsibilities of the CRTC, this provision of the bill was included to signal that the default stance of the CRTC should not be to regulate every little online undertaking that's in the business of offering audio or audiovisual services to Canadians, but rather that the goal here is to capture those services that are in a position to make a material contribution to the policy objectives of the act.In the current conventional world there's a finite number of services that are offered either over the air or on cable or satellite, so there was a very closed environment. We're very mindful that in Bill C-10 what we're doing is enlarging the CRTC's responsibility to include Internet undertakings and the government's view on that is that there should be a judgment call made about when those services are subject to the regulatory requirements that come with Bill C-10. That's why this provision is included then in Bill C-10.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66526456652646665264766526486652649ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1410)[English]Can it be negatived on division? (Amendment negatived on division)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66526556652656ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1410)[English]We go now to amendment CPC-7. Mr. Rayes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66526576652658JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1410)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Here's what the amendment would add:(i) recognizes that market forces, competition and the growing choice of programming made available over the Internet are contributing to achieving the broadcasting policy objectives set out in subsection 3(1);(j) encourages all forms of competition to ensure that high-quality and innovative programming is made available to Canadians using the most effective technologies available at reasonable cost; and(k) ensures that regulation is necessary, efficient and proportionate to its purpose.That's it.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665265966526606652661665266266526636652664ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1410)[English]Seeing no further debate, we will go to a vote on amendment CPC-7.(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)The Chair: That brings us to amendment BQ-14. Mr. Champoux. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6652669665267066526716652672MarciIenToronto CentreMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1410)[Translation]Mr. Chair, having discussed the matter with various persons, I propose to withdraw amendment BQ-14.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652673ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1410)[English]That's all right, Mr. Champoux. It hasn't been moved yet, so it will be deemed as not being moved. That brings us to amendment LIB-6 on page 61.Mr. Housefather.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665267466526756652676MartinChampouxDrummondAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1410)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I want to start by congratulating all of the parties on the work we have already done to bolster both official languages under the act, whether they are minority language communities, French across Canada or indigenous languages. This amendment is one that speaks of a right to consultation.We heard from many of the participants from official language minority communities that decisions of the CRTC had very negative impacts on them and they were never consulted on those decisions. (1415)[Translation]The CRTC has a duty to support the development of official language minority communities. However, as some of its decisions may have a harmful impact on those communities, I want to introduce a right to consultation for them. That's a request that they made. Some CRTC decisions have had very negative effects on those communities, which have not had a say in the decisions that were made.I believe this is a good step forward. We should consider this aspect not only in the present circumstances, but also when we proceed with the reform of the Official Languages Act later this year.I repeat that I'm extremely grateful to all my colleagues for their cooperation on all the amendments we've brought to date on the two official languages and language communities in Canada. I hope this amendment also receives the committee's support.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652677665267866526796652680665268166526826652683ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1415)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I find the intent behind this amendment entirely noble and laudable. However, from the standpoint of its feasibility, my impression is that we're undertaking an extremely complicated process.Taking the time to consult is a very good idea, but we already have hearings for that purpose. Generally speaking, the CRTC consults people in various circumstances. Consequently, I don't see any need to add an obligation to consult the official language minority communities. First of all, I wonder how we can determine who the official representatives of those communities are. In short, I feel that the proposed addition would enormously complicate the CRTC's work without really achieving a conclusive result.I'd like to know the opinion of the departmental experts on this point. I'd like them to enlighten me on the way this could be put into practice without unduly complicating the CRTC's process.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665268466526856652686AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1415)[Translation]I'll begin with a few remarks on the amendment, and then my colleague Ms. Tsui may wish to comment.As you know, as a federal institution, the CRTC is already subject to the Official Languages Act and required under certain provisions to conduct consultations as part of the process.The purpose of Mr. Housefather's proposal, as I understand it, is to add consultation obligations to the Broadcasting Act. As a result, if the proposal is adopted, the CRTC will be required to meet some obligations under the Official Languages Act and others under the Broadcasting Act. Those obligations may be consistent with each other, but there may also be imbalances.Perhaps Ms. Tsui wishes to add to my comments.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652687665268866526896652690MartinChampouxDrummondKathyTsuiKathyTsuiKathy-TsuiInterventionMs. Kathy Tsui (Manager, Industrial and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1415)[Translation]First of all, I see that the expression "necessary measures" in new section 5.1 doesn't appear in the Official Languages Act, which refers to "positive measures." Consequently, I'm afraid this amendment may create a conflict between the two requirements to which the CRTC would be subject.(1420)[English]Because the term “necessary measures” doesn't appear in the Official Languages Act, which also applies to the CRTC, there may be a conflict in terms of what the level of requirement would be for that organization.I would also point out that the Official Languages Act is currently being modernized, and there are proposals under way to clarify in regulation how consultations should occur. I do worry that if we are prescriptive about what the CRTC should do in terms of consultation, that might be problematic and might enter into conflict with future regulations that are put in place.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills665269166526926652693Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1420)[English]I've heard some interesting words here. When we talk about consultation, I don't think we're talking about prescriptive. I'm just saying they should listen to somebody. I don't find this prescriptive, and I don't know where the imbalance is in having people listen to people with legislation that might affect them.Unless somebody can suggest to me how this is prescriptive by asking them to listen to people.... It doesn't say how to consult. It just says they should do some consulting with people. I'm having a hard time finding that very prescriptive or unbalanced, unless somebody can clarify it for me, because I'm not there.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66526956652696ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKathyTsuiKathy-TsuiInterventionMs. Kathy Tsui: (1420)[English]You're right. The requirement to consult is a very noble and honourable one and one that, as public servants, as the government, we should be taking on board. The concern here is that this motion, as I understand it, would require the CRTC to consult on every regulation that it puts forward. The CRTC puts forward a lot of regulations, and regardless of whether or not the regulation would apply to OLMCs or have any kind of impact on the official language minority community, the CRTC, with this amendment, would be required to consult those communities. That's part of the prescriptiveness here.I would also point out that there are a few terms here that could be kind of subjective. For instance, what does it mean to “meaningfully consider”? What does it mean to “openly” consult? There are some nuances here that are not spelled out.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665270066527016652702ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1420)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I think what Mr. Shields said is correct. This is not prescriptive. This is a requirement to consult. If there are certain parts of the way this is worded that cause issues because of the inconsistency that has been pointed out, I'm perfectly prepared to support amendments to remove those. For example, in paragraph one, what I understand is that the words I've added, “shall take the necessary measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities” cause a problem because the “take the necessary measures to” changes the original wording from the Official Languages Act “the commission shall”, requiring them to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities, so we could just remove the words “take the necessary measures to”—if somebody wanted to amend that—and just say “the commission shall enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and support and assist in their development.”As for the second paragraph, I understand the concerns about the broadness when making regulations under the act. I think it would be totally fair to amend the next proposed subsection, 5.2(1), to say, “The Commission shall consult with official language minority communities when making decisions that would adversely affect them” and remove the words “when making regulations under this Act”. The duty to consult would only apply when the CRTC was making a decision that could adversely affect the minority communities. Perhaps somebody who's allowed to do that, like Ms. McPherson, whom I see is coming up next, could perhaps propose that as an amendment to this. I'd totally be prepared to accept that.I think it is fair to ask for a duty to consult when we know that there's been prejudice caused in the past, and there's no reason that we shouldn't take steps in the Broadcasting Act to inspire those who are amending the Official Languages Act to make the same types of duties to consult. I understand the need for some amendments. I will accept them and happily so, but I think that, with those amendments, this should be accepted.Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665270666527076652708665270966527106652711ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1425)[English]This would be new proposed section 5.1: “In regulating and supervising the Canadian broadcasting system and exercising its powers under this Act, the Commission shall enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and support and assist their development.”The second one would be new proposed subsection 5.2(1): “The Commission shall consult with official language minority communities when making decisions that could adversely affect them.”BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66527316652732ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1425)[English]Yes. There's one subamendment vote regarding both of those changes. Then we go back to the main motion, whether amended or not.Seeing no further discussion, I will take this as full comprehension of what was proposed. Let's go to a vote.(Subamendment agreed to)The Chair: We go back to the main motion. Again, just for keeping track, this is LIB-6. This is the amendment by Mr. Housefather.We will go to a vote.(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Dare I sound biased for just a moment? That was a good discussion, folks. That's what law-making is all about.We'll now call the vote on clause 4.... I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes. Go ahead. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652738665273966527406652741665274266527436652744665274566527466652747TimLouisKitchener—ConestogaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1430)[Translation]On division.(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66527566652757ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1435)[English] Once again, we're doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I won't get into the details about all this. If you've been following along, you know how this works. We're going to go right to new clause 4.1.The first one up is G-7, put forward by Ms. Dabrusin. Ms. Dabrusin, are you with us?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665276066527616652762ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMarciIenToronto CentreThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1440)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I believe there may be a bit of a disconnect then in terms of Ms. Ien's statements and G-7. G-7 is intended to clarify that policy direction that can be issued by the Governor in Council to the CRTC. It would include giving direction of general application with respect to orders issued under 9.1 or regulations issued under 11.1. There seems to be some confusion among stakeholders following the tabling of Bill C-10, whether it would be appropriate for the government to give an indication about the way that those powers should be used. G-7, Mr. Chair, is intended to clarify the scope, as long as it still remains at a level of general application. We're not talking about interfering in specific decisions. Rather, the expectation is that the CRTC would ensure certain kinds of discoverability or certain kinds of contributions from certain types of players, and that would be appropriate.I apologize if I've missed something, Mr. Chair, but that is my understanding of what's intended by G-7.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6652775ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1440)[English]Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd just move to amend the amendment, to change the words “making of orders” to “orders made”. Basically, under proposed section 7.1, at the end of the second sentence, it says, “making of orders”, and we'd propose to change that to “orders made”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652789ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1440)[English]All right. I think that's quite straightforward, everyone. Don't you think? That would be G-7. Instead of “making of orders” on the second line to the third line, we're going to say “orders made” in 7.1.Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we will now go to a vote. This is a vote on the subamendment from Mr. Housefather that you have just heard. (Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions665279066527916652792AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1445)[English]Mr. Chair, when previously making the other subamendment, I realized that I was inconsistent in not making the same amendment to the words “or the making of regulations”. It really should be “or regulations made” and I erred in now creating an inconsistency in the clause. My request would be a subamendment of “the making of regulations” to say “regulations made”, in the past tense. Again, I apologize for not doing this at once in one subamendment.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66527966652797ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English]That's quite all right, sir. Before we go to the vote, we now have a further subamendment. I don't think we need to do anything formal. I can repeat it from here. As Mr. Housefather pointed out, given the last subamendment that was accepted, this is another subamendment to say “regulations made”, on the second last line, instead of “making of regulations”. Does everyone understand that? Seeing full comprehension, is there any conversation or debate? No.We will now go to a vote on the subamendment from Mr. Housefather regarding G-7.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66527986652799665280066528016652802AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1445)[English]Mr. Chair, can we say it's carried on division?(Subamendment agreed to on division)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66528036652804ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English] Now we will return to G-7, as amended, from Ms. Dabrusin. Again, I will just remind you that's on page 63 of your package, G-7. Is there any further discussion? There being none, we will now go to a vote. (Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions665280566528066652807AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1445)[English] Folks, I beg your patience. If you could just give me 30 seconds to contact Philippe, I will be back with you in very short order.Thank for your patience. You've been so kind to me.Let us move on from amendment G-7, which we've just adopted and by which we carried new clause 4.1. We now move on to clause 5, for which there are no amendments. (Clause 5 agreed to)(On clause 6)The Chair: We will deal with PV-18. If PV-18 is adopted, then BQ-15(N) cannot be moved due to a line conflict. I hope you've all received the newer version of BQ-15. It is now titled as BQ-15(N). On PV-18, we'll go to Mr. Manly.