Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 56 of 56
Melanie Kwong
View Melanie Kwong Profile
Melanie Kwong
2021-06-18 13:06
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I would just like to mention that my colleague Emmanuelle is having some connection difficulties, so I'll be speaking on her behalf to begin the remarks.
Dear members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I'm pleased to be appearing before you today.
Recognizing that I'm speaking on my colleague's behalf, I would like to acknowledge that today I'm speaking to you from the Treaty No. 7 territory of the Stoney Nakoda and Blackfoot Confederacy, as well as Métis region 3 in Alberta.
I'm here to give you information on funding provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage for activities related to the commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools.
First, I would like to acknowledge the committee's support in making the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a reality. This year, on September 30, we will mark the first anniversary of this important day that will help ensure that the tragic history and legacy of residential schools are not forgotten and remain a vital component of the reconciliation process.
In 2019, the federal budget provided $7 million over two years for projects to raise awareness of the history and legacy of residential schools and to honour survivors, families and communities. The department developed a two-year strategy. The first year we funded large-scale national initiatives that have an educational and legacy component. The second year was for community-based projects suited to meet specific needs, histories and realities.
This funding provided grants and contributions to eligible recipients for initiatives that helped raise awareness regarding the history and legacy of residential schools and for activities that enabled communities to recognize, commemorate and honour survivors, their families and communities. Interest in this special initiative was remarkable with over 350 applications totalling $14 million in requested funding, despite the challenges caused by the pandemic.
Between 2019 and 2021, several national events and 203 community projects were funded. Examples of eligible projects include: healing gardens, ceremonies, healing workshops, elder presentations, speaker series, commemorative plaques and monuments, educational and awareness material, and cultural and artistic initiatives.
These numbers show the interest and need for these types of commemorative activities and funding to support them.
I'm happy to report that budget 2021 made the funding announced in budget 2019 permanent, with $13.4 million over the next five years and $2.4 million in ongoing support. The department will be engaging indigenous groups, survivor organizations and communities to determine how best to allocate funds. It is critical to engage to ensure this funding best meets the needs of indigenous communities and that we adhere to the principle of “nothing about us without us”.
In parallel with this national engagement, the department will collaborate with national organizations for large‑scale commemorative events in 2021 that will continue to raise awareness regarding the history and legacy that I talked about earlier.
To speak specifically on the paths to healing project, I have some points of clarification.
The Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc received a $40,000 grant for a project they called “paths to healing”. This was in the context of the funding I mentioned previously that was announced in 2019.
The objective of the program was to commemorate the history and legacy of residential schools and to honour survivors, their families and communities. The project submitted by the community was in fact for the creation of a permanent memorial site and included improvements such as benches, plants, gardens and paths within the existing heritage park. It also included commemorative events centred around Orange Shirt Day.
The use of the ground-penetrating radar technology was one of the measures taken as part of the development of this initiative. In effect, one can say that the Canadian Heritage funding contributed to the identification of the remains. However, this find was not the original intended specific purpose of the project.
Other federal departments, such as Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, have their own initiatives that address certain calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. These initiatives relate to their specific mandates.
In the specific case of missing children and burials, the Department of Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is the lead for calls to action 74 to 76.
This concludes my opening remarks.
Thank you.
Emmanuelle Sajous
View Emmanuelle Sajous Profile
Emmanuelle Sajous
2021-06-18 13:11
Good afternoon. I'm tremendously sorry.
My name is Emmanuelle Sajous.
I am the assistant deputy minister at Canadian Heritage, for sport, commemorations and major events. It's nice to be here today. Thank you.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-06-10 15:58
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-06-10 11:21
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.
Drew Olsen
View Drew Olsen Profile
Drew Olsen
2021-06-10 12:50
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-06-09 18:00
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.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here with us.
My first question is for Ms. Vinet-Roy.
The Rector of the Université de Moncton and the Dean of Campus Saint-Jean spoke to us about a leveling off or a virtual freeze on the official languages program in education.
Is that what you have found over the past few years, Ms. Vinet-Roy?
Anne Vinet-Roy
View Anne Vinet-Roy Profile
Anne Vinet-Roy
2021-06-08 17:21
As I was saying earlier, we were able to develop a number of special projects with support from Canadian Heritage. This was in partnership with others for the program I spoke about for teachers becoming available through the immigration process. The project was conducted jointly with the Association des directions et directions adjointes des écoles franco-ontariennes, the ADFO, with the Éducatrices et éducateurs francophones du Manitoba, the ÉFM, and with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the CTF. Some projects with the CTF were through Canadian Heritage.
We' re doing what we can with what we've got. This approach is still working, but once again were being offered one-time assistance that is not always long term. The assistance that has been received is intended to address a very specific situation, but we need more stable long-term funding that would enable us to find creative solutions for supporting the various French-language communities within the school communities.
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 Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.
I would first like to acknowledge that I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. With me, as you said, are Joëlle Montminy, senior assistant deputy minister, cultural affairs, and Pierre-Marc Perreault, acting director, digital citizen initiative.
Like you and many other Canadians, I am concerned by the disturbing rise and spread of hateful, violent and exploitive content online and on social media.
As a legislator and father of four children, I find some of the content of these platforms to be profoundly inhuman.
I am also deeply troubled by the consequences and the echoes of that content in the real world.
The overall benefits of the digital economy and social media are without question. In fact, I published a book, shortly before I took up politics, wherein I talked about the benefits of the digital economy, of artificial intelligence in particular, but also about some unintended negative consequences.
In Canada, more than 9 out of 10 adults use at least one online platform, and since the beginning of the pandemic, online platforms have played an even more important role in our lives.
We use social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to stay connected to our families, friends and colleagues. We use them to work, to conduct business, to reach new markets and audiences, to make our voices and opinions heard, and to engage in necessary and vital democratic debate. However, we have also seen how social media can have negative and very harmful impacts.
On a daily basis, there are Internet users who share damaging content, either to spread hate speech, the sexual exploitation of children, terrorist propaganda, or words meant to incite violence.
This content has led and contributed to violent outbursts such as the attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City in 2017, and similar attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.
