Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 56
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: 16 - 30 of 56 | Page: 2 of 4

|<
<
1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data