THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 7, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Leo Housakos. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
I would like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, senatorial division of Lauzon, Quebec.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, government representative, Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, senatorial division of Inkerman, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, province of Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
We are joined, once again, by officials from Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Thank you to the officials from Canadian Heritage for their loyal presence here since the beginning of our clause by clause: Mr. Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister; Amy Awad, Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy; and Yao Ahonda, Manager, Broadcasting Marketplace and Legislative Policy.
Honourable colleagues, we adjourned our last meeting by standing on an amendment to clause 10, proposed by Senator Simons under the label PS-C11-10-14-42.
Senator Simons tabled her amendment. She briefly spoke to it, and we’re resuming debate as was left off last meeting starting with Senator Klyne, followed by Senator Manning and Senator Wallin, and of course, Senator Simons can interject. You want to launch us off? By all means.
Senator Simons: I didn’t quite get the chance to finish.
This is one in a series of three amendments. I won’t, I think, be speaking at length to all three of them, but I will up front explain to you that the three go together to accomplish the same end, which is to make sure that we get fair treatment for these public interest broadcasters.
I’m just going to read very briefly from the comments of Monika Ille from APTN when she spoke to us last month. This sort of clarifies things:
In 1999, when APTN obtained its first licence, the CRTC required that the network be distributed by cable and satellite companies and set a reasonable overall price. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC could, in theory, order certain online distributors that offer programming services from other entities to distribute APTN, but the CRTC could not set the distribution conditions.
These conditions would instead be subject to good-faith negotiations with digital platforms. What would those digital platforms be? They could be digital players you already know, and even include cable and television over internet protocol, or IPTV, broadcasting distribution undertakings, BDUs, in Canada that have now moved to online distribution.
We’re deeply concerned that the good-faith negotiation requirement will not result in meaningful support for APTN in the future and is for sure a path to the decline of our network. APTN lacks market power to conduct meaningful negotiations with powerful online distributors, and APTN’s mandate is not market driven. Ultimately, if a distributor fails to act in good faith, what would be the remedy? As it stands now, the CRTC could still not set terms for the distribution of APTN. This gap must be filled.
So with this series of three interlocking amendments, what we hope to do is to protect the interests of the Independent Broadcast Group members, who, as I say, range from OMNI, to ICI Television, to CPAC and The Weather Channel, to make sure that they are carried both on traditional Canadian platforms as they evolved online, but also to ensure that aggregators must carry them after good-faith negotiations. To be very clear, this does not mean that Netflix has to carry APTN or that Disney has to carry The Weather Channel. It does mean that for aggregation services such as Prime and Apple, as well as new linear services including Roku, Samsung and Pluto TV, as they enter into the Canadian market, that they would also be subject to this negotiation protocol.
And now I rest. If anyone has questions.
Senator Klyne: With that clarity, I do not have a question.
Senator Manning: Same here, Mr. Chair.
Senator Wallin: I’m certainly supportive of the intention to add online. It only makes sense here.
When you talk about a negotiation protocol, how do you see that obligation being spelled out?
Senator Simons: This, I think, would allow the CRTC to set the terms and conditions.
The question has been raised, is this a CUSMA issue? But I want to quote from Sam Norouzi, the Senior Vice President and General Manager of ICI Television when he spoke to us. He said:
. . . . the idea that allowing the CRTC to set terms and conditions will increase Canada’s trade risk with the U.S. We believe this issue is a red herring. There is nothing in CUSMA that prevents you from amending Bill C-11 to allow the CRTC to set terms and conditions. There is no clear trade risk with the amendment. But if you don’t amend the bill, you are risking the future of Canadian public interest TV.
Senator Wallin: I am not worried about CUSMA on this one at all. It sounds like some enforced negotiation, which, I suppose, they all are.
Senator Simons: I think that is the idea.
Senator Wallin: In terms of that’s always a little troubling if they can set terms in advance. That’s all. I mean, we’ll have negotiations here, provided that the minimum contract is hundreds of millions of dollars.
Is there any way to constrain that?
Senator Simons: Well, there might be. These are very technical amendments, and I think —
Senator Wallin: No, I know what you’re trying to do.
Senator Simons: I think that would be for the CRTC to figure out.
I mean, this, of course, is just the general framework that gives direction to the CRTC.
Senator Wallin: I don’t know what to do about it.
Senator Dawson: Chair, the government, obviously, is preoccupied with CUSMA. I understand the potential trade irritants. If foreign-owned platforms are subject to specific terms of carriage, this would increase the risk of a trade dispute with the United States and global streamers.
I’ll ask, maybe, our official to comment, but the reality is that as far as legal opinions are concerned — as some of you know, I’m married to a lawyer, who was a judge, and I’m the father of a lawyer who writes legislation, so we can get opinions, and I’m sure the Fasken one is quite complete.
But the reality is that the government really believes that this would lead to a trade dispute and put in jeopardy not only this article but a lot of the other applications of the bill. And I’m sure the minister has made it clear to the organizations — I’m a former member of the board of TV5, so I know a lot about how these organizations need this very serious funding, but the minister has made it clear that he’s trying to find alternate ways to try to find funding for the organizations in question.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I wanted to ask Mr. Ripley this question: what are your thoughts on this amendment, in general, and in particular how it relates to the threat it may or may not have on our free trade agreements?
Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: Thank you for the question, senator.
I would say two things about this. There is the issue of our formal international trade obligations. We have done the analysis of the bill with respect to all of those obligations. There is also another issue or rather an irritant. Currently, as you know, under paragraph (h), the CRTC has the power to impose any terms and conditions that it decides.
So the distinction between paragraph (h) and paragraph (i) is really whether you give those regulatory powers to the CRTC; the government’s position is to distinguish between the digital world in paragraph (i) and the traditional world in paragraph (h).
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. However, you haven’t really answered my question directly. Maybe you can’t go any further. From your perspective, is this amendment an irritant or not? Have you heard about it?
Mr. Ripley: It’s up to the government to give the CRTC the power to impose terms and conditions on online companies under their trade agreements. This could be an irritant because it’s really about giving the regulator the power to decide how to deal with these trade agreements.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are referring to the issue of payments, for example.
Mr. Ripley: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: I’ll take you to subsection 9.1(1). I would like to have a clarification from Mr. Ripley to understand all those criteria. When it says, “the Commission may,” it does not mean the commission must.
Am I to understand from this wording that these are not formal obligations? The CTRC can do that, but it is not required to do that. Am I interpreting this correctly or not?
Mr. Ripley: Yes, you’re right.
Senator Cormier: This means that what we are talking about here are not “mandatory” obligations, but actions that the CRTC can take. So it is not obligated to do so; it can do so.
Mr. Ripley: Yes, that’s right.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: I just want to say that in the broadcast world it’s really important to understand that there was only so much spectrum. So it was necessary to order carriage because there was only so much spectrum to go around.
Now, we’re in a condition of almost infinite spectrum, and so I want to end by quoting from Brad Danks of OUTtv, who said at the end of his testimony to us:
In my view, we should simply say, “Look, platform, you want to come into Canada? Carry the Canadian services. Put them up.” The deals are revenue share, so it is not like they lose money. They have unlimited capacity. We won’t worry about what is going on in the rest of the world, but in Canada, we want to make sure that we get our services up, period. My view is that’s not hard for them to do and it really doesn’t cost them anything, so I don’t understand why everybody thinks it is a big ask.
Senator Gold: Thank you for the opportunity to say this. I just want to underline what Senator Dawson said. The government is currently dealing with the broadcasters, looking for solutions. The government’s responsibility is to manage its trade relationships with the United States. It’s in the best position to know what does or does not put at risk that important relationship. For these reasons, I would encourage senators to give some deference to the government’s position about the impact of this amendment on the trade relationship. Thank you.