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66528086652809665281066528116652812665281366528146652815ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1450)[English]Mr. Chair, the bill replaces seven-year licence terms with terms that are indefinite or fixed by the CRTC. This amendment maintains the current seven-year maximum licence term. It enables the CRTC to amend the licence on its own initiative without needing application from the licensee. A term setting the duration of a licence is necessary to ensure predictability of conditions for all players in the system.The amendment has been supported by the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma and Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.I hope the committee members will support this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665281666528176652818ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis: (1450)[English]Mr. Chair, I was hoping I could get some clarification from the department. My understanding is that this amendment would actually return to the seven-year licensing system that we were trying to get away from. As mentioned before, more and more of these companies are online undertakings.Can the department comment on that? Mr. Ripley has his hand up already.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665282066528216652822ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1450)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.What Bill C-10 seeks to do is a shift. As the committee is aware, right now the majority of services are subject to licences where there are conditions baked into those licences. As part of permission to operate a TVA channel or a CTV channel, those services are required to contribute to the cultural policy objectives of the act.What Bill C-10 does is it moves away from those cultural policy contributions being part of the actual licence fee, the technical permission to operate and use a spectrum or to operate your cable or satellite service. What it does is it equips the CRTC to issue orders and regulations that will prescribe those contributions. The intention there is so that online undertakings and conventional services are being treated in the same way, in the sense that they're subject to the same kind of instrument in terms of the things that outline those obligations.What that means in practice is that the licence moving forward would simply be nothing more than the authorization to run that service over a particular band of spectrum or whatnot. It's for that reason that Bill C-10 proposes moving away from the seven-year term. The seven-year term used to be important because it was an opportunity for the CRTC to revisit the contributions that a service might have to make supporting Canadian program or French-language programming or showcasing Canadian content, but that's no longer the case. The government's view is that it doesn't make sense to force the CRTC to revisit a licence every seven years because it's not going to be in question whether CTV Toronto can continue to operate and use that band of spectrum. If ever there does need to be changes in terms of spectrum allocation and the authorization to operate, the CRTC has the ability to revoke a licence or look at a licence or amend a licence if it needs to.I hope that helps clarify.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills665282466528256652826665282766528286652829ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1455)[Translation]I'd like briefly to discuss the following amendment, amendment BQ-15, under which licences would be issued for terms not exceeding seven years and a registration system would be established for online undertakings. I don't want to debate amendment BQ-15 immediately, but, given Mr. Ripley's previous answer, I'd like to ask how the CRTC can ensure that conditions are met if there are no registration or licensing categories for all broadcasting undertakings. How can it ensure that conditions are met? How can conditions be set based on the categories and the nature of the broadcasting undertakings?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66528316652832ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1455)[Translation]Thank you for that question, Mr. Champoux.We've made two comments on that point.First, if an undertaking fails to meet its obligation to contribute to the system, the CRTC currently has authority to revoke its licence. However, we know perfectly well that, in the current circumstances, the mere possibility of revoking a licence isn't a very balanced way of taking action against undertakings that fail to comply with the act. That's why Bill C-10 would grant the CRTC authority to assess administrative monetary penalties. The CRTC could therefore impose such penalties if an undertaking failed to discharge its obligations. As regards the registration system, Bill C-10 would grant the CRTC regulatory authority to ensure that undertakings register with it. That's provided for under proposed paragraph 10(1)(i), if I'm not mistaken. It's provided that the CRTC would have that power for the reasons you mentioned.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652833665283466528356652836MartinChampouxDrummondScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1455)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I appreciate the department's discussion of this particular piece. The understanding is that there is just a renewal process of a specific spectrum. Let's get back to the idea of the licence that they may have had. During those seven years, were there times that you can tell us about that the CRTC would revoke a licence rather than wait for the seven-year automatic review of a licence. Are they using that power now whereby they can revoke it? On what basis would it have been brought to them to consider doing so?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652840665284166528426652843ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen: (1500)[English]Thank you, Mr. Shields, for the question.The CRTC rarely revokes a licence. It would do it for reasons of non-compliance.The most recent case I remember was not that long ago. A radio station near Montreal. CJMS Saint-Constant had its licence revoked following a public hearing, and it was over repeated instances of non-compliance. The commission also revoked some licences for Aboriginal Voices Radio when it felt that over a period of more than a decade, there had been repeated non-compliance.The commission has in the past, then, used this power, but it has been used fairly sparingly. Most licences are renewed.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652844665284566528466652847MartinShieldsBow RiverScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1500)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.During the testimony of the CRTC, the chairman, Mr. Scott, mentioned that he'd like to go to the Treasury Board to get more money if this bill passes, as they're going to need more resources.I am concerned with the extra workload put upon the CRTC. I can see why they do not want a seven-year window for licence renewal. At the same time, I have witnessed in my 40-plus years of broadcasting that many stations coast to coast violate, almost in year two or year three of the agreement, certain conditions of their broadcasting licence. I am a little concerned about this. I just want to point out that CRTC does not follow up, in my estimation. Once they stamp the licence of a station, very rarely do they ever follow up to see whether the station is actually going by the guidelines of their broadcasting licence.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652850665285166528526652853ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1500)[English]Can we negative it on division?(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66528606652861ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1500)[English] That brings us to a conclusion for today. I know you're sad, but don't be sad. We'll all be back again on Monday, all fresh to go at it again. When we do, incidentally, we will be doing amendment BQ-15(N), and “N” of course signifies that it's a newer version of BQ-15. BQ-15(N), then, is what you're looking for and what we will start with.Seeing no other conversations.... Does anyone want a parting remark?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6652862665286366528646652865JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1100)[English] I call this meeting to order.Welcome back, everyone.This is meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, which we started on Friday and will continue today in a two-hour format.As a note, as you know, we had a motion passed a few weeks ago in regard to seeking out extra time, if possible, for the consideration of Bill C-10. In terms of advance notice for this coming Friday—if we have to carry this over to Friday—I'll be scheduling a three-hour meeting once again. All right. We'll do the same timing as last time. Of course, we're still in a hybrid format. I forgot to mention this the last time, by the way, but screenshots, taking photos of your screen, are not permitted. I know that you may already know this, but I just thought I'd add that.Also, we've been good so far, but please don't speak until I recognize you by name. It's not because I want to feel intoxicated with all the power of being a chair; rather, it's to allow our committee Hansard the opportunity to make things all right in their world. As I said before, it can sometimes be confusing enough in person, so you can imagine it in this hybrid format. I shouldn't even say “hybrid”, because we're all online, with the exception of staff, so I guess we're going completely virtual.I want to say just one other thing. We made a slight change last time in the voting on how we proceed on carrying—or not—each individual clause or amendment. To recap how this works, I will ask if it carries. I'll say, “Does the amendment carry?” If I'm met with silence, then it will carry. If you want to support it or oppose it, but you don't want to go to a recorded vote, you have two options. You can say “on division” or “carried on division”, or you can say “negatived on division”. If you say that, if you say “negatived on division” or “carried on division”, and someone else says “no” or “yes”, I will automatically go to a recorded vote.Thank you, Mr. Housefather. I think you helped us out there last time.I think that's a fairly good system. We've used it only once. In case you don't want to go to a recorded vote and you want to move on, you now have the option of—remember—“carried on division” or “negatived on division”. Thank you.For the folks who are watching this from outside our virtual room here with those of us on the webcast, I'm going to do one explanatory thing. When we do the clauses, within the clauses most everyone has submitted possible amendments for consideration. Whether they're ruled in order or not, that's something else. We're going to go in order from number one up to the end of the amendments that are coming in. We have amendments by six different groups. We have amendments by “PV”. You have PV-1 from the Parti vert, which is the Green Party. We also have LIB-1 or LIB-2, and these are amendments by the Liberal members on the committee. “CPC” represents the Conservative Party members on this committee. “BQ” represents the Bloc Québécois member on the committee. NDP-1 or NDP-2 are amendments by the NDP member on the committee. The final category is G, and yes, we do get to do government amendments. We have a few of them here. They will be G-1, G-2 and so on.(On clause 2)The Chair: That being said, let's get going. When we last left off, we were at NDP-7. Is everybody ready to go on that? We were dealing with the subamendment by Mr. Housefather.To pick this up again, Mr. Housefather, can I call on you to start?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640037664003866400396640040664004166400426640043664004466400456640046664004766400486640049AnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1105)[English]I'm seeing no dissension about that. (Subamendment withdrawn)The Chair: We now go back to the main amendment, NDP-7.Ms. Dabrusin.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640053664005466400556640056AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1105)[English] Thank you, Chair.I would like to propose a subamendment to NDP-7. The first part of this subamendment would be to proposed paragraph (f). It would insert the word “production” after “and other human resources in the creation” and then it would say “, production and presentation of programming”.Then after “presentation of programming”, I would add “unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impractical, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources”.The subamendment would go on to proposed paragraph (f.1) of NDP-7 to add, after the words “and other human resources”, “and shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640057664005866400596640060ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1110)[English]There are a couple of reasons. The first part was to add “production”. That's a pretty simple one. I don't think that needs much conversation.The other part was to not have an unintended consequence. The wording that we're actually bringing back in is already in the original Broadcasting Act. We're bringing that back. It's to make sure we're not having an unintended consequence on services that do not produce in French and English—like in third languages—so they wouldn't be able to fit with these rules. Those are the primary ones. The part about strong support for the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming is just strengthening the importance of Canadian stories and music and making sure we're supporting that. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664008566400866640087ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinShieldsBow RiverPhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1115)[English]Proposed paragraph (f) would read as follows: “each Canadian broadcasting undertaking shall employ and make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impractical, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources”.Proposed paragraph (f.1) would read as follows: “each foreign online undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources and shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming in accordance with the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in this subsection and taking into account the linguistic duality of the market they serve”.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66401316640132ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1120)[Translation]Then here I go. The French version would read as follows: f) les entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes sont tenues d'employer des ressources humaines — créatrices et autres — canadiennes et de faire appel à celles-ci au maximum, et dans tous les cas au moins de manière prédominante, pour la création, la production et la présentation de leur programmation, à moins qu'une telle pratique ne s'avère difficilement réalisable en raison de la nature du service — notamment, son contenu ou format spécialisé ou l'utilisation qui y est faite de langues autres que le français ou l'anglais — qu'elles fournissent, auquel cas elles devront faire appel aux ressources en question dans toute la mesure du possible;f.1) les entreprises étrangères en ligne sont tenues de faire appel dans toute la mesure du possible aux ressources humaines — créatrices et autres — canadiennes et de contribuer fortement, de façon équitable, à la création, la production et la présentation de programmation canadienne selon les objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion en tenant compte de la dualité linguistique du marché qu’elles desservent; BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664015966401606640161ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1125)[English] Is there any further discussion?Seeing none, we'll now go on to the vote. This is the subamendment of NDP-7, as put forward by Madam Dabrusin. I understand that everyone has a general comprehension of this now—or, at least, for goodness' sake I hope so. Shall the subamendment carry?(Subamendment agreed to)The Chair: Now we go back to the main amendment, NDP-7, which is on page 24 of your document.Seeing no further discussion, we will go to a vote. Shall NDP-7 as amended carry?(Amendment as amended agreed to)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640185664018666401876640188664018966401906640191PhilippeMélaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1125)[English] Now with NDP-7 adopted, that means BQ-5 cannot be moved because of the line conflict. I don't think I need to explain “line conflict”. We went through this last time.Let's move on now to BQ-6.Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664019266401936640194ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1125)[Translation]Mr. Chair, the purpose of the amendment moved is to remove any mention of programming control. We think that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings should be responsible for the programs they broadcast, period.