THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 8, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 10:30 a.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.
[English]
The Chair: I am Senator Leo Housakos from Quebec, chair of the committee, and I would invite my colleagues to briefly present themselves.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Downe: Senator Percy Downe, Charlottetown.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Government Representative in the Senate, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan, town of Wadena.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. We are meeting to continue our clause-by-clause examination on Bill C-11 and to make any related and consequential amendments to the Broadcasting Act. We’ve been at it for quite a while, and I see we got promoted. They gave us the big room here today, so we have a lot of space and a lot of time and fewer amendments to go through. That’s good news.
We are joined again by our officials from Heritage Canada. Thank you again for being with us. Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister; Amy Awad, Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy; and Yao Ahonda, Manager, Broadcasting, Marketplace and Legislative Policy. Welcome and thank you for being with us.
Honourable colleagues, we adjourned our last meeting by standing on amendment to clause 24.1 proposed by Senator Wallin under the label that you have, which is Bill C-11, clause 24.1, 28-7, resuming debate.
Senator Wallin: I have read the amendment into the record and I think you have all had a chance to look at that. The reason I am pursuing this issue is that many of the creators — all of the creators — who appeared before us wanted to ensure that their content remains discoverable and just as discoverable as anybody else’s content. They have obvious concerns about algorithms.
This is an opportunity for the Government to put its pen where its promises have been, and to recognize formally, in writing, in the bill and the act, that it has no intention of requiring online undertakings to manipulate algorithms or source code or for the purpose of enforcing discoverability.
My hope is that we have found a spot where this might fit, and that we would have those assurances written into both the bill and the act itself. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Senator Wallin. On page 16 of the bill, section 10, subsection 8, Restriction — computer algorithm or source, reads as follows:
The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.
This is already in Bill C-11. Isn’t it redundant to add to section 24 the equivalent of what is already in section 10?
[English]
Senator Wallin: We have tried to find different and correct places for it. This is also amending the bill and the act so that it’s in both places. That may be what is different about this.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But what purpose does it serve since we are talking about the new players here?
Senator Wallin: I think it is important that, at this point, when we’re in an overarching spot in the bill that we reaffirm those two long-off promises and give them actual weight through language in the bill and in the act itself.
I think this is so important. We have heard from the Government Representative in the Senate time and time again to not worry about this. We promise, we have made this clear, we have stated this, we have said this — so let’s do it. Let’s put it in black and white.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Manning: I want to make a couple of comments. Thank you, Senator Wallin, for putting this amendment forward.
This likely will be our last opportunity to address this matter. We have been trying for several meetings now — several days — to bring forward an issue that was raised by many witnesses before us. We have heard a number of senators make references to witness testimony when it comes to their own amendments. There are certain issues repeatedly raised by witnesses with our committee over the past number of months. The matter of CRTC policy leading to computer algorithm manipulation is one of the issues repeatedly brought to the table by many witnesses.
I went back through the testimony, as much as I could. We received a tremendous amount of testimony on Bill C-11, and over 25 witnesses raised this particular issue. When we get that much feedback from people affected by a piece of legislation, I think it’s important that we take their concerns and issues into consideration when we are passing this bill, or putting forward an amendment to address their concerns.
I will quote a couple of people, if I may. Jeanette Patell, Head of Canada Government Affairs and Public Policy, YouTube says the bill:
. . . explicitly gives a government regulator authority over what content is prioritized and how and where content is presented to Canadians, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.
We believe that this would actually backfire for the very creators that it attempts to support.
Overpromoting content to audiences because of where they live rather than because of what they’re interested in leads to audiences tuning out, and those signals train our systems to demote that content for global users. Doing so would strike at the heart of Canadian creators’ success and their bottom lines.
Matthew Hatfield, Campaigns Director of OpenMedia, said:
. . . Bill C-11 must not give the CRTC the power to manipulate the results of algorithms on platforms. We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed in the front window of our bookstores or what kinds of stories must appear on the front pages of our newspapers. . . . This dictatorial approach is not needed or appropriate. Striking the discoverability language in 9.1 while keeping the language asking platforms to showcase Canadian content would be a reasonable compromise. That change could make it easy for users to explore Canadian cultural content when we want to but not have our feeds overwritten by content the government chooses for us everywhere we go online.
Justin Tomchuk, an independent filmmaker, said:
If Bill C-11 disrupts the discoverability of Canadian creators globally, I can see a scenario where some companies with few physical ties will leave the country entirely so they can continue to work unimpeded by these aggressive mandates.
Scott Benzie, Managing Director of Digital First Canada, said:
Section 9.1 needs to be clear that dynamic changes to algorithms are off the table, because messing with them is messing with Canadian businesses and access to their audiences.
Another quote from Vivek Krishnamurthy, Director, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa:
Like it or not, other countries are watching and they will emulate our example. If we, in Canada, can say our cultural policy promoting the voice of Canadians is so important that we can regulate all online content, what is to prevent . . . Hungary, or . . . India . . . .
— or any country —
. . . who have their own particular views of whom is Hungarian or Indian, from imposing similar views and pointing to our example? All this behooves us to be more careful.
Colleagues, I brought these forward today. I went back through the testimony, and these are five of the 25 witnesses I found who brought this concern to our table.
We’re winding down our discussions on Bill C-11 now. I think it would be foolish for us not to take into consideration the enormous number of witnesses who brought this concern to our table. I’ll be supporting the amendment and, for the sake of the creators in this country, I encourage our senators to support the amendment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning. Thank you, Senator Wallin, for bringing this amendment forward. I appreciate both of you for both your patience and your persistence in trying to execute what we have heard from countless witnesses throughout a long study, especially concerning the two elements here that we have been constantly trying to rectify in this bill, namely, giving some rights and protection to digital content creators. The government is constantly pushing back on regardless of the fact that they are always reassuring us that they are not included. Yet the government doesn’t want to make substantive amendments to ensure that their rights and their protections are there.
I’ll speak at length about this bill at third reading. However, at the end of the day, it is a classic exercise where we’re looking at a broadcasting sector that is losing money. Its business model is not working. We take it upon ourselves, as government and Parliament, to say that we will go into a sector that is flourishing. They are creating jobs and wealth, and they are generating content that has propelled Canadian content to numbers never seen before around the world. At the end of the day, that also speaks to what the digital platform has done. It’s opened up the world to unique opportunities for people. The old model of protecting Canadian culture because we’re too weak, too meek, too small and threatened by the Americans, is passé. We see Canadians succeeding in all walks of life — in movies, radio and all kinds of arts and cultural domains. It’s never been more flourishing. We heard that testimony across the board. Well, if we’re flourishing, we’re flourishing because of the digital platforms.
The most important element here is that this is another attempt on the part of Senator Wallin to deal with the manipulation of algorithms. This is what this amendment is all about. Again, this is at the core of what is in this bill, namely, giving the CRTC the power to go to platforms and say to those platforms, “We’re not happy with the outcome that you’re producing, which means we’re not happy with what Canadian want to watch. We want to adjust it.” Basically, we want to tell the CRTC that this is what you must push up on your algorithm formula in order to make sure that what the CRTC decides — in conjunction with whoever has influence over the CRTC — that this is the priority. Not 38 million Canadians whose current choices are being prioritized in an algorithm process that’s based on more people watching and more people clipping. More audience means more revenue, interest and growth.
At the end of the day, I think that I will support the amendment. Kudos to you, Senator Wallin, for your patience on trying to get this done despite the fact that, clearly, the government is not interested in having safeguards on algorithm manipulation, and they are not interested at all in having rights and protections for digital content creators.
Senator Quinn: I want to underscore what my colleague, Senator Manning, and you have talked about and the amendment itself. This is probably the last chance that we’ll have to address this issue. One of the important things that Senator Manning didn’t say is that this amendment would support that which the government has said. We owe it to the government to bring clarity into this bill so that they can stand and say the clarity is in the bill in front of the population.
We were all appointed as independent senators. I appeal to my colleagues to consider that and to accept this last chance to make this clear in the bill for Canadians and, in particular, for the people who appeared before us. The commentary in this room is on the record. It’s acknowledged. I intend to support the amendment as well.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I apologize for interrupting you earlier, Mr. Chair. I couldn’t help but observe that you said everyone agreed during committee meetings that we were not at all threatened by U.S. culture or U.S. artists. However, we heard different testimony on this issue, particularly from francophone Quebec creators, who stated specifically that it wasn’t possible to discover French-language content on foreign platforms.