The Chair: I, for one, colleagues, do not support this amendment. I don’t believe anything that expands the power of the CRTC, above and beyond what it already has, is necessarily a good thing. When it comes to online entities, the CRTC right now is already going to be infringing on areas which I think go above and beyond. The CRTC already has plenty of powers. We heard witness after witness before this committee point out that the authority already held by the CRTC is more than sufficient. They even questioned the capacity of the CRTC, in a timely fashion, to listen to all the voices that will already be coming before it.
I think it’s inappropriate to extend those CRTC authorities that it already has, particularly as — you already know my opinion on this — we’re already giving the CRTC authority to deal with online digital creators in the same way they’re dealing with traditional broadcasters, which I think is ludicrous. You don’t find me echoing very often the concern of the government, but already this bill will create question marks. It has created question marks, as we have seen from representatives, like the United States Trade Representative who met last week with the Canadian Minister of International Trade and again reiterated her concern regarding Bill C-11, particularly when it comes to protectionism and overreach.
I will not be supporting, for what it’s worth, this amendment. If there is no more debate, colleagues, shall I call the question?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Simons:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 10, on page 14, by replacing line 42 with the following:
“tion undertaking or an online undertaking that provides the programming services of other broadcasting undertakings to carry, on the terms and conditions”.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the nays have it. Accordingly, the amendment is defeated, on division.
Colleagues, we move to amendment No. 10-15-3. I believe this one belongs to Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move.
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 10,
(a) on page 15, by deleting lines 3 to 9;
(b) on page 16, by deleting lines 29 to 34.
Regarding my amendment, honourable senators, it has become clear from witness testimony that as this bill has been drafted, too little thought has gone into the implications of imposing the policies and procedures designed for traditional broadcasters on streaming services. The bill is drafted to provide that persons carrying on an online undertaking which provides programming services of other broadcasting undertakings shall do so in a manner similar to the traditional broadcasters.
This would include mandatory carriage provisions, a requirement that the CRTC is actually in the process of phasing out when it comes to traditional broadcasters.
Why would we then, in this bill, impose requirements on online services that are alien to their business models when the commission is moving in a completely different direction in its own policies?
The brief provided the Digital Media Association to this committee points out that streaming services operate in a completely different fashion from traditional commercial radio broadcasters. Unlike radio, where programming is controlled by the broadcaster, airtime is tight and prime time airtime is even more coveted. Streaming is controlled principally by individual listener preference anywhere and at any time of the day.
The brief pointed out that clause 9 of Bill C-11 would allow the CRTC to impose “must carries” and force online streaming services to carry emergency messages. These potential regulations fail to take into account the practical and technical problems in doing so, not the least of which is the global nature of streaming services and the relevant technologies. For example, streaming services do not collect location data granular enough to actually target emergency messages to relevant recipients — nor should they.
The brief points out that shelf space is limitless, and streaming occurs simultaneously in millions of one-to-one personalized transmissions for users. Any listener anywhere in the world already can make their own playlist of Canadian music from a comprehensive library, share it with friends and other subscribers, and boost it on their social media, among other innovative features.
By contrast, traditional radio broadcasting is a single, one-to-many scheduled transmission of the same program of content to all listeners.
Imposing traditional broadcasting industry regulations, especially rigid content quotas, on a fundamentally different industry that operates using rather more technologically flexible and interactive platforms and already makes its own unique contributions to the Canadian economy and culture would do little to benefit Canadian artists and rights holders, much less Canadian music fans.
Colleagues, the subclauses proposed for deletion here provide expansive powers to the CRTC that are not practical to apply to online platforms. They risk rendering impractical the provisions of the bill as they relate to online streaming, even unworkable. It is simply not warranted to apply this bill as broadly as proposed. Therefore, I urge you to support this amendment in order to make the application more focused and practical. Thanks.
The Chair: Does everybody support this motion? Again, some of the points of view expressed by Senator Manning — I will not, for the benefit of time, regurgitate them, though you’ve heard them many times through the many months of this study. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; we’re trying to create and align rules and regulations in a functional system for a horse-and-buggy and a Ferrari. Even though both of them are means of transportation, they just work in so many different ways. Yet the government has insisted on trying to take rules which have traditionally been applied to the horse-and-buggy and implement them on a Ferrari. At the end of the day, someone will get hurt in the process.
My question, Mr. Ripley, is the following, and it’s a question that hasn’t been asked, to my knowledge, even throughout this long study that we’ve had. Many traditional broadcasters have become digital platform providers, right? There are news broadcasters who are, in an electronic digital fashion, providing news. In my province, we have Quebecor, a huge, traditional broadcaster, which launched a while ago QUB radio, a completely digital platform. Do organizations like Quebecor or Bell Media, which are clearly in the streaming business right now, fall into the category of streamers? Because I know that that this bill applies to companies — the YouTubes, the TikToks, the Netflixes — which are by no means traditional broadcasters. Is there consistency in this bill when it comes to treating one and/or the other?
Mr. Ripley: There is. They would own services that qualify as both. For example, Bell Media has Crave, which is a Netflix-like service; it would be considered an online undertaking. The QUB radio which you referenced, chair, would be considered an online undertaking, similar to Spotify, for example. So, yes, Canadian properties which meet the definition of online undertaking will be treated as online undertakings.
The Chair: Thank you. Question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Manning:
That Bill C-11 be amended on clause 10, page 15 at line 3 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the nays clearly have it. [Technical difficulties] We will have a recorded vote.
[Translation]
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator C. Deacon?
Senator C. Deacon: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 3; nays, 11; abstentions, nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated. We move on, colleagues, to clause 10-15-15. This is an amendment proposed by Senator Simons. You have the floor.
Senator Simons: I’ll withdraw.
The Chair: It is withdrawn by Senator Simons.
We move on to 10-15-40b, which has also been withdrawn.
We move on to 10-16-8. That is an amendment from Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: 10-16-8?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Manning: I’d like to move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 10, on page 16, by adding the following after line 8:
“(3.1) Orders made under this section do not apply in respect of programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service — who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.”.
Colleagues, this point has already been made, but far too little consideration has gone into the implications of imposing policies and procedures that are designed for traditional broadcasters on streaming services. Once again, as the brief provided by the Digital Media Association to this committee points out:
. . . streaming services operate in a completely different fashion from traditional commercial radio broadcasters. Unlike radio where programming is controlled by the broadcaster, airtime is finite and prime time airtime is even more coveted, streaming is controlled principally by individual listener preference anywhere and at any time of day.
When the former vice-chair of CRTC, Peter Menzies, testified before this committee, he said that there is a risk of small creators being captured in what he called a “regulatory maze.” He said:
Years ago, I remember looking at a YouTube video of a couple of Gwich’in guys up on the Yukon River, just west of Dawson City. One guy had a fiddle and one guy had a guitar, and they were singing their tunes. That YouTube video went to an Indigenous community globally.
I remember looking at these two guys and saying, “Man, imagine all the work they would have to do to go through a regulatory system to be able to tell their story and sing their songs — from Dawson City, way up there, a couple of Gwich’in guys.”
Those guys don’t have a chance. They don’t have GR people. They don’t have regulatory affairs people, that sort of thing. Those are the people I’m thinking about. The Indigenous groups and other under-represented groups will have to go through this maze of bureaucracy . . . .
Colleagues, it is simply not warranted to apply this bill as broadly as proposed. Therefore, I urge you to support this amendment in order to make the applications more focused and practical. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. A couple of questions for Mr. Ripley: As Bill C-11 was drafted, what consideration was given to the appropriateness of imposing rules and requirements that have been carried out by traditional broadcasters on streaming services?