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640195ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien (Toronto Centre, Lib.): (1125)[English]Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.Thank you to my colleague for bringing this forward.We see BQ-6 as similar to NDP-6, which we have already discussed. We think, at this point, this is not the place to discuss user-generated content. We don't feel that it should not be regulated. Our government has been very clear on this point. We are going to bring forward a bill that deals with this, and we look forward to debating that in the House on the floor. However, at this point, this is something that we don't feel is necessary or appropriate.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664019866401996640200ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1125)[Translation]I don't share my colleague's opinion, Mr. Chair, because we know that online undertakings and social media control their programming and the content that is distributed, and that their control is much greater than they dare admit. I believe there's good reason to include provisions respecting broadcasting in the Broadcasting Act. I don't think the nature of distributed content will conflict with these provisions or those of any future act. In any case, we can't offer an opinion on that act since it's not yet on the table.I think it's important that online undertakings, including social media, accept responsibility for distributed content to the extent they can do so. I needn't remind you of the many recent examples of distribution of user-generated content that could have been avoided. Full coverage of tragic stories has been broadcast and is still available on certain parts of the web. It's our duty to regulate that as best we can now, without waiting for the next act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664020166402026640203MarciIenToronto CentreScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien: (1130)[English]I do. If my honourable colleague needs more on this, I would love to go to our government representatives to provide that clarity as to why we want to separate this at this time. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66402056640206ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1130)[English] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question. As the committee is aware, one of the objectives of Bill C-10 is to clarify and enlarge the definition of “broadcasting” to clearly include online undertakings. This clarification around programming under their control has been included to clarify that or to recognize the fact that in some instances now, moving forward, you will have online undertakings that are distributing content generated by other users. From the government's perspective, striking out the limitation with respect to programming under their control would mean that those undertakings, when they are distributing the content of others, would be responsible for that content even though they may not have played any role necessarily in the editorial control of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills66402106640211664021266402136640214ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1130)[Translation]I entirely understand the arguments raised by the departmental representatives and my colleague. However, platforms can take many steps to prevent excesses such as those we've previously witnessed.I think platforms should have a minimum level of responsibility for distributed content, regardless of its source. Even if content is generated by users, the fact remains that platforms must ensure that content generated by their subscribers meets standards.Consequently, I don't think we're suggesting here that Facebook is entirely responsible for editorial content, but the platforms must nevertheless have some responsibility for that content. We have to compel them to react quickly and much more significantly than they've recently done.So the act must be tougher in that respect. That's why we have to ensure that platforms have some responsibility for programming.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640216664021766402186640219ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1130)[English]I see no further discussion, so we will proceed to the vote. Again, I remind everybody that we are voting on amendment BQ-6 in your documents. You've just heard the discussion.We're going to go to a recorded vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Now, folks, we move on to amendment BQ-7.Just for your information and with no particular ruling in place, amendments BQ-7, PV-9 and CPC-3 all deal with the same subject. That's just so that you're all aware of that as we deliberate on this particular amendment, BQ-7.Mr. Champoux. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions664022066402216640222664022366402246640225MartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1135)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The purpose of amendment BQ-7 is simply to add to paragraph 3(1)(i) of the act subparagraph 3(1)(i)(i.1), which reads as follows:(i) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should(i.1) recognize and support Canada’s linguistic duality by placing significant importance on the creation, production and broadcasting of French language original programs, including those from French linguistic minority communities,BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664022666402276640228ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1135)[English] I can assume you're not putting forward a subamendment. Okay.I see no further discussion. Let us now go to a vote on BQ-7.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Now we go to PV-8.Mr. Manly, that would be you, sir.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66402406640241664024266402436640244AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1135)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The act states that programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should “be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources”. This amendment adds language to specify that, at the local level, the system should include programming from community broadcasters specifically.Community broadcasters should be included because they collaborate with local organizations and community members. They are uniquely positioned to provide varied and comprehensive programming that meets the real needs of different audiences. Community broadcasters are best-suited to meet these criteria compared with other models of production.This amendment also amends subparagraph 3(1)(i) to replace “men, women and children of all ages” with “people of all ages.” Thank you. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640245664024666402476640248ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1140)[English] Very good. (Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]The Chair: We will now go to amendment CPC-2, submitted by Mr. Shields.Mr. Shields, are you up, sir?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions6640258664025966402606640261AlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1140)[English]You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to return this to the original clause that was in the bill we had previously. It would put the word “national” back in. For some reason, “national” was taken out. I propose that we put it back in so that it covers news and current events “from the local and regional to the national and international”.In the original bill that we had on the Broadcasting Act, “national” was in it. In this version, the word “national” is taken out. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664026266402636640264ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1140)[English]Is there any further discussion?Seeing none, we will go to a vote on amendment CPC-2.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) The Chair: We will now move to amendment PV-9.Go ahead, Mr. Manly.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66402696640270664027166402726640273TimLouisKitchener—ConestogaPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1140)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.[Translation]This amendment emphasizes the importance of broadcasting and original French-language productions.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66402746640275ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1145)[English]Okay. I'll just be a little bit more patient. I will listen for “negatived on division” before I make a judgment. How's that? I'll try to make this move along. On amendment PV-9, do I hear “negatived on division”?Okay. I hear no one calling for a recorded vote.(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: That brings us to amendment CPC-3. Monsieur Rayes. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions664028966402906640291664029266402936640294JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthAlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaPhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1145)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Yes, indeed. I did highlight the fact that BQ-7, PV-9 and CPC-3 were dealing with the same subject matter. Since one was adopted already, I'm not sure if the new one, CPC-3, is needed or not. This is up to the committee to decide.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66403016640302ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1145)[Translation]You can't be too careful, as the saying goes. I will therefore move the amendment, even though I believe that it says essentially the same thing as amendment BQ-7, and the committee can decide.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640305ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1145)[English]Mr. Chair, the same perspective has been emphasized. I think this was covered in the original Bloc Québécois amendment. I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chair, again clearly a logistical question. What PV-9 was meant to replace after line 7 on page 4 in the previous motion was defeated on division. In my view, that would render this one not even admissible given that its content is identical to what we just defeated in the previous amendment. I also just mention that for the future, because I think they're two essentially identical amendments in the same place, and once we defeat one, I do believe that the other one at that point is essentially squelched, because we just defeated the exact same content in the same line. It's for you to consider, Mr. Chair. Otherwise, I'm totally fine to just move to a vote on this.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640312664031366403146640315ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1150)[English]Can I propose that it be negatived on division?(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66403206640321ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1150)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This amendment again addresses the community element. This amendment adds that Canada's broadcasting policy should enable public participation and public dialogue through the community element. The act states that the public should be exposed to “differing views on matters of public concern” and that assumes a private or public sector model of production in which Canadians are a passive audience to content created by a privileged class of journalists and producers. The community element enables the direct participation of members of the public on matters of public concern. I'm hoping members of the committee will support this. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664032266403236640324AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1150)[English][Technical difficulty—Editor] and the content of what we are discussing whatsoever. This is basically from our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, as you can see here on screen. It does state, on page 770, if you're following along— perhaps you know it by heart—that you have to stay within the principle. It states, “an amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”All that being said, what we're talking about here, Mr. Manly, and what you're proposing is.... I get the aspect of being a passive audience over the years, and so on and so forth. The issue of direct participation is one that I had to think upon, because it is through the Canadian broadcasting policy.... This requires a new concept brought in here to the way it is normally done. I could go on for an hour as to how, but I don't have that time. In the opinion of the chair, PV-10 brings forward that new concept and that is beyond the scope of the bill. I'm ruling on the particular procedure as dictated by the rules of the committee. Unfortunately, Mr. Manly, I have to rule this particular amendment out of order. We now move on to LIB-4. If LIB-4 is adopted, BQ-8 cannot be moved as they are identical. If LIB-4 is negatived, so is BQ-8 for the same reason. We're talking about LIB-4, but it's also tied to BQ-8, which normally would follow. With that being said, we're on LIB-4. Go ahead, Mr. Housefather. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664032766403286640329664033066403316640332ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1155)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I see that I have put forward exactly the same amendment as my colleague Mr. Champoux. We heard the witnesses and moved an amendment to the new paragraph 3(1)(k) proposed in the bill, which is as follows:(k) a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians;This amendment would simply remove the word "progressively". I believe that these services ought not to be offered progressively, but rather immediately, as soon as possible.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640333664033466403356640336ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1155)[English]Do I see any further discussion on LIB-4? (Amendment agreed to)The Chair: Take BQ-8 off your schedule, as it cannot be moved. We now go to PV-11. Another note is that, if PV-11 is adopted, G-3 and BQ-9 cannot be moved as they are identical. If PV-11 is negatived, both G-3 and BQ-9 will be negatived as well. By the way, the “G” means it is a government amendment. They are coming up later. Right now we have PV-11. Go ahead, Mr. Manly. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664033766403386640339664034066403416640342AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1155)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. As written, the bill only provides for programming undertakings carried on by indigenous persons in Canada's broadcasting policy. This excludes online undertakings. This amendment replaces “programming undertakings” with “broadcasting undertakings” so that online undertakings are included by definition. This amendment was recommended by APTN. I hope people support it. Thank you. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664034366403446640345ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1155)[English]Seeing no further discussion, shall PV-11 carry?(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: As I mentioned earlier, that takes out G-3 as well as BQ-9, as they are identical.We now move on to PV-12, Mr. Manly.I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes. I just saw your hand up.Mr. Manly, I have to go to Mr. Rayes first.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664035066403516640352664035366403546640355MarciIenToronto CentreAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1205)[English]We're going to pick up right where we left off.We are now going into PV-12.Go ahead, Mr. Manly. Your reception is much better. Welcome back.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664036566403666640367ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1205)[English] Yes, it cleaned right up. I have been having problems with this computer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment carries on with the theme that I have about community media. This amendment adds that Canada's broadcasting policy should not only include programming carried on by indigenous persons but also by indigenous community media. It recognizes that indigenous persons and indigenous community media are uniquely positioned to serve indigenous communities. Indigenous community media is an important component of programming that reflects indigenous cultures in Canada. Community media have a lower-cost structure and work to preserve indigenous languages, tell indigenous stories and equip indigenous youth and community members of all ages and digital skills.I'll note that I was a co-producer on the first preschool show on APTN when it launched. I did 64 episodes of that program in post-production. Many of the people who worked on that programming came out of community media, out of the non-profit world, where they were trained and gained skills and developed careers and went on into the mainstream broadcasting world. It's a really important training ground and a place for cultural expression and identity. I hope that people will support this amendment as well. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640368664036966403706640371ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis: (1205)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to commend my colleague for bringing this amendment forward. Though we support the principle of it, my concern is, where do we stop? We want to make sure that this legislation is inclusive and broad, and that the policy and framework enables everyone to be included, but creating small amendments that include some could come at the expense of excluding others.We don't see the need to have this as a defining portion of the bill, but I'd love to hear further discussion.