I just wanted to say that it’s a complex and controversial issue and there are various points of view on it. The point of view on the threat of U.S. culture and especially English-language culture in Quebec was most definitely expressed during the committee meetings.
The Chair: The point I was trying to make is that Canadian culture is not threatened today, in my opinion. Canadian culture is stronger than ever. We are exporting our culture, and that’s what Canadians and our industry are all about. The other good news is that there are a record number of people in Canada today from different artistic backgrounds — creators, artists, producers, directors — who are working and making a good living. That’s all I was trying to say.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You have the right; that’s your point of view. I just want to say that different views were expressed during our meetings.
The Chair: That’s true, but what I meant to say is that there was a vast majority of testimony to that effect and the report is going to reflect that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m not sure, but in any event, we should move on. Please excuse us.
[English]
The Chair: We agree to disagree.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. We disagree.
[Translation]
The Chair: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
[English]
Senator Wallin: I want to remind everyone that the creators — whatever their official language, or content, or geography may be — all share the desire to be discoverable. They don’t want to lose that right because of rules that we put in place or the deliberate or accidental manipulation of algorithms.
I don’t know how many times I have said this, but when Ian Scott came before this committee, he was very clear, as was the minister. He said, “There are numerous ways to promote discoverability.” If that’s the case, then let’s make sure that algorithm manipulation is not one of them. That’s my simple objective and goal. Thank you.
The Chair: Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: A question for me?
The Chair: Yes.
[English]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think we should go to the vote. I’m sorry; I did open that door. I shouldn’t have, but I couldn’t let you say that everybody —
The Chair: I will give you the right to close the door. The question is. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Wallin:
That Bill C-11 be amended on clause 24.1 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Dispense.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “nays” have it.
An Hon. Senator: Recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: 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 Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: 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 Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
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: none.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated.
Colleagues, shall clause 25 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Clause 25 carried on division.
Colleagues, we mosey on over to clause 26-30-13. It is an amendment being moved by Senator Quinn. Senator Quinn, you have the floor.
Senator Quinn: Colleagues, similar to the last amendment, this is probably the last opportunity we may have to have Parliament at least receive reports that the CRTC does on the seven-year basis, to be tabled in Parliament. Parliament will decide what to do. The houses will decide what to do, if anything, on a tabling. But I really honestly believe that the tool that we didn’t take advantage of is the Interpretation Act, section 39, Affirmative and negative resolutions. I respect the vote. I may not agree, but I do respect the votes that we have done. I think this section is that last place, so we have an opportunity to have the CRTC at least have some tie of accountability back to Parliament through the tabling process and leave it to the houses to decide on seven-year cycles what to do, if anything, with those reports.
So my amendment is:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 26, on page 30, by adding the following after line 13:
“(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of all reports published under subsections (1) and (2) to be tabled before each House of Parliament.”.
Senator Cormier: I have a question for Mr. Ripley. What would be the impact of this amendment for the CRTC?
Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: Thank you for the question. Through, you, chair, the tabling of reports in Parliament is a standard procedure. The way this would work in practice is the CRTC would have to provide those reports to the minister and then the minister typically tables them on behalf of portfolio organizations. It’s a mechanism to ensure that Parliament is made aware of the report in question.
Senator Cormier: And it’s not happening right now? CRTC is not doing that right now?
Mr. Ripley: This specific seven-year report here — the obligation right now, as drafted, is that the commission shall publish it, which, practically speaking, means it will be published on their website. Right now, I do not believe there is an obligation to table this report in Parliament. The CRTC does table certain annual reports in Parliament, but I do not believe as it stands now this one is.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Did I understand correctly, seven years? The reporting requirement is only once every seven years?
Mr. Ripley: With respect to the framework, orders and regulations, yes, it’s every seven years.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Seven years is a long time.
[English]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for this.
Senator Simons: Is there any downside to this? Is there any question of blurring the lines? I’m trying to understand why they wouldn’t already be doing this. This seems like a common sense suggestion, no?
Mr. Ripley: In my opinion, the downsides are minimal. It’s a mechanism to make sure that parliamentarians are aware of certain reports, and then it’s obviously the prerogative of Parliament if they wish to discuss those reports further and committee proceedings et cetera.
Senator Wallin: I think this is one of those points of privilege — or of principle, which is let’s put this in front of the lawmakers themselves — and that is us, both houses — and publishing it on our website. This is something we have dealt with for a long time. But I think given the enormity of this legislation, and the change that it embraces, that seven years is also an exceedingly long time to assess whether this is at least starting down the right track.
This is not captured just with the lines I think that you have started with. So if we voted on this, then would I still be able to make an amendment to the seven years and let’s go for three or five or whatever the group agrees, or do you want me to try to put it in this?
The Chair: You can make a subamendment quickly. If it’s a question of just time —
Senator Wallin: Senator Quinn’s amendment starts after line 13. And the seven years appears in line 11.
The Chair: You can make a stand-alone amendment right after.
Senator Wallin: Great. Thank you.
The Chair: I, for one, certainly would embrace this. I think Parliament has to do its job. Everyone knows my opinion. I think Parliament spends far too time taking advice from government, and not enough advice from stakeholders and citizens. Anything that will help create transparency, accountability and lead to protection of citizens I support.
Senator Dasko: I have a question of Mr. Ripley. How did the seven years come into place in the first place? Where did that come from?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, senator. A couple of observations for senators. One is I would just observe this is separate and distinct from the five-year review of the act that is provided for at the end of the bill. So there is a five-year review of the act that is foreseen whereby that has to be undertaken by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or a joint committee.
So the obligation that we’re talking about here is separate and distinct from that review of the act. This is a recurring obligation every seven years that would require the CRTC to do a public consultation on the overall framework of orders and regulations that are in place.
Seven years was chosen because it was the typical licensing cycle as it exists right now is in the five-to-seven-year range, so it was meant to reflect and provide the same kind of opportunity for comment that exists now in the licensing cycle.
The Chair: Mr. Ripley, you say it was chosen. Chosen by whom? The seven years? You said it was chosen.
Mr. Ripley: This was an amendment in the House of Commons through the bill process. It was part of the larger debate about ensuring that, again, given the move away from petitions —
The Chair: Whose initiation was the seven years over in the other place?
Mr. Ripley: My recollection is it was the government.
The Chair: It was the government.
Senator Dawson, I suspect you support this.
Senator Dawson: The government agrees with the amendment. Yes, at the end we are going to have a five-year review anyway. I want to make the distinction, but the government has no objection. On the contrary; we support the amendment.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Quinn that Bill C-11 be amended in clause 26, page 30 at line 13 — may I dispense? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The amendment is adopted unanimously.
Senator Wallin will read her amendment and it is being translated to be distributed.
Senator Wallin: I move:
That Bill C-11 clause 26 on page 30 be amended in clause 26 on page 30 on lines 11 and 12 by replacing the word “seven” on line 11 and the word “seven” on line 12 with the word “five.”
The Chair: It has been recommended that we stand this while the law clerk translates it.
Senator Wallin: I just wanted to get the language out there.
The Chair: Is the language clear?
Senator Simons: — line of 34.0(1).
Senator Wallin: Yes, that will have to be — can we take all of these amendments in one?
Senator Simons: And stand it while we —
Senator Wallin: There is another reference — 34.01(1) — that is before lines 11 and 12.
The Chair: We’ll stand this, colleagues, while Senator Wallin and the desk figure it out. Then we will revert to it.
So we will move on.
Honourable colleagues, does clause 27 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Clause 27 carries, on division. Thank you, senator.
We move on to amendment 28-32-1. This is Senator Downe, who is welcomed at our committee. You have the floor.
Senator Downe: Thank you. If I had known everyone was having so much fun for the last few days, I would have been here earlier.