Let me follow that up with a second question. I will have a third one. Is the brief of the Digital Media Association not correct? Namely, that the global nature of streaming services make this highly impractical for streaming platforms.
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, Senator Plett. I would say that the nature of the services was considered. If you look at some of the regulatory heads of power in 9.1, you will see that certain types are limited to certain types of broadcast undertakings. Not all of them necessarily apply to online undertakings. As I mentioned yesterday as well, at subparagraph (6), you see a limitation of certain of those powers vis-à-vis social media services. So there certainly was consideration about what regulatory powers are appropriate for online undertakings. But then I would also highlight the point that Senator Cormier just raised earlier, that these are powers given to the CRTC but there’s no obligation on them to use them.
Senator Plett: Thank you. One of the criticisms that the opposition party has had, certainly in the Senate, is the government’s lack of consultation, when they keep patting themselves on the back when they talk about consultation and they consistently fail.
As this legislation was formulated, what consultation did officials have with digital creators and/or those representing them? And in those consultations, did digital creators raise the problems they saw with giving the CRTC the power to set policies which might require platforms to engage in algorithm manipulation?
Lastly, if those concerns have been raised by the department — and I would like to know if they have — why have they been ignored and who decided to ignore them?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, senator. The basis for Bill C-10 and now Bill C-11 was the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review, which was an expert panel that consulted widely and, as senators are likely aware, published an in-depth report with recommendations. Bill C-11 picks up some of those recommendations.
We have, indeed, had open communication primarily with Scott Benzie, representing Digital First Canada, as it’s now known, throughout the bill process at certain points. And, senator, certainly the concerns of social media creators and Mr. Benzie are known to us.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have before us again another amendment that is strictly designed to stand up for small content creators. Again, I will reiterate how disappointed I am that there doesn’t seem to be a propensity on the part of a majority of our colleagues to defend those small content creators that are making up right now the majority of the growth in our broadcasting, streaming, content industry right across the country.
We’ve heard so many compelling witnesses — both former chairs of the CRTC and individuals who represent streamers and small content producers. We’ve heard so many compelling stories of the fiddler up in the Yukon, Indigenous groups in remote regions of this country who get an opportunity to play their guitar, play their fiddle, do their cooking show and other examples of Canadian content, stories by Canadians that are very Canadiana and spread around the world. And here we are trying to give gatekeepers unlimited, unfettered authority, like I said, to bring them in line with traditional Canadian broadcasting that is dying; for all intents and purposes, it’s dead, with this bill or without it. We’ve heard it from a number of witnesses that we have to come to terms with the reality. It’s 2022. By 2030, that reality will be even more different. Again, as we’ve seen, these large broadcasters are going into streaming and setting up digital platforms because they realize nobody else is watching them.
Again, I support another attempt on the part of Senator Manning to stand up for small content creators. If we don’t make some of these amendments, there will be a regulatory maze created for these people that is going to suffocate them and prevent them from growing.
And you know what the outcome will be? People like the Weeknd, and I discovered the Weeknd because my kids told me. They kept talking about the Weeknd. I didn’t realize he was a singer and an artist. I thought it was a weekend. But if it wasn’t for these platforms, I would never have known and the world would never have known who the Weeknd is. Justin Bieber. All these Indigenous stories that would line up to get approval from the gatekeepers in traditional broadcasting six months, six years down the road to be heard.
Colleagues, I am supporting this amendment, and I hope other colleagues will line up to support it as well.
Senator Wallin: Mr. Ripley, what’s your major issue with this? Is there a change of wording that would give you some peace maintaining the same idea?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, Senator Wallin. The effect of this amendment is, essentially, that the powers in section 9.1 would not apply to social media services. So, in essence, the only remaining regulatory powers would be section 10 regulations and section 11.1 expenditure requirements. Therefore, the contributions of social media services would be limited to financial contributions only.
Senator Wallin: And that is a position that has been well stated in our hearings — that this would be acceptable to all the participants, including those paying the bill.
Mr. Ripley: That would not be the position of the government. The position of the government is that section 9.1 orders, to the extent they are applicable, should be applicable to social media services.
The Chair: Question?
Some Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Manning that Bill C-11 be amended in clause 10, on page 16 — shall I dispense? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I think the nays have it. We will have a recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator C. Deacon?
Senator C. Deacon: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 6; nays 8; abstentions, nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated. Colleagues, moving right along, we have 10-16-26a. This is an amendment from Senator Wallin. Senator Wallin, you have the floor.
Senator Wallin: I will move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 10, on page 16, by replacing lines 26 and 27 with the following:
“(8) The Commission shall not make an order under any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) that would require the use of a specific com–”.
It goes on to read: computer algorithm or source code.
This amendment would make the restriction on the manipulation of algorithms and source codes apply not to just section 9(1)(e) of the act relating to the conditions the CRTC can impose on broadcasting requirements on online undertakings but also to subsections (a) through (d). Though subsection (e) excludes the manipulation of algorithms and source code relating to the direct showcasing and discoverability of Canadian programs by not excluding subsections (a) through (d), we are still granting the CRTC the ability to force companies to change or manipulate algorithms to ensure CanCon proportions.
Ian Scott, when he came before the committee a second time, said: “There are numerous ways to promote discoverability.” So if that’s the case, let’s make sure that algorithmic manipulation isn’t one of them.
Again, I would remind you that the CRTC chairman said:
. . . I don’t want to manipulate your algorithm. I want you to manipulate it to produce a particular outcome.” Then we will have hearings to decide what the best ways are, and we will explore them.
The government is still insisting on claiming this bill isn’t regulating user content while at the same time describing how that content will fall within the regulations. I think this is something we should all be concerned about, but it’s also something that many reasonable people who appeared before our committee expressed great concern and worry over.
I’m hoping that the government will see the benefit and that this committee will do everything in our power to set up guardrails to prevent government overreach in enforcing discoverability requirements. Thank you.
Senator Dawson: I think it’s a little bit detailed. Mr. Ripley, could you comment on this? It is very technical, and I would need some guidance.
Mr. Ripley: Right. So Senator Wallin’s motion deals with subparagraph (8), which currently reads: “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e)” — so that’s the discoverability head of power — “that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.”
This was included by the government in recognition that the Broadcasting Act is not intended to be a piece of legislation designed to regulate algorithms, to require algorithmic transparency, to equip the CRTC to prescriptively order broadcasters to change algorithms.
What Senator Wallin is proposing is that same principle be also extended to subparagraphs (a) through (d), which deal with the proportion of programming.
Senator Dawson: So there is no need for this amendment?
Mr. Ripley: The origins of the amendment were brought in, again, specifically with respect to subparagraph (e), where there were concerns about whether the CRTC could require the disclosure of an algorithm and very prescriptively order that it be changed.
Again, I don’t want to speak for Senator Wallin, but I think she’s saying that the same principle should apply equally to paragraphs (a) through (d).
Senator Dawson: So in reality, we can keep amendment 8 as it is now?
Senator Wallin: I don’t think that’s what he said.
Senator Dawson: No, but I asked because I was confused and I’m trying to get some guidance.
Mr. Ripley: The government’s position, I would say, again, is this bill is not about algorithmic transparency. It’s not about equipping the CRTC to make those kinds of regulatory decisions. The emphasis is indeed on outcomes and results, so Senator Wallin is not wrong in that subparagraphs (a) through (d) could raise similar concerns to those in subparagraph (e).
