Hon. Leo Housakos moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. This report summarizes our committee’s study of and amendments to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, or in short, the online news act.

This bill was referred to committee for study on April 18, 2023. We held nine meetings in total, heard from 58 witnesses, including departmental officials who were on hand during our clause-by-clause consideration. There were also 27 written briefs submitted.

During clause by clause, which was completed in one meeting this past Tuesday, June 13, 2023, there were 18 amendments proposed by Senators Carignan, Clement, Cormier, Dasko, Miville-Dechêne, Simons, Wallin and the government itself. Of those proposed, 12 amendments were adopted. I have to say, like its predecessor Bill C-11, perhaps what I found most interesting about the bill was that even its most ardent supporters came to committee drawing attention to flaws in the legislation and seeking amendment.

While I do believe that some small changes of improvement have been made to the bill through some of the amendments we adopted at committee, I believe others run the risk of further complicating an already convoluted bill and making it even more unworkable.

While other reasonable amendments that were proposed and defeated were missed opportunities to vastly improve this flawed legislation, perhaps the most egregious of those missed opportunities was an amendment put forward by Senator Carignan that would have safeguarded against forcing platforms to pay for hyperlinks, including links that the news outlets themselves proactively post on those platforms.

This isn’t a practice where a news item is reproduced. The item appears on Facebook, for example, as a link that goes directly to the website of the news outlet. Facebook is actually providing the news outlet the vehicle with which to drive more traffic to their own sites. That’s why it’s the news outlets themselves who post these links on these platforms and encourage others to do so as well. Had this amendment been adopted, it would have removed perhaps one of the main criticisms of this legislation. A failure to fix this not only cripples the legislation, but may very well result in platforms not allowing that practice and thus crippling the very industry this bill is supposed to protect.

Another opportunity gravely missed was one that would have removed the eligibility of CBC to take part in the scheme. As Senator Carignan pointed out in moving this amendment — and I wholeheartedly concur in my comments — the CBC can hardly be described as a struggling news outlet. Yet this whole bill is predicated supposedly on the government’s desire to throw a lifeline to struggling media.

Smaller, independent and ethnic media outlets in this country already have to compete against the behemoth that is the publicly funded CBC for ad dollars. That’s already an unfair advantage to CBC. Now they are getting a significantly larger piece of the pie from this funding scheme. It boggles the mind that they would be included, and even more so that Senator Carignan’s amendment was defeated.

As for the 12 amendments that were adopted at committee, they include amending language in clause 2 that will expand the definition to specifically include official language minority community news outlets; amending clause 2 to limit the definition of Indigenous news outlets to one whose primary purpose is to produce news content. This was an amendment by Senator Simons that I would be surprised if it is supported by Indigenous media, and certainly seems to be at odds with the emphasis typically placed, in theory, by the Trudeau-appointed senators on listening and taking into consideration Indigenous input.

There were several others from Senators Clement, Cormier and Miville-Dechêne that were adopted, including, as previously mentioned, some that further complicate an already convoluted bill.

One of the most meaningful amendments, as far as improving this deeply flawed bill, came from Senator Dasko in clause 27, page 11, thus limiting the CRTC’s discretionary power as it relates to designating an eligible news business. This will leave it to news outlets themselves to determine if they wish to apply to be part of this program rather than having it forced on them.

Another important amendment came from the government, and it struck me that the bill made it as far as it did without this much-needed correction. That correction was in clause 36, page 15, line 11, which was amended to address a major gap to properly protect confidential information from being exposed during arbitration. This amendment adds further requirements and sanctions related to the improper disclosure of information by the arbitration panel or each individual arbitrator.

In fact, I was surprised that the government supported as many of the committee’s amendments as they did. Despite all time they had to draft this bill and all the months it has been in the House of Commons, it’s like they realized that it is really a bad bill, but they made promises to certain stakeholders to have this done so here it is.

Here we are, both chambers, in quite the spot at the end of the session, with only days left on the calendar. We will be rushing through third reading, with limited debate, in order to send an amended bill back to the other place so they have time to reply and we have time to accept their message before we all go home for the summer.

This is not the way Parliament should be conducting itself, but has become a hallmark of how it has been conducting itself. They make grand promises and either fail to deliver them altogether or throw together a piece of legislation at the last minute, resulting in poor drafting. Then it’s up to Parliament to fix it, but doing so in a rush to meet the government’s self-imposed deadline.

So now, despite all of the concerns raised by witnesses, committee members and many senators, the government wishes to move this bill into law as quickly as possible with the content of the bill itself becoming almost secondary.