I move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 28,
(a) on page 32, by adding the following after line 1:
“(2.1) Despite subsections (1) and (2), in the case of a violation of an obligation requiring the Corporation to broadcast a minimum number of hours of regional or local programming, as the case may be, the Corporation is liable to an administrative monetary penalty of $2 million.”;
(b) on page 37,
(i) by replacing line 8 with the following:
“34.993 (1) An administrative monetary penalty paid or re-”,
(ii) by adding the following after line 10:
“(2) Despite subsection (1), an administrative monetary penalty paid or recovered in relation to a violation of an obligation requiring the Corporation to broadcast a minimum number of hours of regional or local programming, as the case may be, is payable — and must be paid by the Corporation within 180 days of the penalty being imposed — to a library that
(a) the Commission specifies by order;
(b) serves the public in the region most directly related to the violation by the Corporation; and
(c) received, in the preceding fiscal year, funds from the Government of Canada, the government of a province or a municipal government.”.
Colleagues, this amendment is an attempt to hold the CBC accountable for cancelling the CBC TV news in Prince Edward Island at the very beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. That was a direct violation of the conditions of the broadcasting licence, when not only did they have to give advance notice but they also had to hold public hearings prior to any cancellation. None of that was done. We found out after the fact that the CRTC had no way to hold CBC accountable for their decision.
If this ever happens again, the purpose of this amendment is to impose a fine of $2 million per day on the CBC, payable to a local library in the affected community.
Colleagues, as you well remember, at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lack of understanding of COVID, how it was spread, how to protect yourself, and how to protect your families and your loved ones. In P.E.I., with the highest percentage of seniors in the country and some of the worst internet connections, the local CBC TV news program was an essential service that, on a whim, was cancelled by CBC Toronto management.
Colleagues, you should be aware that CBC is the only locally produced TV newscast in Prince Edward Island.
The Senate, as you all know, has three main priorities, one of which includes representing regions. It is uniquely qualified to correct this oversight by passing this amendment.
Senator Plett: I just have a question of clarification. First, Senator Downe, we will be supporting the amendment if and when it is tabled in what I would consider the proper way. Maybe that is happening. But Senator Downe is not a member of the committee. How is he able to introduce this?
The Chair: He is a member. He has replaced Senator Quinn.
Senator Plett: Just now?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Plett: Maybe that should have been announced. Nevertheless, thank you very much.
The Chair: Senator Plett, you have to have faith in the chair.
Senator Plett: You didn’t always hear the votes right last night.
The Chair: I want to state on the record that, after many days, I have only missed one voice call. One is not bad.
Senator Simons: Senator Downe, I have great sympathy for the intention behind this amendment, and it brought me back to my early days working as a CBC producer in Edmonton when somebody in Toronto capriciously decided that Edmonton didn’t need its own local CBC station to do the TV news, even though it was a city of 1 million people, and that we could all get our news from Calgary. That went about as well as you would think, and the result was that the CBC TV news, which was number one in its slot for years — people in Edmonton just stopped watching it. Even when the CBC climbed down and gave Edmonton back its news, the audiences never returned. So I wear some of the scars of this.
That said, I am concerned, because I think we all recognize that, in the face of the pandemic, when people were in isolation, either not able to work from home or were too ill to come to work, many news organizations in both the private and the public sector had to make radical decisions to cut back their coverage. It’s my understanding that it’s not that P.E.I. was not left without news but that the news did not come from a station in P.E.I.
I think to penalize any news organization for a decision that had to be made very quickly in the face of unprecedented pandemic constraints — I just don’t know that it is the place of the government to be penalizing — the CBC has this very peculiar relationship with the government. Many of us around the table — and I assume Senator Plett would be one of them — would think it is a bad idea for the government to be micromanaging the broadcasting decisions of the CBC. I think there has to be a very bright line drawn between —
The Chair: Order, please. Senator Simons has the floor.
Senator Simons: There has to be a very bright line between the CBC’s internal management decisions and government telling the CBC what to do.
So I note that Postmedia papers made similar radical decisions. At the Edmonton Journal, the reporters are still forbidden from coming into the newsroom.
So, as I said, although I have huge sympathy with the motivation behind this, I don’t think I’m able to support this amendment.
Senator Downe: Thank you, Senator Simons. I appreciate your comments. For clarification, there was no TV news broadcast from P.E.I. for the first 7 or 10 days of the pandemic. That has nothing to do with us instructing the government or the CBC being instructed by the government to do their editorial content, et cetera.
Whether you like it or not, there are 10 provinces in Canada. We’re one of them. We’re the only province in the country that lost our local TV coverage.
The difference between P.E.I. and Edmonton is that there were no other options. We had regional news, which came from somewhere, where you might have a story squeak in about P.E.I. out of a long agenda. The local population wanted to know what the chief health officer, the premier and the medical experts, et cetera, were saying. When we needed the CBC the most — and we support CBC, I should make that clear — the CBC abandoned the field. They left us on our own when we most needed them.
What’s the point of having them every day until there is a crisis, then it’s “Oh, sorry, we have to do something somewhere else.” It’s outrageous.
Senator Simons: I don’t disagree.
Senator Klyne: Is there a physical CBC station in P.E.I.?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Senator Klyne: But a skeleton staff could have picked up the feed —
Senator Downe: The staff said nothing publicly, but P.E.I. is a small place just like Ottawa. There’s a lot of gossip, and some of it may be true. However, in this case, the staff was furious at the decision and fought it — but to no avail.
Senator Klyne: I support the notion of this and the fact that the extraordinary event of COVID was an extraordinary event. What I don’t have is the reference. Is this a reasonable amount that you’re talking about, or is this onerous or is it a deterrent? How do you view that?
Senator Downe: Well, of course, when we investigated this — this is the benefit, colleagues, of the Senate. The provincial government was very concerned about this, as was the premier and others. However, they have moved on to other concerns — I met the premier last week and talked about this — because they have other priorities. But the Senate, because of the tenure we have, can follow up on these problems and irritants.
Here is what we found out when we went to the CRTC and told them that the CBC was in violation of their licence. We told them that when the CBC appeared before them, they made the following commitments to do the following things, and they violated those commitments. We asked what the penalty was. The answer was, “There is none.”
The CRTC has to give CBC the licence. They cannot deny the licence to CBC. So it’s really a catch-22 situation. People — good-natured Canadians — show up, make presentations, CBC makes commitments and the CRTC puts in conditions, and then when there are violations of them, there is no penalty. This will be a penalty that will hopefully make them think twice before they do it again if there is another crisis in Canada, so that we’re not cut off again.
We have a situation in P.E.I. — as in other parts of Canada — where newspapers are not what they were 10 years ago, and radio stations are more commercial. The local TV news is very important. I met the president of CBC last week, and I think I’m correct that we have the highest ratings in Canada. There’s no competition. Everybody watches the local CBC TV news in P.E.I. As I said in my comments, it’s an essential service. To be abandoned — people didn’t know at the time. Think back to March 2020 when you took a green pepper home from the grocery store. Did you have to microwave it? Did you have to put it in the oven? No one knew how COVID was transmitted. Everybody was in a panic trying to protect themselves. I remember Senator Simons saying to me in the chamber one day that we’re a Petri dish of transmission because we have people from all over the country. Nobody knew. Ten days later, they came back because of the public uproar, but we don’t want it to happen again.
The Chair: CBC always elicits a lot of excitement, and it might be as controversial as Bill C-11 itself.
I have a lot of senators on the list. Maybe, with the committee’s agreement, Senator Downe can respond to all the senators. It seems that a lot of senators have questions. Maybe Senator Downe can have the last reply at the end. That way we can avoid the endless back and forth.
Senator Dawson: As you know, chair, we had the pleasure of having a study with Senator Plett and yourself on the CBC, and we heard a lot of this criticism. The government understands the concerns underlying these amendments — these concerns relating to ensuring that CBC and Radio-Canada offer programming and broadcasting services that reach all Canadians everywhere in the country.
It is the government’s view that these issues are best addressed by the CRTC through their own proceedings rather than by legislation. More broadly, this bill does not make significant changes to Part III of the Broadcasting Act, which covers the mandate and operations of CBC and Radio-Canada. It is the government’s intention, on the other hand, to address the modernization of CBC in a more holistic manner and not in a piecemeal fashion. The modernization of CBC remains a key mandate item for Minister Rodriguez and will be an opportunity to look at these important issues. Therefore, the government opposes these amendments, with all respect, Senator Downe.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I want to thank Senator Downe for bringing up this challenge that was not unique to Prince Edward Island. I recall that we had the same situation in New Brunswick for a few days during the pandemic. I’d be the first to demand, not personally but on behalf of many people, that CBC/Radio-Canada must fully play its role in the regions and must be fully present.