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Gold, Mr. Ripley, consistent with the questions that Senator Dawson asked — and it is a technical question — as the Broadcasting Act stands, would the chair of the CRTC have the authority to ask platforms to manipulate their algorithms for a specific outcome, consistent with what the chair of the CRTC has said before this committee?
Mr. Ripley: That debate was primarily held with respect to discoverability, and that is why the government included subparagraph (8) to be very clear that the appropriate level of regulatory oversight is at the outcomes and results we are trying to achieve. It is not the CRTC’s role to get into ordering companies to change their algorithms in specific ways. Subparagraph (8) was put there to foreclose any argument that is the space the CRTC should —
The Chair: So the follow-up question is, again, based on the objective of the Broadcasting Act, if the target set out by the CRTC isn’t met by the platforms, would they have the capacity and the power under the Broadcasting Act to compel them?
Mr. Ripley: No. The primary consequence of not complying with a regulatory order as proposed by Bill C-11 would be an administrative monetary penalty for those organizations not in compliance.
The Chair: Which means they can’t compel them with a penalty.
Mr. Ripley: The focus is on meeting the regulatory obligation. Again, subparagraph (8) is clear that the regulatory obligations stemming from subparagraph (e) are that the discoverability power cannot be specifically in order to modify an algorithm in a specific way.
Senator Gold: I simply register the government’s opposition. The government believes the bill strikes the right balance. As Senator Dawson said on another occasion, there’s a constant motif of mistrusting the CRTC, mistrusting the regulatory process and mistrusting the good faith of the government in this bill. The government believes it struck the right bill and it’s given appropriate assurances that this is about platforms, not users, and it’s not about manipulating algorithms.
Senator Quinn: People on this committee who have been in this business are raising concerns that have also been raised by witnesses. As I’ve said many times, I am not in the broadcasting business, but the fact that people who are in the business question the government’s position — which I think we should support with respect to the big guys being in and the user content folks being out. It needs to be absolutely clear. But so, too, does the question around algorithm manipulation need to be clear, because that’s supporting what the government has said. Yet experts have said to us that they’re not sure and that they’re confused. As parliamentarians, we need to support the government’s intent by making amendments such as this to make it clear for the people who appeared before us and the very position the government takes.
I intend on supporting this subamendment.
Senator Wallin: We’ve come around this a couple of different ways, and I think what we all want here — and I know what many of the witnesses said, if not all on this specific topic, which is that while the verbal assurances are there that we wouldn’t do that or we may use different forms of punishment to deal with it, let’s just clarify it. Let’s make it clear so that everybody knows what the ground rules are as we go into this new area.
I think this really helps do that. It reflects the words of the CRTC chairman on this. Let’s make sure that algorithmic manipulation is not one of the ways to promote discoverability of content. I think this accomplishes that. It’s a gentle message, but one that is there for people to use as guidance. Thank you. I hope you will support this.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Wallin that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 10, page 16 at line 26 — shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the nays have it.
An Hon. Senator: Recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator C. Deacon?
Senator C. Deacon: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 6; nays, 8, abstentions, nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated.
Colleagues, we are still on clause 10-16-26a. I repeat, clause 10-16-26a. This is an amendment proposed by Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: I would like to withdraw that amendment at the present time.
The Chair: Yes. I think it is very similar. Most likely it would be defeated.
Colleagues, clause 10-17-2, an amendment proposed by Senator Manning, 10-17-2. Senator Manning, when you are ready, you have the floor.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 10, on page 17, by adding the following after line 2:
“9.2 Before making an order under section 9.1 in respect of an online undertaking, the Commission shall consider the following factors:
(a) the amount of remuneration paid to Canadian artists and creators by the online undertaking;
(b) the level of access that Canadian artists and creators have to the online undertaking to distribute and promote their content;
(c) the tools provided by the online undertaking to help Canadian artists and creators build a domestic and international audience for their content;
(d) the in-kind or indirect financial support provided to Canadian artists and creators by the online undertaking, including the promotion of their content through playlists, special events, marketing and artist or creator profiles;
(e) the proportion of programs made available from the online undertaking that are Canadian programs, and in particular programs produced by artists and creators representing Canadian Indigenous communities and English and French language minority communities; and
(f) any factor that the Governor in Council may by order prescribe.”.
This amendment is hopefully recognizes the contribution currently being made by streamers. Colleagues, we have heard considerable testimony from witnesses related to the contributions that online undertakings make to Canada, Canadian artists and creators, and to Canadian jobs. The brief submitted by the Motion Picture Association of Canada catalogued some of these benefits. Over the past decade, the contributions made by global producers account for 90% of the growth of film, television and streaming production in Canada. Foreign investment in production in Canada accounts for $6 billion annually.
In 2021, Motion Picture Association studios spent $2.3 billion on local production goods and services in Canada, supporting more than 47,000 businesses in our country with the support of more than 200,000 workers in the Canadian creative industries.
In their submission to this committee, they were quite right to argue that section 9.1(1) should direct the commission to take into consideration the efforts of online undertaking in showcasing and discovering Canadian programs both within and outside their particular online undertakings.
Similarly the brief filled with the committee by the Digital Media Association stated:
The misconception that appears to motivate many of the Bill C-11 amendments is that digital streaming services do not currently make substantial financial and other economic contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system. This assumption is incorrect.
DiMA members already offer access to more Canadian content and contribute more revenue to artists, songwriters, and rights holders than many organizations in the regulated Canadian broadcast system do today. DiMA members also provide a wide variety of benefits to Canadian artists of all sizes, including opportunities to showcase and advance their music to fellow Canadians and global audiences alike.
What this amendment proposes to do is ensure that the CRTC is both aware of and considers those supports.
We require transparency from the CRTC, not only to have insight on how the CRTC is impacting small creators, but also with regard to the impacts that the sector is having on the Canadian economy about which undertakings are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to provision of jobs, the broadcast of diversity programming and whether the objectives of the Canadian broadcasting policy are being achieved.
When Monica Auer, Executive Director, Forum for Research Policy in Communications appeared before our committee she was quite clear. And I quote:
If we want to make sure that Canada is truly reflected properly, it is up to the Canadian regulatory authority to know how many and what kinds of people are reflected in broadcasting, and if are there concerns, it needs to address them. These concerns can be addressed. I don’t think the CRTC right now even tracks, for instance, employment. And although it gathers data on how many people are in programming, technical, administration and other things, they don’t distinguish between the key groups that today we believe should be considered. Why? Why doesn’t it do that? It could.
She also said that:
In terms of accountability and transparency, the problem with the CRTC right now is that it is not making its decisions public. Every year its publishing dozens of decisions that you can’t see because there is no hyperlink and they don’t publish. When we say the contract is transparent, it is simply not. . . . I think it would challenge the notion that the CRTC is (a) transparent, (b) open and (c) accountable. It is not.
Colleagues, we want to ensure that Canada’s broadcasting system attracts investment. That requires transparency. We have already heard from so many witnesses that so much in this bill would likely deter investment in Canada’s cultural sector. We have been warned that provisions in this bill will contribute to and encourage global protectionism. I believe this bill requires balance and I also believe that this is a modest and reasonable amendment designed to accomplish that objective and I ask for your support.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I would like to get some clarifications from Mr. Ripley.
How does currently, and in Bill C-11, the CRTC consider the criteria that are listed there?
How is the CRTC currently doing this work in relation, obviously, to broadcasting policy?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
So we have policy objectives in two places: in section 3 of the act and then we have the objective on the regulatory side, which is in clause 5 of the bill.