That brings us to the last amendment adopted by our committee in clause 93, page 39, after line 26, that changes the coming-into-force provision. It now requires that the entire bill come into force within six months of receiving Royal Assent, which I have no doubt will happen in the next few days. When it does, the government will then have to show exactly how it will support small businesses, possibly without the involvement of large platforms and possibly in the face of significant trade implications.

With all of that said, I would like to thank all witnesses and senators, including Mr. Owen Ripley who has been a steadfast presence in our deliberations for a number of months. I would also like to thank Marc-André Roy and David Groves from our Law Clerk office for their diligent work; Jed Chong and Khamla Heminthavong from the Library of Parliament; our committee’s administrative assistant, Natassia Ephrem; and our unflappable committee clerk, who did tremendous work both on Bill C-11 and now on Bill C-18, Mr. Vincent Labrosse.

Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the committee and our excellent staff who work to support us and provide the wonderful results that we see in the work we do. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Hon. Leo Housakos moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

Bill S-242 seeks to amend the Radiocommunication Act to require spectrum licence holders to deploy the spectrum to at least 50% of the population within the geographic area covered by the spectrum licence.

Our committee has made six amendments to this bill. The first is to clause 1, on page 1, and replaces lines 7 to 15 to ensure that those buying Tier 1 to 4 licences would not be able to meet deployment conditions by simply deploying to the urban areas within those large tiers but would also be required to provide service to the smaller, rural and remote areas nestled within in order to meet their obligations under this legislation.

It also lays the foundation for other amendments focusing on the “use it or share it” regime. Additionally, it provides ministerial flexibility to either outright revoke the licence or to reallocate Tier 5 areas within the licence to other providers who are ready and able to service the underserved areas.

The second amendment is to clause 1, on page 1, and adds language that would clarify the intent to ensure licence holders cannot sell the licences up to and including three years minus a day in an effort to avoid penalties for not complying with licence conditions.

The third amendment is to clause 1, on page 2; it replaces and adds text subsequent to the previous amendment to provide the flexibility of subordinate or subsection competition.

The fourth amendment is to clause 1, on page 2, and adds that the minister be required to start a competitive bidding process within 60 days of not only the revocation of a spectrum licence but also where the licence holder has voluntarily surrendered their licence as a result of them not being able to meet their licensing obligations.

The fifth amendment was to clause 1, on page 2, in which line 32 was replaced to address concerns over the ability of smaller proponents to raise the required capital to participate in the competitive bidding process, giving the minister the flexibility to use a competitive bidding process or other reallocation process — such as a first-come, first-served model — when a licence is revoked or surrendered.

The final amendment is to clause 1, on page 2, and adds new text after line 35 that would ensure a company doesn’t repetitively relicense spectrum in order to limit competition or stop others from licensing spectrum in a specific geographic area.

It also adds language that would prevent the company from re-bidding under a different name.

There are also observations from three members of the committee, which were endorsed by the committee as follows:

Senator Clement noted the importance of this bill in raising awareness to the major problem of connectivity in Canada and the serious impacts on communities who lack connectivity, including Indigenous communities, and the impact this plays on Canada’s reconciliation process.

Senator Clement also noted that this topic has been neglected and that this bill is a good contribution to the much-needed discussion but that it is only a small piece of the puzzle, with many valuable suggestions from witnesses falling outside the scope of this bill.

Senator Clement observed that, in recognition of the work done by our committee, we call on the Government of Canada to undertake an exhaustive review of spectrum policy in Canada.

Senator Dennis Patterson’s observations echoed many of Senator Clement’s — in particular, the need to improve rural and remote connectivity and the serious consequences of not doing so as it pertains to vital services such and health and education, as well as the enhancement of language and culture in remote Indigenous communities.

Senator Patterson also observed that the government should develop incentives and policies that foster competition and facilitate the entry of Indigenous proponents.

This is where I will make what I consider a timely observation as chair.

Colleagues, throughout a previous study by our committee, we kept hearing testimony that legislation would promote and amplify Indigenous voices, but Indigenous creators themselves told us that the biggest barrier to having their voices heard on the internet is neither the definition of CanCon nor any algorithm. It’s the inability to actually get onto the internet because of a lack of connectivity.

Finally, Senator Cormier noted that there is currently no official database of all undeployed spectrum in Canada; Canada does not have a system to ensure transparency in the secondary market for licences; and the spectrum management by auction, based on a competitive system, is not well suited to the Canadian geographic and economic reality, according to one of our witnesses.

