By Denis Carmel
OTTAWA – Tabled on November 3, 2020, Bill C-10 finally reappeared in the House of Commons on February 5, 2021 in the House of Commons, for discussion on its second reading.
It ended on a motion by the Conservatives that “Bill C-10, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.” The amendment was not voted on.
Also on Friday, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (CHPC) held its second meeting on the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. Witnesses were grouped in two panels. Monika Ille, CEO of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network; Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa and Solange Drouin, vice-président, public affairs and director general Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, during the first hour.
Then Daniel Bernhard, executive director Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Sophie Prégent, President Union des Artistes and Pascale St-Onge, Président of Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture were scheduled during the second hour.
But before the witnesses were heard, the chair of the Committee, MP Scott Simms, had to deal with a couple of important issues.
First, Julie Dabrusin, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage wanted to be sure the clerk of the committee (who just started) had received an answer from the Department of Canadian Heritage about the calculation of the $830 million windfall Minister Steven Guilbeault had said will eventually be paid, per year, web giants like Netflix and Disney+ to the production of Canadian content. She contended the department had provided the answer on December 11 – seemingly unbeknownst to the Minister and Deputy minister who seemed oblivious of that fact on January 29.
So the chair took that question under advisement.
Second, Conservative critic Alain Rayes said he had received a note from the House of Commons analysts asking him to provide a list of Bill C-10 amendments rapidly. He found that premature and indicated he would not be able to provide such amendments before having heard the witnesses.
“Bill C-10 would remove the CRTC’s ability to oversee and support the distribution of Canadian programming services, such as APTN, in an online environment.” – Monika Ille, APTN
The chair acknowledged he had asked the analysts to do so. “We wanted to avoid a logjam,” he said, mentioning the clause-by-clause job is a lengthy process and allowing the analysts to work on them in advance could save time – and he stated that the members were in no obligation to do so until they are ready.
Then Monika Ille, took the floor, so to speak, reminding members of what needs to be kept, if the Broadcasting Act is updated. “If the CRTC had not used its powers, APTN would not exist,” she said in French. “APTN is the best example of a policy born from the Broadcasting Act,” she went on. “We support the steps taken in Bill C-10 to recognize the place of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous languages in the broadcasting system.
“But, Bill C-10 would remove the CRTC’s ability to oversee and support the distribution of Canadian programming services, such as APTN, in an online environment,” she added.
The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française had made the same point on February 1, about UNIS, the service aimed at service the Francophones outside of Québec that also benefits from mandatory carriage on basic.
Ille went on to say, “In the case of the proposed amendment to section 3(1)(o), Bill C-10 is suggesting that Indigenous persons should be supported when they carry on ‘traditional’ broadcasting, but not ‘online’ broadcasting. This is not acceptable.”
Geist, a familiar figure in these committee meetings, started by saying, “There is no free lunch,” saying the money Minister Guilbeault believes will boost Canadian content would come at enormous costs for consumers and the industry. Geist has been very critical of the bill from day one.
“Bill C-10 removes Canadian ownership requirements, paving the way for FOX and other American interests to swallow ailing Canadian broadcasters, decimating local programming, especially local news.” – Daniel Bernhard, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting
ADISQ’s Drouin, another familiar figure at these committees, said the thousands of artists she represents have waited on this Bill for 20 years, ever since the CRTC issued its Digital Media Exemption Order.
During the first round of questions Dabrusin, on her own time (each is allowed six minutes), raised a question that should be dealt with when the Committee meets on Committee business. She proposed, going forward, a further hour be added to the committee meetings on Fridays since there remain many witnesses to be heard.
Normally, this should have been approved somewhat easily but in a minority government, the governing party is also in minority in committees – and opposition members do not like to be rushed, but have the power to stop such proposal. She noted that next week is a “constituency week” so no House work. Cartt.ca notes that they have been in their constituency for most of the last 11 months. And since the committee meets on Mondays and Fridays and the following Monday is Family Day, they might have to make more time to hear everybody.
Opposition members started arguing in front of the witnesses, which is bad form, and the chair put an end to this and said they would discuss this later.
When Bernhard finally got to speak he said “First… We agree with the general philosophy that digital broadcasting should be permissionless by default, but giving the CRTC the option to regulate the likes of Netflix is not enough. We must require the CRTC to impose regulations on digital broadcasters over a certain size.”
He also reiterated his position on Canadian ownership. “Bill C-10 removes Canadian ownership requirements, paving the way for FOX and other American interests to swallow ailing Canadian broadcasters, decimating local programming, especially local news. We need not invite the further decimation of local news in Canada.”
