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 3:32 p.m. [ET] for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We’re meeting here for the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. I’m Senator Housakos from Quebec, chair of the committee. I would like to invite my colleagues, starting from my left, to briefly introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I am René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: I am Marc Gold from Quebec, and I am the Government Representative in the Senate.
Senator Dawson: I am Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador — the rock.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: I am Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Wadena, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we’re meeting to continue our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. As always, I welcome our officials from Canadian Heritage.
When we terminated our last meeting, we adjourned on clause 30-40-23, and it was an amendment put forward by Senator Manning. On debate, we have Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: I think I made my comments earlier, and I don’t need to say anything.
Senator Manning: I’m okay, too, Mr. Chair.
Senator Cormier: I think I got the answers I needed.
The Chair: I am impressed how in the last couple of hours, everyone has come to a conclusion. So I gather we are calling question.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Manning:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 30, on page 40,
(a) by replacing line 23 with the following —
An Hon. Senator: Dispense.
The Chair: Dispense. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “nays” have it, but we will take a recorded vote for precision purposes.
[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: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: I’m going to abstain.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 8; nays: 5; abstentions: 1.
[English]
The Chair: Thus, colleagues, the amendment is defeated.
Honourable colleagues, shall clause 30 as amended carry? Clause 30 is carried on division.
Colleagues, we move on to clause 31.01-41-22. This is an amendment by Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Colleagues, I move:
That Bill C-11 be amended on page 41 by adding the following after line 22:
“31.01 Subsection 71(3) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(c.1) the names and total compensation, including annual salary, of all staff of the Corporation who, during the year to which the report relates, received total compensation, including annual salary, that is greater than the annual sessional allowance of a member of the Senate for that year as determined under section 55.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act,”.
Colleagues, let me briefly explain. As a taxpayer-funded broadcaster, the CBC has an obligation to be open about how it spends that money — for example, where the money comes from and if it’s for senior management or on-air personnel. The CBC provides some information about what compensation it pays, but very little and only in the most general terms.
Contrast that with the level of transparency provided by the BBC. For years, the BBC, like the CBC, resisted any disclosure of salaries, arguing that they were in a competitive environment and their employees could be poached by others. After the government intervened, the BBC was forced to publish the salaries of those earning more than £150,000. That publication exposed a massive gender gap. A woman who worked at the BBC was recorded as saying:
In 2017, just before the BBC published pay over £150,000, I was called unexpectedly and offered an immediate pay rise. It became apparent that for nearly three years I had been sitting next to a man doing an identical job who was being paid tens of thousands of pounds more.
A second woman stated:
I am an award-winning broadcaster with more than 20 years’ experience. In 2014 I was offered a contract to present a flagship arts programme. Two men with no broadcasting experience who had also been given trial shifts presenting the programme during the search for a new presenter were paid 25% more per programme. Then I found out that the existing male presenter was being paid 50% more than me per programme.
Since 2017, the BBC has released the names and salaries of its highest paid on-air talent, including news readers. Currently, they provide the employee’s name, the program they appear on and that individual’s salary to within £5,000 — about $9,000 Canadian. By contrast, the CBC merely provides an average salary for all employees within a $50,000 range. For example, while we know that Nick Robinson earns between £295,000 and £300,000 to host BBC’s “Today” program, we only know that five unnamed CBC on-air personnel earn between $250,000 and $300,000, with an average salary of $342,000, with no indication of their names, programs or gender.
Colleagues, I cannot claim the same gender gap exists at the CBC, nor can I say it does not exist. Without more information from the broadcaster, we simply cannot know for sure. Frankly, Canadians should know what they are paying the top-tier employees of a publicly funded organization, if only to ensure they’re being paid fairly.
Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Dawson: I don’t want to repeat what I said this morning about the nature of the issue of CBC. That being said, these issues of compensation — the management and operations of CBC are better addressed through a more holistic process.
The CBC currently discloses compensation ranges for on-air talent of senior management. They break it down by position and classification of the role. That is consistent with other organizations in the wider federal public sector. What is being proposed would be inconsistent with standard practice in the federal public sector.
As we have seen, publishing information of this sort, as is done in Ontario, would be counterproductive. It would be naming and shaming people by those who do not think journalists should even be paid. In an environment where harassment of journalists and media workers is on the rise, the government has concerns about an amendment of this nature.
I will add that we studied this issue of the CBC at our Senate committee, but sadly, our report had not made it, because an election was called. We did ask for more transparency, but we did not go as far as this request.
The Chair: We’re still waiting for that report after all these years. It was a good report.
Senator Wallin: I’m a little uncomfortable I just have a few comments on this motion.
with the reference to the Senate, but I understand why you’ve done it. The total compensation packages inside the CBC — and I’m sure others will be able to substantiate this — are broken down. For on-air talent, you would have the union part of your job, for which there would be a fixed rate; you would have the contract part of your job; you would have talent fees; you would have expenses, which might include cars, TV, clothes, surgery, et cetera; and there are performance bonuses, which are not performance in the traditional sense that you might have in the work world — the real work world for dollars earned or contributions made; it’s performance in the more traditional sense. And, of course, there are gender differentials.
I think it’s a start.
Senator Quinn: I want to correct something that Senator Dawson imparted. In the Canadian port authority system, 17 federal ports come under the Canada Marine Act and have reporting requirements in that act under the care of the Minister of Transport. All of the salaries of senior executives and the board of directors are published every year in the audited financial statements.
I think this is good financial practice so the public know what the agencies and people employed in those senior levels receive — and I would even go further for directors on the board — is transparent.
The Chair: I agree with that. At the end of the day, our fundamental role as parliamentarians is accountability and transparency in holding government to account, and that includes government agencies.
Quite frankly, I’ve been now in this chamber almost 14 years, and I can tell you that, regardless of government, we always fall short on many of those aspects. At the end of the day, colleagues, it is really incumbent upon us. At what point will we say it is enough? Will we ask for more transparency and accountability — and demand it — because we have that authority to do so if we want to exercise that authority?