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664037366403746640375ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1205)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I agree with saying that indigenous programming in indigenous languages should be available not only to indigenous populations, but also to the population of Canada in general. I do indeed believe that this would be beneficial for everyone.I would nevertheless like to ask the legislative clerks or the department's representatives a question. The last portion of the amendment strikes me as superfluous. I'd like to know whether or not it has an impact. If it doesn't, then it wouldn't change anything.The amendment says, "which are uniquely positioned to serve smaller, remote and urban Indigenous communities". Perhaps this is the phrase to which Mr. Louis was alluding when he said that we might get the impression that the amendment excludes other types of media, whether community or otherwise.I would therefore like to know whether this short sentence fragment has a particular meaning, or whether it's merely symbolic.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640377664037866403796640380ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1210)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for your question, Mr. Champoux.The current act does not define the value of each component of the broadcasting system. It's made up of private elements, public elements, including CBC/Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec and the Knowledge Network, in addition to some community elements. However, the value of each component is not necessarily defined. It refers to the broadcasting system, broadly speaking, and identifies the objectives to be pursued and the requirements to be met by programming. Nowhere does it specify the roles to be played respectively by the private, public, and community sectors.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664038666403876640388ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1210)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a short question for the department officials. I've noted in this amendment the term “Indigenous community media”. I don't believe these terms appear anywhere or are defined anywhere in the act. What are the ramification of that, given that we're using terms that are different from “programming” or “broadcasting undertakings”, which seem to be the terms we're using everywhere else?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664039066403916640392ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1210)[English]You're correct. The term “community media” is not defined.The question for the committee, if it wishes to support the amendment, is whether something like “broadcasting undertakings” might be more appropriate and more aligned with the overall terminology of the act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66403936640394AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1210)[English]I thought we had already defined “community media” at the PV-1 level. We agreed to add “community media” to the definition.If we want to take out the words “Indigenous community media”, because community media is important in small communities.... Northern and remote communities are where cultural expression is expanded upon, where you get elders on television speaking in their indigenous language, and where young children are watching and tuned in to their own culture and traditions. Supporting this is important. It's important for the government, as part of its reconciliation process, to ensure there are adequate resources for sharing culture and for cultural revitalization, after a long history of cultural destruction of indigenous peoples.If you want to have a subamendment to take out the word “Indigenous”, so that it's just “and community media, which are uniquely positioned to serve smaller, remote and urban Indigenous communities”, I would be amenable to that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640396664039766403986640399ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1210)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a question for the officials.I believe that the term "community media" is extremely important. Mr. Housefather said that it wasn't used anywhere, but if it's necessary, I would prefer to keep it. I'm not challenging the use of the word "indigenous", which Mr. Manly wanted to use in his amendment, but I think that the term "community media" should be kept, provided that it's defined in the act.Could the officials tell us whether this is doable?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640401664040266404036640404ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1215)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.From what I understood of our work last Friday, the term that was defined was "community element". I would just like to point out that the term "media" is not defined anywhere in the act. If we wish to use the broader term, we use "broadcasting undertaking", which includes online undertakings, broadcasters and cable operators. If the committee wants to use the term "community media", then it needs to know that it is not defined in the act. The definition provided in the amendment that was adopted, if I recall correctly, is for "community element".BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66404066640407ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1215)[Translation]Okay.So the subamendment would delete the wording from "Indigenous community media" until the end, and replace it with "and community elements".BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66404236640424ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1215)[English]Does this bear repeating, or is everyone okay with what was proposed? It's not a big change. Can I just leave it as what Mr. Champoux explained? I think that is sufficient. Would there be any further discussion on the subamendment from Mr. Champoux regarding amendment PV-12?Seeing no further discussion we will go to a vote.(Subamendment agreed to)(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: Now we'll move on to PV-13Mr. Manly.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66404256640426664042766404286640429664043066404316640432MartinChampouxDrummondPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1220)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This amendment adds that persons with disabilities should have adequate resources to develop their own community media, and that persons with disabilities can adapt technology and obtain technological support through community media. Again, you shouldn't be surprised that I do have experience in this area. I've trained people of all kinds of different abilities to work in media, including working with deaf people. I trained them in video production and actually witnessed somebody who is deaf creating a soundtrack by working with vibrations. Just an interesting note, when we did the premiere of that film, he gave everybody a balloon and we listened to the soundtrack through the vibration of the balloon. That's how he learned to go to movies as a child. He happened to go to a movie after a fair, with a balloon in his hand, and that's how he translated the intensity of the sound in the theatre.With the right kind of technologies, we can have more participation in media by people with diverse abilities. I hope people will consider this, but I do have a little pink note on the side that the chair is going to be talking about this amendment as well. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640433664043466404356640436ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1220)[English]Yes, indeed, you're rather prescient.Again, I said it earlier and I will say it to you now. Given the subject matter and the story you just told, which is a fantastic one, please don't take this in the wrong way, but unfortunately we have to rule this out of order. This one is a little more straightforward. Actually, it's straight down the middle as to why I cannot...and again, I'll refer back to our rule book that we use here. Specific programming resources to allow for persons with disabilities to develop their own community media is what you're talking about here. Again—no reflection on that—it requires what we call a royal recommendation, and it requires essentially new spending. The rule book states: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown [which is the government or the executive], it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. The amendment that you bring forward, known as PV-13, is a new concept that appears to require a royal recommendation and is not talked about in the original bill. Therefore, I have to rule this amendment to be inadmissible, but I thoroughly enjoyed the story you brought to it.Thank you, Mr. Manly. We will now go to amendment PV-14. Mr. Manly, you are up again. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66404376640438664043966404406640441664044266404436640444PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1220)[English] Thank you. I'm on a bit of a roll here.The purpose of this amendment is to describe the role of the community elements in Canada's broadcasting policy. This amendment replaces the description for “alternative television programming services” in the broadcasting policy section of the act with “community elements”.Very few alternative programming services of the type described in the act actually exist, and the section is never actionable or used in policy-making, yet the description almost exactly fits what the community elements do, so I am hoping that members of the committee will consider this.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640445664044666404476640448ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1220)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.While I appreciate defining the role of the community elements, which I think is what Mr. Manly is trying to do here, I would point out that I don't believe that the act or the bill actually define any of the elements of the broadcasting system, whether public, private or community. There are some elements in here... For example, in subparagraph 3(1)(q)(iv), we're talking about “non-profit participative structures”, but we, in the definition of “community element”, removed the term “non-profit”.I would just like to ask the officials what their sense is of how this would intertwine with the rest of the bill and whether they have any comments about it.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640451664045266404536640454ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKathyTsuiKathy-TsuiInterventionMs. Kathy Tsui (Manager, Industry and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1220)[English]Yes, that's correct. We spoke about the concern about “non-profit” on Friday. You're absolutely right. In no place in the act does the act provide a definition or define a role for any of the elements of the broadcasting system. You're right that the roles of the private element, the public element and the community element are left undefined.The non-profit element we discussed. The community element of the broadcasting system does include some for-profit organizations, so this would be a significant change to the act.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills66404576640458ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1225)[English]I just have one additional question for the officials. With respect to proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(v), “be made available throughout Canada through all platforms available”, would this impose a requirement on companies that simply distribute to include community programming? Does this mean that it would be an obligation on everything? I don't even know how we could impose that.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66404606640461ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameKathyTsuiKathyTsuiKathy-TsuiInterventionMs. Kathy Tsui: (1225)[English]The term “platform” is also not defined in the act, so we are left unsure about how to interpret proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(v).It's not clear to me whether this means all platforms, as in any kind of broadcasting undertaking that provides a distribution service, or if this is to refer to any type of platform. Is this meant to mean that community broadcasting should be made available online, over satellite systems, over cable systems? That part of the definition is unclear.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66404626640463AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1225)[English]We are still on PV-14, folks.Seeing no discussion, I'm going to call for a vote on PV-14.(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])The Chair: We are on PV-15.Mr. Manly.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions66404756640476664047766404786640479PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1230)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This amendment adds that programming provided through community elements should be made available for archival purposes to Library and Archives of Canada as well as local cultural institutions that represent public interest.Archiving community programming is very important. Forty years of audiovisual archives for over 200 communities have been destroyed since 1991, where there is no other audiovisual record.I have seen this happen personally without any notification when Shaw took over for Rogers in Victoria. I was over working in Vancouver after doing hours and weeks of programming. It all just went to the landfill. Parts of that were really important chunks of the community record, which had been documented. People were looking for that years later and they were nowhere to be found. I have a little pink note on this one as well. I have talked to ministry officials about maybe other avenues for dealing with this. I will let you bring up that pink note that I have.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66404806640481664048266404836640484ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1230)[English]You seem to be catching on quite well, Mr. Manly, to how this works.Indeed, I have to make a ruling on this one. I want to point this out to members.This, of course, is specific to the passage in PV-15 that says, “made available to the Library and Archives of Canada for archival purposes and to local cultural”.It turns out that “be made available to [the public through archival means such as] the Library and Archives of Canada” is an amendment that would go beyond the scope of the bill. Again, I refer back to the parent bill, which doesn't provide for that. Therefore, according to our rules and regulations, it's beyond the scope and it certainly is beyond the principle of the bill to proceed any further on PV-15. It does propose a new concept that is beyond the scope, similar to rulings in the past.Unfortunately, I have to rule that to be inadmissible. That being said, I have to call my dear friend over—the legislative clerk.Clerk, could I suspend for one minute or less just to clarify one thing?(1230)(1235)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664048566404866640487664048866404896640490PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1235)[English] Thank you. We're back.I was just seeking some clarification, folks. Thank you for being patient. That, of course, was PV-15, which we ruled inadmissible. We now go on to BQ-10.Mr. Champoux.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640491664049266404936640494ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1235)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.With amendment BQ-10, we want to make sure that online undertakings that provide programming services from other broadcasting undertakings should ensure their discoverability. We therefore want Canadian programming services, original Canadian content, and French- language original content, to be promoted and discoverable in an equitable proportion compared to anglophone and foreign content. We also want to ensure that reasonable terms are provided for the carriage, packaging and retailing of those programming services provided to online undertakings by other broadcasting undertakings under contractual arrangements.We want to give our industry this additional assurance.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664049566404966640497ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1235)[English]Thank you.For clarification, when you have the words “equitable proportion”, can you define what you mean, Mr. Champoux?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66405006640501ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1235)[Translation]As for the expression "in an equitable proportion", what we wish to maintain here is the proportion in which we will generally make way for francophone content and original content. I believe that it's simply a reference to what will be determined as an equitable proportion within the overall application of the act.Mr. Méla could perhaps give us more details about the subtleties of the language, but that at least is what I understand it to mean.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66405046640505ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith (Senior Analyst, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1235)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I just want to get clarity on the specific portion we're discussing, so it's the part of subparagraph 3(1)(q)(i) that reads “in an equitable proportion, and”? Is that what we're discussing?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills66405216640522ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith: (1235)[English]Okay.To a certain degree this will be interpreted by the CRTC. It's not a defined term. It's not indicated elsewhere in the act. It would be up for interpretation by the commission.