Canadians and people all over the world have watched these events and others unfold on the news with shock and fear. We all understand the connections between these events and hateful, harmful online discourse. We worry about our own safety and security online. We worry about what our children and our loved ones will be exposed to.
According to a recent poll by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, an overwhelming 93% of Canadians believe that online hate and racism are a problem, and at least 60% believe that the government has an obligation to prevent the spread of hateful and racist content online.
In addition, the poll revealed that racialized groups in Canada are more than three times more likely to experience racism online than non-racialized Canadians.
Since the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic, we have seen a rise in anti-Asian hate speech on the Internet and a steady increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric, further fuelled by recent events.
A June 2020 study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that Canadians use more than 6,600 online services, pages and accounts hosted on various social media platforms to convey ideologies tinged with white supremacism, misogyny or extremism. This type of content wreaks havoc and destroys lives. It is intimidating and undermines constructive exchange. In doing so, it prevents us from having a true democratic debate and undermines free speech.
The facts speak for themselves. We must act, and we must act now. We believe that every person has the right to express themselves and participate in Internet exchanges to the fullest extent possible, without fear and without intimidation or concern for their safety. We believe that the Internet should be an inclusive place where we can safely express ourselves.
Our government is therefore committed to taking concrete steps to address harmful content online, particularly if the content advocates child sexual exploitation, terrorism, violence, hate speech, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
In fact, this is one of the priorities outlined in the mandate letter given to me by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. So we have begun the process to develop legislation that will address the concerns of Canadians.
Over the past few months my office and I have engaged with over 140 stakeholders from both civil society organizations and the digital technology sector regarding this issue. This has included seven round-table discussions. We also spoke with indigenous groups, racialized Canadians, elected provincial officials, municipal officials and our international partners to assess our options and begin to develop a proposed approach.
In addition, given the global nature of the problem, I have hosted a virtual meeting with my counterparts from Australia, Finland, France and Germany—who were part of the multi-stakeholder working group on diversity of content online—to discuss the importance of a healthy digital ecosystem and how to work collectively.
I am also working closely with my colleagues the ministers of Justice, Public Safety, Women and Gender Equality,Diversity and Inclusion and Youthas well asInnovation, Science and Industry to find the best possible solution.
Our collaborative work aims to ensure that Canada's approach is focused on protecting Canadians and continued respect for their rights, including freedom of opinion and expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The goal is to develop a proposal that establishes an appropriate balance between protecting speech and preventing harm.
Let me be clear. Our objective is not to reduce freedom of expression but to increase it for all users, and to ensure that no voices are being suppressed because of harmful content.
We want to build a society where radicalization, hatred, and violence have no place, where everyone is free to express themselves, where exchanges are not divisive, but an opportunity to connect, understand, and help each other. We are continuing our work and hope to act as quickly and effectively as possible. I sincerely hope that I can count on the committee's support and move forward to build a more transparent, accountable and equitable digital world.
I thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-06-04 13:30
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.
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon. I hope everyone is doing well. I'm happy to see you all.
I am pleased to be here with two of the wonderful officials I am fortunate enough to work with. As Mr. Dubourg mentioned, I have the support of Assistant Deputy Minister Julie Boyer.
Ms. Boyer, I believe this is your first time appearing before the committee. Thank you for being here.
Also with me is Denis Racine, who has a lot of committee experience; he has appeared with me a number of times.
It is a pleasure to have the chance to join you, and of course I'm here to answer your questions.
Having appeared before the committee on numerous occasions, I want to underscore just how important its role is. In the current landscape, it is vital to really understand how to protect, preserve and promote the vitality of official language communities all over Canada, as well as how to continue strengthening Canada's two official languages.
The committee's studies guide and inform government decision-making on crucial issues. That is why I am delighted to appear before the committee as part of its study on the Government of Canada's administration of federal funding and the positive measures taken by federal institutions to support post-secondary education for official language minority communities.
Although post-secondary education is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, as everyone knows, the Government of Canada has been supporting the education efforts of the provinces and territories for more than half a century. We put bilateral agreements in place to promote minority-language education and second-language instruction. Federal funding is administered in accordance with a strict framework.
Our government takes very seriously its responsibility to support official language minority communities.
It is always a priority for us to be there, side by side, with our official language minorities.
We have always stood up to protect francophones in minority communities, and we recognize that post-secondary institutions are a cornerstone of the vitality of linguistic communities.
We are committed to supporting the development of those communities, promoting bilingualism, modernizing the Official Languages Act and providing a modern vision of Canada's linguistic duality. In the 2020 throne speech, our government made clear its intention to strengthen the Official Languages Act, taking into consideration the unique reality of French in North America.
In the 2021 budget, our government earmarked nearly $500 million in investments to promote French and improve bilingualism, with $121.3 million over three years, starting in 2021-22, to make high-quality post-secondary minority-language education available across Canada.
Lastly, our government's public reform document, which I was pleased to share with the committee in April, clearly lays out our vision. We believe that all Canadians should recognize themselves in the Official Languages Act and that both official languages should be on equal footing, in other words, substantive equality should exist between English and French.
The government is responsible for ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to learn, speak and, live in, French in Canada, as is the case in English, of course. Education plays a crucial role, from preschool to post-secondary learning.
I'd like to share some facts with you. Every year, our government invests $235 million to support bilateral agreements between Canada and the provinces and territories further to the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction. That is a very long name for a protocol, so it is often referred to as the official languages in education program, or OLEP. Approximately $149 million is allocated to minority-language education, and $86 million is allocated to second-language instruction.
The overall framework I'm describing encompasses positive measures to support post-secondary education in minority communities. Every agreement includes a provincial or territorial action plan, as well as supported projects for each educational level.
The provinces and territories determine which projects receive support and how much funding goes to each level, from preschool to post-secondary. However, since 2019-20, the agreements have contained stronger accountability measures and a requirement to consult stakeholders. Under the agreements, periodic reporting is also required for the activities undertaken and their impact on communities.
Federal funding of post-secondary education under the agreements sits at roughly $40 million a year, about 17% of total education funding. I should add that programs provide financial support to community-based not-for-profit organizations in the education sector, such as to implement projects and cover operating costs.