Those are my brief comments on this issue.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Downe that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 31.01, page 41 at line 22 — may I dispense?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The “nays” carry 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 Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 6; nays: 8; abstentions: nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated.
Colleagues, does clause 31 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Clause 31 carries, on division.
Clause 31 has a few parts.
Senator Manning, for amendment 31.01-41-22. You have the same section and clause in your amendment because it overlaps with what Senator Downe was proposing. I know it’s confusing, but that section has a bunch of subsections. Those are the numbers that fall in the amendment you are proposing, senator.
Senator Plett: But it’s a different amendment.
The Chair: It is a different amendment, but it’s in the same clause.
Senator Plett: So we can still make an amendment.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Plett: Oh, thank you.
The Chair: I’m not —
Senator Simons: This is a two-part thing, so the first part didn’t carry —
The Chair: We’ll see what his amendment is —
Senator Simons: Okay.
The Chair: — and how he frames it. Then we’ll determine that.
Senator Manning: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I’m having difficulty following you, but I think we’re on track again now.
I would like to move an amendment. I move:
That Bill C-11 be amended on page 41 by adding the following after line 22:
“31.01 Subsection 54(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) The corporate plan of the Corporation shall encompass all the businesses and activities, including investments, of the Corporation, Radio Canada International and any wholly owned subsidiaries.
(2.1) In respect of Radio Canada International, the corporate plan must provide a specific annual budget that is sufficient for the personnel, technical and administrative requirements of the service in order for it to fulfil its mandate as provided under section 46.”.
Mr. Chair, I’m putting forward this amendment because three times in the 1990s CBC tried to shut down Radio Canada International, saying it didn’t have money to pay for it, despite a budget earmarked for the service. Around 2000, the budget line for Radio Canada International was eliminated, and it was very difficult to know how much CBC was spending on RCI.
In 2012, when the federal government asked CBC to cut 10% of its budget, CBC decided to cut by priorities. In the case of RCI, CBC cut 80% of the RCI budget. Throughout the past 30 years, domestic budget issues at CBC resulted in cuts to the RCI budget, personnel, services and resources, with no concern for the impact on the world service.
For instance, the audience relations department was eliminated; language sections like the Ukrainian and Russian services were cut; the distribution of RCI programs scheduled for Canadian embassies was out. It was death by a thousand cuts. The corporate plan regarding Radio Canada International has to be highly transparent; otherwise, CBC can continue to say it is providing an international service and, in fact, doing it in name only.
It gets back to a discussion we had earlier this morning in relation to the fact of an amendment that will impose some type of financial requirement on CBC. No doubt, reinstating RCI may have some financial consequences. However, since the scaling back in 2012, there have been several increases to the CBC budget, but we haven’t seen that find its way back to RCI. I think this is an opportunity to address that shortcoming and to ensure that the RCI continues and returns to what it was like and the services it provided several years ago.
I’ve put forward this amendment today hoping the senators will see the benefit of RCI. Basically, it tells the world about Canada and does so through that process. I leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Senator Dawson: Chair, you will be surprised that I will be opposing this amendment. While it is well intentioned, this amendment would erode the independence of CBC/Radio-Canada. It would also lead to interference with internal operations since it specifies the corporate plan and budget of CBC/Radio-Canada. We’re trying to have an independent CBC, and I think sometimes some of the people who don’t even believe in the CBC want to interfere in it, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to pass this amendment.
Senator Manning: Just for the record, I believe in the CBC. As I said earlier today, I grew up in the small fishing community of St. Bride’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, and our window to the world was CBC. While I have some colleagues that may not be as favourable toward CBC as I am, without mentioning names, I just would like to say I tune in regularly and follow it and hope we can do something to advance that process today. Not that it will ever change Senator Dawson’s vote, I’m sure, but it’s worth a try.
Senator Plett: I agree it probably won’t change Senator Dawson’s mind, and I appreciate Senator Manning not looking to his left and naming and shaming when he says that some senators don’t have the same love for CBC. However, contrary to what Senator Dawson has said, it has been years since CBC has been an independent organization.
The Chair: How independent they have been is a whole debate for another time. The only thing I will put on the record is, when I look at their ratings on a continuous basis and the $1.4 billion we spend every year, I would be happy to take that $1.4 billion annually and invest it in Canadian content. It would be fantastic for the Canadian arts, culture and music industries if they had an injection of $1.4 billion in areas where there are actually audiences and even customers. Look at the ratings lately.
Senator Quinn: Mr. Ripley, the funds that CBC receives from the federal government, are they grants or contributions?
Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: It’s a parliamentary appropriation.
Senator Quinn: Do they have financial accountability to Heritage in any way for reporting on the expenditure?
Mr. Ripley: They have to report back to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Senator Quinn: Are those analyzed by departmental staff?
Mr. Ripley: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Would that be a report that would be getting at what Senator Manning is talking about?
Mr. Ripley: The report is déposé in Parliament by the minister on behalf of the corporation in light of the fact it is part of its portfolio.
Senator Quinn: Does that report contain the information?
Mr. Ripley: For the corporate plan referenced here, the change is the specific reference to Radio Canada International. The proposed subsection 31.01(2.1) goes beyond what is currently required by specifying that the corporate plan would have to include the specific annual budget of RCI. That degree of information is not currently provided in the annual report.
Senator Quinn: The reason I ask, and Senator Manning can correct me, is that I think he’s getting at the accountability for the funds provided by government to the CBC. All I can say, as a former CFO in government, is that, to me, is all about transparency and accountability.
Mr. Ripley: The line and the tension that must constantly be respected and managed is the recognition that it is an independent national public broadcaster. The corporation is certainly responsible and accountable to Parliament for the parliamentary appropriation that it receives. At the same time, there is a need to be mindful that, for it to be an independent broadcaster, we must respect its operational independence.