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66405246640525ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenMarci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Marci Ien: (1235)[English]Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.I appreciate Mr. Champoux pinpointing discoverability, among other things, in this amendment. I'm wondering if we might propose a subamendment to delete subparagraph (ii), because that seems to be the biggest issue here, “when programming services are supplied to them by other broadcasting undertakings”, and so forth?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664052866405296640530ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1235)[English]Just so I'm clear before I go to Mr. Champoux, under proposed subparagraphs 3(1)(q)(i) and 3(1)(q)(ii), you want to eliminate (ii) in its entirety? Is that good, Ms. Ien?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640531MarciIenToronto CentreMarciIenToronto Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1240)[Translation]This provision has not yet generated any discussion. To my knowledge, it has not been identified as problematic, but I'd be curious to hear Ms. Ien's arguments on this subject.First of all, I'd like to return to what Mr. Smith said just now. I want to be sure about how things have been understood or might be understood with respect to the concept of equitable proportion. What we really want is adequate and satisfactory visibility for Canadian content and francophone content on online platforms. That's what we had in mind when we drafted this amendment.So I want to make sure that I understand it. According to the department, even though it is the CRTC that will interpret the act, will it be understood the way we intended?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664053766405386640539ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith: (1240)[English]To answer the question, I agree with Mr. Champoux's statement that it's something that the act is striving towards and something that is obviously reflected in several other objectives of the act, as moved by the members of the committee on Friday, and today as well. The specific wording “in an equitable proportion” is something to be determined by the commission. I'm not sure what else I could add to that question.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66405426640543ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1240)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I'm supposed to speak to Ms. Ien's subamendment, but I actually have a question, if it's okay.[Translation]I'm in agreement with what Mr. Champoux is trying to do with the new subparagraph 3(1)(q)(i).[English]I guess my real question for the department is that I'm not sure this amendment is in the right place in the act. Shouldn't these issues be dealt with under the order- and regulation-making powers of the commission, in which case, maybe Monsieur Champoux would be better placed to try to amend G-8 or G-9, which are coming up later? If we wanted to achieve this, what would be the best place in the act to include, for example, proposed paragraph 3(1)(q) and proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(i)?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66405456640546664054766405486640549ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1240)[Translation]Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.There are indeed several objectives that address the importance of Canadian programming and French language programming, including original programs. It would appear that certain items in the amendment that has been put forward are instead addressing the tools that should be used to achieve these objectives. For example, conditions and the requirement for undertakings to ensure content discoverability were mentioned.So it's likely that it would be through a CRTC order or CRTC regulations that these requirements would be imposed on broadcasters.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664055566405566640557PatrickSmithMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1240)[Translation] I would just like to say that proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) is meant to reflect paragraph 5(2)(a)(1) in subclause 4(1) of Bill C-10, which says that the CRTC must be fair and equitable in regulating as between broadcasting undertakings.So I think that it's altogether consistent to place it in that location as well.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6640558Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1245)[English]Thank you. Because I've heard the conversation going back and forth, I want to clarify that we have from the department the answer about the “terms for the carriage” part of proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) and whether that presents any challenges. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66405736640574ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith: (1245)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii), this is a fairly heavy requirement that would involve some intervention from the commission with respect to the packages, contractual arrangements and terms of carriage. If the committee is in support of an approach that would allow that, then it should be aware that this is what would come with proposed subparagraph (ii) as well. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66405756640576JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePhilippeMélaPhilippe-MélaInterventionMr. Philippe Méla: (1245)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.In French, we would have to remove “à la fois”.[Translation]So there would be the words "radiodiffusion devraient".[English] We would remove “à la fois” and the full colon there. Then we would remove the “(i)” and the sentence would be one sentence.[Translation]And it would read as follows: "...radiodiffusion devraient assurer la découvrabilité des services...".[English]Then, in English, we would have to remove “(i)”, so that it would all flow as “undertakings should ensure”. Then, at the end, we should remove the “and” because there is no subparagraph (ii) anymore. The “and” would no longer apply at the end of subparagraph (i).BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664058466405856640586664058766405886640589ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1245)[English]Now you have the language cleaned up, but the intent is still the same. Ms. Ien, I don't see any outright objection from you. I'm assuming you're okay with the explanation as put forward by Mr. Méla for your subamendment.Seeing no further discussion, we now go to a vote on the subamendment of BQ-10 from Ms. Ien. (Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)The Chair: We now go back to the main motion. This is the main amendment, BQ-10. Mr. Housefather. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions664059066405916640592664059366405946640595PhilippeMélaAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1250)[English] Mr. Chair, I think this is an amendment where a lot of these things are reasonable. I repeat that I don't think this is in the right place in the act. I also have one more question, which is with respect to the way the proposed paragraph 3(1)(q) is now worded. It says: (q) online undertakings that provide the programming services of other broadcasting undertakings should (i) ensure the discoverabilityDoes that not then lead to only online undertakings having this obligation and not other broadcasting undertakings? I'd like to ask the department, because I'm very confused about that wording. I don't think it creates an equilibrium anymore.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640596664059766405986640599ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DamePatrickSmithPatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith: (1250)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. You are correct. Currently in proposed section 9.1, which I'm sure we'll get to in a couple of days, there is a condition of service power relating directly to discoverability, and this is not circumscribed to any particular types of broadcasting undertakings. Therefore, introducing this objective in section 3 of the act could create a perceived conflict between those two sections.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66406006640601AnthonyHousefatherMount RoyalJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1250)[English]I have another question for the department, which is whether this amendment poses any trade concerns and what they would be.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6640602PatrickSmithThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1250)[English]Thank you for the question, Ms. Dabrusin. I think I would reiterate the point that Mr. Smith made earlier. Proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) indicates that the government's intention here is that, generally, in contractual arrangements between online undertakings and other programming services that they're distributing, the CRTC would play a very active role in the economic regulation of those contractual relationships. Our understanding would be that there's not to be a heavy reliance on market forces, but that the CRTC would play a role with an active supervision of those contractual relationships. It's fair to say that, for certain online undertakings, their business model is obviously very much weighted towards free market forces and they would certainly have concerns, it's fair to say, about the CRTC being empowered to play that active role in the regulation of their contractual relationships.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66406036640604JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1250)[English]Thank you.Seeing no further discussion, we'll have a vote on the main amendment, which is BQ-10. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions664060566406066640607Thomas OwenRipleyScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1250)[English]We have BQ-11.(1255)[Translation] Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66406086640609ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1255)[Translation]Mr.Chair, once again, we are here trying to promote Canadian programming in both official languages and in indigenous languages, and to make sure that the various ways of controlling programming will generate results that enhance its discoverability.I think that it's an important addition, particularly if we want to place an emphasis on the discoverability of our content.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66406106640611ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1255)[English]It might be just my reading of the wording, but I'm a little unclear as to whether what is being suggested by this amendment is the promotion of Canadian programming or that the programs themselves should be in both official languages as well as in indigenous languages.I am just wondering if maybe the department can clarify what the wording would do.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66406136640614ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1255)[English]Okay. Here is the English version of BQ-11. It is that Bill C-10, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 4 the following:(q) online undertakings must clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery; andBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66406216640622PatrickSmithPatrickSmithPatrickSmithPatrick-SmithInterventionMr. Patrick Smith: (1255)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess there are a couple of things relating to this, perhaps just relating to the way in which the words are presented. It's whether the requirement being imposed is that the promotion itself and the recommendations themselves be done in both official languages as well as indigenous languages, and then whether this is related more towards a discoverability requirement, as we discussed earlier. I guess I'm having a bit of a hard time following the intent of the amendment as well. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66406236640624ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1255)[Translation]Thank you for allowing me to explain the intent.Through regulation, there would be obligations to present original Canadian content and original francophone content on platforms. We also have to make sure that the undertakings do promotion. For example, if you have subscribed to streaming services, you will probably occasionally receive emails suggesting audio or audiovisual material that you might be tempted to download or listen to. I want to make sure that in these promotional efforts by online undertakings and distributors there will still be visibility for our content.That's the intent of this amendment. I want Spotify and Apple Music to send content recommendations to our Canadian and Quebec artists.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills664062566406266640627PatrickSmithScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen (Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1255)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Thank you, Mr. Shields.Yes, that would be my interpretation. It would be up to the CRTC to determine what is “clearly” promoting and recommending.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills664063666406376640638ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1300)[English]All right. Seeing no further discussion on BQ-11, we will now go to a vote. Shall BQ-11 carry?(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDecisions in committeeGovernment billsRecorded divisions664063966406406640641DrewOlsenScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1300)[English] Yes, I'm sorry. I confused the three and a half hours with the three. That's on me. You have my apologies.I have a proposal from one o'clock to four o'clock. Do I see any dissension among the ranks? No.How about we try for one o'clock to four o'clock, and if it doesn't work, I'll email an alternative. It's one o'clock to four o'clock eastern time—I should clarify that always—for this coming Friday to resume clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. We'll see you on Friday, hopefully at one o'clock eastern.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6640657AlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.)): (1235)[English] I call the meeting to order. Hello, everyone. Welcome to what we legendarily call “clause-by-clause” on Bill C-10.I'm going to go through a few instructions. For those of you who are listening in the virtual world, I'm going to describe how clause-by-clause study is going to operate, in case you're not familiar with it. This is a brief explanation. We will, for the next three hours, be going through this bill. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill, each clause successively, and each clause is subject to a debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member who is proposing the amendment, who will explain it. Debate will follow, if there is a debate. When no members wish to further intervene, at that point, when the debate has settled, we will proceed to a vote.The amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill package that you all have as members, and they will be numbered as such. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together. I'll inform the members when that situation occurs, or the legislative clerk will when need be. Given that we're all in a virtual world, that may happen more often than not. I'll be pleased to accept that interruption should we go awry. Pursuant to the House order of September 23, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote, except for those decided unanimously or on division. Let me explain this for a moment.We have three options here. When I say, “Shall the clause carry?” or “Shall the amendment carry?”, if I am greeted with silence, it will be accepted and carried. If you have issues with the clause or the amendment but you don't wish to go to a vote, you can say, “On division”, and it will be carried on division. Just make sure that someone says, “On division” if you wish it to be passed that way. Finally, if we have someone saying, “No”, or if people have big issues, we will go to a recorded vote. I'll ask our clerk to proceed with a recorded vote when necessary.That said, you have your package of amendments. For those who are listening in the virtual world through the webcast, I will explain how it works. We have amendments from six different streams, and they will be labelled as such. For example, the first one we will deal with is PV-1. PV is Parti vert. It is the Green Party amendment. The Green Party members are not full-time members of the committee, but they are allowed by law to introduce amendments to this bill. They do not have the ability to vote, but they certainly have the ability to introduce amendments and to debate them. One note about this is that all motions by the Green Party will be deemed moved because of the situation of not being on the committee. All the other amendments have to be moved by the mover when need be. I'll notify that person when their number comes up.I'll use the example of the first amendments. We have PV-1. We also have LIB-1. These amendments will be coming from the Liberal members on the committee. We have CPC-1, which will be coming from the Conservative members on the committee. We have BQ-1 coming from the Bloc Québécois. We also have NDP-1. These amendments will be coming from the New Democrats. The final category is G, as in amendment G-1. These amendments will be moved by our members from the government, because the government may amend its own bill. Such is the democracy that we have.Moving on, the other item I would like to bring to everyone's attention is about subamendments. Members are permitted to move subamendments. The subamendments must be submitted in writing, or by email for members participating virtually, as we are, in this world. They do not require the approval of the mover of the original amendment. If you're subamending, the subamendment is voted on first. Another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it. Only one subamendment at a time may be considered. We can't do two subamendments based on the original amendment. We'd have to vote on that and then move another one. I hope I made that somewhat clear.Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and then on the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if any amendments are adopted, of course. We send that back to the House for report stage. In fact, the committee orders the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.(1240)I thank the members for their attention.Here are a couple of other items. Yes, folks, I've seen some of your input, and we will be having a health break. Accordingly, some tine between one hour and an hour and a half from now, we'll do so. If I see people fidgeting in their seats, I'll do it right away—forthwith, if need be.Nevertheless, I also want to say welcome. As we normally do in clause-by-clause examination, we also bring in guests from the department—in this case, of course, the Department of Canadian Heritage. They will be available to us—virtually, of course—for questions, if we have any regarding an amendment, subamendment or the bill itself. I want to welcome to our virtual world and our world of small squares on the screen Thomas Owen Ripley, the director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace at the Department of Canadian Heritage. We also have Drew Olsen, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy; and Kathy Tsui, manager, industry and social policy, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace. As I've said to her before, that's probably the largest business card I've ever witnessed. We also have Patrick Smith, a senior analyst, marketplace and legislative policy. Thank you to our guests for being here today.I need to recognize one member at the very beginning.Ms. Dabrusin, are you there? Happy birthday, Ms. Dabrusin.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628384662838566283866628387662838866283896628390662839166283926628393662839466283956628396662839766283986628399662840066284016628402JulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1240)[Translation]We're honoured to have you, in that case.That being said, we're going to move ahead now with clause-by-clause study. Buckle up, folks. This is the fundamental core of parliamentary democracy at its best. It's going to be an exciting time—so exciting that we'll probably sell the story rights to Netflix.I'm kidding, just kidding; we're not going to do that. I don't think we can do that to any broadcast undertaking.Let's get moving, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, we are examining Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the title is postponed to the end. It's normally the first thing you see in the bill, but we will deal with the title at the end of this clause-by-clause session.(On clause 1) We're going to proceed in the first place, as you may have guessed, to clause 1. Since it has already been deemed moved, we will start with amendment PV-1. I am looking to the side of my screen, where I see all the names. I want you to raise your hand if you want to move or wish to speak to a particular amendment.That being said, right on cue, Mr. Manly, we welcome you. You, sir, have the honour of going first, with amendment PV-1.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628404662840566284066628407662840866284096628410662841166284126628413JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): (1240)[English] Thank you, Chair.First of all, I thank Ms. Dabrusin and wish her a happy birthday. It's actually my sister Heather's birthday as well, so I wish my sister a happy birthday along with that. As you mentioned, I'm not an official member of this committee. Despite the fact that the Green Party got 1.2 million votes in the last election, clearly one-fifth of what the Liberals and the Conservatives got but 50 times fewer seats than the Liberals and 40 times fewer seats than Conservatives, because we don't have official party status, I do not have a voice or a vote on committee. However, I have been studying this bill. I've followed the witness testimony in committee and I've had my own meetings with a number of organizations so that I could question them myself.This amendment adds a definition of “community element” to the act. The broadcasting policy for Canada in the act states that the Canadian broadcasting system comprises “public, private and community elements” and that each element “shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming”. However, there is no definition of “community element”, nor is there a description of what an “appropriate manner” means. Community element is needed now more than ever. It's the voice of smaller communities and minority voices. It's a platform for democratic discourse. It's a way for media literacy, a training ground for people in communities who want to learn about broadcasting and television and radio, and it's an incubator for Canadian talent.I've had some discussion with members of the committee and the word “non-profit” stuck out to them, because the definition in the amendment as written says:“community element” means the participation of members of the community in the non-profit content production of community media in the language of their choice, as well as in the day-to-day operations and administration of community media; Many of these community television organizations are connected to major cable companies: Shaw, Rogers, Cogeco, and so on, which are for-profit companies. However, when the cable companies got their monopoly to provide cable in a community, part of that was to provide community television. The intent of community television was for it to be non-commercial. That might be a better word than “non-profit”, but rather than trying to cram a program into 22 minutes so that you could get eight minutes of commercials, there were no constraints on that. There are no commercials on community radio or community television. There are sponsorships from businesses for programming, but it is not the same as the commercial radio or commercial television.Therefore, I'm hoping that the members of the committee will support this definition and that they see the need for changing the word “non-profit” to “non-commercial”. This might need to be done, but I think it's important to define what the community element is in the act.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628414662841566284166628417662841866284196628420662842166284226628423ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1245)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I thank Mr. Manly, because it's clear he put a lot of thought into the amendments that he has put forward and I appreciate that he's taken the time to highlight the community aspect of programming and of the Broadcasting Act.I have had conversations with Mr. Manly and I would like to propose a subamendment that would amend his amendment by removing the word “non-profit”. I agree absolutely with the intent and think it's a great thing, but the problem is that including those words could actually have an impact on funding available for community programming, community broadcasting, in a negative way. I want to make to sure that we maintain that open field and that we do not negatively impact community broadcasting. Therefore, I suggest that we remove the words “non-profit”, please.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662842766284286628429ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1245)[English]Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.If everybody can look at their package, you'll see PV-1 starts with the paragraph, “community element”, and so on and so forth. What we are now debating as a subamendment is simply removing “non-profit”. Do I see any comment on the subamendment for this discussion on PV-1? Seeing none, I'll call a vote.I'm greeted with silence; therefore, it is accepted. (Subamendment agreed to) Now that it has been amended, we'll go to the main amendment.Mr. Shields, go ahead.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66284306628431662843266284336628434662843566284366628437JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1250)[English]In reference to what Mr. Manly is talking about with this amendment, could he give us some examples? Definitions are tough. I understand that. It's referred to in the sense of the community elements. Could he give us some examples of how this definition would clarify, such as specifics of what would happen?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66284406628441ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1250)[English]Yes.The community element is really about community cable and community radio. It's a non-commercial element to broadcasting. Here in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we have CHLY Radio, which is a community college radio station. It's a non-commercial radio station. Students and community members can use it for a learning process. They can pitch shows to the programming committee and then they put together radio shows. They can be talk shows. They can be music shows. There are a series of rules they have to follow in terms of Canadian content for music. With television it's the same thing.There was a time when you learned about community television through shows like Wayne's World. I started in community television in 1986 at Skyline Cable in Ottawa, before going to school to study broadcasting. That was where I learned about all the different processes for broadcasting. It's what inspired me to go into television. It's also a place for organizations and community members to be able to have a public discourse to bring their ideas forward. Because it's non-commercial, it's not driven by the element of money and trying to sell eyeballs to advertisers. The purpose is really to bring the community voice into the broadcasting system. It's really important in terms of things like democratic debates. On our community television station here and on community radio, we get debates for city council elections, provincial elections and federal elections. It gives another opportunity for people to hear what's happening in their community.There are many different ways that community television and community radio are used. The key thing is that it's not a commercial entity, so there isn't an impetus to have to sell eyeball time for commercials. That's a really important element for our democratic system, for open discourse, and as a training ground for people who want to learn about broadcasting and who want to bring their talents forward. We've seen lots of people who've worked in community television go on to have careers as actors. Tom Green, from Ottawa, is one example. There are lots of examples of people who started their career fooling around on community TV.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662844366284446628445662844666284476628448ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1255)[English]I would like to thank MP Manly for all his years in community broadcasting.What I've seen is that you get Access Communications in Saskatchewan. They have the label of community television, but yet they do pay people. They do charge through cable subscriptions. There seems to be a little disconnect here, because I think Rogers and maybe even Bell also own community television stations. It's not really non-profit, because in that case, I would think, Bell or Rogers or Access Communications.... In Saskatoon it used to be Shaw that had the community station. These are big conglomerates that on the TV end of it look after community television, more so than happens with radio, I would say. You're right on the radio, but I do have some issues on community television. They are owned by well-known companies like Bell and Access and Rogers and so on.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662845766284586628459ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1255)[English]Yes. Not all community televison stations and not all community radio stations are owned by these large companies. Where the community television is owned by these large companies, it's where they have continued on after this mandate where part of the subscriber fees paid for these community television stations. The cable companies had a choice about putting money into the Canadian media fund or into community television, where that was switched up a few decades ago. Prior to that, they had to provide community access television. I agree that Shaw and Rogers and Cogeco and Bell are not non-profit companies, but the intent of the actual programming is to be non-commercial. I think that's the important point. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662846166284626628463ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1255)[English]Thank you, Mr. Manly.Seeing no more hands up, we will call for a vote on PV-1 as amended. (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) We will now move to PV-2.Mr. Manly, you're up again. My goodness, you're very busy off the top.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66284646628465662846666284676628468PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1255)[English]Thank you. Again, this is adding to the definition of a community program:“community program” means a program created by a non-profit community media organization; This is typically how this happens. Again, we'll probably want to remove the word “non-profit”, because some of these activities take place in Shaw or Rogers or other huge corporations. This just adds the definition. Non-profit community media organizations are an essential component of the Canadian broadcasting system, and they need to be recognized as such. Hopefully, we can just amend this to say “non-commercial” community media, because I think that defines it in the way that it should be defined.You know, I went into broadcasting through community television. I went to broadcasting school and then worked professionally in the industry for 25 years, producing lots of documentaries and working on hundreds of serious TV shows. This is an entry for many people. I think it's important to keep this aspect of our broadcasting system alive and well defined.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662846966284706628471662847266284736628474ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1300)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This is an important conversation about community broadcasting. I know that when we get to LIB-3, there is in fact specifically a part that goes to supporting community broadcasting. I have up on my other screen here the original Broadcasting Act. Looking at that, we don't define different forms of programming in our definitions. We're getting in the weeds a bit on the definitions. I don't believe this is actually a helpful addition. We do have specific additions to support community broadcasting and respect the importance of it, but this isn't another definition that we need to add into our definitions section. I will not be supporting this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628477662847866284796628480ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1305)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The amendment in question, which you'll find on page 86 of the package of amendments, refers to the following proposed subsection 9.1(1) of the bill:9.1(1) The Commission may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions ... that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting...Amendment BQ-24 adds the following after paragraph 9.1(1)(j):(k) the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be original French language programs, while ensuring that these programs represent a significant proportion of Canadian programs;(l) the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres in order to ensure the diversity of programming; and(m) continued Canadian ownership and control by broadcasting undertakings.The last paragraph may be the one to keep in mind. As a result of this proposed amendment, the legislative drafters suggested that we add the other amendment, since it affected the definitions, including the definition of “control.”BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662851466285156628516662851766285186628519662852066285216628522ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1310)[English]I appreciate that Mr. Champoux clarified what the full purpose of this amendment is, because we have heard from stakeholders about the importance of the Canadian ownership part, and that's something I've seen raised by a number of different parties in different ways. I think there are a lot of people who are trying to sail that ship in that direction, and it's a question of how we do it and what the right words are.I thought it might be helpful for this one if I could get the department's assistance, because it seems to me like a technical piece as to the right place and way to deal with this ownership question.