Provinces and territories can receive additional funding for emerging needs, teacher recruitment and retention initiatives, and infrastructure projects. All of these positive measures matter because educational institutions are essential to the vitality, development and future of French-speaking communities throughout the country.
We understand that post-secondary institutions are essential to the vitality of official language minority communities. I am concerned about the situation at Laurentian University, as we all are. The same is true of Campus Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta. We are looking for solutions. We are working with the Province of Ontario to ensure northern Ontario has a post-secondary institution run by and for francophones. Today, in fact, I sent a letter to my Ontario counterparts to ensure $5 million is set aside to address the post-secondary education needs of northern Ontario's French-speaking community. We have always stood up to protect francophones in minority communities and we always will.
I look forward to answering your questions and engaging in a productive conversation. Ms. Boyer and Mr. Racine can also answer your questions, of course.
Julie Boyer
View Julie Boyer Profile
Julie Boyer
2021-06-01 17:05
I will speak first and then I will hand over to Mr. Racine.
It is important to say that education is a provincial responsibility. When we negotiated the protocol for agreements for minority-language education and second-language instruction, which will come to an end in 2023, we agreed on the parameters for cooperation. We reiterated that education is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. We therefore have to work with them in order to come to an agreement and to determine how we can support them.
Perhaps Mr. Racine would like to add to my answer.
Denis Racine
View Denis Racine Profile
Denis Racine
2021-06-01 17:05
I think that we must bear one thing in mind. As the Minister and Ms. Boyer have said, since education is in provincial and territorial jurisdiction, it's important that requests come to us from the provinces.
In their current form, support programs for official languages do not allow us to fund post-secondary institutions directly and we have to do so through the provinces. It is therefore up to the provinces to propose activities, projects or programs for the post-secondary institutions. That is how the partnership can take shape.
Patrick Smith
View Patrick Smith Profile
Patrick Smith
2021-05-28 13:06
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-05-28 13:18
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-05-19 14:46
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-05-06 19:54
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.
Drew Olsen
View Drew Olsen Profile
Drew Olsen
2021-05-03 11:07
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-04-30 14:44
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-04-26 11:05
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.
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.
Drew Olsen
View Drew Olsen Profile
Drew Olsen
2021-04-26 11:35
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.
Kathy Tsui
View Kathy Tsui Profile
Kathy Tsui
2021-04-26 12:00
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-04-23 13:14
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.
Drew Olsen
View Drew Olsen Profile
Drew Olsen
2021-04-23 13:15
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.
Kathy Tsui
View Kathy Tsui Profile
Kathy Tsui
2021-04-23 14:19
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.
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-04-19 11:31
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.
Kathy Tsui
View Kathy Tsui Profile
Kathy Tsui
2021-04-19 12:24
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.
Patrick Smith
View Patrick Smith Profile
Patrick Smith
2021-04-19 12:38
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?
Drew Olsen
View Drew Olsen Profile
Drew Olsen
2021-04-19 12:59
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.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-04-16 13:11
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.
Drew Olsen
View Drew Olsen Profile
Drew Olsen
2021-04-16 13:13
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.
Kathy Tsui
View Kathy Tsui Profile
Kathy Tsui
2021-04-16 14:54
Thank you for the question.
I would point out that wording very similar to what has been struck from subparagraph3(1)(d)(ii) has been transported to new proposed subparagraph 3(1)(i)(ii.1).
The main reason for that is that the notion of offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view speaks more about the programming that is offered in the Canadian broadcasting system, so as paragraph 3(1)(i) talked more about programming offered rather than the Canadian broadcasting system writ large, it seemed to be a better place to place that notion.
Patrick Smith
View Patrick Smith Profile
Patrick Smith
2021-04-16 14:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The intention with respect to the existing paragraph 3(1)(d)(ii) was not to remove anything relating to information analysis. It was actually to create a more robust provision in what is now proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(ii.1), which relates to news and current events ranging from the local and regional to the international, reflecting “the viewpoints of Canadians, including the viewpoints of Indigenous persons and Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds”.
Our intention there was to not make it a tail end of the existing clause, but rather to build it up into something that could stand on its own as a news, current events and analysis provision.
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a pleasure to be here, and I'm glad to see you are healthy.
Thank you, honourable members. I'm pleased to have this opportunity, so thank you for inviting me. I hope you are all healthy as well. I'm joining you from Montreal.
As you know, on February 19, I presented a public reform document for the modernization of the Official Languages Act, entitled “English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada”. A lot has changed in a year, and when confronted with change, we can either stand in its way or be open to the opportunities. The Canada we know was shaped by people who seized opportunity in a changing world. Canada takes pride in being a diverse country, a bilingual country.
Having two official languages is one of our greatest strengths. The French language is alive and well in North America because Canadians—specifically, Quebeckers, Acadians and French speakers all over the country—made a commitment to protect it throughout our history. More than 50 years ago, we chose a modern vision of our country, a country where our two official languages would play a prominent role. The Official Languages Act gave millions of francophones from coast to coast to coast the right to access federal services in their language. English-speaking Quebeckers also have that right, and young people in official language minority communities have the right to attend school in their mother tongue.
In Canada, language is more than an abstract notion. It is our connection to the past and the vehicle for telling our stories. That is true not just of English and French, but also of indigenous languages, which our language policies must take into account.
Our world is changing. Globalization has imposed certain languages to facilitate trade. At the same time, international trade and digital technologies are promoting the use of English. In the face of these changes, our two official languages are not on equal footing. There are eight million francophones in Canada, within North America, a region of over 360 million inhabitants who are almost exclusively anglophone. It is our responsibility to protect French and to offer a modernized vision of our linguistic duality. We must take action so that all Canadians can identify with the objectives of the Official Languages Act. Our two official languages must stand on more equal footing. The government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone in the country has an opportunity to learn French, speak French and live in French, as is the case for English.
For a language to be living, it must have a strong culture. Francophones must be able to make their voices heard, especially in the digital world, where English is dominant. To that end, federal cultural institutions must promote French content.