Senator Quinn: The only reason I’m questioning it is this: I have to go back again to my experience in port authorities. Port authorities do not receive money from the federal government, other than for major projects, and then it’s a tough battle to get those funds. The rest is all run by revenues of the authority; yet, we have stringent reporting requirements back to the federal government, even though those funds have nothing to do with public funding. Here is an organization that has considerable funding provided by taxpayers, and we’re minimizing any reporting requirement. To me, that’s problematic.
Mr. Ripley: I’m not minimizing it, senator. CBC/Radio-Canada has substantial annual reporting requirements to Parliament. The concern of the government is that when you start talking about a specific annual budget sufficient for personnel, technical and administrative requirements of the service to fulfill its mandate, as provided for under section 6u, from the government’s perspective, it starts to veer into indicating operational direction to the corporation. The corporation has a mandate under the Broadcasting Act. That mandate includes carrying on RCI, but it is left to the corporation to determine how best to fulfill that mandate with the budget that it has. At the end of the day, those are operational decisions that are entrusted to the corporation.
Senator Quinn: I just point out that, again, an independent business unit such as a port authority has requirements to report on all these types of things that Senator Manning is talking about without a penny from the federal government. I point out for colleagues that the degree of transparency and accountability for an organization which receives a lot of money from taxpayers is something to reflect on.
The Chair: I have one short question for Mr. Ripley. He’s been very generous with his answers, and I don’t know if it’s necessarily relevant to this amendment.
When the budget by Heritage Canada is determined for CBC every year, clearly we’re not taking into consideration licensing obligations, because they’ve been in breach of licensing obligations now for quite a long time, as we heard over and over again before this committee.
Would ratings be taken into consideration? If licensing obligations aren’t relevant and ratings aren’t relevant, upon what criteria has the current government been increasing the annual budget of this institution?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you, chair, for the question. To be clear, it’s not the department that sets the funding levels for CBC/Radio-Canada. Again, it is a direct parliamentary appropriation. As we discussed earlier, that would go through the normal parliamentary appropriations process.
The recent investments for CBC that a couple of senators have mentioned have primarily been linked to impacts of COVID on the operations of the broadcaster.
The Chair: Are we ready for the question? It is moved by the Honourable Senator Manning that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 31.01, page 41 at line 22 — may I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I hear a lot of “nays.”
[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 Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 5; nays: 9; abstentions: nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the amendment is defeated.
Colleagues, we’re on clause 31.1-41-23. It’s an amendment put forward by Senator Cormier.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My amendment relates to page 41 of the bill.
[English]
It is under “Related Amendments.”
[Translation]
In French, the heading is “Modifications connexes.” Here’s the amendment. I move that Bill C-11 be amended in clause 31.1, on page 41, by replacing lines 23 to 28 with the following:
31.1 Subparagraph 6(2)(a)(ii) of the Status of the Artist Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) broadcasting undertakings, regulated under the Broadcasting Act, that are federal works, undertakings or businesses, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code, or that are corporations established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the Government of Canada;
Now, honourable senators, I will explain why. Since this clause relates to a number of statutes, under the current version of clause 31.1, online undertakings, including Canadian ones, would not be subject to the federal Status of the Artist Act.
I’ll give you an actual example. It would mean that an online platforms such as CBC Gem or Radio-Canada’s Tou.tv could choose not to comply with its obligations under the federal Status of the Artist Act. We heard from many witnesses who were concerned about clause 31.1, which, as you can appreciate, would roll back the rights of artists by reducing their bargaining power over the terms and conditions of their engagement.
The amendment I’m proposing seeks to ensure that online undertakings — Canadian and foreign — are considered federal works, undertakings or businesses captured by the Status of the Artist Act. The language of the amendment is in keeping with the division of powers. Specifically, the amendment states that broadcasting undertakings described in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code are subject to the Status of the Artist Act. This encompasses all traditional broadcasting undertakings, programming undertakings and online undertakings under federal jurisdiction — Bell Media, Corus, TVA, APTN, radio stations and so on.
The amendment stipulates that corporations established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the Government of Canada are subject to the Status of the Artist Act. The purpose is to extend the act to CBC and Radio-Canada and other Crown corporations. I’m sure you can understand that this amendment is vital to Canada’s cultural and artistic communities. Thank you, honourable senators, for your support.
[English]
Senator Dawson: The government supports the amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, question? It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cormier that Bill C-11 be amended on clause 31.1, page 41 — dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Colleagues, shall clause 31.1 as amended carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Honourable colleagues, are there any more amendments from the floor?
If there are no more amendments from the floor, shall clause 32 to clause 54 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried. Clauses 32 to 54 are adopted on division.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I think the “yes” side has it. There will be a recorded vote on the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: As amended, yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: As amended, no.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 9; nays: 5.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the bill passes at committee on division. Well, we had a vote, clearly on division.
Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to make observations to the report?
I am told there are three observations so far. We will distribute them, colleagues. The floor is still open for a fourth or a fifth, but there are three so far.
Two documents are being distributed currently, those being observations proposed by Senator Manning. A third is on the way, as proposed by Senator Wallin, and there is a fourth one, a short one, from Senator Cormier. I will allow you a few minutes to peruse them.
Honourable senators, I always show a high degree of flexibility, but I want to remind everyone that we were fair from the beginning. We instructed everyone that observations have to be provided to the clerk in advance in French and in English before they’re presented here. Like I said, we have a lot of latitude. By all means, if there are any, they have to be provided to the clerk in writing in French and in English before they’re presented. They can’t be done on the fly like general amendments. That is the tradition here. I haven’t made up this rule.
I was saying that we were consistently, for a number of days, requesting that all observations you want heard be deposited with the clerk in writing, in French and in English and in advance. Of course, we are very flexible, so we will accept them up until now, but they have to be in writing in French and in English. We cannot take these observations on the fly. We’ve given everyone ample opportunity and have tried to be as flexible as possible.