So, I draw your attention to subclause 5(2)(a.1), which says that the regulations must take into account the following:
. . . the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings, as well as their size, their impact on the Canadian creation and production industry, particularly with respect to employment in Canada and Canadian programming, their contribution to the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1) and any other characteristic that may be relevant in the circumstances;
So, you’ll see there — I think there’s the same sense of some of Senator Manning’s proposals — that according to the government, we already have a provision indicating that the CRTC should consider these things.
Senator Cormier: I have a sub-question.
Would the amendment, as stated here, restrict the CRTC’s powers, flexibility and ability to determine that based on the changing environment and markets?
Mr. Ripley: It certainly adds another burden, another lens that before we proceed to create an order under 9.1 — we’re going to have to look at the things that Senator Manning is proposing, in addition to the regulatory objectives in clause 5 and the policy objectives in section 3, yes.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: My question might have already been asked of the department. On an annual basis, does the department gather statistics and information in terms of the broadcasting industry, the music industry, the industry at large when it comes to art and culture in Canada in terms of dollar investment in the country, growth in certain sectors, contraction in certain sectors when it comes to our producers, writers, actors, singers, songwriters? Does the department gather this information?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, chair. There are a couple of key reports. The first one is the profile report which looks at the audiovisual sector. That’s a joint project between the department and the industry. It looks at the impact of production of the screen sector in Canada, and that’s published annually.
The second one that I would name is the CRTC’s monitoring report which looks at the impact of the broadcasting sector and things like revenue and employment and growth and those statistics.
The Chair: Is it fair to say that in the analysis of those statistics gathering or the report you’re referring to that there must be a number that indicates huge growth among streamers, digital content producers, digital platforms compared to traditional broadcasting?
Mr. Ripley: One of the challenges right now for the CRTC is it does not have precise information gathering powers vis-à-vis streaming services. One of the changes that this bill will do is make sure that they can gather information from the entire broadcasting sector moving forward so we can get a more accurate picture of streaming services in Canada.
The Chair: What I’ve heard from many international jurisdictions is that the biggest challenge governments and nations around the world are having is quantifying the reach of digital platforms because they have no borders and they’re difficult to monitor. How challenging will that be for the CRTC to create reasonable benchmarks before they even start the consultative process?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, chair. I would suggest that the first place to start is ensuring that we can start gathering some basic information, which right now, the CRTC does not have adequate tools to even ask questions around basic subscriber information, revenues in Canada, the amount spent on production activity and those kinds of things. Then that would place the CRTC and others who have an interest in those questions — to your point — disentangle the impact in Canada vis-à-vis the broader global economy.
The Chair: So we’re building a piece of legislation, we’re giving the CRTC wide latitude required to apply that legislation. We don’t know exactly what the benchmarks are. We have a general theme in the bill, but we don’t have the policy directives with the specific benchmark. And they don’t have the tools to gather the information before they exercise those benchmarks.
I don’t even know if that is a question, but it is a challenge, isn’t it?
Mr. Ripley: We have a good sense that the traditional broadcasting sector faces financial pressures and is shrinking; that is well known. We know that streaming services have faced substantial growth here in Canada, and we have some sense, based on financial disclosures according to the American regulatory authorities, of what their revenues are in Canada. Again, one of the gaps that this bill seeks to address is to make sure we have a Canadian regulator that is well equipped with the right information-gathering tools to monitor this space moving forward.
The Chair: Mr. Ripley, I thank you always for your transparency.
Colleagues, the answer is really in the words he used where he says traditional broadcasters are in decline. They are losing revenue. Digital streamers and other platforms are having exponential growth. We’re trying somehow to create a race between the horse-and-buggy and the Lamborghini. My money is on the Lamborghini, colleagues. That’s without a doubt, as much as we might be attached to our horses and our buggies and our traditional way of doing things.
For that reason, I support Senator Manning’s feeble but gallant attempt at the same time to bring some sense to this.
We know the outcome, Senator Manning, but your gallant attempt is really what I admire.
Question. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Manning that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 10, page 17, line 2 — shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: We’ll dispense.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the yeas are enthusiastic, but the nays have it. We will have a recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator C. Deacon?
Senator C. Deacon: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Nay.
Mr. Labrosse: Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yea.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 5; nays, 9; abstentions, nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, colleagues, it is defeated.
Colleagues, we are moving along quite well. Shall clause 10 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Colleagues, we’re moving on to clause 11, so Bill C-11, clause 11-17-33a. It is an amendment that will be presented by Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: This is a joint amendment from Senator Dasko and myself, and whereas I dropped my last amendment that dealt with the Independent Broadcast Group, I’m going to try to present this third one as a standalone. This is an amendment that would give the Independent Broadcast Group the right to mediation before the CRTC. I’m hoping that this will address Senator Housakos’s concern about CRTC’s overreach, but doesn’t allow the CRTC direction and control, but gives the Independent Broadcast Group mandatory carriage community access to mediation services.
I move that Bill C-11 be amended in clause 11(a), on page 17 by replacing line 33 with the following:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 11,
(a) on page 17, by replacing line 33 with the following:
“(7) Paragraphs 10(1)(f) and (g) of the French ver-”;
(b) on page 18,
(i) by deleting lines 4 to 8,
(ii) by replacing line 9 with the following:
“(8) Paragraphs 10(1)(h) to (j) of the Act are re-”,
(iii) by adding the following after line 10:
“(h) for resolving, by way of mediation or otherwise, any disputes arising between broadcasting undertakings concerning the carriage of programming services;”.
Again, this is an amendment that speaks to the concerns of the Independent Broadcast Group, which is OMNI, CPAC, APTN, Telelatino, TV5, ICI TV, and it ensures that mandatory carriage services are placed on an equal footing with broadcasters should the Commission need to intervene in their disputes.
Senator Dawson: Again, chair, and with all due respect I have for the organizations in question, the government will be opposing this amendment. The dispute resolution powers of the CRTC are derived from a time when they were limited to channels to distribute content. Today there are nearly an infinite number of ways that content can be shared, and the amendment goes beyond trade and commerce and would probably encroach on provincial responsibilities.
For that reason, chair, we should oppose this motion.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to hear on this theme from our dear Thomas Owen Ripley, so if he could clarify first, if it does, how does it encroach on provincial jurisdiction, and why would it be problematic in the eyes of CUSMA?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, senator.
The powers that are being discussed, subparagraph (h) of 10(1), is the regulatory power that the CRTC relies on to mediate disputes between cable and satellite companies and television stations, and that has historically been an important power for the CRTC in the context where we have a very consolidated industry in Canada. This has been about small independent cable companies being able to access programming owned by the big companies and, conversely, independent television channels making sure that their television channel can get on the cable or satellite lineup of a big company.
The government’s position, again, senator, it’s primarily been about a calculation related to the degree of economic regulatory tools that the CRTC should be given vis-à-vis commercial arrangements. The decision was made not to extend that power to the online undertakings, but instead, in subparagraph 8(1), provide an opportunity for the CRTC to put in place essentially a complaint process if they believe that there has been unjust discrimination or an unreasonable advantage imposed on them. Again, that’s recognition that the global marketplace is a different one than the historic consolidated, closed broadcasting system here in Canada.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What about the provincial aspect of the question?
Mr. Ripley: I’m not in a position to comment on that element.
Senator Simons: To answer Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question, there had been some concerns raised that because this involved private organizations’ contracts, that could be provincial jurisdiction. I would argue that because broadcasting is federally regulated and in the federal ambit, there is no constitutional question. Believe me — I’m from Alberta — we are extremely sensitive on the subject of federal trespass into provincial jurisdiction, but in this case, I think it’s a red herring.