The government also recognizes that, in order to protect and promote French, the private sector must be mobilized. People should have the right to be served and to work in French in businesses under federal jurisdiction in Quebec and in regions of the country with a strong francophone presence. A committee of experts has already been created to examine how best to formally recognize these rights and provide recourse under federal legislation, in consultation with the affected sectors.
Nevertheless, when it comes to respecting bilingualism in the workplace and an individual's right to work in the official language of their choice, the federal public service must lead by example. The government will put forward concrete measures to ensure greater compliance with language obligations.
The English-speaking community in Quebec must be able to protect its rights and also to have access to key institutions that are clearly vital to the future of the community. We will stand by their side.
We will also be strengthening the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages and continuing to promote the use of French abroad, particularly in international organizations. The Government of Canada will make it its duty to attract and facilitate francophone immigration outside Quebec.
Moreover, all of our institutions must be bilingual, including the country's highest court. The Official Languages Act [Technical difficulty—Editor], at the Supreme Court, judges must be bilingual. In our efforts to modernize the act, we will promote bilingualism by eliminating waiting lists for French immersion programs. We will also continue to support communities and all those looking to assert their constitutional language rights.
Our government's vision is rooted in the studies conducted by this committee, so I thank you. I also want to thank you for examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the government's ability to deliver information in both official languages. I know you met with my colleague Mr. Duclos, the President of the Treasury Board, and Health Canada officials on the subject, so I, too, would be happy to answer any questions you may have in that connection.
Lastly, I want to thank the department official who is with me today, Denis Racine. He can answer more specific questions related to the official languages branch at Canadian Heritage.
Thank you, all.
It's going to be a pleasure to answer your questions.
Jean-Stéphen Piché
View Jean-Stéphen Piché Profile
Jean-Stéphen Piché
2021-03-08 11:03
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to be in committee once again.
I want to take this opportunity to wish you all a happy International Women's Day.
We're talking to you from the national capital region's ancestral territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.
As you said, Mr. Chair, I am accompanied by Thomas Owen Ripley and Kathy Tsui. They are both experts in the area of broadcasting and have made major contributions to the development of bills and digital projects.
Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting us here today to help you with your study of Bill C-10. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the work it has been doing on the bill and for having undertaken to commence its work so expeditiously.
Bill C-10 makes important amendments to the Broadcasting Act that will benefit artists, broadcasters, and Canadians.
It is expected to result in more opportunities for Canadian producers, directors, writers, actors, and musicians to create high quality music and audiovisual content and to reach Canadian audiences.
It will establish a fair and flexible regulatory framework where comparable broadcasting services are subject to similar regulatory requirements.
It will make Canadian music and stories more available through a variety of services, and it will create a more diverse and inclusive broadcasting system that is reflective of Canadian society.
This bill renews the Broadcasting Act for the digital age. The changes that it makes are well overdue. It is one of four initiatives currently under way at Canadian Heritage that will modernize our federal communications legislative framework for the online world.
We're also developing a proposal to address online harms such as hate speech, violent and extremist content, terrorist propaganda, child sexual exploitation and non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit images.
We're working with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to amend the Copyright Act.
Then there is the matter of ensuring that Canadian news services are fairly compensated for the use of their material by online services. This work, too, is currently ongoing at Canadian Heritage.
Together, these initiatives will establish rules that will make the online world a more equitable, inclusive and safe place while also ensuring that it remains a fertile ground for innovation and freedom of expression.
Bill C-10, which is focused on broadcasting, is the first piece of this puzzle.
I will now turn things over to Owen Ripley, who will outline the need for Bill C-10 and its primary objectives.
Owen.
Thomas Owen Ripley
View Thomas Owen Ripley Profile
Thomas Owen Ripley
2021-03-08 11:07
Thank you, Mr. Piché.
Thank you for the opportunity today to address the committee and discuss Bill C-10 and how it modernizes the Broadcasting Act.
Before diving into the details of the proposed legislation, I would like to briefly tell you about the Broadcasting Act and the current regulatory framework. It is important to understand the current system, because it is the foundation on which Bill C-10 is built.
The bill aims to modernize our legislation for the digital age; but it also aims to preserve and strengthen key elements of our system that have served us well for many decades. These include our independent communications regulator, our Canadian broadcasters, support for Canadian music and storytelling, and the objective of ensuring that diverse voices, including those of Indigenous peoples, are heard across Canada.
The Broadcasting Act is a key piece of legislation for the sector. It defines broadcasting, outlines policy objectives that serve as guiding principles for developing specific regulations, and sets out the mandate and powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. The CRTC’s independence from government is important.
The CRTC makes rules and regulations that govern the media sector. The sector is obviously central in supporting freedom of expression and fostering cultural expression. In a democracy like Canada, it’s important that there be a healthy distance between the government of the day and the media sector. Countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and France all rely on an independent regulator to oversee the media sector.
The CRTC also has the expertise and experience to make technical regulatory decisions, while balancing many policy considerations. This independence and expertise have served Canadians well.
Ultimately, Bill C-10 preserves an oversight role for the CRTC and for the government. The CRTC has the mandate to oversee the system on a day-to-day basis, while the government's mandate is to ensure that the CRTC operates as it should.
One way that the CRTC has supported Canadian culture is by ensuring that broadcasters support the creation and presentation of Canadian content. Currently, as a condition of licence, TV programming services are required to spend a percentage of their revenues on Canadian content each year. Cable and satellite companies are required to contribute a percentage of their revenues to production funds and local programming to support the development and production of Canadian content. Commercial radio broadcasters and satellite radio carriers contribute a portion of their annual revenues to support Canadian content development initiatives. These contributions totalled $3.34 billion in 2019.
However, digital disruption and competition from online broadcasters threatens this support. Increasing competition is leading to diminishing revenues, with traditional broadcasting revenues declining by 1.4% from 2018 to 2019. Ultimately, this will lead to less funding for Canadian music and programming.
Compared to 2019, recently released aggregate returns data from the CRTC show a 7% decline in broadcasting revenues for large ownership groups in 2020. Aggregate returns include the largest broadcasters and vertically integrated companies but exclude the smaller companies, and as they represent the majority of industry revenues, they are expected to reflect overall industry trends for 2020.