We have accepted 25 amendments, which have been adopted by this committee, during this clause-by-clause consideration during 65 hours of meetings. Certainly, no one will accuse us of not being exhaustive in our work. That was always my hope and we’ve achieved that. If they do, that’s fine, but we’ve given it a good try.
I thank the officials as well from the department for their indulgence. We will start with the first submission for observations. If Senator Manning is ready, you have the floor, sir. You have two, I believe.
Senator Manning: Do I do them one at a time?
The Chair: Do one at a time.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the committee members for our work over the last couple of months.
I put forward some observations as my attempt to put forward the concerns that were raised by many of our witnesses over the past number of months. I have listed the witnesses here who, when I went back through the testimony, raised an issue of some sort; they had a concern with the bill and hoped we could put forward some amendments. In some cases, our witnesses suggested amendments that we could put forward that, as far as they were concerned, would enhance the bill.
I’m pleased that we have 25 amendments that went forward. As we all know, most of the amendments that have gone forward are ones that originated from the government.
My concern has always been, as we went through this process, for the small players in Canada, the Oorbee Roys and the many other people who came before us who don’t have anybody to fight their cause for them, who are not in a position to hire lobbyists in Ottawa or elsewhere to fight on their behalf, who have found a niche in the space that they operate in.
Some are doing very well for themselves. We heard people saying, basically, that this is a way of life for them now, that they have great opportunities to make a living and to create and be creators and to be independent creators. A lot of the concerns that I have raised in my observations here are concerns that we heard from those witnesses.
I highlighted and broke them down as best I could in regard to the issues, such as the threshold issue, which we had a great debate on. We offered amendments trying to take that down, but they were rejected. Even on the lower thresholds, they were rejected. That was a concern that was raised with us and one that I believe was extremely concerning. It kind of disregards, in my view, what these people have brought forward to us. Representing smaller businesses goes right back to Senator Downe’s concerns today. It’s the smaller areas of the country. In this case, it’s the smaller creators. I just find that they get lost in the shuffle.
Certainly, we heard much on discoverability and algorithm manipulation. To be honest, I have learned so much myself over the past number of months in regard to algorithms and discoverability and things that I was not aware of until I came here and heard from the people who are involved in this on a day-to-day basis. They are very concerned that the issues that they raised are still not being dealt with. We had over 25 witnesses themselves who were here before our committee who raised the issue of discoverability and algorithm manipulation.
In my view, we heard overwhelming evidence that this is a major concern for many of the people who were here. Hopefully, through the observations somebody will take their concerns into consideration. Maybe the CRTC will do so when they go and put in regulations in place. I’m an eternal optimist. I live in hope, but I’m not guaranteeing it’s going to happen.
I think one of the other concerns that was raised with us many, many times was concerning the definition of Canadian content. Again, several amendments were put forward to try to address this. We are dealing with things on a big scale, such as “The Handmaid’s Tale,” down to a small scale, such as a lady on a skateboard. We’re operating from two totally different places here.
We had people asking why we were pushing them aside through this legislation when this bill and the discussions and the talk about it indicate that it was proposed to support small creators, to support the smaller players in the content creation. They asked us not once or twice but many times to address that. I remember, and I’m sure you all recall hearing my observation, when Ms. Roy pointed to the major hurdles in the way of small content creators like herself in getting approved as Canadian content. She asked:
Do I have to hire my ten-year-old son to help me register each piece of skateboarding content for CanCon approval?
We couldn’t answer that question for her. We tried. There were many opportunities to do that. But we couldn’t answer that for her.
Now it’s in the hands of the CRTC. We really don’t know what their plans are, and certainly they are being given a blank cheque, in some ways, to develop the regulations the way that they want to do.
Again, I am concerned about foreign investment in our country. We heard from the Motion Picture Association — Canada the amount of money that’s spent on local production, goods, services, hiring companies here in Canada — 47,000 businesses, over 200,000 workers in Canadian creative industries hired through foreign investment. Again, we have to be careful that we don’t bring in legislation or pass laws in this country that drive away foreign investment.
I love to see Canadian content. I support it and watch it where I can. But at the same time, we have to try to determine what is Canadian content and how that is going to be promoted here. The ramifications of CanCon requirements would trickle down to the people on the bottom of the scale. So again, I’m concerned about that.
Trade implications, we discussed that here. Fair play in regard to dealing with different countries, their concerns about this piece of legislation. We have heard from people that there are many jurisdictions in the world that are watching what we’re doing here in relation to this piece of legislation. Are we creating our own wall around Canada to protect? I understand that to an extent, but we have to be careful. The world is a small place now. We heard from creators that 90% of their viewers are outside this country. Small creators said that 80% to 90% of their viewers were outside of this country. Creating a wall that would prevent them from exploring and expanding is going to, in my view, shut down some of these creators.
To me, as a legislature, we shouldn’t be trying to create barriers. We should be trying to knock them down.
I’ll close, Mr. Chair, by saying that it has been a process. We live in a democracy. I understand how it all works, and I’ve been around long enough to know that. I want to close with the fact that I hope that in a few years’ time we don’t see that through this process we have created a wall around the great Canadian content that is being developed in this country, in a lot of cases by individuals and small creators.
Again, as a Senate we’re supposed to be always thinking about minorities, whether that’s minorities within different parts of our country or even within the different places that we call home.
Those are my observations on that particular side of it, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
Senator Dawson: It’s a great third-reading speech. I guess I can hear it again when we get back in February. But the reality is, and you’ve been here long enough to know, that when you get to observations on a bill, you don’t reiterate everything that was said. We have transcripts of all of the witnesses. We have a resumé of all that has been said, and I think that would be a proper way to revise. I, certainly, for one would not accept including the observations in this paper because I don’t think it is the nature of observations to repeat what was given as testimony during the last two years. I would reject this set of observations.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dawson. I’ll be brief. There is nobody else on debate, and I will not painstakingly have you hear my third reading speech in detail, but I think this observation from Senator Manning is a lot more than just a review. I’m happy you have agreed that it is a review of testimony that we have gotten and will be reflected in this report.