However, I’m not sure that this is the solution, Senator Downe. I also feel that the CRTC has a significant role to play in the renewal of CBC/Radio-Canada’s licenses. I feel that something must be done in this context. However, right now, I find the amendment a little out of proportion in the factual context of this event that occurred in the very particular context of COVID-19. I won’t be able to support the amendment as is. However, I’m aware of this challenge and I agree that something needs to be done. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Wallin: I have a brief comment to Senator Simons’ point. In your case, it was specific to the COVID situation, which is what brought it into sharp relief. But the CBC does this cyclically. It cancels local broadcasts in an attempt to save money, and then the public goes crazy. So then they bring it back, and the markets have been lost, undermined or reduced to negligible numbers.
I think to Senator Downe’s point, it is larger than just this issue, and there needs to be some consistency. It is either a public broadcaster for the entire country, or it’s not.
The Chair: Any senator can participate in the debate, colleagues, at any point, but they just don’t have the right to vote.
Senator Quinn: I promise you I won’t move anything, and I won’t vote. I will encourage you to close your eyes when the time comes, and I will disappear.
The Chair: Every senator has the privilege to go to any committee and participate in the debate.
Senator Quinn: I wanted to observe that, as I understand it from our previous meetings back in June, there was concern expressed about the big streaming companies coming in and dominating Canada and affecting our marketplace. At that time, I, Senator Cormier — I think — and possibly Senator Manning talked about the fact that we, in our area of Atlantic Canada, are nervous of being dominated by the centre of Canada.
I think what this amendment is trying to get at, as my colleague said, is that CBC is a national broadcaster, and it is heavily funded by taxpayers. I think we need to keep that in mind. I just want to remind us of the discussion that we had in June.
Thank you.
Senator Manning: I want to thank Senator Downe for bringing forward the amendment, and I plan on supporting it for a number of reasons. One is that our mandate here in the Senate is to be a voice for minorities. It’s a job not to understand that P.E.I. is a minority in Canada when it comes to a population of little more than 200,000 people. There are more people in the apartments in downtown Toronto than there are in all of P.E.I. I think we should take that into consideration. The fact that CBC violated its commitment for its licensing and receives no penalty is just mind-boggling in itself. It reminds me of the ethics commissioner. You can violate that and get no penalty either.
The thing is, I’ve experienced CBC making rash decisions on local programming in Newfoundland and Labrador on several occasions. I’ve been part of the protests and demonstrations to bring those back to our province. Part of their mandate is to tell the stories of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, whether that’s in a community of a population of 200 people or in a province with a population of 10 million. Therefore, I strongly believe that if they do not follow through under the commitments they make when they apply for a licensing, there should be a penalty.
Again, P.E.I. is a very small province. I grew up in a small fishing community in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for many years, our window to the world was the CBC. We moved on and managed to get more opportunities, but for a place that only has the opportunity to find out what’s going on in the world through the CBC, I think that it is imperative that we make sure they follow through on the commitments they make when they apply for the licence.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Very quickly, Senator Downe. Of course, I empathize with the people of Prince Edward Island and I am not here to defend the CBC’s decisions, but I would like to know this: During this period when you didn’t have access to local television, did the local CBC radio station keep broadcasting the news, as you say, on public health and the local news from PEI?
[English]
Senator Clement: Thank you, Senator Downe, for raising that issue. I live in Cornwall, Ontario, which is a smallish city on the edge of a very big province. There have been times in my community when we have felt left out of certain processes.
Certainly, what you’re saying resonates for me personally. Cornwall, Ontario, not Cornwall, P.E.I., by the way.
I do agree, though, with the comments made by Senator Simons and Senator Wallin.
I do have a question for Mr. Ripley. Are there other ways to safeguard against this type of situation, which is quite serious?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, Senator Clement, for the question. The government would agree with Senator Downe’s point that right now the CRTC has very limited tools in the case of violation of a licence. At the end of the day, the primary tool is actually the revocation of the licence, which is, obviously, a big stick. That is why Bill C-11 puts in place an administrative monetary penalties regime, because it allows for a greater calibration of sanctions in the case of a violation where the corporation is actually able to assess what the violation is and what the appropriate sanction is to ensure compliance in that case.
The government had to consider whether CBC/Radio-Canada was going to be subject to that administrative monetary penalties regime. The government’s decision, at the end of the day, was to actually subject CBC/Radio-Canada to that regime. If you look at 34.99 of the bill, you will see that CBC/Radio-Canada can be subject to administrative monetary penalties just like the private sector.
There is a slightly different process there where they have to do a public hearing and then, before determining the administrative monetary penalty, the report has to be tabled in Parliament, but the CRTC does have the ability to levy administrative monetary penalties on CBC/Radio-Canada.
From the government’s perspective, what Senator Downe is seeking can be achieved. The observation I would make is what Senator Downe is proposing is that there be a predetermined amount in the case of a particular kind of violation, whereas the mechanism that is currently provided for in the act is to determine again what’s the appropriate sanction through a hearing and through reflection in a particular instance. I think that’s the primary difference.
Senator Clement: Thank you for that.
Senator Dasko: As the only Toronto senator on this committee, I’m not here to defend decisions being made in Toronto, because I can assure you that CBC makes decisions that go against what the Toronto audiences and Toronto people want to hear. They have made decisions that I have been very unhappy with, and I’ve written letters to the president of the CBC to try to get this changed, and I’ve had answers that are not satisfactory. However, I have not chosen this particular route to take out my frustrations with the CBC.
I look forward to the review that Senator Dawson just mentioned. I don’t know when that’s coming or what it will involve, but this would be an important opportunity.
I have a question for Mr. Ripley about the amendment. It mentions minimum hours of regional or local programming. I want to see what the distinction is between local programming and local news. Is there other programming that is required or mandated outside of the local news? I want to understand what that category actually means.
Mr. Ripley: I believe what Senator Downe is seeking to reflect is that CBC/Radio-Canada's licence typically specifies minimum commitments in terms of local or regional programming, including local news, so supper-hour news, for example. I believe what he’s trying to do is reflect that this is typically a condition provided for in their licence. In the case of violation of that particular condition, it would be subject to the $2 million [Technical difficulties].
Senator Dasko: But that local programming can include other programming that doesn’t include news at all.
Mr. Ripley: It would depend on the licence.
Senator Dasko: It could be entertainment or whatever. In fact, this doesn’t actually protect news necessarily.
Mr. Ripley: I would agree with you that the concept of regional or local programming is broader than news. Local news would be a subset of that.
Senator Dasko: Correct. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions. Everyone knows my views on the CBC, so I’m not going to belabour them.
Mr. Ripley, if Senator Downe was the Minister of Canadian Heritage before you as a senior fonctionnaire and he brings up the point that our public broadcaster is not respecting its licensing obligations, what would be some of the tools that you know are in the toolbox of the government to rectify that?
You mentioned monetary penalties. Those are great. We’re going to get a public broadcaster that lives off the Canadian taxpayer to pay a fine that goes back to the Canadian taxpayer. So let’s put that aside. It’s comical; it’s interesting.
What other tools? Hypothetically, Minister Downe, Minister of Canadian Heritage, what would he have to have CBC respect their licensing obligations?
Mr. Ripley: CBC/Radio-Canada is our independent national public broadcaster, so the direct levers of the minister and the government are limited. The primary vehicle is through leadership and the board. That’s the primary decision point that the government has on a regular basis vis-à-vis CBC/Radio-Canada.
It falls to the CRTC to engage in matters where the corporation has not respected its licence. Again, I think that’s at the heart of the matter. Right now, the corporation does have very limited tools.
The government would also note that its expectation of CBC/Radio-Canada is that it seeks to respect its conditions of licence, and it makes efforts to do that. We have heard about the context in which that particular decision was made.
The Chair: Who determines the annual funding of the CBC?
Mr. Ripley: Parliament.
The Chair: I assume it’s the government, through the annual budget, that determines how much CBC gets, correct?
Mr. Ripley: CBC/Radio-Canada receives a parliamentary appropriation. It’s voted on by Parliament.
The Chair: That would start with a minister making a recommendation to cabinet, to the Ministry of Finance, and getting it into the budget. I will end with that.
I would like those same questions answered by Senator Downe. If you were the minister, what would you do in order to rectify this problem?