Streaming services obviously aren't new to Canada and have operated in parallel to the traditional broadcasting system for many years now. Their operation in Canada has been facilitated by a regulatory instrument, the digital media exemption order, which exempts online broadcasters from having to seek a licence to operate in Canada, as well as the obligations placed on traditional broadcasters, such as supporting Canadian content.
The DMEO has essentially allowed foreign online broadcasters to operate in Canada outside of the traditional closed system. The DMEO was originally issued in 1999 to promote the growth of the nascent online broadcasting sector. Since then, the sector has greatly increased in size and commercial viability.
For example, in 2011, only 10% of Canadians subscribed to Netflix. By 2020, this had increased to 67% of Canadians. Online broadcasters are now thriving and no longer need to be shielded from regulation. They are well positioned to make an important and meaningful contribution to supporting Canadian music and storytelling. Bill C-10 aims to bring them into the regulatory framework, so that all broadcasters operate on a level playing field.
There's no denying that the digital age has brought many benefits. More services provide more choice for Canadians and more opportunities for creators and producers. Bill C-10 isn't about denying these benefits, but rather about carving out a space for Canadian voices.
To facilitate the inclusion of online broadcasting in the regulatory framework, Bill C-10 adds a new category of broadcasting undertaking to the Act: online broadcasters. This change will ensure that the CRTC can require services such as Crave, Netflix, Amazon Prime, QUB Musique and Spotify to contribute to Canadian stories and music.
Canadian Heritage estimates that, by 2023, the inclusion of online broadcasters could lead to contributions of $830 million annually to Canadian content. This is not a target, and ultimately the final figure will depend on how the CRTC decides to implement the new regulatory framework. Nevertheless, this estimate illustrates the significant and tangible results that Bill C-10 seeks to achieve for Canadian creators.
Some of the discussion regarding Bill C-10 has focused on the Bill’s treatment of social media platforms. These platforms will be subject to regulation, but only in so far as they display content commissioned by the platform itself, or its affiliates.
However, the users of social media platforms and content posted by these users will not be regulated. Social media is an important form of expression for many Canadians, and, as Mr. Piché noted, a separate proposal is being developed to address the impacts of harmful content posted to social media.
To account for the inclusion of online broadcasters, we need a renewed approach to regulation. Bill C-10 shifts away from relying on the rigid system of licensing to a more flexible conditions of service model. This model will allow the CRTC to seek financial contributions from all players and to impose other conditions, such as discoverability requirements, programming standards and information reporting requirements.
The CRTC will hold public processes seeking input from stakeholders and Canadians in order to inform its regulatory choices. Once it has gathered this information, the CRTC will be able to tailor conditions of service to specific broadcasters. We want to avoid an overly rigid approach that results in an undue regulatory burden on broadcasting services and increased costs for Canadians.
Lastly, the broadcasting policy objectives are being updated to ensure that the broadcasting system serves the needs and interests of all Canadians in their diversity. This means ensuring that Canadian voices, including indigenous creators, official language minority communities, racialized and ethnocultural communities, LGBTQ2+ communities and persons with disabilities, are present in the media we consume. That's why Bill C-10 includes stronger support for diverse Canadian content and its creators.
However, Bill C-10 does not include quotas or targets for supporting certain varieties of content such as French-language content. Quotas and targets risk becoming de facto maximums. The CRTC is better placed as the independent and expert regulator to make decisions on how to best support all types of content and to have it evolve over time.
After Bill C-10 receives royal assent, the minister intends to propose to the Governor in Council to issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how the new regulatory tools granted in the bill should be used. Seven priorities are sketched out in the technical briefing presentation.
We know that the committee has requested a draft copy of the policy direction to better understand concretely how these priorities would be communicated to the CRTC and we are working to fulfill this request.
While an important step, we know that Bill C-10 doesn't address all of the issues in the broadcasting sector, such as the future role of CBC/Radio-Canada and the governance structure of the CRTC.
Bill C-10 is intended as a first step on the most pressing policy issues. It makes critical changes that will ensure that Canada's broadcasting system is fair and that it will sustain Canadian music and storytelling into the future. We also have an opportunity to make the system more accessible as well as more inclusive by supporting creators and producers who historically have been marginalized. This bill provides a much-needed update to Canada's Broadcasting Act.
We would now welcome your questions on the bill.
Kathy Tsui
View Kathy Tsui Profile
Kathy Tsui
2021-03-08 11:52
I think you have explained the process completely. I would just add that there is a provision in the act right now that requires the policy direction to be laid in front of both houses of Parliament during that gazetting process.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and the other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, it’s a pleasure for me to appear before you today regarding the study of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
I would also like to acknowledge that today is International Women's Day.
I’d like to thank the members of the committee for the preliminary work you have been doing for some time now.
I’m delighted that this bill has finally passed second reading in the House of Commons. The delays that some Conservative members have caused were a concern for me, but we got there, and we can continue to move forward. Let us please remember that this is not a partisan bill. It is a bill that focuses on culture; it is a bill for Canadians, and it deserves to move forward.
I hope that all the members here and their caucuses recognize the urgency of modernizing the Broadcasting Act so that it can better serve the interests of Canadians in the digital world.
Today it's impossible to overlook the legislative imbalance that favours digital platforms to the detriment of Canadian broadcasters and creative industries. This reform responds to a pressing need. It is crucial to ensuring the vitality of Canadian businesses now and for decades to come. This is why our government will continue to work constructively and collaboratively so that Canadians can benefit from the most effective legislative tool possible, as soon as possible.
From the outset, the cultural and creative sectors have provided input into the modernization of the current legislation. They've expressed their support for this reform and this favourable movement is trending across the country, particularly in Quebec.
Moreover, since the tabling of the bill, this important discussion has continued in the public space and before your committee. It has given rise to several proposed amendments that we will examine with all the attention they deserve. We are, of course, open to improvements that would maximize the benefits of the amended Act for Canadians.
I know that you have received substantial input from several key contributors, and I look forward to seeing the results of the committee’s work in this regard.