The unfortunate reality is, as much as all of what Senator Manning said is reflected in our painstaking study over the last few months, it really wasn’t reflected in the final bill. Every single attempt to deal in a tangible way with user-generated content, which was the essence of the study, the report and the bill — digital content creators and their rights and protections; threshold issues, with responsible threshold for the inclusion of user-generated content; discoverability and algorithms, which was at the core of this debate and the concern of many senators, many of whom systematically voted against the concerns they expressed at the beginning of the study. That’s all reflected in this observation.
The great preoccupation of many of us around the table is Canadian content rules and how they need to be — admittedly, as stated by the government — adjusted in order to fit the new realities going forward. However, this bill is going forward with old, passé content issues. Of course, last but not least, there are preoccupations about the continued protectionist attitude towards broadcasting and arts and culture, which might have ramifications. All of that is summarized in these observations.
I think Senator Manning and the minority opposition group — You’re right, Senator Dawson; we have been here a long time, and we know that the government has a lot of weight. In the end, they pass legislation through, as they deserve to, because they are elected and we’re not. However, we have an obligation to speak for those voices that also need to be heard, which they were at this committee. If, like I said, their concerns are not reflected in amendments to this bill, at least let them be reflected, for courtesy’s sake and for democracy’s sake, in observations, which you know full well, Senator Dawson, don’t have any impact whatsoever in a tangible way in terms of the objectives of the government, the CRTC and, of course, the traditional broadcasters, who we know were heard loud and clear in this bill.
I don’t want to take up any more of your time. I just wanted to put that on the record. Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Just a few comments, which will come out as I share some of my thoughts as well. The reason we engaged in what we have done and accomplished over the last several months — which I am very proud of — is because the hearings in the House of Commons were run roughshod over by the government of the day. People were not allowed to speak. This is an important, basic, fundamental piece of legislation that has to do with how we communicate with one another in a democracy. To me, that’s as basic as it gets.
Crafting new rules and new legislation in that area is really important, and people should have the right to speak and explain to us, and clearly try to explain to the government, what’s at stake here. This is a new world that an awful lot of people are quite ignorant about. I’m not saying that pejoratively. I’m saying this is a complicated world. I’ve spent most of my adult life in it, and it’s still very complicated when we’re dealing with this level of change and this level of detail in terms of regulations.
I think we did a terrific job of giving voice to those who are going to be most impacted by this, and for all of us who, of course, will be impacted, because it is how we communicate.
I’m sorry about Senator Dawson’s lack of generosity. Listening to Senator Manning, I think he has done some very heavy lifting in terms of putting amendments forward, as we all have. I think that should be respected and not subject to just political commentary at this stage. We should be so far past that, but clearly we are not.
I just want to say that I’m glad we at least have these points of view on the record. Whether they are appended to this report won’t really matter in the end because those people have spoken. They have found their voices through some of us and through the public microphone that this Senate hearing provided. At least they have had a chance.
I’m sure you have all been reading online and on Twitter that they are following this moment by moment because their livelihoods are actually at stake. I think to have Senator Manning attach some of the comments of these people was only fitting and respectful to those whom we should be giving voice to in the Senate of Canada. Thanks.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I, too, want to thank Senator Manning for sharing his observations.
I have spent the past 40 or so years working in the arts and culture sector. I have been all over Canada, and, throughout our study of the bill, I have tried to find a way to balance the voices we heard.
Although it does lay out important concerns, Senator Manning’s document unfortunately doesn’t provide a balanced view, in my opinion. In addition, the way the legislative process works, we have an opportunity to comment at an important stage of the bill’s progress, third reading. That is the time to bring forward our concerns and observations.
I don’t agree that the observations should be appended to the committee’s report. I don’t want to minimize whatsoever the work Senator Manning has done. What he has done is important. These concerns should be brought forward, but the observations should not be included in the committee’s report. I agree with Senator Wallin that we should be past political commentary at this stage.
A bit of partisanship has crept into the document, so for that reason, I am opposed to appending it to our report. I do, however, encourage Senator Manning to have his say at third reading, if he so chooses, because these concerns deserve to be brought forward, as do others.
[English]
Senator Plett: With a high degree of respect for Senator Cormier, those words sounded an awful lot like the government, not like an independent senator, quite frankly.
I can understand — colleagues, I gave you full respect for your opinions. I would appreciate the same for mine, because again, that’s an indication of you behaving like the government and not independent senators. I respect each and every opinion here, including Senator Cormier’s, a high amount of respect.
This government has shown a lack of transparency for the last seven years. They’ve shown a lack of transparency in this piece of legislation.
Senator Manning indeed has done a lot of work. I believe we, as senators — we spoke about it earlier today — are here representing minorities. We are here to be sober second thought to, quite frankly, a government who does not want transparency. If the government had had their way, this bill would have passed on November 18, three weeks ago. We would not have had the whole lot of meetings that we had and heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses and listened to their concerns. Those are the concerns expressed in Senator Manning’s observations.
Senator Manning says at the very start that the committee heard overwhelming evidence that the inclusion of user-generated content in this bill is a major concern. Witnesses who raised this as a serious concern include 30 witnesses that Senator Manning listed.
In terms of discoverability and algorithm manipulation, at least 25 witnesses appeared before the committee raising this as a concern. We are wanting to say all of that isn’t worth putting into a document? This is a document that is sharing the concerns of people who need to have their voices heard.
The government has the opportunity and, indeed, the power, to accept anything and everything we have done here in the last weeks. When Senator Dawson or Senator Gold start suggesting that certain things don’t belong in here, they are representing the government. For other independent senators to say that as well — you don’t need to carry the government’s water. The government can reject anything that we put forward.
Every one of these — and I have briefly looked at Senator Wallin’s observations — are absolutely legitimate observations and should be considered. They are not changing the bill. They are telling Canadians what different witnesses said and what some senators feel. Everywhere that I read about senators, Senator Manning has been quite clear in saying that some senators are concerned. These are all legitimate concerns, and there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t overwhelmingly accept the view of the minority. We are the minority now, and hopefully that will change. I would suggest Bill C-11 might be one of the stepping stones that will do that.
