44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/29/22 3:27:20 p.m.
- Watch
The Chair would like to make a statement regarding the recent use of certain language that may be deemed inflammatory.
Members are regularly reminded of the importance of conducting themselves in a civil manner. While views can be expressed forcefully and even passionately, they must remain focussed on the subject matter at hand. Members must always be mindful of avoiding statements that attack or demean the character of other members.
We are all here as elected representatives and each of us is entitled to respect. Personal inflammatory language has no place in our debates.
It is also true that, as parliamentarians, we possess an exceptional degree of freedom of speech. As Speaker Milliken observed in a ruling of April 17, 2007, members must “use their freedom of speech in a responsible fashion and...exercise moderation in their choice of language.”
The use of inflammatory and provocative statements is contrary to the respect owed to all members. Accordingly, the Chair reminds members to be mindful of the language they use in debate, with respect to their colleagues, in order to maintain proper civility and respect in our proceedings.
I thank the members for their attention.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 3:29:14 p.m.
- Watch
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
History seems to be repeating itself. Canadians will recall, but here we are again. Having debated Bill C-10 last spring, we are now debating its replacement, Bill C-11. The new heritage minister will try to tell Canadians that he has fixed the problems that existed in the former legislation. However, this is an extremely misleading statement.
My time is short, so I am going to cut to the chase. The government claims that the bill is about support for Canadian culture and levelling the playing field. I would like to see Canadian culture promoted and celebrated, so let us explore that for a moment.
I have two questions. First, is the bill about meeting Canadians where they are at in the 21st century and celebrating the amazing work being done by digital first creators to produce Canadian content and enhance culture in their very own unique way, or is the bill about the government imposing its definition of Canadian content in order to fulfill a government-driven agenda? Second, will the bill truly level the playing field, or will it be used as a cash grab in which those who have worked hard to expand their viewership and generate revenue are forced to subsidize the traditional media industry, which is producing content for which there is little to no demand? I realize that these questions make the government uncomfortable, but they must be asked in order to understand this legislation.
My grandparents were not required to subsidize horse and buggies when cars became an alternative. Society moved forward in an innovative way, because it just made sense.
In effect, Bill C-11 would put in place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which will govern how easily creators, those who post, are able to make their content accessible online to those of us who view it. In other words, it would impact what Canadians can and cannot access. It would be an act of censorship.
The Internet is a vast, infinite and magical space where all Canadians, no matter their background, are able to post and engage. In the new public square where we engage with one another, we do it through writing, audio and visual arts. For many Canadians, socializing online is the new norm. If passed, Bill C-11 will thwart our freedom in this new space.
Again, the minister will try to tell us that all the problems have been fixed. He will point to convoluted parts of the bill in order to try to prove his point, but here is the thing: If the minister is telling the truth and has nothing to hide, why is the bill not crystal clear? Why is the Liberal government choosing to use muddy language by placing exceptions within exceptions in order to confuse people?
There are many flaws in Bill C-11, but I will focus on three of them today: the first is the overabundance of power that it would place in the hands of the CRTC, otherwise known as the “Internet czar”; the second is its negative impact on creators; and the third is how it negatively impacts viewers.
If passed, the bill will give the Internet czar, the CRTC, almost unlimited power in order to regulate the Internet. Talk about an attack on freedom. The CRTC could have been given very specific, very narrow guidelines, but the government chose to give it free rein to amend, to exempt, to include. The Liberals claim that bringing more government intervention, and this is an interesting one, will boost Canadian culture, but that is not true. I mean, tell me a time in history where more red tape and regulation has increased innovation, incentivized artistic creation and brought about prosperity? Members cannot, because it does not, ever.
Let us talk about creators. One of the biggest complaints that we heard from digital first creators last time was that the bill would regulate their content online. Members can think of TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, podcasts, YouTube and, yes, even cat videos. Now, the minister will claim once again that he fixed it by adding section 4.1(1) back into the bill, but the problem is that section 4.1(1) is immediately followed by subsection 4.1(2), which creates exceptions that nullify 4.1(1). It is pretzel logic. It is confusing and purposefully muddy.
Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He seems qualified. He has pointed out that, under the act, digital first creators can be described as broadcasters and therefore forced to comply with the CRTC regulations.