I am well aware that the study of the bill must be carried out with care, for two reasons. First of all, because it introduces methods that are completely new in Canada for implementing a regulatory framework adapted to our current reality. Second, because this is an important issue. Many players in the creative and cultural industries are calling for this update to the Broadcasting Act and are counting on this new tool to continue to develop their work on digital platforms.
Let us remember that the current broadcasting system has served Canadians well for decades. It has fostered the emergence of strong national creative and cultural industries. It has supported the delivery of original content that reflects our identity and our values. Bill C-10 aims to preserve that legacy. However, it also aims to include many new players and new activities. It must therefore take an approach designed to include online broadcasters and ensure their equitable contribution.
With this bill, we want to make the diversity of Canadian voices resonate more clearly: francophone and anglophone voices, the voices of minority communities, Indigenous voices; and the voices of all communities across the country, including ethnocultural communities, racialized communities, and others that are too often underrepresented on the screen and elsewhere.
I want to make it clear that this bill is not intended to change the regulatory structure in broadcasting. Rather, it is intended to update the objectives of the legislation and the tools of the CRTC. It therefore preserves the autonomy conferred on the CRTC to implement the appropriate regulations and achieve the objectives of the Act. This autonomy is all the more important as the broadcasting system begins to incorporate new players with different business models, and as the system continues to evolve.
This bill does not address the regulation of online hate nor the equitable compensation of journalists by the web giants, as these are not strictly broadcasting issues; however, I intend to introduce two more bills on these issues in the near future. In due course, I will be pleased to appear before your committee regarding these other bills, always in the spirit of constructive co-operation.
I will be pleased to provide you with the Order in Council that we intend to issue following the passage of the bill. Please note, however, that this Order in Council was drafted prior to the introduction of the bill. It may therefore be redrafted as a result of amendments to Bill C-10 between now and Royal Assent.
As well, in the interest of transparency and as required by law, the Order will undergo a period of public consultation to invite feedback from Canadians.
I invite you to use the Order in Council as background material for your study, but to focus your efforts on the bill itself. Because that is the legislation that will be with us for several decades and will ensure the sustainability of the broadcasting sector. Over the years, governments will come and go, and will issue various Orders in Council to the CRTC as they respond to changing circumstances.
Finally, I would like to clarify the following situation. When I appeared on November 5, 2020, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska asked me what calculations the department had used to determine that the additional investments in Canadian content through digital television broadcasts would amount to $830 million. On December 11, 2020, the department provided the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with the answers to the questions asked at the meetings of October 30 and November 5, 2020, including the one dealing with the calculation of the $830 million. At my last appearance before the committee—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes. Thirty seconds, Mr. Chair.
I feel that this is important.
At my last appearance before the committee, on January 29, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that the committee had not yet received that information. I am sure that he does not want to mislead the members of the committee, or the Canadians listening in, by wrongly stating that he had received nothing. I invite him to look at his email inbox, because he did in fact receive the information, which was distributed to all members of the committee.
With that, I thank you. I will stay with you to answer your questions.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much. My apologies for the lateness of my arrival. It seems that events are conspiring against my participation in this committee meeting. We had a fire alarm where I am right now, so we had to exit the building.
That being said, we actually explored the possibility of my joining by phone outside. That was technologically complicated, it seems.
I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and Haudenosaunee peoples.
I want to start by acknowledging that, four years ago today, a gunman took the lives of six people at the Quebec City mosque and seriously injured 19 others. They were Muslim fathers, husbands, loved ones and friends. Their sudden and tragic deaths were heartbreaking not just for their families, but also for Muslim communities around the world and all Canadians.
Mr. Chair, I am very happy to be appearing before you again today.
With me is the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, Hélène Laurendeau; as well as Jean-Stéphen Piché, senior assistant deputy minister.
The pandemic continues to weigh heavily on Canada's heritage, arts, culture and sport communities. We are all committed to helping them get through the crisis and supporting them in their recovery.
I want to thank the committee for pursuing it's important work despite the difficult circumstances. Your study on the challenges faced by the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors caused by COVID-19 will be a valuable asset in these efforts. Canadian Heritage was pleased to participate.
I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work you have done on Bill C-5, which seeks to establish the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation as a statutory holiday.
When we met for the main and supplementary budget estimates review, I had just tabled Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. It will be referred to your committee shortly, and we will welcome your input on this legislation as well.
As I indicated before the holidays, I look forward to better understanding your perspectives and how the bill could be improved.
Like many Canadians, our government is concerned about the current imbalance that favours the web giants at the expense of Canadian businesses. The economic and social stakes resulting from this situation are too important for us to stand idly by.
That is why the Speech from the Throne mentioned that things must change to ensure more equitable sharing of revenues with our Canadian creators and media.
Mr. Chair, our government is committed to regulating digital platforms and putting them to work for Canadians. One of the objectives of Bill C-10 is to require those platforms to invest in our creators, our music and our stories, which could lead to more than $800 million of additional money being invested here in Canada every year.
This bill has been positively received by the community and stakeholders. I must share the credit for this success with the employees of Canadian Heritage, as it would not have been possible without their supporting work. I would like to salute their expertise and professionalism. As you know, it is up to elected officials to lead the development of public policy, and our government has been very clear on how we want to tackle social media platforms and web giants. The Canadian Heritage team is providing excellent evidence-based support in this regard.
Our government will also complement these efforts by levelling the playing field on the tax front, as we proposed in the 2020 fall economic statement. Digital businesses will now be required to collect and remit the GST. We will also ensure that digital corporations pay their fair share of taxes in respect of their activities in Canada.
I must also note that we are currently studying a made-in-Canada formula to ensure fair remuneration of news publishers by online platforms, similar to what you might have seen move ahead in certain other countries.
We have seen during the pandemic that digital platforms are more than ever at the heart of communications between Canadians, and are keeping us connected. Unfortunately, some Internet users are also exploiting these platforms maliciously to spread hate, racism and child pornography. There is currently illegal content being uploaded and shared online, to the detriment of Canadians and our society. This is simply unacceptable.