I agree with Senator Downe. We are a parliament. We respect the laws of this country. When a public broadcaster doesn’t respect their licensing obligation, as far as I’m concerned, they’re breaking the law.
Senator Downe, you have the last word.
Senator Downe: Thank you. I would like to answer briefly because I know time is going by. There were other questions asked as well. If I could do them in reverse order. I’ll start with you, chair.
The government has delegated that responsibility to the CRTC. What I’m pointing out is the weakness in the CRTC enforcement.
Senator Dasko talked about CBC in Toronto. I suspect CBC News is probably last in the ratings in Toronto, as it is in most markets where they have competition. There is no competition in P.E.I. They get in the area of 90% of people tuning in. There is a regional CTV Atlantic broadcast out of Halifax, but the local CBC is it. There is no local broadcast in P.E.I., other than the news, for TV. The seven hours includes the news.
Yes, CBC/Radio-Canada broadcasts as well.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It was functioning or not?
Senator Downe: Only the radio, as far as I know. I’m not sure about the TV.
I appreciate Senator Clement’s comments about Cornwall being left out. With the greatest of respect, though, Prince Edward Island is one of 10 provinces, and we were the only province to lose our only TV newscast.
New Brunswick, Senator Cormier, is the same. New Brunswick lost it, but they had other options broadcasting in their province on local TV news, as I understand it.
For Senator Cormier’s question about the renewal licence, let me highlight again that the Broadcasting Act states that the CRTC may not suspend or revoke the CBC’s broadcast licence, “. . . except on application of or with the consent of the Corporation.”
In other words, the CBC can veto any penalty imposed on it. If the CRTC is to act as a true regulatory body for the CBC, there must be some enforcement provision, and that’s what this amendment is trying to do.
Colleagues, I will conclude by reinforcing the comments of Senator Manning. You’re senators; you’re here to represent regions and minorities. This is an opportunity to fulfill your responsibility. With the greatest respect for Senator Dawson speaking on the government’s behalf, they basically said, “Trust us, we will fix this down the road.” This would fix it today. Islanders don’t want this to happen again the next time something happens in our country and we’re off the system. Thank you, colleagues.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Downe that Bill C-11 be amended on page 32 line 1 — may I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “yeas” have it. Recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: 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 Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 6; nays: 8; abstentions: none.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated.
Colleagues, we’ll revert back to the item that we stood before. The amendment is being distributed as we speak. Let me verify.
Colleagues, you should have all received the amendment for clause 26-30-2, Senator Wallin can formally read it into the agenda again.
Senator Wallin: I move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 26, on page 30,
(a) by replacing line 2 with the following:
“34.01 (1) Every five years the Commission shall con-”;
(b) by replacing lines 11 and 12 with the following:
“five years after the day on which this subsection comes into force and, subsequently, within five years after the”.
So, changing seven to five in three places.
Senator Dawson: As you know, seven years was not invented like that. It was debated at the CRTC and has been done so the reports are coming out every seven years. If we try to change the reports, we are trying to change the reports not only for this bill, but for all the things that CRTC is doing. We are adding complications to their reporting stage. We know the seven-year one will be reported publicly, we just want it to be debated in Parliament. We agreed on that. At five years, it’s not as simple as it looks. It’s not just making it a shorter period. It’s making a repetition of periods every cycle. For that reason, the government will be opposing the amendment.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, chair, just a clarification of what Senator Dawson just said. The motion that we accepted was tabling the document in Parliament, it wasn’t ordering debate. Our house and the other house will decide what to do, but if the clause needed to be strengthened, Senator Dawson thought that needs to be done and we ought to consider that.
Senator Clement: Could I ask Mr. Ripley to comment on that as well in terms of the burden, or respond to what Senator Dawson has raised?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, senator. Again, the seven years is kind of a natural policy cycle at the CRTC. It reflects the maximum term of a licence right now.
If you look at what the obligation is on the commission, it’s to consult with all interested persons on orders made under 9.1 and regulations and orders made under 11.1, and then it has to publish the outcomes of those consultations and identify a work plan to review those. One observation I would make is that you shorten that and start to really crunch the work plan as well. This is about identifying what needs to change, and then the CRTC actually going through the process of changing those instruments.
This is a lot of work for the CRTC, and so to the extent you shorten this time limitation — I believe they commented on this provision when they appeared before you and talked about it. You shorten that, and it certainly increases the burden on them.
Senator Clement: Does that crunch consultation time? I’m most interested in that piece.
Mr. Ripley: It’s difficult for me to say. That would be an operational decision of the CRTC, but they will certainly be mindful that they have to do it again in five years if it is shortened. They would be seeking to make sure that within each five-year cycle, they can do the consultation, publish the synthesis of the consultation, identify what needs to change and then you want to have changed those things by the next time the cycle comes around again so that you move forward.
From the government’s perspective, seven years is the right amount of time, recognizing that this is a new obligation being placed on the CRTC that does not currently exist. This is a completely new consultation and reporting obligation on them.
Senator Wallin: Yes, the entire bill is being revamped, and it was the government’s intention to include the new world. That was a deliberate decision that the government made. I think we have all heard repeatedly throughout the testimony that the digital world works on a whole other time frame, a whole other calendar, and that this is not about licence renewals for legacy broadcasters. This is about people living in real time. In seven years, entire platforms can disappear and be created along with the creators that supply them. I think we have to move up the level and speed of activity if this Broadcasting Act is going to reflect the world that it now wants to regulate. Thank you.
The Chair: I have one question for Senator Wallin. When I listen to Mr. Ripley, he is essentially saying that they chose seven, and not arbitrarily. They chose it because, historically, broadcasting licences have a seven-year duration. Your point is that, right now, we’re living in a digital world where things change every 24 hours. If I also understand your amendment correctly, this is an oversight on the Broadcasting Act, not on the licensing terms of broadcasting, correct?
Senator Wallin: Yes. What we’re doing through Senator Quinn’s motion is that we’re going to become active participants in this process now because the embrace of the bill is now massive and includes so much of the new world. I think we have to do this in a timely manner. Seven years was chosen a decade or two ago to reflect the licensing schedule and is quite irrelevant to where we are today.
The Chair: Thank you for that. It’s clearer to me.
Senator Quinn: I just wanted to add that, in government, whether it’s departments or agencies, it has not been unusual, in my experience, for cycles to change and alter reporting requirements. In departments, it happens all the time. In agencies where I worked for 11 years, like the port authority, we have had reporting requirements change from this period to that period. It means that management has to sit down and do their job, and change their planning cycle to adjust. It’s not unusual.
Quite frankly, when I put the amendment forward, seven years stuck out to me, but I thought that colleagues would know more about this than I do. I just want to have a mechanism to get it in.
To change the reporting cycle from seven to five years is almost comical in the sense that good planning will allow that to happen without having any interference with whatever it is the CRTC has to do during that planning cycle of five years.
Thank you.
Senator Gold: I would just like to ask Mr. Ripley to confirm my understanding of this discussion.
Am I correct that this was addressed by the CRTC before the committee and they, in light of the new obligations under the act — the expanded role that it will play in this new environment — they thought seven was doable but the appropriate one? Do I understand further from all these discussions that the CRTC will be making many more orders and doing much more than simply renewing traditional broadcasting licensing?
If so, am I right in thinking that the consultation and the engagement that it has to do before it can formulate its report is likely to be — we don’t yet know — of a considerably larger magnitude than it has experienced up to now?
Am I right in thinking, regarding the CRTC, that we have a lot more to do with a lot more stakeholders, consultation and gathering data — and that the CRTC believes that, in light of that, seven years is still the appropriate time? Is my understanding correct?
Mr. Ripley: That is correct. Right now, you would have licence renewals where interested parties participate when you’re channelling all of that energy and looking at the overall framework into this exercise on a regular basis.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
Senator Manning: I have a question for Mr. Ripley.
The last thing I want to do would be to put any additional burden on the CRTC. When you spoke a few moments ago when you talked about the new obligation under this particular piece of legislation — the new reporting obligations that are in place now — what was the process before this piece of legislation came before us to produce this new process? Was there a time period related to the previous way they did things?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you for the question.
Right now, it’s primarily through licence renewal hearings. For example, you would have what we call the group-based licences, which would be all the big ownership groups: Bell, Rogers and Quebecor. Their licences get renewed in a batch, and there will be a big hearing. Submissions will be made. Stakeholder interest gets channelled into that because of the CBC licence renewal one.
