Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 2083
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
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.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
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.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
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?
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
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.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
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.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
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—
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
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?
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-06-07 12:16
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.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
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.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
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.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-06-07 12:41
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?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
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?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
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.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
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.
Results: 121 - 135 of 2083 | Page: 9 of 139

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data