My apologies, Mr. Chair, but I'm having some technical problems.
Hélène Laurendeau
View Hélène Laurendeau Profile
Hélène Laurendeau
2021-01-29 13:00
I would say two things.
First, we have nothing to hide when it comes to how we came up with the modelling behind the figure.
Second, I defer to Mr. Piché, but I think it might be helpful for the committee to receive an oral explanation to go along with the documentation. Forwarding the documents without providing further details could lead to confusion, so it might be helpful if we could provide the committee with not only the documentation it has requested, but also a clear explanation—similar to technical briefings we've done in the past. That would be with the committee's permission, of course. We would be glad to do that.
Jean-Stéphen Piché
View Jean-Stéphen Piché Profile
Jean-Stéphen Piché
2021-01-29 13:01
The figure was calculated using the assumptions on which the current regime is based. I think we explained that once before when we appeared before the parliamentary committee. Canadian broadcasters have to spend a certain amount, not just in direct contributions to funding, but also in production-related operating funding. According to estimates for a company like Netflix, we can estimate a certain amount will be generated based on a similar figure.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
All right, let's lower the gavel. Welcome to the session for today.
Welcome, Minister.
I want to start this by describing to everyone who is watching or listening to us publicly that pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) and the order of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2020, the committee will now consider the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and the order of reference of Thursday, October 22, 2020, the committee will now also consider the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021.
Now I call upon the minister for testimony.
Mr. Minister, we normally give around five to 10 minutes. I understand that you prepared some remarks.
Please proceed.
Hélène Laurendeau
View Hélène Laurendeau Profile
Hélène Laurendeau
2020-11-05 19:59
Mr. Piché will be able to clarify that.
Jean-Stéphen Piché
View Jean-Stéphen Piché Profile
Jean-Stéphen Piché
2020-11-05 19:59
In the case of cable and Internet service providers, a 5% levy is used to contribute to the Canada media fund. For other broadcasters, it is a requirement related to spending on Canadian content.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you.
Let's talk about votes on the main estimates.
CANADA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS
Vote 1—Payments to the Council..........$362,644,295
(Vote 1 agreed to)
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Vote 1—Payments to the Corporation for operating expenditures..........$1,101,551,846
Vote 5—Payments to the Corporation for working capital..........$4,000,000
Vote 10—Payments to the Corporation for capital expenditures..........$105,246,000
(Votes 1, 5 and 10 agreed to)
CANADIAN MUSEUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Vote 1—Payments to the Museum for operating and capital expenditures..........$25,502,953
(Vote 1 agreed to)
CANADIAN MUSEUM OF HISTORY
Vote 1—Payments to the Museum for operating and capital expenditures..........$72,188,284
(Vote 1 agreed to)
CANADIAN MUSEUM OF IMMIGRATION AT PIER 21
Vote 1—Payments to the Museum for operating and capital expenditures..........$7,895,183
(Vote 1 agreed to)
CANADIAN MUSEUM OF NATURE
Vote 1—Payments to the Museum for operating and capital expenditures..........$26,811,201
(Vote 1 agreed to)
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$5,053,157
(Vote 1 agreed to)
DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$203,230,981
Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$1,304,800,333
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to)
LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES OF CANADA
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$103,336,627
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$21,753,850
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to)
NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION
Vote 1—Payments to the Corporation for operating expenditures..........$35,270,142
(Vote 1 agreed to)
NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$64,891,409
(Vote 1 agreed to)
NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA
Vote 1—Payments to the Gallery for operating and capital expenditures..........$38,673,922
Vote 5—Payment to the Gallery for the acquisition of objects for the collection and related costs..........$8,000,000
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to)
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Vote 1—Payments to the Museum for operating and capital expenditures..........$30,567,380
(Vote 1 agreed to)
TELEFILM CANADA
Vote 1—Payments to the corporation to be used for the purposes set out in the Telefilm Canada Act..........$101,878,949
(Vote 1 agreed to)
THE NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$6,557,243
(Vote 1 agreed to)
The Chair: Now let's go on to the supplementary estimates (B).
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Vote 1b—Payments to the Corporation for operating expenditures..........$36,700,000
(Vote 1b agreed to)
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Vote 1b—Program expenditures..........$4,618,917
(Vote 1b agreed to)
DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE
Vote 1b—Operating expenditures..........$1,264,918
Vote 5b—Grants and contributions..........$57,487,060
(Votes 1b and 5b agreed to)
LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES OF CANADA
Vote 5b—Capital expenditures..........$976,079
(Vote 5b agreed to)
The Chair: Third, the final vote, shall I report the votes on the main estimates to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the votes on the supplementary estimates (B) also to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
That's it. Thank you, you are very kind.
Hélène Laurendeau
View Hélène Laurendeau Profile
Hélène Laurendeau
2020-10-30 13:07
I will make the opening statement on behalf of the department for all of us and then we will be open to questions.
Hélène Laurendeau
View Hélène Laurendeau Profile
Hélène Laurendeau
2020-10-30 13:07
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to apologize for my technical problems. We will have those fixed for our future appearances.
I'm speaking to you from Gatineau, Quebec. I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional Algonquin Anishinabe territory.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us here today to talk about this important initiative—the COVID-19 emergency support fund for cultural, heritage and sport organizations.
The focus today is on the cultural, heritage and sports sectors, which collectively employ 750,000 Canadians, contribute $61.9 billion annually to the national GDP, and whose products—arts, books, music and participation in sports—have provided Canadians with the comfort, community and sense of common identity that are so important in these turbulent times.
As you know, the cultural, heritage and sports sectors were among the first to suffer widespread closures, cancellations and associated losses due to the pandemic, and of course, public health guidelines, which imposed instantaneous containment on the entertainment and sports sectors from the outset of the pandemic. These sectors were among the first to experience the impact of the pandemic, and will likely be among the last to suffer. These sectors are already highly vulnerable, due to being overwhelmingly comprised of small-to-medium organizations, heavily reliant on not-for-profit models of operations. As a result, they have suffered severe damage.