Nevertheless, that’s a topic for a different day. But I really take exception to independent senators carrying the government’s water and saying that we should not hear and we should not let Canadians hear what people have been saying.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you, Senator Plett, but I would like to clarify something. I never said that the view of the minority should not be heard. I never said that, and I believe that the views of all minorities should be heard.
[English]
Senator Plett: No, chair, I think I have the opportunity as well. Then we should not say it’s not balanced, because when we listen to minorities, things won’t be balanced, will they?
The Chair: Question, colleagues?
Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Thank you, chair.
As I said before, I’ve been around for quite some time and understand what is happening here. The government can and has, over the last number of weeks, moved this bill to where they want to move it. I respect everybody’s opinion. Even though we may not agree on some things, I respect their opinions. My concern here was not to be political in any way, shape or form. My concern here, when I read back through the testimony of our witnesses was to make sure that the concerns that the witnesses raised were brought forward. I spent an enormous amount of time reading through the testimony because I felt that what I call the small creators, the minorities, the people that stand alone, the people that we had here that were here as individuals, not here representing Disney or representing YouTube or representing all the big companies that we know — and we all know, because we have a list that long of requests for meetings in our office — should have the concerns that they raised brought forward.
The observation doesn’t make any change to what we passed here a short time ago. The bill is going to go forward with the amendments that we put forward.
Senator Cormier, I respect the fact of trying to find a balance because that’s what we’re all trying to do.
I’m not sure, to be honest with you — I stand to be corrected — I’m not sure that the bill, as it stands today that we just passed, creates a balance. I think it’s overweighted to one side of the equation, and it doesn’t provide, in my view, the opportunity for the small creators, the individuals, to be heard. The purpose of my observations was to give them that extra avenue to have their concerns at least recorded. I realize that we can go back and go through all the testimony, but the fact is that Canadians are not going to sit down and go through that. That’s our job to do that.
But I just want to make sure that their voices are heard, and I’m comfortable that I have done my part. I’ll leave it at that.
The Chair: So, honourable colleagues, the observations put forward by Senator Manning, are they accepted?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I hear an overwhelming “no.”
An Hon. Senator: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Let’s record the vote.
Senator Wallin: What is the question? Should be it appended?
The Chair: I am just waiting for my mic. Colleagues, if you can express your vote when the mic is turned on, because I have been told sometimes we are not in synchronicity.
The observation put forward by Senator Manning is what we’re voting on. On the one he has just presented.
[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 Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 5; nays: 9; abstentions: nil.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Manning, on your second observation.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This issue we raised earlier today when I tried to put forward an amendment, which was brought to us by the RCI Action Committee, who raised considerable concerns about both the neglect of Radio Canada International and the CBC’s management of it. Certainly through the past 30 years, domestic budget issues at CBC have translated into disproportionate cuts passed on to RCI budgets. I’m not going to reiterate a second time what we went through here today. The fact is that the RCI has provided a great service to our country, in my view.
It seems like anytime there are opportunities to make budget cuts that the RCI is the place that they head to first. We go right back to 2012 when we had some cuts, and almost 80% of the budget was slashed. The CBC has received increased funding since that time and has not brought RCI back to the level that it was at, or even close to it for that matter. It’s a service that I think, once again, has the opportunity to tell the story of Canada and reach out to parts of the world.
We are a very diverse country. We have people from all over the world that make Canada their home, but at the same time the opportunity to tell the story of Canada sometimes is very limited in many markets, and RCI has penetrated many of those markets over the years. We had an opportunity here today — again, I respect the rights of everybody to vote how they feel. I think that this is an issue that we should make an observation on, at least, because of the fact that it was such a very important concern that was raised by many people. I’ll leave it at that for now. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: I think the last sentence here is a great idea, “for our committee at some future date to study the future of Radio Canada International.” I think that’s a fine idea.
I can’t accept an observation, though, that says that — if the observation did not contain the sentence “some senators were disappointed that the majority of government-appointed members of the committee . . .” If that sentence came out, then I think I could accept this observation, but not in its current form. I do think whether this observation is there or not, I would recommend to the chair that we, for future consideration, give serious thought to having a spot study about the future of RCI.
The Chair: Question. Are senators willing to accept the observation as put forward by Senator Manning?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The “nays” 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, unfortunately.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No, unfortunately.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: I will abstain.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No, but we should use the last part.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes, I am in favour of adding it to the report as an observation.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 5; nays: 8; abstentions: 1.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the observation is defeated.
Senator Wallin: I have some observations. We understand that the majority came to their conclusions. These are observations of things that were not dealt with or need further study, and which, at some point or another, everybody on this committee agreed with, although maybe not always at the same time and on the same issue.
We heard testimony on this, and we heard debate in this room on this. The new chair of the CRTC should appear before this committee, similar to what we do with the Banking Committee, where the governor of the bank comes at least quarterly and talks about his activities and choices. Because this is a new act, because it has such far-reaching conclusions and because we are learning as we are going, it might be valuable to hear the perspective of the person that is trying to implement it. The regulations — and this came up on several occasions — that have not yet been drafted, but which will give force and effect to this bill, should be reviewed and studied by this committee over time. The issue of algorithmic manipulation by third parties — we hear a lot about this issue, whether it’s the Chinese government, the Russians or this government — we should be looking at that issue.
Calls for the definition of Canadian content and discoverability, which are key to the interpretation of this act in the current broadcast environment, I think, are really important. It seems fitting for a Senate committee that has the time and the wherewithal to have those kinds of discussions, to hear witnesses and think about what this means in the new world.
How might we go about supporting content creators in what is still very much a legacy environment? Most of them said quite explicitly during testimony that they weren’t looking for money; they were looking for an environment and the ability to do what they do best. We should continue to look at that. This is not by any means an intent to find a new fund for handouts; this is creating an environment where they can thrive.