I know that the government opposes this amendment. I’m hoping that I convince others of you that I’m standing together with the Indigenous producers who run APTN, with the ethnocultural groups that run services like OMNI and Telelatino and TV5, and I’m very proud to stand with them even if you don’t support this amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, I’m also a fan of a number of those outlets that Senator Simons talks about, particularly some of our ethnocultural channels that we have, some in Montréal. Despite the fact that Senator Simons presents this amendment as somehow reeling in the authority of the CRTC — and this is a question for Mr. Ripley — my interpretation of this amendment is that it actually extends the CRTC’s authority that was designed for traditional broadcasting entities to online entities. That’s the way I see this.
Correct me if I’m wrong with my interpretation.
Mr. Ripley: Yes, that’s correct, and I believe that’s Senator Simons’ intention.
The Chair: I just want to be clear that the intention here is not to reel in the authority of the CRTC; it actually expands it to online entities, which I cannot support, so I will find myself supporting the government position.
Senator Dawson: I’m from Quebec, and we invented conflict between governments. We led the way for Alberta.
The reality is that there are some commerce-related issues on this that would involve jurisdictions that are provincially related. I repeat that I think we should oppose it.
I’m sorry to agree again with Senator Housakos. We’re being told on the internet that we’re being too friendly, so I’ll try to find something for a conflict a little later.
I agree with Senator Housakos.
The Chair: I’m sure there will be many amendments we will disagree on, still to come.
Senator Simons: It will be good to see Senator Plett vote for the government in this way. That’s wonderful support.
I’m sure they’ll be grateful, sir.
Senator Plett: You don’t know how I’m going to vote.
Senator Simons: No, it’s true. I don’t. Surprise me.
Senator Plett: I might.
The Chair: Colleagues, question?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Simons that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 11, page 17, at line 33 — may I dispense?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the nays have it.
On division? The amendment is defeated on division.
Colleagues, we are still in C11-11-18-26, and it is an amendment being tabled by Senator Quinn.
Senator Quinn: Given the probability of the outcome, I withdraw the motion.
The Chair: Senator Quinn, don’t be cynical. You haven’t been here long enough.
Senator Quinn: Maybe that’s a good thing.
The Chair: Maybe it is.
Colleagues, we’re in clause 11-18-29. This is an amendment proposed by Senator Cormier.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I will first read the amendment and will then explain its content. I propose:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 11,
(a) on page 18, by replacing lines 29 to 32 with the following:
“(a) whether Canadians, including independent producers, have a right or interest in relation to a program, including copyright, that allows them to control and benefit in a fair”;
(b) on page 19, by replacing lines 4 and 5 with the following:
“right in musical works or in sound recordings; and”.
Respected colleagues, I refer you to page 18 of Bill C-11, under “Regulations — Canadian programs.” You have subclauses (a) and (d) as described.
I would remind you that subclause 10(1.1) sets out criteria that the CRTC will have to consider when making regulations regarding Canadian programming or Canadian content, as we frequently hear.
The criterion set out in subclause (a) is that of ownership of rights and interests. In its current form, this criterion applies only to Canadian producers. To be called “Canadian content,” the right or interest of a program would have to be held by a Canadian producer. It seems to me that the criterion should be broadened to refer to Canadians more generally in the event that there are no producers associated with a program, which is part of the current reality of production. An artist can create without being associated with an associate producer.
That’s all for the first part of the amendment. In the second part, again in this subclause, my amendment also seeks to remove the repetition of “right or interest,” which makes the subclause easier to read.
As you read subclause (a), you will notice that “right or interest” is written twice, which is a repetition.
Finally, the third element of the amendment is to subclause (d), again on page 18, and this is the criterion for collaboration between online or programming companies and Canadian creators. I’ll take you to the very end of that subclause, where it is a matter of “owners of copyright in musical works or in sound recordings made in Canada.”
The amendment seeks to remove the fact that this type of content must be made in Canada, and the reason is simple, colleagues: it reflects the reality of Canadian music artists who may travel abroad to record or alternatively record their content virtually, in Canada or elsewhere. This amendment also addresses several concerns that artists are not recognized as Canadian artists because they record abroad. I’m sure you can think of several examples of Canadian artists recording outside the country.
It seems very important that this reality be taken into consideration in anticipation of a modernization of the definition of “Canadian content.” That concludes my explanation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Cormier, I have a question for you.
In general, in this bill, we have focused not only on the whole issue of Canadian artists, but also artists who produce in Canada. That is part of this bill. But you say here that there should be an exception for musicians and that they could produce outside Canada. Is that the whole production or just the recording, because we’re talking about recording?
Senator Cormier: It’s about sound recording, in general. I will give you some examples that we are familiar with. Let’s take the example of Charlotte Cardin, a Canadian and Quebec artist who can go outside Canada to record her album, to have access to a certain type of service, whether it’s the type of sound or the type of acoustics she needs. This is for that part. As currently drafted, the bill would exclude Charlotte Cardin for recording outside Canada, even though she is a Canadian artist producing Canadian content. That’s the target we’re trying to achieve here.
Senator Dawson: The government supports this amendment. We can also give the example of Céline Dion, who records her albums in Paris. This does not mean she is not a Quebecer and a Canadian even though she records her albums in Paris.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s an exception.
Senator Dawson: The artists asked for this.
Senator Cormier: It accommodates the nature of the industry. It recognizes the ecosystem of our industries. It is quite clear in this case, and in the case of the music industry; this is a reality that must be taken into account.
[English]
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cormier that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 11, page 18, at line 29 — shall I dispense?
An Hon. Senator: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I think the yeas have it.
Senator Plett: On division.
The Chair: On division. The amendment carries, on division.
Moving right along, colleagues, clause 11-19-6, and it’s an amendment by Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: Honourable senators, I move :
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 11, on page 19, by deleting lines 6 to 10.
My rationale is very brief. It needs clarification, and we’re in search of further safeguards. I know what’s going to happen, so it’s hard to make the case enthusiastically. With all of the repeated assurances from the government about the role of the CRTC in terms of enforcing discoverability and manipulating algorithms to achieve that goal, I think we just need a little bit more clarification, particularly with the role of the Governor-in-Council. We had this discussion yesterday about the Governor-in-Council, meaning government, prescribing new regulations and ensuring that the commission carries that out. I will just leave it at that.
The Chair: I have a question and a comment, Senator Wallin. From what I see in this amendment, it’s consistent with the vote we had yesterday in removing clause 7. Correct? It’s in the same —
Senator Wallin: It’s the same vein. It’s an attempt to —
The Chair: Colleagues, again, it’s reinforcing the idea that there should be a division between political authority and the CRTC in our broadcasting industry.
I don’t know if there are any other comments? Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Perhaps we could ask Mr. Ripley for an explanation of the policy rationale behind this or how this fits in more generally with the regulatory framework that’s contemplated in this act.
Mr. Ripley: Under section 10 of the act, the CRTC has the ability to define what constitutes a Canadian program. It has that power already. However, the bill, moving forward, would require the CRTC to define it in relation to the factors set out in proposed subsections 10(1)(a) through (d). Senator Wallin is proposing to remove the ability of the Governor-in-Council to, in the future, add additional factors that need to be considered by the CRTC in defining what constitutes a Canadian program.
The rationale was to ensure that the definition can remain evergreen and is not locked in exclusively in relation to those four factors. If Senator Wallin’s amendment were to pass, it would only be with respect to those four factors moving forward.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer, Mr. Ripley. Again, it’s a very transparent answer, and that’s why I support this bill. At the end of the day, there has to be a clear divide. There’s a reason why we set up these arm’s-length organizations, like the CRTC. They should not be under any political influence, regardless of stripe.