The process right now is that public engagement is through a licence renewal hearing.
The bill will provide opportunities — and the committee amended one of the provisions yesterday to make sure there are public hearings when a new order or whatnot gets created.
I would actually characterize the main motivation about it providing an opportunity for public engagement on the overall framework. When you look across the board and look at how the overall system is working, how all these pieces are coming together and whether we are achieving the outcomes of the policy objectives of the act in the best possible way, that is intended to provide an opportunity for interested parties to come forward and provide feedback on that big picture, so to speak.
That mechanism doesn’t exist right now. There is no obligation on the CRTC to do that periodic policy engagement, as it currently exists, except through licence renewal hearings.
Senator Dasko: I’m seeking a point of clarification.
We’re talking about this particular reporting process every seven years, but in addition to that — just so that I’m clear — there is a different process that involves the review of the act; is that correct? Okay, so would that process also take into account some of the considerations that Senator Wallin had about assessing the environment in which the act is being administered, the issues around digital creators and how the act is unfolding? Would those issues be addressed in that process?
Is that a one-time review, or is that a periodic review?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, senator.
Yes, this is distinct. You see the obligation to hold the five-year review at clause 53 of the bill. Five-year reviews are becoming more standard now. It’s really an opportunity for Parliament to discern whether a legislative framework established is still fit for purpose, whether there were unintended consequences, et cetera.
Yes, it is recurring. It is after the day on which this act receives Royal Assent, and then during the fifth year after the report is tabled. It is a recurring mechanism.
Senator Dasko: So the issues would be looked at and addressed in the review of the act, and there would be public consultation, presumably?
Mr. Ripley: It’s a study by a committee of Parliament, followed by a report. The review is fundamentally an opportunity to look at the legislative framework. The 34.01 is fundamentally a review conducted by the CRTC to look at the regulatory policy framework. They operate at slightly different levels.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: I think Senator Wallin had a question first.
The Chair: I’m actually right after Senator Cormier, before Senator Wallin.
I want to very briefly point out that our role here, with all due respect Senator Gold, is not to please the agenda of the government or the CRTC. What I deduce — and correct me if I’m wrong; you look a little confused by my comments — but the answer we got back to your question is that the seven years were chosen by the CRTC because that fits into the regulatory licensing model. That’s how they have operated for 40 years.
What I gather from the proposal from Senator Wallin is that, first, we’re looking at the regulatory aspect, not the legislative aspect, which Parliament will review in five years, and we will get bogged down in reviewing in detail, both in the House and hopefully in the Senate, the legislative aspect of it. But who is going to keep an eye on the CRTC in terms of the regulatory aspect?
That’s where her amendment is going with this. Quite frankly, with all due respect — and I understand the objective of the government with Bill C-11 — but I do not believe traditional broadcasters will make it seven years, quite frankly. That’s just my humble opinion, based on market forces of what I’ve been seeing happening over the last few years.
We have to come to terms, myself included. I’m not a young person; I’m an old guy, as I found out through this whole review. Things are moving very quickly. Even five years probably won’t be sufficient, given the way things in the digital world are changing and moving.
So those are the comments I just wanted to put on the record.
Senator Wallin: I have a question for Mr. Ripley.
As we have all learned in the course of these hearings, new platforms, new creators — this stuff happens in a nanosecond. They are created, they disappear, they expand and they grow. It is the government’s intention to regulate this world, so with that comes certain requirements that must reflect the new world that they want to regulate.
Are you telling me that in this whole discussion, either within government circles or within the CRTC itself, there was no discussion or no anticipation that, given the new world they’re regulating, there would be a need for some speed?
Mr. Ripley: On the contrary, Bill C-11 is about giving the CRTC more modern regulatory tools so it can adapt its framework on an ongoing basis and move away from licensing. The bill is fundamentally about the point that you’re making.
Senator Wallin: Why would there be such resistance to moving up things like a seven-year timeline which is from another era? I think Senator Quinn has pointed out that in all government departments, we have seen radical change because the world is radically different. Seven years is completely unresponsive to the world that is now going to be impacted by this.
Mr. Ripley: It’s a question of how often you stop and do that really big think. That involves work for those who wish to participate in those processes, as well as for the CRTC. Again, the CRTC has to have the runway to be able to action the outcomes. From the government’s perspective, seven years is a reasonable amount of time to have that cycle repeat.
Senator Wallin: They must have anticipated that the creators and the platforms — because you have been consulting with them over months and years in this process — would call for swifter action. Was there no discussion of that in the process of amending this bill and understanding how it would function?
Mr. Ripley: Well, again, the CRTC is being equipped with tools that it can now update.
Senator Wallin: They just wanted more time.
Mr. Ripley: It can modify an order and a regulation. It doesn’t need to wait for a licence renewal. It is being equipped to react to changes in the market at any point and time.
Senator Wallin: So five years is doable, then?
Mr. Ripley: In terms of —
Senator Wallin: It might be rushed and difficult for them. Doing more in less time is difficult for all of us, like these amendments — all of that — but it’s doable?
Mr. Ripley: There is a distinction between the CRTC being equipped to react in an agile kind of way and the question about how often do you pause and do the big picture think. The government’s position is the big picture think should be every seven years.
Senator Quinn: I have a question for clarification. Senator Dasko asked — and this was a question about the five-year review — would the things that are looked at in the seven-year report come into consideration? I think you indicated that they would, but did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Ripley: Over time, certainly it would be a relevant piece. For the expectation of the first five-year review, given the implementation of Bill C-11, I expect that first parliamentary five-year review of the bill will primarily focus on how C-11 has come into force, the decisions the CRTC has made and any gaps.
Senator Quinn: That underscores the importance. Instead of a review every seven years to every five years, the process of that report and those consultations — which I assume would have to occur with the five-year review — should be aligned. That is similar to mainline departments, where the management accountability framework feeds into the Public Accounts process. That happens annually. It’s a huge pain for departments, yet they have to adjust their management and planning to do that.
We’re saying here that the five-year period — instead of seven — would coincide rather than always be out of step or out of phase. In effect, that process feeding into a review of the regulatory regime would be every 10 years for that first cycle. I think the world will move a lot quicker in this space in 10 years. I think that the five-year review brings it into alignment.
I’m sorry it adds a burden to them. I hated it when they changed the regulatory requirements for my agency right up until two years ago. I hated it when they changed it. I would rather have it every 10 years. Unfortunately — or fortunately — the government wants more accountability. I think that’s a good thing. I think this five-year proposal would feed into that accountability being more present.
Senator Loffreda: Speaking on market forces — I’m curious; you may or may not have the answer — if you look at our major trading partners and allies around the world, what are their reporting requirements? In today’s world, I’m certain many would agree that a cycle of seven years is a long time. Are we in line with them? What would moving it up to five years entail for the stakeholders? Could you maybe elaborate a bit more there?
I would like you to convince me that there is room for swift action, if necessary. The question revolves around: Is there room for swift action if it is really required?
Mr. Ripley: On the latter point, we’re migrating from a system of licences for fixed terms to a system that will be orders and regulation. As it relates to orders, orders can be changed and modified at the volition of the CRTC or at the request of interested parties.
If something changes in the market; if it sees that change in the market is having an impact on a particular kind of order, or for a particular business; the CRTC has the flexibility to be able to modify that at any point. When I talk about equipping the CRTC with more regulatory tools, that’s what I am referring to.
On your question about how this aligns with other major trading partners, we would have to check. The main comparable in this space would be the legislation in Europe. It’s the main jurisdiction that has moved into the online streaming space in advance of Canada. I can see if we can get that comparable. I don’t have it on hand.
The Chair: Senator Loffreda, you asked a good question in terms of other comparables. This committee has done studies for a long time. Many jurisdictions in the world have a keen eye on what is going on here.
I can answer that question for Mr. Ripley. There is no nation in Europe or the United States where trading partners would have a process like seven years or even four years when it comes to their broadcasting reviews. Question?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Wallin:
That Bill C-11 be amended on clause 26 —
May I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “yeas” have it.
An Hon. Senator: Recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: 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 Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: 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 Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
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: none.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated.
Colleagues, shall clause 26, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Clause 26 carries, on division.