In other words, essentially any audiovisual material could be brought under the scope of this bill, not just large streaming platforms, but even individuals who use music. The member opposite actually even clarified this earlier in her own speech.
This means that TikTok videos, which essentially always use music, and YouTube videos, which mostly use music, will in fact be captured under this legislation. This means creators, right off the top of their revenue, will have to pay 30% into an art fund. They have to pay in, but they do not get to pull out.
It also means that the content of digital first creators will be assessed based on how Canadian it is. The CRTC, the Internet czar, will of course make the conclusion. That material will then be promoted or demoted accordingly. The minister will try to tell Canadians that what I am saying is not true, that only big companies, such as Netflix and Disney, will be caught by this legislation, but if that is the case, I would again ask the government to clarify that and to say it outright. It does not. The bill does not. It is purposefully muddy.
Let me talk about the negative impact that the bill will have on viewers, members, me and Canadians. Imagine going on YouTube to look for videos on Black voices but being shown instead a bunch of videos on hockey in Canada, having never searched for hockey before, and all of a sudden those are the videos that are being fed to you. That would be extremely frustrating.
What we are talking about here is discoverability. It is the use of algorithms to make some content accessible and other content not. It bumps it up or down. Sometimes it can be found on page 1. Sometimes it is found on page 53. Currently YouTube carries material based on a person's individual preference. It bumps it to the top of the page if a person likes it, if maybe they have watched similar videos in the past.
This legislation would force content, so-called Canadian content, in front of the eyeballs of Canadians at the expense of showing them the content they actually really want. It totally disrespects and disregards Canadians' freedom, choice and desire to watch certain things over others, all because the government has an agenda.
Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch. That desire, that free will, should be respected. I have not even addressed the problem with the definition of CanCon, which is absolutely ludicrous. Let us talk about that for a moment. CanCon, or Canadian content, is that content that the government would actually be putting at the top of the page.
A bilingual Canadian sitting in his Montreal condo producing YouTube videos about maple syrup and hockey, all while using the Canadian national anthem in the background of his video, would still not get counted as Canadian content. Can members imagine that? In fact, based on the definition of CanCon, the only ones who will receive the government's stamp of approval are members of the traditional media.
The CRTC will define who is in and who is out, who gets noticed and who does not, who gets to be on page one and who has to get bumped to page 53. An individual's preferences are inconsequential, and the government would now decide.
In Canada, we are punching above our weight in what creators are able to produce. It is absolutely jaw-dropping. They literally share their talent with the world. It is incredible. Lilly Singh, a famous YouTuber, has pointed out, “creators who have built their careers on the Internet need to be consulted on these decisions.” She went on to say, “In trying to do what seems like a good thing - highlighting great Canadian-made content - you can unintentionally destroy a thriving creative ecosystem.”
Morghan Fortier of Skyship Entertainment is so eloquent when he put it this way, “In Canada, digital content creators have built a successful thriving industry on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export a huge amount of Canadian content to the rest of the world.... They've done this through their entrepreneurial spirit, their hard work and largely without government interference or assistance.
“This achievement should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.”
Bill C-11 is presented as a means to support the future of the broadcast industry, but it completely ignores the global reach of Canada's digital success stories in favour of an antiquated regionalized broadcast model.
Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital first creators. It is a direct attack on our choice as viewers. It is actually a direct attack on the advancement of arts and culture in Canada in the 21st century. The bill needs to die 1,000 deaths.
1616 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have an example in which this precise measure made a huge difference. These were the Canadian content regulations that applied to radio, starting in the early seventies. The Canadian music industry was nowhere back then, but as a broadcaster I was required to play 30% Canadian content. In the beginning, it was horrible, but in no time we had an amazing amount of great Canadian content. I do not think we need those measures anymore because the content is there. It is good.
Would she not agree that this is a perfect example of a measure that actually led to a very strong, well-respected worldwide industry?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love the question. It is such a good question, and Canadians are really going to appreciate it as well. The Broadcasting Act in the 1970s was created in order to regulate television and radio because there was a limited sphere available. In other words, there were only a certain number of radio channels. Rather than give them all to Canadian English media, they also wanted to make sure that some were given to French media. That seems appropriate, because we are a bilingual country. When we are dealing with a finite resource in order to spread it around, absolutely that is appropriate.