Any other points of view, or shall we go to question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Wallin:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 11, on page 19, by deleting lines 6 to 10.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I think the yeas side has this one.
Senator Klyne: Recorded vote. [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: I heard more “yes” and so far I haven’t been off once, Senator Klyne. So far, but we’ll see. I’m just saying, sometimes one side is louder than the other, but I did hear more yeas than nays.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator C. Deacon?
Senator C. Deacon: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 5; nays: 9; abstentions: nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the chair stands corrected. The amendment was defeated.
We’re moving on, clause 11 again, an amendment regarding 11-19-7, put forward by Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 11, on page 19, by adding the following after line 7:
“(1.11) No factor set out in paragraphs (1.1)(a) to (e) is to be determinative of any matter provided for by a regulation made under paragraph (1)(b).”.
This amendment, colleagues, would add the proposed subsection (1.1.1) which has set out that none of the factors in proposed subsections (1.1)(a) to (e) are determinative in order to provide more flexibility in determining what is or isn’t CanCon or equitable contribution to Canada’s culture and production.
Once again, colleagues, we’ve heard considerable testimony from witnesses on the matter of Canadian content. We’ve heard that the definition of Canadian content is quite inflexible. On one hand, we’ve heard from some stakeholders who represent the large Canadian players that ownership is the key, but we’ve also heard from many smaller players who have pointed to the rigidity that the policy approach creates. It means that a program like, The Handmaid’s Tale, a story written by a Canadian, shot in Canada, in part about Canada, employing Canadian actors and production people, and bringing millions of dollars into Canada, is nevertheless not considered Canadian content because the production company happens to be American.
I would submit that this rigidity creates significant problems. For one, it undermines investment in Canada. We heard that quite clearly in testimony from some of the big international players. David Fares, Vice President, Global Public Policy for The Walt Disney Company, told our committee on September 15:
. . . over the last three years, we spent approximately $3 billion on content production in Canada. Each one of the productions contributes to the hiring and development of high-skilled talent in Canada and infrastructure, which actually benefits the entire AV ecosystem.
He added:
We are also working with the local production companies . . . . We’re hiring people as we build out the virtual production . . . .
Then he went on to say:
. . . We need a flexible regime to allow us to be able to do that.
Wendy Noss, President of the Motion Picture Association-Canada, who appeared before our committee on October 4, stated:
First, the CRTC must create a modern, flexible definition of Canadian programs in order to expand opportunities for Canadian creatives; promote content made by, with or about Canadians; and bring Canadian stories to the world. We therefore propose an amendment to section 10 to ensure that “no one factor is determinative” as the regulator considers the full range of policy objectives in establishing a new approach to defining the scope of Canadian programs.
This amendment would create a foundation for greater flexibility. It would not elevate one particular factor over another, but it would create the option for a more inclusive policy approach. It would not coordinate subclause (a), related to whether Canadian producers, including independent producers, have a right or interest in relation to a program, nor would it subordinate subclause (b), related to whether key creative positions in the production of the programs are primarily held by Canadians, but it would ensure that these factors are considered in a more equitable balance with factors such as subclause (c), related to whether the program furthers Canadian artistic and cultural expressions.
Colleagues, I believe the amendment is justified from that perspective. I look for your support.
Senator Simons: [Technical difficulties] watching Three Pines of late, on Prime. It is a TV show based on a Canadian writer’s novels set in Quebec, filmed entirely in Montréal and the Eastern Townships but it’s not CanCon.
I want to understand, Mr. Ripley, as I read the beginning of this clause, it says the commission “shall” consider the following matters. It doesn’t say the commission “must” consider all of them. Is this a necessary amendment, or is it a redundancy because the clause already allows the CRTC to consider some combination of these factors?
Mr. Ripley: As drafted, as you note, senator, the CRTC has to consider them in making regulations, but it’s not prescriptive about the weight given to the factors or any such thing as that.
I defer to Senator Manning in terms of what he’s seeking to accomplish, but based on the text, it’s assurance that the CRTC is not going to craft a definition based on only one of these factors, for example. At the end of the day, the outcome or the definition must reflect all the factors.
Senator Simons: I had this conversation with Wendy Noss, when she was here as a witness. I just need to understand, does this functionally do anything? Or is it a “for greater certainty” kind of clause?
Mr. Ripley: I would suggest that it potentially does something. Right now, there are certain, for example, key creative positions that determine whether something constitutes Canadian programming. Obviously, that is reflected here as one of the factors. My reading of it is avoiding a situation where there’s one of these factors that is essentially the determining factor of what constitutes Canadian programming, but I defer to Senator Manning.
Senator Simons: In which case, there would be value in this amendment, because I don’t think any of us would want to see a situation where if you don’t have a Canadian grip, you’re not Canadian content.
Senator Plett: I have questions for the officials. Mr. Ripley, when Ms. Oorbee Roy appeared before the committee, she noted the minister told the — committee that Canadian content creators had nothing to fear when it came to being excluded from the definition of Canadian content. When one looks at what the minister actually said in the House, it was this:
These people sometimes have fears, which are fuelled by certain individuals or certain parties. They fear that the CRTC will intervene and tell them that their content is inadequate and does not meet Canadian content criteria. These fears are unwarranted.
Based on what the minister has said, can we conclude, Mr. Ripley, that explicit direction will be given by the government to the CRTC to introduce greater flexibility into the definition of Canadian content? I have another question after that and a few comments.
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, Senator Plett. The minister has clearly communicated that, in his view, the definition of Canadian programming needs to be reviewed and needs to be looked at in light of the fact that, moving forward, global streaming services will participate in the system. That will be done in relation to the four factors set out in the bill.
The first part of your question, in my mind, is a distinct question. To be clear, there is no intention on the part of the government to subject social media creators to a definition of Canadian program. The intention through sections 4.1 and 4.2 is to allow them to continue to do their business as they are currently doing and not to be subject to any kind of Canadian programming regulatory framework.
Senator Plett: The minister’s response to the question posed in the House committee was that the fears of those Canadians who believed their content would not be assessed as Canadian was unwarranted. What can the government do to address the specific bureaucratic problem that creators like Oorbee Roy have spoken about?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, senator. The government intends to ensure through sections 4.1 and 4.2 that social media creators and their content are not subject to the framework in the act.
Senator Plett: I heard Senator Simons’ question about whether this amendment was necessary. I didn’t hear whether she supported or opposed it, but I would like to at least read something. Namely, a quote from Senator Simons on October 4:
Senator Housakos and I don’t agree on much most of the time, but I think we are in agreement on this point. It seems to me that the definition of Canadian content and the imperative to tell Canadian stories — which, as a writer myself I support — is getting confused here for support for Canadian industrial production. I take your point that we don’t just want to be a service economy where we are making Hallmark and Disney movies. But it also seems to me that when you’re saying that the content of the show should have no relevance to whether it is Canadian or not, that it can’t just be about “Anne of Green Gables,” to be Canadian, it seems to me we are doing nothing to encourage the telling of Canadian stories.
I’m certainly looking forward to Senator Simons’ support on this amendment.
Senator Simons: I was speaking in that moment to the people from Blue Ant Media, who were making shows that didn’t have any obvious Canadian content in a cultural sense but still qualified as Canadian content. It was a somewhat different context, but I found Mr. Ripley’s answer very instructive.
Senator Plett: Like I said, chair, I’m looking forward to Senator Simons’ support on the amendment.
The Chair: Senator Simons can express herself, I think, without anyone’s help. She will have an opportunity to vote on it, if the time comes.