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66285246628525ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley (Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1310)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will likely call on my colleague, Mr. Olsen, as well.Just to give the context, the government included the definition of “control” in Bill C-10 as it currently exists to provide some context in the case of how it should be interpreted in certain provisions so that the definition of “affiliate”.... It's relevant when thinking about the relationship with social media companies, which we'll have an opportunity to talk about later, I'm sure. It's important in that context to have an understanding of what it means when an affiliate is under the control of another corporation.Then, in the context of proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(i)(i), I think perhaps Mr. Olsen can indicate why we felt it was important to have a definition of “control” in that context. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills6628529662853066285316628532ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen (Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): (1310)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman.The reason we added “control” in paragraph 9.1(i) was just to make sure it was clear that the ownership and control transactions would be not just the control of the legal shares, but also any potential control in fact of the company by somebody else.When the CRTC processes ownership transactions it typically looks at this. We just wanted to make it clear that “control” in this context includes the “control in fact” situation, as opposed to just legal control of the number of shares and voting shares, for instance.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyDepartment of Canadian HeritageGovernment bills662854266285436628544ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1310)[English]Mr. Chair, I have a question for the department, if you'll permit me.As I understand it, this is changing the definition of control from juridical control to de facto control and incorporating it. I also understand that you've ruled that it's relevant to Bloc Québécois amendment 24, which has three different parts, (k), (l) and (m).I'm wondering two things from you, Mr. Chair. The Bloc Québécois amendment, BQ-24, is relevant to this in the sense that if (m) goes through you want a definition of control that you're applying here. Would you be ruling that BQ-24 would thus not be able to be debated for (k) and (l) in the event that this definition were defeated? I ask because (k) and (l) are entirely different from (m).I would like to ask the department: Because we're changing the definition of control in terms of an affiliate, does this impact other parts of the act? What is that impact, besides the change that would be made in BQ-24?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628550662855166285526628553ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1315)[English]The current scope of the definition would apply only to the definition of affiliate and then the paragraph in 9.1 that Mr. Olsen spoke about.If I understand correctly from Mr. Champoux, the amendment being referenced in BQ-24 has a reference, it seems, to Canadian ownership and control. I think the relevant question in that context is whether the definition of control here makes sense in light of that other amendment that he is proposing.What I would highlight in the case of Canadian ownership and control is that, as the committee is aware, there is a very detailed direction that sits on the books to the CRTC. It actually, in a very prescriptive way, indicates when a Canadian broadcaster, cable or satellite company is under either direct or indirect control and has percentages of voting shares and whatnot. The only thing the committee may want to consider is whether that would change some of the legal threshold for what constitutes control indirectly, by subjecting it to this definition for control as opposed to leaving it up to the Governor in Council—as is currently the case—to set those thresholds for when something is considered to be under Canadian control or ownership.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628556662855766285586628559ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104694LyneBessetteLyne-BessetteBrome—MissisquoiLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BessetteLyne_Lib.jpgInterventionMrs. Lyne Bessette (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): (1320)[Translation]At this point, Bill C-10 doesn't define “indigenous peoples.” It would be good to list them: first nations, Inuit and Métis people.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628584ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1320)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'd like some clarification with regard to Ms. Bessette's explanation. When I read the amendment, I can see that it refers to the content of the Constitution Act, 1982, without identifying the indigenous peoples. Does this mean that she would prefer that they be included in the bill?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66285876628588ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLyneBessetteBrome—Missisquoi//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104694LyneBessetteLyne-BessetteBrome—MissisquoiLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BessetteLyne_Lib.jpgInterventionMrs. Lyne Bessette: (1320)[Translation]To answer Mr. Champoux's question, I think that we should recognize first nations, Inuit and Métis people in this bill, since they have three distinct cultures. The amendment proposes to add the definition of “indigenous peoples” found in the Constitution Act, 1982, to clause 1 of Bill C-10. However, I'd like the indigenous peoples to be listed, if you agree.Thank you.C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts6628591ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1325)[Translation]Could someone confirm the information that Ms. Bessette just provided? I think that's the reason for the confusion with regard to these two amendments.Basically, our party supports both amendments. However, since we need to study one amendment before we can study the other, we want to make the right choice. We don't want to eliminate the Bloc Québécois amendment if the communities aren't listed in Ms. Bessette's amendment.Could an expert check the information provided by Ms. Bessette?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662860166286026628603ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1325)[English]We're going to call for a vote on G-1.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) As a consequence, of course, BQ-2 has now not been moved.We now go to PV-3.Mr. Manly.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286066628607662860866286096628610LyneBessetteBrome—MissisquoiPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1325)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.In combination with PV-5—that the broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians—this amendment would clarify that foreign undertakings can still provide broadcasting programming to Canadians and are still subject to the act despite the system being Canadian controlled.In PV-5, the bill removes the section of the act that asserts that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. This amendment would maintain what's currently in the act. Ownership and control are essential for Canada's national identity and cultural sovereignty. Many organizations are concerned about the removal of ownership and control by Canadians, including the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expression, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, Canadian Senior Artists' Resource Network and the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications. The amendment of PV-5 should be paired with PV-3, which would clarify that foreign undertakings can still participate in a system that is owned and controlled by Canadians.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286116628612662861366286146628615ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1325)[English]Thank you.This is one of those places where the concern is that what might sound good might actually lead to a more complicated and unintended consequence. Looking at this amendment, the way it works could actually suggest that other classes of broadcasting undertakings do not include foreign broadcasting undertakings. It could lead the readers—someone who's looking at it—to conclude that the act does not apply to foreign BDUs, and therefore they could operate in Canada without a licence.It could end up creating that opening. Goodness, I practised law for many years, so I know this. My job was all about trying to find those openings. To have that unintended consequence, someone could say that in fact the bill has a smaller scope than it is intended to.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662861766286186628619ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1330)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.On the amendment that we've put forward, the objective, of course, is to modify the definition of control of programming to ensure that companies meet their obligations regarding discoverability. We all heard about how important that was during the testimony. Certainly, through the many meetings I had with the people who were interested in this, this became something that was vitally important.The CRTC must not only be able to ask but also be able to verify whether software is designed to be compliant. It also needs access to the relevant data to study user interactions with interfaces and to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations. Therefore, the amendment includes algorithms in order to take account of technological developments, programming control and the requirement of discoverability.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662862966286306628631ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1330)[English]Thanks. I appreciate the amendment, because I understand the issue of algorithms to be incredibly important, although I know we'll be dealing with that in upcoming legislation.I have a question for Ms. McPherson or the department officials, whoever can answer it better. Is it the intent that online undertakings that transmit user-generated programs now be responsible for all of the contents under the requirements of paragraph 3(1)(h) of the act, given this amendment? That would seem to be really onerous. I'm wondering if you could clarify if that's the intention.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662863466286356628636ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1330)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.Indeed, the definition of “programming control” was modified by, as I understand it, what Ms. McPherson is proposing. What it could mean is that certain online undertakings.... Depending on the scope of what that means at the end of the day, particularly in cases where social media platforms may be included under the act, modifying the definition of “programming control” in this way would make them responsible for any content that their recommender algorithms could recommend, even in instances where they have not necessarily curated it.The definition commonly understood in broadcasting has come out of the conventional sense, where we know a broadcaster is commissioning a piece of content and choosing to include it on its lineup. If the definition were modified in this way, it would certainly expand the scope of programming control significantly. Depending on where the scope of online undertakings ends up, the implications could be quite significant. You could be asking companies to be responsible for content that their recommender algorithms are recommending or servicing, even in instances where they may not have been involved directly in the commissioning or the creation of that content.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662864266286436628644ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1335)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I want to speak to my colleague, Ms. McPherson.I don't want to draw attention to the amendment that we're proposing, amendment BQ-3. However, isn't specifying the possible methods involved somewhat limiting? For example, if our wording simply referred to the selection, recommendation and prioritization of programs, without necessarily specifying any methods, this would include all methods used to make the selection.I certainly expected a great deal of debate about the concept of algorithms. However, I wonder whether we need to include it, since it's implied.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628648662864966286506628651ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: Now we go on to amendment BQ-3.[Translation]Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286566628657ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1335)[Translation]It's similar to Ms. McPherson's amendment, except that it doesn't identify the methods. I think that, by simply stating what we want to define, without necessarily using specific terms, we would provide a clear understanding of the intent.I'm open to questions, of course.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286586628659ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1335)[English]I have a question, because this has a lot of similarities to the last one that we just spoke about, but also some important differences.I wonder if the department can clarify the impact of BQ-3. We talked a bit about the NDP one, but perhaps they could specify the difference in BQ-3.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286636628664ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDrewOlsenDrew-OlsenInterventionMr. Drew Olsen: (1340)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to do that. Ms. Dabrusin, thank you for the question. The first thing I see here is that there's a notion of including retransmission in this. Retransmission is cable companies retransmitting broadcast programs. For example, CTV broadcasts over the air, and then Rogers, Shaw or Videotron retransmits that to consumers, but they don't have any control over the programming that is in the CTV signal. This definition appears to me to include the retransmission element, which would then give the Shaws, Rogers and Videotrons of the world responsibility, or deem them to be responsible, over the programming. They have the same issue now that we had in the last amendment with proposed paragraph 3(1)(h), and even the new proposed paragraph 3(1)(g) would apply to them, in terms of putting a burden on them for programming being of high standard and their being responsible for the programming. That's the first thing I've noticed. Obviously, the new words there are also “recommendation or prioritization of programs or programming services”, which don't appear in the current proposed definition in Bill C-10. That would change it, and I am not really sure how that would apply to the retransmission world and I'm not sure how an over-the-air broadcaster does recommendations. I think that's meant to apply just to online, but I'm not sure how that would apply in the traditional broadcasting space. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286676628668662866966286706628671ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1340)[English]Thank you, Mr. Olsen.I just want to get one quick clarification. I know this doesn't explicitly talk about algorithms, but I just want to clarify something with Mr. Ripley.It was my understanding that you had told the committee that decisions made by algorithms were meant to be included in this bill. Is that accurate?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628673662867466286756628676ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1340)[English]Thank you for the question, Ms. McPherson. It's a good one, in the sense that, as the committee knows, there are elements of Bill C-10 that give the CRTC powers to impose discoverability requirements on online undertakings. Certainly we understand that in those contexts, the ways that recommender algorithms are working are very relevant to the CRTC's work. It's not a question of saying yes, they're within the scope of the act, and the CRTC would be able to ask for information from online undertakings such as Netflix or Crave about the way their algorithms are prioritizing or servicing Canadian content as part of those processes. The implication in this particular context is where the term “programming control” is used elsewhere in the act. For example, proposed paragraph 10(1)(c) says: standards for programs over which a person carrying on a broadcasting undertaking has programming controlI think there's another regulatory power that also references it, so my previous comments were speaking to the potential implication of this—that again the committee would be extending the scope of those powers in potentially requiring companies that are simply in the business of retransmitting or distributing content made by others to suddenly be responsible for the standards or the content of that content.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628677662867866286796628680HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: We now move to NDP-2.Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286916628692ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Heather McPherson: (1345)[English]Thank you.The purpose of this amendment is to delete this article of the bill, which allows social media such as YouTube and Facebook to escape regulation. It is also to prevent the situation that occurs when some broadcasters decide to supplement their own online broadcasting and thus circumvent the requirements to which traditional broadcasters would be subject.