Heritage Committee strikes social media exemption from C-10; moves away from 7 year licence terms

The House of Commons Heritage committee has moved to strike an exemption for content posted on social media sites from regulation in the government's much-watched update to the Broadcasting Act, known as Bill C-10. In a Friday afternoon clause-by-clause reading of the bill in the Heritage committee, MPs voted to remove section 4(1) of the bill, which had said that the Broadcast Act would not apply to "programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service — who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service." In other words, content on social media sites would not be subject to regulation by the CRTC, under the exemption. Members of parliament on the Heritage committee voted Friday to remove it. "Clause 4.1 has created some confusion for people as to whether or not social media is excluded or included. So we actually recommend voting against clause 4.1," Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin told the committee. "We would be making it clear that social media is included if they're acting like a broadcaster. 4.1 seems to have caused some confusion. We recommend just getting rid of it altogether so we don't have that confusion," she said. Asked for clarification on the meaning of the removal of the exemption, the Heritage department's director general of broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace Thomas Owen Ripley said that "as Bill C-10 currently stands … it excludes social media services from the ambit of the act, unless there's a situation of an affiliation contract or a mandatory relationship in place." "If the exclusion here is removed, if 4.1 is struck down, the programming that we upload onto YouTube, that programming that we place on that service would be subject to regulation moving forward, but would be the responsibility of YouTube or whatever the sharing service is," Ripley said. "So that programming that is uploaded would be subject to things like discoverability requirements or certain obligations like that" under the CRTC's regulations, he said. Individuals themselves are still exempted from regulation under the act. Tamir Israel, staff lawyer at the University of Ottawa’s Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, said Friday evening that "the implications of having potentially the full scope of the CRTC's content regulatory regime apply here is pretty vast." "I think that's actually now perhaps the most controversial part of this bill. And the fact that this change is coming right at the end is pretty shocking to me," Israel added. The committee also shot down an amendment that would have maintained the current seven-year maximum licence term which the CRTC is currently subjected to. Green Party MP Paul Manly brought the amendment forward on Friday as the committee met to continue its clause-by-clause amendments to the bill. “The bill replaces seven-year license terms with terms that are indefinite or fixed by the CRTC … A term setting the duration of a license is necessary to ensure predictability of conditions for all players in the system,” he said, noting that several industry stakeholders were in favour of the motion. "The order renewal exercise will enable the Canadian public to participate in the decision-making process regarding the regulation of broadcasting undertakings,” the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions wrote in a brief submitted to the committee during its hearings. Manly’s amendment also included that the CRTC would be able to amend the licence on its own initiative without needing an application from the licensee. Clause 6 of the act amends the commission’s licencing powers — under Section 9 of the current act — to establish classes of licences other than for online undertakings; issue a licence, the term of which may be indefinite or fixed by the Commission; amend a licence as to its term, on the application of the licensee; amend a licence other than as to its term, on the application of the licensee or on the Commission’s own motion; renew a licence, the term of which may be indefinite or fixed by the Commission; and suspend or revoke a licence. When asked by Liberal MP Tim Louis why the department removed the seven-year licence period and what that meant for the online undertakings, Heritage’s Ripley said the bill is trying to move away from the cultural policy objectives that broadcasters must adhere to under their licences under the current act. “What it does is it quips the CRTC to issue orders and regulations that will prescribe those contributions and the intention there is so that online undertakings and conventional services are being treated in the same way, in the sense that they're subject to the same kind of instrument in terms of the things that outline those obligations,” he said. He noted that the seven-year term was mainly important to provide the CRTC with an opportunity to revisit the cultural contributions of a broadcaster, such as if they are supporting French programming or showcasing Canadian content. “What mean in practice is the licence, moving forward would simply be nothing more than the authorization to run that service over again. … It doesn't make sense to force the CRTC to revisit a licence every seven years because it's not necessarily going to be in question about whether CTV Toronto can continue to operate and use that band spectrum.” The CRTC would also be able to revoke a licence if it found someone was not respecting their contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system. When asked in French by Bloc Quebecois MP Martin Champoux how the CRTC will enforce the rules if there is no category for broadcast online undertakings, Ripley said in French that the CRTC could inflict administrative monetary penalties if they are not respecting their contribution duties and it can oblige undertakings to register with the CRTC. After the discussion, Manly’s amendment was unanimously defeated. Because the Green Party is not a full-time member of the committee, it cannot vote on motions. It may only put motions on the floor and engage in debate. Revisions of Bill C-10 will continue next week. Once the final bill passes, it will be up to the CRTC to determine the precise regulations within nine months of receiving an order-in-council from the government. --Reporting by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca and Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca with editing by Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Heritage Committee strikes social media exemption from C-10; moves away from 7 year licence terms

News | April 23, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Meta considers blocking Facebook news in Australia

CMPA accuses Corus of non-compliance, seeks appeal of regulatory relief

Streamers ‘disappointed’ in five per cent base contribution requirement

CRTC grants Corus, TVA CanCon relief; other BDUs must wait

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us