Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 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?
Results: 1 - 30 of 56 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data