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66286936628694ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1345)[English]We respect that the matter of online harms is an important thing, and we're going to be dealing with it in upcoming legislation.My concern about this amendment, in particular, is that it seems that it would actually extend the CRTC's ability to regulate social media users. The users piece is particularly important, because this is the Broadcasting Act. I don't believe any of us have the intention of actually, within the Broadcasting Act, starting to regulate what users choose to upload to social media. When I say “users”, I mean individuals like any one of us, or people in our families and communities.I would oppose this amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662869766286986628699ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1350)[English]I'll try to keep it short so we can get to that health break. This bill excludes social media users from being subject to the act, but the act's application to social media providers is not defined. This amendment adds text to clarify that social media are subject to the act when undertaking broadcasting activities, without removing the exemption for social media users. Further, the bill states that all persons who carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs that they are broadcasting and over which they have programming control. Social media platforms should have responsibility for what is posted on their sites, and this amendment would at least make social media providers, not users, responsible for what they broadcast.Thank you. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628707662870866287096628710ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1350)[English]I have to admit this amendment I found to be a bit more confusing. Every now and then there are some amendments that are a bit more confusing to me in terms of how they may have an impact.Perhaps the department can help me to understand what clarity this brings, if any.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66287126628713ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1350)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, for the question. There is already language in the bill that clarifies that when a social media user is an affiliate—i.e., when they have a relationship with a social media company—they do not benefit from the exclusion. That is already part of the bill. Based on what I understand Mr. Manly to be proposing, it is that he's proposing to simply clarify that the opposite is true—to explicitly state that when an affiliate is broadcasting, they don't benefit from the exception. The government's perspective would be that this is already implicit in the current bill and therefore that this amendment would simply be stating the opposite reading. Those would be my thoughts on it, Mr. Chair. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66287156628716662871766287186628719ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: Folks, I would ask that we try to get through this as quickly as we can with a simple vote. I appreciate the spirit in which it was done, Ms. McPherson, but for the sake of expediency I'm going to have to remind everyone about the yes and the no and whatever it may be.Let's move on now. Again, we'll break in about six or seven minutes.We're now going to LIB-1, and if you are listening from elsewhere, “LIB” means it's a motion put forward for consideration by Liberal members of the committee.Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628728662872966287306628731ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1355)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues.I'm going to be relatively brief. This is the first in a number of amendments being brought forward by representatives of all parties to do some things.[Translation]The first recognizes that French is a minority language in North America and in nine of the 10 Canadian provinces.[English]It also recognizes that English is a minority language in Quebec. The amendment states that we have two official languages that we're very proud of in Canada and that we should be promoting them, and that the act should be interpreted and applied in a manner that supports the commitment of the Canadian government to enhance the vitality of both official languages—English and French—throughout Canada, and the official language minority communities in Canada.[Translation]We heard from representatives of francophones outside Quebec, francophones in Quebec and anglophones in Quebec. I believe that we must ensure that the act reflects Canada's priority goal of supporting both language communities and both official languages across the country.I hope that the committee members will support this amendment. I'm ready to support the various amendments regarding the language issue that all parties will be introducing today.Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628732662873366287346628735662873666287376628738ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1355)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The amendment is clear. It seeks to amend the bill by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following:(2.2) A person does not carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act whose transmission of programs over the Internet is (a) ancillary to a business not primarily engaged in the transmission of programs to the public and is intended to provide information or services to clients;(b) part of the operations of a primary or secondary school board, college, university or other institution of higher learning, a public library or a museum;...BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662874666287476628748662874966287506628751ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1355)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Since this amendment was submitted a little later than the others, I haven't had the opportunity to study it in depth. I'd like to ask the departmental officials to explain the impact of this amendment so that I can have a better understanding.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66287576628758ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1400)[Translation]I can respond, Mr. Chair.Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.I gather that Mr. Rayes' amendment appears to propose exceptions, to clarify that certain undertakings aren't broadcasters within the meaning of the act.However, the bill already specifies that the CRTC, when implementing the regulations, “takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which this Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on any class of broadcasting undertakings if that imposition will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1).” This is reflected in proposed paragraph 5(2)(h). There's already some leeway so that the CRTC can avoid imposing regulatory obligations on undertakings that aren't really in the broadcasting business.I have one final comment. Would the committee like to include a list of exceptions? The committee must consider this. Would the list be comprehensive? Would we forget any? If so, that could cause issues.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66287606628761662876266287636628764ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. Martin Champoux: (1400)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a question, which Mr. Rayes or the departmental officials could answer. It's about proposed paragraph 2(2.2)(a): “ancillary to a business not primarily engaged in the transmission of programs to the public and is intended to provide information or services to clients; ...”One case comes to mind. I'm thinking of undertakings involved in redistribution or a broadcast service in establishments such as hotels.Based on your understanding of the intent of this paragraph, would these undertakings be excluded from the regulations or would they still be subject to the Broadcasting Act?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628766662876766287686628769ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1400)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I'll let the officials answer Mr. Champoux's question, since it concerns technical details.I just want to address Mr. Ripley's first response. The amendment states as follows: “A person does not carry on a broadcasting undertaking...” For example, proposed paragraph (b) would exclude situations where students transmit content over the Internet while doing schoolwork. This amendment specifically focuses on education. It seeks to ensure that a student who must complete an assignment over the Internet isn't subject to the regulations. This situation doesn't involve the student's primary activity or a business that wants to make a profit.I don't think that the CRTC needs to legislate. It's a no-brainer for us. This falls in line with the access to documents given to universities, primary schools, secondary schools and other institutions. We would like to exclude this group from the entire bill. It's very clear to us.We aren't talking about an undertaking. We aren't talking about a situation where the CRTC would be asked to legislate and determine whether an undertaking has the right to transmit content. Instead, we're talking about cases that shouldn't be considered activities related to the operation of a business.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills66287736628774662877566287766628777ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1400)[Translation]I'll answer Mr. Champoux's question.I gather from the proposal that we'll need to determine when broadcasting constitutes the primary activity of an undertaking and when it constitutes a secondary activity. There are several possible scenarios. I'm thinking of Amazon, for example. Does Amazon's streaming service constitute its primary activity or a secondary activity? This raises issues. We'll need to determine under what circumstances we can consider broadcasting the primary activity of an online undertaking and under what circumstances we can consider it a secondary activity.Thank you, Mr. Chair.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662877966287806628781ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88810TimLouisTim-LouisKitchener—ConestogaLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LouisTim_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): (1405)[English]Thanks, Mr. Chair.I wonder whether we might hear more from the department. With your educational institutions or your venues, would this legislation be able to keep up with changing technology? In this last year, people are becoming more resourceful and doing more online broadcasting. Is this something this legislation could keep up with, with this amendment, or could it fall behind? Is this something we might leave to the regulators?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662878366287846628785ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameThomas OwenRipleyThomasOwen-RipleyInterventionMr. Thomas Owen Ripley: (1405)[English]Thank you for the question, Mr. Louis.What I would say is that, as I highlighted at the outset, we have already included under subclause 5(2) an indication that the CRTC should avoid regulating enterprises, businesses, organizations when they not do contribute in a material manner. That was precisely, I think, to speak to the spirit of what I understand Mr. Rayes' amendment to be, which is that there isn't a reason to subject, for example, educational institutions to being considered a broadcaster. The way Bill C-10 currently goes about this is by giving the discretion to the CRTC to work through when certain types of organizations should not be subject to being considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act.Indeed, I query whether the list is as complete as the committee would want it to be in order to be future-proofed or whether these questions are better left up to being worked out through regulatory proceedings that can evolve as time goes on.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628787662878866287896628790ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88558AnthonyHousefatherAnthony-HousefatherMount RoyalLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HousefatherAnthony_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Anthony Housefather: (1405)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Having now heard from the department and having thought about it, personally I would have supported seeing paragraphs (b) and (c) carved out. I don't agree with paragraph (a) being carved out, because I think that doing so creates very extreme possibilities of large undertakings not being included because they have an ancillary business through which they're providing a service to their clients. I also then worry that, even though I support carving out paragraphs (b) and (c), if we carve only them out and don't list other areas that should also be carved out, the CRTC will assume that because the legislator said these two are carved out, they're not to carve out anything else.I'd rather stick with a more general exception, then, but I appreciate the intent of the amendment.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628792662879366287946628795ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1405)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have one last thing to say, and then, I will trust the committee members to make the right decision as to whether we should adopt the amendment or not.I appreciate Mr. Housefather bringing up paragraph (c) of the amendment. I had forgotten to read it. Paragraph (c) pertains to concert halls, theatres and other venues for the presentation of live performing arts. It was on my second page, and with all these pages, I skipped right over it.I want to respond to Mr. Ripley's comment and his Amazon example. Even if Amazon had an ancillary business in the background, I don't think anyone would believe that it was not principally engaged in that activity. The CRTC may have to decide in a case like that.I think the intent behind my amendment is clear: to ensure that people who transmit content over the Internet and who are not principally engaged in the activity are not deemed to be carrying on a broadcasting undertaking. That would include people who do it recreationally, or students doing it as part of a class or at a teacher's request. It would also include people working in the arts and culture or theatre sector, such as videographers and artists who have podcasts.That is the intent behind the amendment, and I hope the committee members will support it.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662879766287986628799662880066288016628802ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1425)[English]Before I leave that topic, we won't do the show of hands; however, I just want to remind everyone.... I know we say “on division”, and it always assumes that it's carried on division. I just want you to know that the Standing Orders also say that you can negative on division as well. Therefore, if someone says “negative on division”—and make sure you say “negative”—I will declare it negatived if nobody else says anything. When we say “on division”, it's supposed to be “carried on division”, but we just say “on division” as a short term.Anyway, I just wanted to remind people of that, but if someone calls for a recorded vote, then we have to proceed with it. In the meantime, we'll stick with that for now.Let's proceed.(On clause 2) We're going to start clause 2 with PV-5, and I just want to make one note before I go to Mr. Manly. If PV-5 is adopted, BQ-4 cannot be moved due to line conflicts.Mr. Manly, the floor is yours.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills662882166288226628823662882466288256628826MartinShieldsBow RiverPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89485PaulManlyPaul-ManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ManlyPaul_GP.jpgInterventionMr. Paul Manly: (1425)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.This amendment really keeps the ownership and control of our broadcasting system by Canadians. The bill currently removes the section of the act that asserts that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.We live beside the largest media conglomerate in the world, the United States, and we have kept our national identity and our cultural sovereignty by maintaining control and ownership of our broadcasting system effectively by Canadians. This amendment has been supported by a number of organizations that I've talked to, and I'll note that the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP have similar amendments to maintain ownership and control of our broadcasting system by Canadians.I think it's important to keep this enshrined in legislation, rather than just leaving it to the CRTC. Thank you.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628827662882866288296628830ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1425)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.In fact there is also a Liberal amendment with respect to ownership, and it comes through as G-4, which we'll be coming to later on.What this does is essentially revert us back to paragraph 3(1)(a), the original in the act, and doesn't recognize that what this bill is trying to do is to bring in foreign online streamers as well, which do not pass Canadian ownership.Just bringing paragraph 3(1)(a) back in its old format, in fact just reverts us back to the old way the act worked without taking into account the new circumstances that we're in. The intent is in the right place, and I think that we're generally in agreement that the intent is in the right place, but this doesn't get us to where we need to be.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClause-by-clause studyGovernment bills6628832662883366288346628835ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionDiscussed TopicProcedural TermCommitteePerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusParticipation TypeSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE