Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 216
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd be happy to answer the question, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my colleague for his question.
Clearly, the committee is sovereign and has the power to propose amendments that it believes will improve the bill. I was the first to admit from the beginning that any bill could be improved.
As you know, we are a minority government. In that context, we have already worked extensively with the opposition parties on a number of amendments. We remain open to working with them throughout the committee's work, of course.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, if I may add—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ms. Dabrusin.
Earlier on in one of her questions, Ms. McPherson said that because the bill had around a hundred amendments, it was a flawed bill. That's a false premise. I know that, just like me, she's a new MP, so we're not used to this. It's not uncommon for bills to have 200 amendments. Going back in the previous Parliament, I can recall Bill C-69, which I followed closely in my previous career, had around 200 amendments. There's nothing extraordinary about that. In fact, a hundred may not be so much after all.
She pointed out that we've heard about experts who have raised concerns. I think just yesterday this committee heard from a number of experts who have actually clearly said that they thought there were no issues regarding freedom of speech. We've heard from a previous director of the CRTC, Janet Yale, and from a law professor from the Université de Montréal, Pierre Trudel.
I could quote this because I don't think it has been done in this committee and I think it is important. It's in French, so I'll switch to French. It's the unanimous resolution from the National Assembly.
The motion recognizes that Bill C-10 “constitutes a significant step in protecting and promoting Quebec culture and..., therefore, [the National Assembly of Quebec] affirms its support for the measures proposed by the bill.”
I think Bill C-10 actually has a lot of support across this country given the benefit it will bring to our artists as well as to the broadcasting ecosystem.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I thank my colleague for his question.
I think we have done everything the committee has asked of us. Every time the committee has asked me, I have come to testify, even twice in the last two weeks. The committee asked for clarification of the original charter statement; that was submitted last week. My colleague the Minister of Justice is here with me today. We take this bill very seriously, as I think does the entire Quebec and Canadian arts community. You may have seen the petition launched by the Union des artistes and signed by Yvon Deschamps, Claude Legault and Ariane Moffatt, among others. I could talk about the letter published in the Toronto Star last week and signed by the great international artist Loreena McKennitt.
I could also talk about the unions. Again today, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec issued a press release in support of Bill C-10. There is also the Confederation of National Trade Unions, and even Unifor, the largest union in Canada.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I encourage you to get in the boat with me.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, may I respond to that?
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, members of the committee.
I’m joining you from Montréal, on the traditional lands of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
I am pleased to appear before you to discuss Bill C-10, the explanatory document the Department of Justice drafted in response to your request, and the impact of your committee’s amendments to Bill C-10.
I have with me officials from my department, as you said, Mr. Chair, as well as senior officials from the Department of Justice. I am delighted to contribute to your review of the bill.
I would like to begin by thanking this committee for its important work to date.
Since Bill C-10 was introduced, the cultural sector, broadcasters and experts have given us—and you too, I’m sure—much food for thought. They have provided input and support on updating the Broadcasting Act across the country.
Our broadcasters, our production sector and the cultural sector as a whole are counting on this new legislative tool to continue to flourish on digital platforms.
They are counting on this tool to level the playing field between conventional broadcasters and digital platforms. In other words, the bill is about restoring a balance that the arrival of the Web giants has skewed very seriously in their own favour at the expense of local people and businesses.
If we do not modernize the act, within a few years, our creators, artists and musicians risk losing up to a billion dollars annually.
However, if we move forward with Bill C-10, the Department of Canadian Heritage predicts that by 2023, online broadcasters could be contributing up to $830 million per year to Canadian content and creators.
Let's remember that the audiovisual and interactive media industry employs nearly 160,000 Canadians every year. According to the 2016 census, the median annual income for core artist groups, such as musicians, singers, authors, writers, producers and directors, was only $24,300, which is well below the $43,500 median for all workers.
To make matters worse, this industry is still suffering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the years to come, the positive impacts of Bill C-10 will stimulate industry growth and increase the visibility of our stories and our artists.
Canadians also support this initiative. More than seven out of ten Canadians feel that more needs to be done to promote Canadian and Quebec audiovisual content in the country, and almost half say that this content is not easy to find.
Although some have the view that any type of regulation for web giants is too much, most Canadians believe that we must act: 78% of Canadians agree that streamers need the same rules as those of Canadian broadcasters; 81% support the principle that Facebook and Google should pay more for news; and 83% support some form of accountability for these companies for the content shared on their platforms.
The first objective of the bill is to ensure equity between conventional and digital broadcasters and to ensure that social media platforms that act as broadcasters are also contributing to our cultural industry.
Another objective is to promote Canadian cultural expression in all its diversity, including that of indigenous and racialized communities.
The goal is not to regulate content generated by users, such as videos of our children, friends and colleagues. It never was. And it never will be.
However, one thing is clear: more and more Canadians are listening to their favourite music and artists on social media. Right now, YouTube is the most popular online music listening service in the country.
Witnesses who appeared before this committee showed that section 4.1, as drafted in the original version of Bill C-10, could allow social media platforms to get away with just about anything. They also demonstrated that section 4.1 did not take into account how these types of services are used to deliver professional content, such as content put online by record companies.
While other online businesses would be required to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, social media platforms would not. How could we justify imposing obligations on Spotify, Apple Music or QUB Musique, but not on YouTube, a Google subsidiary?
Following the constructive debate at second reading of the bill, all opposition parties, including the Conservative Party, deplored the fact that social networks were not covered by the bill.
Let me give you a few examples.
On November 19, the Conservative MP from Saskatoon—Grasswood, Mr. Waugh, told the House of Commons the following:
It is deeply disappointing that the government's proposals are so incredibly lacking. I am going to focus in on four points today. First, the legislation does nothing to address social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, and their various properties, such as YouTube, to pay its fair share.
On March 26, he also added—again, this is the beginning of the quote:
To the Professional Music Publishers' Association, you're right on about YouTube. It is not regulated in Bill C-10, and everybody is using YouTube. We are going to have an issue. As you pointed out, correctly, this should be regulated and it's not.
That’s why it was not surprising that on April 23, a majority of the members of this committee, including those of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, agreed that first, section 4.1 should be withdrawn, and that the CRTC’s powers should subsequently be restricted with respect to social media platforms.
We know that these platforms are very different from conventional broadcasters. The amendments proposed by my parliamentary secretary last week limit the CRTC's power to three main requirements: Number one, platforms must provide information about their revenues; number two, they must contribute financially to the Canadian cultural ecosystem and, finally, they must increase the visibility of Canadian creators.
All of this would be done without ever preventing anyone from putting their own content online and sharing it, or forcing anyone to watch anything against their will. In other words, you and I, like all Canadians, would continue to enjoy the same freedom online that we enjoy now.
I've said it before and I will say it again: We're not targeting individuals; we are targeting the web giants, which are almost all American companies. Our goal is simple, to get these multi-billion dollar companies that generate hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada every year to do their part to make sure our creators and artists are better paid and more visible online.
We must remember that Canadian radio, television and cable companies have been subject to similar obligations for more than 50 years. In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.
In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.
Bill C-10 recognizes that there is a large diversity of digital business models. It provides ample flexibility to craft common sense rules that will evolve over time as technology changes and Canadians’ habits for accessing culture change.
Once again, let me be very clear: there is no question of censoring what individuals post on social media.
I would also like to point out that the Department of Justice, in its updated analysis of the bill as amended by the committee, confirms that the bill is still consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Internet is dominated by a few massive American companies whose algorithms dictate what we see, what we hear and what we consume. We are inundated with their information. Many of our artists and creators, especially francophones, indigenous and racialized people, have a hard time being heard.
Far from limiting anyone's freedom of expression, Bill C-10 wants to give more visibility to these artists and creators to ensure a greater diversity of voices and perspectives, to counter homogenization and to assert our cultural sovereignty over foreign companies that are only accountable to their shareholders.
I hope the committee will resume its work and quickly move Bill C-10 back to the House of Commons. As always, I would be delighted to support you in your work. I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized, you may recall, was under a Conservative government. That government put in place the entire regulatory ecosystem that we have today for conventional broadcasting. What we are trying to do through Bill C-10 is to adapt the regulations to the Web giants, who are becoming more and more important in the current ecosystem.
You mentioned net neutrality. As you know...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I will certainly answer the question, but the member gave a long preamble on the issue of net neutrality, so...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The first version of Bill C-10 that the committee received was at that time our best interpretation of what modernization of the Broadcasting Act should be. However, as soon as the bill was introduced, I was the first to say that it could be improved.
All political parties represented on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, including the Conservative Party, as well as many stakeholders, spoke out to argue that proposed section 4.1 created too broad an exemption. As Mr. Waugh said, under this section, the act would not have applied to a platform like YouTube, which is the largest music distributor in Canada today. This exemption was therefore too broad. As a result of these interventions, we decided to delete the proposed section.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think there is a mistake in the premise of your question. Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. It is about giving us the tools to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share in cultural matters...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm going to have to keep giving you the same answer, Mr. Rayes. The premise of your question is about content moderation. I would ask you to indicate...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.
Over the past few weeks, I've given several interviews about Bill C-10, and you'll probably have noticed that I've never mentioned the filibuster that your party is doing. Perhaps...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As you know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not sit on the committee. Since the committee is sovereign, it can propose amendments to the bill. In fact, I have invited it to do so on several occasions.
We have had discussions, you and I, and you have had discussions with other members of the committee as well. You ask me if we could go back. First of all, to do what you were originally proposing would have required, as I understand it, unanimous agreement of the committee members. Some felt that would have been a very slim possibility.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is a question based on a series of assumptions, and any answer from me would be highly hypothetical.
As we have seen over the past few weeks, there are clearly Canadians who believe that the Internet should not be subject to any form of regulation, whether it be on the cultural issue, hate speech, or media compensation. Some of these critics began their action at the same time the Yale report came out. I recall that the former leader of the official opposition had said that he would not even read the Yale report and would throw it in the trash.
Honestly, beyond all the debate surrounding proposed section 4.1, I think there is one political party that has decided to highlight this issue as if the entire bill C-10 revolves around a single section, which it obviously does not...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think that element is in one of the sections of the bill that was passed by the committee. That discussion has already taken place and is over.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I won't go through it, but you've probably heard that there is a long list of organizations in Quebec and in English Canada, a list many pages long, that have all come out in the last few weeks in support of Bill C-10, ranging from musicians to independent producers to writers and so on. I have spoken over the course of the last year to thousands of people in the culture sector, and they agree with what we're trying to do with Bill C-10.
Again, earlier in my speech I quoted polling results that were released recently showing that 78% of Canadians—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
No, that's not my plan, but there were many elements in your question, and I am trying to adequately answer all of them. One element you spoke about in your question concerned the cultural sector, so I answered that.
On the second part of your question, there is no situation in which a user has to respect any type of CRTC regulation. There is no situation in which a user, even with millions in revenues and dues, has to deal in any shape or form with the CRTC.
Let me remind you that the sole regulation the CRTC can impose on a social media platform is the discoverability of Canadian creators. The Internet is infinite—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. The CRTC, in its last 50 years of existence, has never done content moderation, and Bill C-10 doesn't give the CRTC the ability to do content moderation.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think we have a charter statement that is pretty clear about Bill C-10's respecting section 2 of the charter. We've also heard from deputy minister Drouin, who has been very clear on that as well.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would beg to differ with the premise of your question.
Many experts have come out in Quebec and in English Canada saying that Bill C-10 was not an infringement on freedom of speech or an attack on the charter. In fact, we now have a statement by the independent civil servants of the Department of Justice saying exactly that.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I recognize that there are people who believe there should be no regulation whatsoever when it comes to the Internet; that there should be no regulation on cultural issues, on issues such as hate speech or on fair remuneration of media, and part of the Canadian population agrees with them as well. I recognize that.
My government and I disagree with that point of view. We believe there should be regulation on all of these elements, and so do many other countries. I have had conversations with counterparts in Germany, in France, in the U.K., in Finland, in Ukraine—
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As you rightly pointed out, there is an organization whose mandate it is to do this.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's not up to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or any other politician to make that determination.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I love that film, but again, it's not up to the Canadian Minister of Heritage or any other politician to make those determinations.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You keep asking the same questions. Unfortunately, the answer will be the same.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's important to remember that the committee is sovereign, and if the committee identifies a potential problem, and we're a minority government, the—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You might have heard, like I did a few minutes ago, Justice Deputy Minister Drouin answer that question very clearly, specifying that the powers given to the CRTC are very narrow and targeted and don't have to do with content moderation.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, may I be allowed to answer the question?
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, the concept of discoverability is ensuring that, as part of these platforms, Canadian content becomes more visible for Canadians, or actually any audience, to watch. There won't be any requirement, obviously, for users, just like is the case right now with YouTube—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is not an—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would be happy to provide the committee with the list of all Canadian experts and organizations that have been consulted for the preparation of the Bill C-10.
I'll also remind the members and the committee that, prior to Bill C-10 being tabled, there was an almost two-year consultation leading up to the Yale report that was done, and close to 2,000 papers were presented.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I don't think there was a question in that, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think achieving this goal is about three things, and not necessarily in this order. Certainly, it's who we nominate to take part in many of our institutions—the Canada Council for the Arts, our national museums and various other organizations. As minister, I've had the pleasure and privilege of nominating Jesse Wente, an indigenous person, an accomplished artist and producer, as chair of the Canada Council for the Arts. It's the first time ever, in the history of Canada, that we have an indigenous person at the head of the council. Gaëtane Verna, who's originally from Haiti, is also now on the board of the council. Isha Khan is the first Muslim woman to head a national Canadian museum.
We have to ensure that those organizations are a good reflection of what Canada is in its diversity. I think it's about ensuring that our programs are adapted to the needs of those communities. Again, in the audiovisual sector, we now have a fully funded indigenous screen office as per budget 2021. We are working on a Black screen office as well. I have been meeting with many of those witnesses who appeared in front of the committee to work with them to see how we can do this.
Third, it's about putting our money where our mouth is, ensuring that groups, that racialized Canadians and indigenous Canadians, have access to the resources they need to tell their stories, to express their arts, and to be visible, here and abroad.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes. I think we still have a long way to go. There's still a lot of work to do, but Bill C-10 will enable us, as I said in my remarks initially, and will mean that around $830 million in additional money is added for the cultural sector and certainly for BIPOC communities and under-represented groups in our arts and culture sector.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your question.
It requires a multipart answer.
First, as repeatedly stated, Bill C-10 will not apply to individuals. You are right to say that new subsection 2(3) of the act refers to undertakings, not individuals, because the act will apply to undertakings, not individuals.
You no doubt heard the deputy minister, Ms. Drouin, very clearly say that the Department of Justice issued a statement indicating that Bill C-10, as amended, respects the charter, on one hand. On the other hand, as she just explained, the CRTC also has an obligation to respect the charter in exercising its authority. Mechanisms are in place to ensure that happens.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd like to say one more thing.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not on the committee. In addition, we are a minority government. The committee can decide to propose amendments to Bill C-10. It is true that the bill has already undergone a hundred or so amendments, which, by the way, is not unusual for a bill. As lawmakers, I think we can always do better; a bill can always be improved.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would like to address the first element of the question, which is about freedom of speech. As you've seen, and as you've heard today, we have a charter statement that was written by the independent civil service—
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Could I be allowed just to finish my answer on the charter statement? You have a charter statement in front of you. You've heard Deputy Minister Drouin explain very clearly that Bill C-10 respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,. Not only that, but there are mechanisms in place for the CRTC to ensure that it does that. It has discretionary powers, but these powers are not absolute. They have to be exercised in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
My government is not interested in having an election. I think we've seen that some parties have been fundraising around the controversy they created around Bill C-10. We haven't been doing that. We've been hard at work trying to do everything we can to help the arts and culture sector.
I would remind you that the budget that was just presented by Deputy Prime Minister Freeland is a historic budget when it comes to the arts and culture sector in this country. We have never seen such an important budget to help our artists, our musicians, our creators. It is a historic budget. I think we've seen that we are there for our artists, and Bill C-10 is another clear example of that.
Collapse
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—
Collapse
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.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Rayes.
I'd like to address several points.
First, as Mr. Ripley told you earlier, we did not get the $830 million figure out of a Cracker Jack box. That number was arrived at through a series of 16 simulations based on different assumptions. That's what allowed us to arrive at a forecast of the amount to be invested. It could be a little more or a little less. The exact amounts will be defined in the regulations that will be implemented by the CRTC. That's the first thing.
In addition...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
...it is not true to...
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I was just getting to that, the French question.
Just before, I wanted to clarify that you made a second false claim when you mentioned that this bill would not apply to social networks. Earlier, you heard Mr. Ripley explain very clearly how, in cases where social networks act as broadcasters, the act will be able to apply to businesses that operate digital platforms. So, it's not true to say as you did that the bill does not apply to social networks.
The third point I wanted to make concerns the French fact. How have we managed to protect the French fact over the decades? The CRTC has made various decisions requiring that broadcasters invest in French-language content, and it is because of these decisions that the most watched French-language programs today, whether on television or on the big screen, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, are produced here. We want these investments in French-language content to continue. In addition to conventional broadcasters, digital platforms will now be subject to spending obligations, including on French-language content.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
There are a number of elements in what you just said. I'll start with your last point: how culture and tourism and hospitality go hand in hand. It is true for our larger urban centres, but it's certainly true for many of our regions across the country. People will go to a festival. They will stay in local hotels or bed and breakfasts. They will go to restaurants. They will do some sightseeing. This is really an ecosystem.
When we talk about the anticipated $830 million in new revenue invested in Canadian culture, I think it is important to remember that if we don't do that.... It's not $830 million more that we will have. Because of the declining revenues for conventional traditional broadcasters, we are heading in a direction where there would be more than $1 billion less in available funding for arts and culture in Canada.
What we are trying to do is hugely important for the preservation of that ecosystem, as you said, for regions. It used to be that film or TV shootings would happen in downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto, but now it's really happening all across the country. There are things being produced in Newfoundland, and you have productions in the Prairies. Obviously, Vancouver also has become a really big hub.
What we are doing with this is trying to ensure a vibrant arts and culture sector in Canada for all parts of the country.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As Jean-Stéphen and Owen explained earlier on, we are keeping most of the infrastructure of the actual broadcasting legislation and regulation.
What we're doing with C-10, and I think why the bill has been saluted by so many, is we're keeping what's working and we're adding this whole other layer of elements where Canadian regulations will be able to be applied to online giants, like Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Prime and Apple Music.
To correct something Mr. Rayes said earlier, he said that we've been waiting for five years. Actually, we haven't. My predecessor commissioned a group of people who went across the country and received almost 2,000 position papers from different organizations. That concluded in the Yale report, which was tabled in early 2020. We then took that and started working on the bill, which was introduced a year later in the middle of the greatest pandemic we've seen in 100 years.
I don't think we've actually been losing a lot of time on this. We have acted very promptly to make this happen.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes. It's clearly not what we're doing.
There's no censorship in Canadian broadcasting right now. There are different types of stations, different types of TV and radio stations that will have different angles on the political spectrum. This is totally normal in a democracy. What we're trying to do is apply that regulatory framework to online broadcasters.
In the case of YouTube, for example, we're not particularly interested in what people...you know, when my great-uncle posts pictures of his cats, that's not what we're interested in as a legislator.
When YouTube or Facebook act as a broadcaster, then the legislation would apply to them and the CRTC would define how that would happen. But really, we're not interested in user-generated content. We are interested in what broadcasters are doing.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.
Do you find many provisions in the current act that have helped French carve out the place it has today on the small and big screen? The answer to that question is no. It is thanks to the regulations and the various decisions of the CRTC that we have succeeded in building an internationally renowned French-language industry in Canada. Today, our directors are sought after and highly coveted all over the world, especially in the United States. Yet there is little in the current act that defines the French fact or protects it.
Could amendments be made to the bill so that there is greater recognition of French? As I said before, if there is something that needs to be added to the bill, I am very much open to that possibility. However, it should be understood that the mechanics will be handled by regulation.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think you misunderstand the role of a regulator. Personally, I have never intervened with the CRTC, but I have intervened with many Quebec and federal energy regulators.
A regulator does not make its decisions according to the number of companies that lobby it for deregulation or for better regulation. That is not how a regulator works, not the Régie de l'énergie du Québec, not the Canada Energy Regulator, not the CRTC. Rather, it considers all of the positions submitted to it, in light of the law that governs its work.
In addition, through Bill C-10, the government is giving itself greater ability to give direction to the CRTC.
In light of all this, this is how the CRTC and all regulatory agencies make decisions.
Collapse
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
There is indeed a big difference between the two. Ms. Messier and you are absolutely right.
I have said it before and I will say it again: if amendments need to be made to the bill to clarify a number of things, I will be very much in favour of that.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 60 of 216 | Page: 1 of 4

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

For more data options, please see Open Data