I want to thank Senator Patterson of Nunavut for putting forward this bill. It was a very enlightening experience, I think, for the whole committee. We discovered a number of concerns. It wasn’t long ago that Canada was a world leader when it came to communications, and we’re slipping. Of course, now we’re seeing deep inequities between rural and urban Canada.

I do not think that this bill is a magic wand that will solve the problem overnight. The problem is too profound and pronounced. Obviously, we have deep challenges and, of course, challenges of economy of scale. I do not think there is a quick fix, but I think the committee feels that this is a good first step in addressing the issue, and hopefully will serve as a basis to encourage governments to work in collaboration with stakeholders and communities in order to find a better solution to the problems. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Leo Housakos moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, your committee has completed its study on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. The bill’s stated intent is to modernize the Broadcasting Act by expanding the powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to include regulating online streaming platforms and requiring those online undertakings to contribute, including financially, to Canadian creators and cultural systems.

Your committee was initially authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-11 in advance of the bill coming before the Senate on May 31, 2022, and held its first committee meeting on the subject matter on June 8, 2022. The bill was referred to the committee on October 25, 2022, and the study concluded on December 8, 2022.

During its consideration of this bill, the committee held 31 meetings, including a record 9 meetings of clause by clause, for a total of 67 hours and 30 minutes.

We received 67 briefs, heard from 138 witnesses from a variety of backgrounds including the arts and cultural sector, conventional Canadian broadcasters, big tech and streaming platforms, online content creators, unions, visible and linguistic minorities, people with disabilities, LGBTQ2+, academics and researchers.

We also heard from officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Justice Canada, Global Affairs Canada, as well as from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, and also from former chairs and deputy chairs of the CRTC.

It was clear from the beginning that there were two distinct viewpoints on this legislation, even amongst the sector that it purports to assist. However, even the most ardent supporters of the bill appeared before our committee seeking amendments, and some of those amendments are reflected in the bill you have before you today.

There were a total of 73 amendments proposed at committee by Senators Batters, Clement, Cormier, Dasko, Dawson, Downe, Manning, Miville-Dechêne, Plett, Quinn and Wallin. In addition to 13 subamendments, of those proposed, 26 amendments were adopted affecting 11 clauses as well as 2 subamendments.

Perhaps the areas of greatest concern to witnesses are the inclusion — unintended or otherwise — of user-generated content, the definition of Canadian content, independence and transparency of the regulator, privacy concerns for social media users and possible trade ramifications and reciprocity.

I won’t go through each one of the 26 amendments that were adopted, but I wish to highlight a few. Your committee adopted a motion in amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne in cooperation with Senator Simons with the goal of ensuring user-generated content is not captured by this legislation. This amendment to clause 4 seeks to require the regulator to consider specific criteria when adjudicating the inclusion of content in its scope.

There was an amendment put forward that some senators felt would further strengthen the requirement by making the criteria cumulative and determinative, but that was not adopted by your committee.

Your committee also adopted an amendment from Senator Manning that states that no one factor in Canadian content be determinative. This is reflective of the minister’s own statement that the definition of CanCon be modernized and takes into account the investment foreign streamers are already making in Canada’s TV and film industry and telling Canadian stories.

Additionally, your committee chose to remove clause 7, which senators felt risked further politicization of the work of the CRTC. Your committee believes the independence of the regulator is vital. There were a number of government amendments adopted, including one addressing some of the concerns outlined by the Privacy Commissioner. Again, colleagues, this is but a snapshot of the 26 amendments that were adopted.

While your committee is confident that these amendments improve this legislation, it should be noted that there remained many concerns as outlined in the observations that have been included in this report from the Independent Senators Group, the Canadian Senators Group and the Conservative caucus in the Senate. We urge the government to properly consider the amendments and also the observations provided in the appendix by the committee.

In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on the committee, each and every one of them, particularly the deputy chair, Senator Miville-Dechêne; my steering colleague Senator Dawson, the critic on the bill; and Senator Quinn. It was at times an acrimonious and arduous process, but I think democracy did have its voice in this particular study. You saw the exhausting number of witnesses and time that was put into it. We did our work in a diligent fashion.

I would also like to thank all stakeholders, witnesses and individual Canadians who came before the committee, because without their participation, democracy doesn’t function. I also want to thank all the staff of each and every one of our colleagues because this was a long and cumbersome process, and without their support, none of the senators would be able to do the work that we have managed to do in this report.

I would also like to thank the administrative staff starting with the law clerk, Isabelle Brideau; our analysts Jed Chong and Khamla Heminthavong; our administrative assistant Brigitte Martineau; and, of course, the clerk of the committee, Vincent Labrosse, for their patience, support and the due diligence they provided to this study. Thank you very much, colleagues.