Honourable colleagues, does clause 28 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Clause 28 is carried, on division.
Shall clause 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Now, colleagues, we’re into clause 30-40-20. To repeat, that’s clause 30, amendment 40-20. It is Senator Downe who has the floor.
Senator Downe: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: I verify that the paperwork is being done, Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: I am a member of the committee.
The Chair: It has been done. You have the floor.
Senator Downe: Colleagues, I move:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 30, on page 40, by adding the following after line 20:
“(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the Corporation may not enter into any contract, arrangement or agreement that results in the broadcasting or development of an advertisement or announcement on behalf of an advertiser that is designed to resemble journalistic programming.”.
Colleagues, I’m moving this amendment — after the first amendment that I already spoke about, a number of CBC reporters contacted me. I should clarify, they weren’t from Prince Edward Island. Many phoned and a few texted and emailed that since I was doing one amendment, would I mind doing something on their behalf on sponsored content, and I said I would.
The argument they presented was that the chief thing of journalism is the problem inherent in sponsored content, and it is widely believed it has no business being used by our national broadcaster, whether through its marketing arm, CBC Tandem, or any other part of the organization. An issue that has proven controversial, as I said, even within the CBC, with over 500 current and former employees urging the broadcaster to uphold what one described as “. . . the absolute church and state separation of advertising and editorial.”
If a private broadcaster or newspaper wants to conduct business in that way, that’s literally their business, but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a different entity with a mandate that goes beyond the bottom line and should act accordingly. This amendment would permanently close the door on them accepting sponsored content once and for all.
Colleagues, I first stumbled across sponsored content when I saw a number of glowing newspaper articles — they appeared to be newspaper articles — in papers across Canada about the outstanding work that Canada Revenue Agency was doing on fighting overseas tax evasion and other things, which I knew simply wasn’t correct. I found out after much probing that the CRA paid close to $300,000 for the only positive press they could get; they had to buy it.
This is, obviously, the concern of the CBC employees and I move that amendment.
Senator Dawson: Again, chair, the CBC will be under review. I could say that this is certainly not pertinent to the bill that we’re studying. I don’t want to add that, out of respect for the senator. I know he certainly wants to defend his region and I understand that and he wants to defend people, but again, Bill C-11 has nothing to do with that part of the problem. I certainly will oppose the amendment.
The Chair: Questions, colleagues?
Senator Manning: I have a couple of questions. First question: Can someone tell us if that amendment is in order? I support the amendment. Following on what Senator Dawson said —
The Chair: Senator Dawson expressed an opinion on the latitude of this amendment, which he’s allowed to express. I, as chair, find it in order.
Senator Manning: Okay.
Senator Downe: As we know, the Senate is very different from the House of Commons regarding amendments. In the Commons, they’re much more rigid. In the Senate it’s often the case with this [Technical difficulties] unique approach that the Senate has not been as rigid. The Senate has a principle to permit debate so long as the amendment in question is not clearly destructive to the original goals of the bill. Analysis of the amendment by debate should be done by members of the committee and is generally not left solely in the hands of the chair. The committee is the master of its own proceeding. Colleagues, “not clearly destructive” is an easily cleared bar. And former speaker Kinsella ruled on this on December 9, 2009, Journals of the Senate page 1589:
Although the issue only comes up very rarely, practice here has tended to be that a proposed amendment to a bill amending an existing Act may deal with sections of the original Act that are not amended by the bill, provided that there is a strong and direct link between an existing clause of the bill and the change to the original Act that the proposed amendment seeks to affect.
My amendments are clearly in keeping with the stated purpose of the bill. It is in no way foreign or alien to the original goals of the bill. The amendments are within the scope because, in my view, they are improvements to the act.
As recently as February 28, 2022, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Senator Omidvar, was faced with the same question when considering amendments to Bill C-12, and she ruled to allow debate. She said:
I would remind members that accepting the admissibility of this amendment does not mean that the committee agrees or disagrees with the substance of the proposed amendment but simply that we will have the opportunity to discuss the amendment and vote on it.
Finally, colleagues, I took Senator Dawson and listened very closely to his speech in the Senate where he says, this is the first time in three decades we had the broadcasting bill before us, and he urged us to take advantage of that opportunity. Colleagues, I followed his advice.
The Chair: Senator Downe, thank you for that. You are always well prepared. That’s the way I have always remembered Senator Downe since the day I arrived here. You’re absolutely right. For those senators who might not be as old or haven’t been around as long as Senator Downe, he is absolutely right that one of the beauties of the Senate as a chamber compared to other Westminster models is it gives a lot of latitude and flexibility and debate and it does give a lot of tools to minority voices. When we say the Senate is a voice for minorities, it is not just minorities in terms of languages, regions, race, but numbers even in our own chamber. I think that adds to the democratic element of our chamber. Thank you for reminding us of that, Senator Downe.
Senator Manning: Even though I am one of the younger people here, I want to thank you for that clarification, Senator Downe. This is an issue that has been brought up to me on several occasions from people working with the CBC in Newfoundland and Labrador also. Just to go back to the reference you used in relation to CRA, an agency of the government spending $300,000 to put out what we now frequently call fake news. I know all the work you’ve done on that particular issue over the years. I think it’s an opportunity to make sure that a station — a media opportunity to CBC that Canadians, the taxpayers, are putting in $1.3 or $1.4 billion into — that when you turn it on to watch or listen that you’re hearing the truth, especially the truth as it relates to our own country.
I support your amendment and I encourage others to do the same. Thanks.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Very briefly, I would say that this disguised advertising issue started several years ago. I was the Radio-Canada ombudsman and I was very concerned about this trend, which is still going on, because Radio-Canada is always looking for new sources of advertising. So I understand the debate on this amendment, but personally, I have no choice but to support it on principle.
[English]
Senator Dasko: I want to pursue a question with Mr. Ripley or Senator Downe. This has to do with the area of health promotion advertising. I spent many years in the private sector working with NGOs and government clients to test promotions that would be, for example, promoting good health or awareness of health issues, anti-drugs, positive things that we were testing.
I wonder if those good kinds of promotion — I call them good. Not that the others are bad, but these are particularly positive to effect positive outcomes. I wonder if this kind of advertising might be affected by something like this, because sometimes that advertising — health promotion ads — might sound sort of journalistic because they might present facts, and they may appear in a way that feels or looks like journalistic programming, as it says here.
That would be one of my concerns about this. I wonder if you or Senator Downe might have anything to say about that. Is that positive advertising healthy? There are also other social marketing areas like, for example, energy conservation or environmental protection. Those kinds of ads are run by a lot of organizations, and would that be affected by this?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, Senator Dasko. There is a clear distinction between the news content produced by the news outlet and content that is sponsored, regardless of the objective or the reason that it is sponsored.
There are issues that need to be looked at with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada. The government has acknowledged that. There was a very intentional decision taken with Bill C-11 to not open up questions around the corporation’s mandate or its funding model. So the challenge, from the government’s perspective, is that Senator Downe’s amendment would have operational implications for the corporation that currently — right now — has a funding model that is dependent on advertising.
This issue was looked at in the recent CBC/Radio-Canada licence renewal hearing. There were submissions and representations made to the CRTC on this point, and you see in its licence renewal hearing that the CRTC articulated its expectation of the corporation that the public needs to be able to clearly distinguish advertising from news and information on all its platforms. Then it had a series of things it expects the CRTC to do in order to make that happen, which is establishing and maintaining clear guidelines on the branded content they need to clearly distinguish. That includes labelling that content and the expectation that no journalist or host would be involved in the inception, creation, production or dissemination of any kind of branded content.
I recognize that there is a larger debate here about the funding model of the corporation, but the reality is that right now, the corporation is funded on a hybrid model where it receives a parliamentary appropriation but is also free to pursue other revenue streams, which includes advertising.
Senator Dasko: So you’re saying, for example, that if the Canadian Cancer Society were running ads, those ads might not be permitted if we pass this?
Senator Downe: The ads would be permitted, but it’s the sponsored content we’re talking about. That’s why the 500 employees of the CBC and the former ombudsman sitting next to me have concerns about this.
Mr. Ripley: It’s when it appears as if it might be a news story or something. In those instances, you will see that there is a label saying that this is paid advertising.
Senator Gold: This is an important issue, as we all acknowledge. First of all, for the record, though the government does not support this amendment, Senator Dawson did not claim it was out of scope, chair — just for the record.