Real GDP in the arts, entertainment and recreation sub-sector stood at $7.3 billion in July 2020 against $15.6 billion in February 2020. This is a decrease of more than 50% in just four months.
The total labour force in the performing arts, sports, entertainment and related industries decreased by 19.2% in September 2020 compared to September 2019.
The current situation demonstrates the fragility of sectors that are particularly vulnerable to the impact of this pandemic. Without financial assistance, many organizations would have ceased operations already, and many are still at risk.
As the pandemic unfolded, the government responded on April 17, 2020, when the Prime Minister announced $500 million to establish a new COVID-19 emergency support fund for cultural, heritage and sport organizations.
Very quickly after this announcement, the department went on to design the fund to complement the government's existing COVID-19 support measures, the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. The department designed this to make sure that gaps left by those benefits would be addressed.
The key principles, besides the emergency support funding, were that the funds had to flow as quickly as possible, as time was of the essence, that the process be streamlined wherever possible and that applicants who are not normally recipients of PCH program funding be included in the disbursement of funds.
The emergency support funding built on pre-existing measures announced on March 25 to simplify the process for submitting and processing requests for 2020-21 funding for the Canada book fund and the Canada periodical fund, which allowed eligible beneficiaries to complete applications and access financial assistance much more quickly than usual.
The department also accelerated the distribution of its regular funding to eligible recipients in order to provide support quickly.
The emergency funding began in May 2020, and was disbursed in two phases—a first phase took advantage of existing funding mechanisms to advance approximately $307 million in temporary additional funding to recipients already benefiting from program funding, via a number of departmental funding programs and from the Canada Council For the Arts and Telefilm Canada.
Phase II funding was disbursed based on gaps identified after phase I, related to program coverage, diversity/equity and regional distribution—it included $45 million for special measures in support of journalism under the Canada periodical fund, $25 million for independent broadcasters investing in news and community broadcasts, and $52.1 million to arts and culture organizations that were not previously eligible for funding from regular Canadian Heritage programs.
In the distribution of these funds, the department was able to rely on the support of its partners, in particular the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund, as well as FACTOR and Musicaction, for their assistance in distributing the funds through a streamlined process that facilitated the rapid distribution of funding in a consistent and equitable manner across organizations.
Apart from the COVID-19 emergency support fund, the government supported broadcasters by flowing funding to the CRTC to enable the waiving of part I licence fees for the 2020-21 fiscal year. The government also earmarked $25.7 million for national museums and the National Battlefields Commission to enable them to maintain their operations and offer some tours during the summer.
As the COVID-19 emergency support fund winds down, we are administering a survey to recipients of the emergency support fund to help assess the effectiveness of the funding in terms of financial relief, employment impacts and various social impacts. The results of this survey are currently being compiled.
Already, phase 1 COVID-19 emergency support fund recipients responded in high numbers to the survey and 77% of respondents said the fund helped them stay in operation to a large or moderate extent.
Just to wrap up and to give you an idea of the speed at which this all occurred, the Prime Minister made his announcement on April 17. Minister Guilbeault announced the launch of the program proper on May 8. Other measures I referred to were rolled out in parallel with the emergency support fund in the summer. Over 96% of the funding—which is $482 million—was distributed by the government-wide deadline of September 30. The remainder will be distributed by December 31. We're talking about approximately $18 million that is left to distribute between us and other partners.
The department is well aware that more needs to be done to support the sector during and following this pandemic. We are currently developing policy options regarding recovery. These options will be informed by the results of a series of 22 town halls and round tables that were conducted by Minister Guilbeault with stakeholders. These round tables occurred in September and October, and they highlighted the vulnerable state of the sector and potential areas to be acted upon going forward.
I'd like to thank the committee. This completes my opening remarks. I hope the sound was palatable. We would be happy to take your questions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Jean-Stéphen Piché
View Jean-Stéphen Piché Profile
Jean-Stéphen Piché
2020-10-30 13:23
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Deputy Minister.
Thank you for your very pertinent question. As you know, at the beginning of the pandemic, the first reflex was to help clients known to Canadian Heritage, that is, those who were already benefiting from its programs. At the beginning of the pandemic, we made GDP projections for each category of the cultural industry to see which ones would be most affected.
For example, we knew that the sector that encompasses the performing arts and everything else related to entertainment would suffer enormously. Some of these components were already clients of Canadian Heritage, while others were not. So our first instinct was to work with our known clientele and make sure the money came out quickly.
Very quickly, we identified communities or arts groups that were more vulnerable, such as those involved in live music performances. We support music production in the department, but we didn't have a program that supported live music venues. So in the second phase, we earmarked about $20 million specifically for the live music sector.
Also, with respect to our existing client base, some of the organizations renew their applications for our programs from year to year, but not all are successful every year. In the second phase, we have therefore decided to provide additional support to those who did not get funding this year.
We have done the same by working with Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund and the Canada Council for the Arts. All three have expanded the accessibility of programs to allow a broader group of stakeholders to participate.
I have only given you an overview, but there are examples in all areas.
David Dendooven
View David Dendooven Profile
David Dendooven
2020-10-30 13:58
Mr. Chair, I can report that we allocated $72 million to sports.
As the deputy minister noted, the purpose of this funding is to help athletes and also sports organizations across the country, including the Canadian Olympic Committee, cover the costs associated with the postponement of the Olympic Games.
Gina Wilson
View Gina Wilson Profile
Gina Wilson
2020-07-16 15:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister.
Indeed, “sole-source contract” is incorrect terminology. I'll give a little bit of a flavour of the difference between a contribution agreement and a contract.
Contribution agreements are regularly used by the government to further policy objectives and to engage a wide diversity of skills and resources outside the government. Contribution agreements are not subject to procurement thresholds, like service contracts, and follow terms and conditions. They are subject to performance conditions specified in the funding agreement, audits, monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that all results are received. Officials negotiated an agreement for the design of this program under Canada service corps, an existing contribution program. A contract is a completely different tool.
Hélène Laurendeau
View Hélène Laurendeau Profile
Hélène Laurendeau
2020-02-26 15:52
No, it's 5:30. I thought earlier that the question period would be longer.
Results: 1 - 56 of 56

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data