I have a question for the sponsor of the bill and the Government Representative. Throughout our months of study, we did realize that there is a problem. We’re putting the cart ahead of the horse. Consistent with what Mr. Ripley said, there is a willingness and a recognition that CanCon has to be revisited. We all recognize that. There are some problems with this definition we’re currently working with. It goes back 40 years.
My question to either the Government Representative or the sponsor of the bill is: Why wouldn’t the government deal with the CanCon issue before we amended the actual Broadcasting Act? We all know the stories regarding The Handmaid’s Tale where we have a Canadian story, by a Canadian author, with Canadian actors, with Canadian directors, on Canadian locations, and they don’t fall into the category of CanCon. We’ve heard these stories over and over again. Of course, The Handmaid’s Tale is the most famous one.
Senator Simons: You should watch Three Pines. It’s very good.
The Chair: There you go. There are many cases, and I know Senator Simons has referred to this issue many times.
The question to the government is: Why don’t we rectify that definition? That way, we have clarity before we try to do the impossible.
Senator Gold: This bill has been in the works in its previous version for many years. The government’s position is that the bill that’s been presented to us and has come to us from the House represents an important step in the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. Further steps, whether through the regulatory process or CRTC’s reevaluation about where the expertise lies will follow. I really have no ability to answer your question. You ask me to speculate upon why the government did this and not that. I think Mr. Ripley’s answer was helpful, and I really have nothing further to add.
The Chair: Mr. Ripley, can you shed some light on why the government would not have tackled the CanCon issue before we actually tackled amending the Broadcasting Act itself?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, Chair. In part, the government is by moving forward orienting the definition of CanCon around legislative criteria, which is currently not the case. Right now there is no actual legislative criteria about what constitutes a Canadian program.
In terms of the sequencing, Chair, this is the crux of the matter. Moving forward online streaming services are going to be expected to contribute to supporting Canadian programs through things like expenditure requirements, and the appropriate place to work out what this looks like, and the form that it’s going to take as per the regulatory process that involves them, involves our cultural organizations and stakeholders here in Canada along with other interested parties. That will need to be done in relation to the factors set out in the bill.
Senator Manning: The Senate is often referred to as the place for the voice of minorities, so I would like to follow up with a story of Ms. Roy, who by her own description before our committee, called herself a smaller player in the area of content creation. She asked our committee on September 28 why the bill is not addressing the issue of the inequity in Canadian content creation and pushing the issue off to a future distant decision. She pointed out the major hurdles in the way of a small content creator like herself in getting approved as Canadian content. She asked us, do I have to harm a 10-year-old son to help me register each piece of skateboarding content for CanCon approval? She asked us to make it easier to qualify as CanCon but we should create a new category for digital content creators.
Colleagues, I humbly say that we can answer Ms. Roy and other content creators like her by supporting my modest amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to ask Mr. Ripley for a clarification.
I believe I heard you say that this amendment is useful because it specifies further that none of these criteria are determining factors. Is that what you said or did I misunderstand you?
Mr. Ripley: Yes, I think that is a good summary of what I said, but again, that is my interpretation of the motion tabled by Senator Manning. The way I see it, the consequence or effect is such that none of these criteria should be final in defining Canadian content, but once again, that is my own understanding of the wording.
[English]
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Manning that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 11, page 19 at line 7 — shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “nays” have it.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator C. Deacon?
Senator C. Deacon: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Abstain.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
The Honourable Jim Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 9; nays: 4; abstentions: 1.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment passes.
Colleagues, shall clause 11, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So clause 11, as amended, carries, on division.
Now, colleagues, we’re moving on to clause 12. Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Clause 12 carries on division.
Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Clause 13 carries on division.
Colleagues, now we move to clause 14 and we have an amendment proposed clause 14-22-6. I repeat, clause 14-22-6 in your bundle, and it is an amendment proposed by Senator Cormier.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I would like to draw your attention to the top of page 22, under “Minimum expenditures — French language original programs.” The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 14, on page 22, by replacing line 6 with the following:
“cated to Canadian original French language programs in the case of”.
In its current form, section 11.1 of the amended bill might imply that an order or regulation made under paragraph 1(a) refers to a share of expenditures to be made in relation to French language original programs that could originate outside of Canada — France, for example. That is not the objective. Paragraph 1(a) refers to expenditures for “developing, financing, producing or promoting Canadian programs.” The amendment that I am moving therefore aims to clarify the title by adding the word “Canadian” to characterize French language original programs, in subsection (3).
In English, the amendment likewise adds the word “Canadian,” but it also brings consistency to the use of “original French-language programs,” which is used throughout the bill to define content that was initially produced in French. In short, “French-language original programs” would be replaced with “Canadian original French-language programs.”
[English]
Senator Simons: Yes, that’s the way the English language works.
Senator Omidvar: Good catch.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: It’s so simple.
[English]
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cormier that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 14, page 22. Shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
[Translation]
He did not understand the language. Senator, it carried. It’s fine. There is no need to debate it when it carried.
We will now proceed with amendment 14-22-14. This amendment was moved by Senator Manning.
[English]
So, Senator Manning, clause 14-22-14. You have the floor when you’re ready, sir.
Senator Manning: I would like to move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 14, on page 22, by replacing lines 14 to 17 with the following:
“(5) Regulations and orders made under this section
(a) may provide that an expenditure is to be paid to any person or organization, other than the Commission, or into any fund, other than a fund administered by the Commission; and
(b) must ensure that all amounts received from online undertakings are paid to creators whose content is distributed by those undertakings.”.
Colleagues, a primary declared purpose of this bill is to ensure that online platforms pay their fair share into the Canadian broadcast system. If you play, you should pay is what we have been told. But who should benefit from those same payments? That is the question. The brief filed by the Internet Society Canada Chapter notes that:
. . . By definition, a system that will impose burdens upon Internet streaming services without extending to them the benefits of the regulatory system will not create a level playing field.
Scott Benzie, Managing Director of Digital First Canada, told our committee that “. . . almost every digital creator does not qualify and has not taken any funding from the public purse.”
He noted that:
. . . Bill C-11 is asking digital platforms to contribute to a system that the creators that use those platforms have no access to.
He asked:
What does that mean in practice? Emerging voices would lose the level playing field they depend upon today, and large media companies would have a leg up at their expense.
Colleagues, I truly believe this is inequitable and is effectively creating a system whereby those who create the content will not have access to the benefits.
Mr. Benzie went on to state:
Digital creators are not pawns of platforms. They do not work for them. They are creative entrepreneurs, and they do not deserve to have their place on open platforms stolen by legacy cultural players who believe they are entitled to top billing. For too long, digital creators have been rejected by establishment cultural groups in Canada, and now we are being attacked for asking for a seat at the table on legislation that could destroy our businesses.
These are mostly small players, colleagues, many of whom have appeared before our committee. They cannot afford to hire large lobbying firms like the other, larger companies have done. They are not well-funded traditional broadcasters. We must ensure that those who create the content are the ones who actually benefit from the system that we are proposing to establish through Bill C-11.
I therefore propose that we amend Bill C-11 to ensure that the amounts received from online undertakings are actually paid to those who have created the content that is distributed by those undertakings. I look for your support. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning. We are coming up to 6:15, colleagues, and we get a little bit of a break before our next meeting.
Before we adjourn, I just wanted to remind colleagues that it would be very helpful to the clerk and his team if by tomorrow before our 3:30 meeting tomorrow afternoon if it is possible for you to send to the clerk any observations you might have in order that he can start preparing them and working on them in advance in order for us to hit certain timelines.
I repeat, if it’s possible from all groups, if you have observations, it would be helpful if those can be deposited with the clerk at some point by tomorrow afternoon. Thank you for your cooperation.
(The committee adjourned.)