However, there are other reasons why we don’t support it. The focus of these hearings has been on Bill C-11, which, as Mr. Ripley properly said, deliberately did not expand to open up the important questions around the CBC licence and its mandate. I respect 100% the breadth and role that the Senate can play vis-à-vis the other place. But I wonder whether considering legislating at this stage of the process, in light of all the evidence we heard on the issues we heard and the evidence we did not, in fact, hear on this issue, is the right way to legislate, especially given the reviews that have been contemplated.
It’s an important issue. Nobody would deny that, and I respect the contrary views. Respectfully, the government is of the view that this amendment is not appropriate in the context of this bill and the study this committee has so ably undertaken.
The Chair: Senator Downe, are you ready for a question?
Senator Downe: No, other than I would like to emphasize that Senator Dawson didn’t make the case that the amendment was out of order, but I had that material prepared if I had to use it.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Downe:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 30, on page 40, by adding the following after line 20:
“(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the Corporation may not enter into any contract, arrangement or agreement that results in the broadcasting or development of an advertisement or announcement on behalf of an advertiser that is designed to resemble journalistic programming.”.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt it in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “nays” have it.
Recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Abstain.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: Yes.
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 Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstentions: 1.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is carried.
Senator Manning: Just a point of clarification. I’m just wondering where you heard all the nays?
The Chair: Well, sometimes the one side is louder than the other. So far, I think I’ve missed on three occasions. I do apologize. Some are more discreet at times than others. That’s why votes are necessary, colleagues. They’re categorical.
Colleagues, we’re still in clause 30-40-23, and it’s Senator Manning who has the floor, when you’re ready.
Senator Manning: I want to move an amendment:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 30, on page 40,
(a) by replacing line 23 with the following:
“ternational service, to be known as Radio Canada International, whose mandate is the creation, production”;
(b) by adding the following after line 28:
“(2.1) Radio Canada International must offer programming that
(a) reflects Canadian society and its values;
(b) is from a Canadian perspective; and
(c) includes news, information and analysis concerning Canada and its social, economic, political and cultural activities — both at home and abroad — in addition to world news.
(2.2) The Corporation shall ensure access to the programming of Radio Canada International by international audiences by providing distribution through means that include broadcasting over the Internet and by shortwave and satellite technology.
(2.3) The Corporation shall appoint an Executive Director of Radio Canada International. The Executive Director is responsible for
(a) overseeing the financial, editorial and administrative performance of the service;
(b) managing relations with the Corporation, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, other international broadcasters and other organizations important to the maintenance of the service;
(c) establishing annual objectives for the service; and
(d) reporting annually on the objectives established under paragraph (c) to the Board of Directors of the Corporation.”.
The text of my amendment is almost entirely based on directives done in orders-in-council 2003-0358 and 2012-0775. My goal is to entrench those directives in the Broadcasting Act rather than leave the directives in orders-in-council that can easily be changed.
The government representative will probably tell us that this can be dealt with later, as has been said on other issues we’ve raised here today, because of the legislation dealing with the CBC, but I’m thinking that by the time we get through that process, most of us will be retired.
The government ignores the fact that the CBC badly damaged the role of Radio Canada International, or RCI, and potentially set it up for elimination. Whatever future legislation that might be enacted, the basic explanation of the world service must be entrenched in subsection 46(2) of the Broadcasting Act since this is the only legislation that deals with Radio Canada International right now.
Strengthening Radio Canada International was both a part of the election platform of the Liberal government and a directive given to the Canadian Heritage Minister by the Prime Minister in his mandate letter in December 2021. So this is not something that I’ve come up with this morning; this is a directive. Certainly, I would like to see it being part of the Broadcasting Act.
With that, I’ll look for your support. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Senator Manning, I want to support this amendment. Radio Canada International, or RCI, is the world’s window into Canada. Global Affairs Canada should be relieved to see RCI imprinted in this modernized broadcast act, as should International Development and the Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada, which is very important, given the icy relations with China.
This amendment makes it obligatory for RCI to produce programming in Canada’s official languages — programming aimed at Canadian nationals abroad and international audiences. RCI supports efforts on many fronts around the globe, including — just to name a few — providing Canadian news and current affairs, world news headlines and topical international current affairs; promoting international human rights and democracy; providing official Government of Canada travel information, including travel advice and advisories for Canadian nationals travelling abroad; updates on trade and foreign affairs; and insights into doing business, studying and working in Canada.
Clearly, we need to up our game when it comes to immigration plans aimed at attracting the best, brightest and most innovative talent, including university professors and graduates from the best offshore universities. RCI can deliver those messages.
Colleagues, RCI is a platform that relies on internet and satellite technology in both official languages. It is the world’s window into Canada. There is no one else. Programming in Canada’s official languages is something that CBC stopped doing last year.
I can understand why strengthening Radio Canada International was both a Liberal Party’s election platform and the directive given to the Canadian Heritage Minister by the Prime Minister in his mandate letter in December 2021:
Modernize CBC/Radio-Canada . . . by:
Strengthening Radio Canada International, so that it can continue to advocate for peace, democracy and universal values on the world stage;
Again, this amendment makes it obligatory for RCI to produce programming in Canada’s official languages — programming aimed at both Canadian nationals abroad and international audiences. Colleagues, let’s support this amendment and allow the elected Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage to follow through on a prescribed mandate.
Senator Gold: Thank you for the amendment and the commentary.
I have a few comments, and perhaps I’ll ask Mr. Ripley this directly to see if I am understanding this correctly. This is a very specific and very prescriptive set of rules. It is one thing for the mandate letter, to which reference was made, to provide for modernization, but the mandate letter does not set out in such prescriptive details the rules around not only programming but governance and how the CBC should operate.
Again, the CBC was not the focus of this bill. This really enters into the internal operations of the CBC, and in that regard, it’s the government’s view that this is not the appropriate bill or time to provide such prescriptions to the CBC in the context of the study of this bill.
Mr. Ripley, could you elaborate on how this fits in or doesn’t fit in with the scope of this bill? Again, I’m not arguing that it is out of scope, but I am asserting, from the government’s point of view, that this amendment should not be supported for the reasons that I’ve suggested.
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, senator.
My comments on this one would be similar in terms that this would be an expansion of the scope of Bill C-11 in dealing with the mandate of the national public broadcaster. The implications of that have real financial and operational implications for the corporation, so I would bring the committee’s attention to that.
I recognize that Radio Canada International is an important service, and it has been an important source of debate, but as members of the committee may know, when the corporation had its parliamentary appropriations reduced in 2012, this was one of the services that was scaled back in light of that reduction in funding. At that time, as well, it was through the Governor-in-Council, as Senator Manning indicated, that it was permitted to move to an online-only distribution model for purposes of efficiency.
Subparagraph 2.2 of the proposed amendment, which would require not only internet distribution but also shortwave and satellite technology, has a real financial cost for the corporation. Therefore, I think the committee should know that if it were to pass this, I would expect that the corporation would identify a financial need associated with this change.
Second, subparagraph 2.3 of the proposed amendment is a question of, again, their operational independence and how the corporation chooses to structure itself. The act does indicate at section 44 that the corporation may, on its own behalf, employ such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the conduct of its business. The internal organization of the corporation has been left up to the corporation. So this would be legislating a particular position in the corporation, which, again, with the exception of the president and the board structure, would be quite a departure from the current act.
Senator Plett: I will be very brief, as we’re pretty much out of time. I want to repeat, at least in part, what Senator Manning said and Senator Klyne referred to: Strengthening Radio Canada International was both a Liberal Party’s election platform and a directive given to the Heritage Minister by the Prime Minister in the mandate letter. Senator Gold suggests it might be too prescriptive, although he acknowledged that — I don’t want to put words in his mouth — but he did not deny, at least, that it was part of the mandate letter.
If indeed it is too prescriptive, I think we are on the right track. It’s not out of scope for sure.
If we send it back with this amendment, of course, the government would have the opportunity to tweak it a little bit if they deemed it was too prescriptive and send back the message accordingly. I certainly think we’re on the right track.
The Chair: Colleagues, it is 12:30, we will adjourn this meeting. When we reconvene on this issue, we have Senator Plett, Senator Manning and Senator Cormier on the list. Colleagues, we will reconvene at 3:30 today. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)