I’ll let Senator Quinn speak to number 6.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, Senator Wallin. Before I speak to it, I thought I knew the legislative process, having worked in Privy Council and in departments as a senior official. My understanding is that these observations are just that: they are observations.
I respect that we have passed the bill. We have made a good achievement today. These are observations that present some of the discussion on the other side of what is in the bill so that people are aware of what took place in this room. That, in and of itself, is transparency.
I am at a loss as to why there is such controversy around this. This tool is appended to our committee report.
In any case, the affirmative resolution of Parliament is similar to number 2 on this list. I put my case forward and it wasn’t accepted. I accept that. My colleagues have the express right not to accept that, but I’m making an observation that says that the affirmative resolution of Parliament will give some level of assurance to our public that things are coming through in a regulatory way that affects all Canadians, quite frankly, and that there is a methodology to ensure that they are consistent with the law — the law being this bill that will become an act.
Senator Wallin: I see this really as work yet to be done, unfinished business and questions that we still need to wrestle with. I know a lot of this in the purview of the CRTC, but we do not know who that person is. We don’t know how they will embrace legislation that they had no opportunity to even testify about or participate in, because Commissioner Scott has made it clear that he is not sticking around. I think it would be helpful for all of us on this committee to have an ongoing relationship with the new person.
Of course, this will be included in a third reading speech. Yes, I know these are going to be rejected. Yes, I will put them forward as the substance of an inquiry in the Senate. Yes, I will bring it back to this committee as a proposition for further study.
The Chair: Colleagues, I want to briefly say that I’m really concerned more than ever. The role of Parliament — and we have said it a thousand times — is to be a check on the government. We understand that the government has all the tools at its disposal to pass legislation, amend legislation and craft it into a fashion they like. That’s why they are called the government. An appointed body like the Senate is no different, given the fact that the privilege of appointing senators belongs to the Prime Minister. We see that in the outcome of legislation and debate. But the truth of the matter is that anybody who understands the Westminster model and understands that it’s independent from the executive branch, that model at least articulates for people.
We have had a bill before this committee, and before this Senate, in two different forms: C-10 and C-11. It has been controversial for over two years. Unless you’re tone-deaf, all of the stuff that we have done here over the last few months indicates there is no unanimity. The report will reflect that, because the analysts are not political. It will reflect the voices and the witnesses that came before this committee. It’s unfortunate that the amendments in the bill will not reflect those voices. But when we stand in the way of even observations, reflecting — I will say minority voices, but I think, colleagues, it was almost 50-50, if you’re keeping score.
It really is staggering, regardless of where you stand on the debate of how independent the chamber is. Quite frankly, I don’t care how independent you profess that the Senate is today, one thing is for sure, the opposition has never been weaker in a parliamentary body than it is today. Whomever likes parliamentary institutions should be very concerned about that. I am in favour of this observation.
Question. Senators, are you in favour of the observation as put forward by Senator Wallin and Senator Quinn?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Clearly, the “nays” have it.
Senator Plett: 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: I abstain.
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 Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 5; nays: 8; abstentions: 1.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Again, as an independent senator who voted with, for and against the government — not only in this room but also in other places — I value the independence that the Prime Minister talked about to me and to all of us. What we’re doing does not affect the bill that we passed. We all have various backgrounds. However, as a former public servant, I believe that transparency is absolutely important to taxpayers. I also believe that the independent institutions that fall underneath that umbrella of the federal government have a responsibility and an accountability to report on their expenditures in total, and specifically when it comes to salaries of the senior people. I had to go through this for 11 years, and my board of directors went through it every year I was there. It doesn’t affect the operation of the CRTC. It makes it transparent how much we are paying these people to run this organization and how much we are paying the directors who are providing guidance and oversight to that organization.
That’s the observation.
An Hon. Senator: This isn’t an observation. It’s an amendment.
Senator Quinn: I’m trying to make an observation that says it should be in there. However, given how this is unfolding, I’ll withdraw it.
An Hon. Senator: But it’s not written in the form of an observation.
Senator Plett: Well, I think it is, but it will fail anyway.
Senator Quinn: I’m sorry, it’s the CBC. I’m really quite excited about this particular one, but I’m talking about the CBC. They’re getting major monies. I apologize for everything I said. I confused that with the CRTC. I’m also a bit shook up with the process that we’re going through right now because it doesn’t affect —
The Chair: Senator Quinn, if you want to be more precise, you can add the words.
Senator Quinn: Of the CBC?
The Chair: I will accept that, colleagues. Once he adds to whom he’s referring, this is clear and it could be accepted.
Senator Simons: It’s an amendment, not an observation.
An Hon. Senator: It’s an amendment.
Senator Plett: No it’s not.
Senator Quinn: No, I’m saying it should be done. It’s an observation. I’m not proposing it as an amendment.
Senator Simons: But that’s not what an observation is.
The Chair: What is the difference between an amendment and an observation?
Senator Dasko: Why wasn’t it introduced as an amendment?
The Chair: He had introduced this as an amendment that was defeated, and now he wants to introduce it as an observation.
Senator Quinn: It was Senator Downe who introduced —
The Chair: It was introduced as —
Senator Quinn: I’m assuming his observation was proper.
The Chair: Colleagues, order. Observations, in all their forms, are talking about things that were introduced that were either accepted or not accepted in the debate. You cannot limit an observation because it happened to be an amendment earlier in the clause-by-clause study. At the end of the day, we all understand that an amendment is something that becomes part of the bill, defeated or accepted. An observation is something one wished became part of the bill. It’s a statement they want to make, and it’s well within order if the committee accepts it. You can’t rule it out of order because it’s similar to an amendment that was defeated earlier.
Senator Simons: Let’s have the question.
The Chair: Senator Quinn, if you would like to specify, you may, because I do agree that it’s not concise which organization. It should be the CBC —
Senator Quinn: Thank you for —
The Chair: CBC executives, correct, and other senior staff?
Senator Quinn: And the board of directors.
Senator Wallin: Of the CBC.
The Chair: We won’t get into that debate. We did a study and not everything is public, Senator Simons. Senator Plett and I had a great deal of frustration when we did an in-depth study on the CBC a few years ago. I had the ombudsman, and there was a lot of information we couldn’t get. That is another fight for another day.
I’m saying that you testified in that wonderful report. You were one of the best witnesses, Senator Miville-Dechêne.
Are colleagues in favour of the observation as put forward by Senator Quinn?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “nays” have it.
Senator Plett: A 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 Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 5; nays: 9; abstentions: nil.
[English]
The Chair: Accordingly, the observation is defeated.
I believe, colleagues, there is one more.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Chair, I need your help figuring out whether I should do this through an amendment or an observation. It’s just an administrative error. There is some inconsistency in the titles relating to Canadian original French language programs. It could be dealt with through an amendment. Can it be captured in an observation, to let the members know the change is needed? It’s an administrative error, a drafting error.
The Chair: Are you talking about a specific provision?
[English]
It is odd, colleagues, to me as well because the observations are at the end of the report, as you know. Again, it’s within the purview of the committee if they want to be this flexible.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: It pertains to the headings of two provisions, that’s all.
[English]
The Chair: But you are specifically dealing with the clause in amendment. As I said, I’m willing to listen and take direction from the floor: Senator Manning, Senator Quinn and Senator Omidvar. Senator Dawson looks like he’s about to formulate an observation.
Senator Quinn: I respect what Senator Simons said concerning the last observation. I would observe, if I may, that it’s in the same type of line. Therefore I would expect, Senator Simons, you would say that’s something that should be dealt with in the Senate on third reading and make an amendment.
Senator Simons: That’s what I said.
Senator Manning: I was thinking along the same lines that while we can put it in as an observation, it doesn’t change anything passed earlier today. You can move an amendment on third reading in the chamber which might be a better spot to do that to ensure that it gets into the legislation. It won’t go into the legislation. It will only be an observation and you want it in the legislation.
An Hon. Senator: — good point.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: All right. I will move an amendment at third reading. It’s just a technical issue. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Plett: Chair, I would like to make a comment and possibly move a motion.
The Chair: A motion or an observation?
Senator Plett: No, I will move a motion in a minute. I find it a little disconcerting and a little unfair that, in my opinion, all the witnesses that we have heard over the last weeks — and there were dozens of them — supported the position that the minority of senators had, but we have just been voted down on every one of the observations that support those. Also, as you said, chair, it might not have been the minority of the witnesses; it was probably 50-50.
I’m going to make a last-ditch effort here to show that we want to represent these people. We want to let them know that their voices have been heard.
I will move, chair, that the observation circulated today by Senator Manning be appended to the committee’s report on Bill C-11 as the observations of the Conservative senators on the committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
As colleagues know, the opposition also has the right to do minority reports. In this particular case, the opposition has benevolently asked that you appendix this motion to the report. That requires consent by the committee.
Would the committee consent to an appendix of what Senator Plett proposed? It’s an appendix that is at the end of the report that is filed. It’s labelled as an appendix.
Some Hon. Senators: As a minority report.
The Chair: Observations from the Conservative Party.
Senator Plett: If Senators Wallin and Quinn want to, in some way, be included in that, we would be happy to find wording that would include that.
Senator Wallin: That would be great. It’s clearly minority views.
Senator Manning: That would include both of my observations?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Manning: I just wanted to make it clear.
Senator Plett: I said Senator Manning’s observations.
Senator Manning: Yes, okay.
The Chair: Is there agreement for that?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can you repeat the title that it would have? What is the title?
The Chair: Clerk, how will the title read? Would it be in the appendix to the report?
Mr. Labrosse: It would be at the end of the report.
The Chair: It will be at the end of the report.
The heading will be that, “by Senator Manning be appended to the committee’s report on Bill C-11 as the observations of the Conservative senators on the committee” or —
Senator Wallin: I will withdraw, because our items are from the Canadian Senators Group. We will append that separately. Thank you.
The Chair: We accept the first motion, correct, colleagues? We’re all in agreement? Carried.
Senator Wallin: I want to move the same motion and have it appear in the same way. We’ll provide wording. It will be a minority report from the Canadian Senators Group.
The Chair: It will be, “by Senator Wallin be appended to the committee’s report on Bill C-11 as the observations of the CSG, Canadian Senators Group.”
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Senator Omidvar: I have a question for the clerk. Is there precedent for this? I imagine there is. Is that the title that is used, “Observations from” a particular group or party?
Mr. Labrosse: It varies.
Senator Omidvar: Okay.
The Chair: It varies issue to issue, but that has been the norm in the past.
Senator Dasko: I want to ask Senator Wallin a question.
A couple of your comments here, points 4 and 5, were not actual sentences. We didn’t really understand.
Senator Wallin: Sorry?
Senator Dasko: They’re fragments of a sentence.
Senator Wallin: Yes. They were speaking notes for me, more than anything. I will put that in the form of an observation.
Senator Dasko: These will be studied.
Senator Wallin: The role and environment in which content creators function in the legacy environment should be examined.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, taking into consideration today’s discussion, and with the necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Essentially, colleagues, the clerk and the analysts will need a couple of days to prepare the report. We expect to have it ready by Tuesday. What this is simply saying is: Will you give authority to steering to review that report before we bring it to the chamber? Agreed?
Thank you, colleagues.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate with observations?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator, are we going to do that through emails, the approval?
The Chair: Yes. We might have a quick meeting Tuesday morning. As soon as I hear, steering will have a quick meeting Tuesday morning or afternoon, when we’re ready.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay.
The Chair: All four of us are in Ottawa. We have the ability to sit down for an hour and sign off on it.
Colleagues, thank you again. I thought we did an enormous amount of work. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)