However, we are now talking about the Internet: this vast, magical, infinite space where any Canadian from any background with any language, any religion and any ethnicity can create a site, post on YouTube and have a TikTok account. Why is the government regulating them?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague feels the same way she did when we were studying the previous version of this bill, which she said was designed to help artists that are stuck in the early 1990s because they have not managed to be competitive on new platforms.
I have already mentioned this here, but two days ago, Patrice Vermette, a Quebecker from my riding, won an Oscar for production design for his work on Dune. Denis Villeneuve directed the film, which won six Oscars. There is also Xavier Dolan, a Quebecker who is at Cannes almost every year. The Cirque du Soleil is from Quebec.
There are thousands of artists who represent Canada and Quebec and captivate audiences all over the world. These are the people that Bill C‑11 is designed to protect.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that there are amazing artists in this country. Of course there are. We are Canadian. We have 37 million incredible people who call this place home. Of course there is extraordinary talent.
Of course there are artists across this country who deserve to be celebrated and deserve to be promoted, but that does not mean that the government intervenes. It does not mean that the government gets to pick winners and losers. It does not mean that the government gets to go after those individuals who are using non-traditional platforms in order to achieve great success and take money from them and demote their content in order to give that money to traditional broadcasters and traditional artists and promote those artists at the expense of the digital-first creators.
This is nonsense. Instead, yes: We should be celebrating the amazing artists that are coming out of this country in every facet, whether it is through traditional broadcasting systems or through digital-first creation. Yes, let us celebrate them, but what I am saying today is that the government does not need to get its sticky, grimy hands on this.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague about the web giants that have been using every possible loophole to circumvent our tax rules. They have tried to escape the funding for Canadian cultural content and discoverability.
Would she not agree that it is time for the institution of Parliament, representing the Canadian people, to try to close those loopholes and ensure that there is a level playing field for the hard-working men and women who work in our cultural industries in this country?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when the hon. member brings up web giants and the need to make sure they pay their fair share, that is incredibly misleading. That was actually already addressed last summer. They now have to pay GST. Make no mistake: that is not a part of this legislation. What is a part of this legislation is actually going after those digital-first creators, those new innovative artists, and asking to take 30% of their revenue to give to traditional, antiquated, outdated artists who cannot make a go of it otherwise.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the constituents of the beautiful riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who value freedom and diversity of thought.
Recently, there has been an outbreak of diversity of thought among my Liberal colleagues. I know that can be scary for some of them. To reassure them, I will heed the call to unity and try to lower the temperature on this very important debate about Bill C-11, which is the online streaming act.
This may disappoint my biggest fan, the member for Winnipeg North, but he will be delighted to learn that I have saved a special section just for him. When a similar bill was first introduced last Parliament, I went on my Facebook Live show, The GNN, and described it as a serious threat to freedom of expression. I stood in the House and described it as a serious threat to freedom of expression.
The media, to be fair, and much of the public shrugged off these concerns. As outlined in my first speech, this bill would have little effect on popular mainstream expression, other than to make it more expensive. The threat to freedom of expression with this bill comes from the impact it would have on smaller, less popular minority expressions. It was only when the government members of the committee, in a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc, removed the legislated safeguards on user-generated content that everyone online became aware of the threat this legislation posed.
Fundamentally, Canadians understand that if the government has the power to regulate, promote or demote their online expression, then that expression is no longer free.
My Liberal colleagues will raise a hue and cry, and claim the Prime Minister does not want to censor Canadians' cat videos. That is true. The Prime Minister does not want to censor cat videos; he wants to tax them. The Prime Minister wants to tax Canadian and foreign artists not covered by the current Broadcasting Act. He wants to tax them and give that money to the powerful media and cultural lobbies. Of course, arts groups that profit off this bill support it. It is the artists who do not have a powerful lobby organization who pay this new CanCon levy.
This legislation proposes to take money from digital artists and redistribute it to the government's preferred analog artists. This is just as the government takes income tax dollars from new media journalists and gives them back to the horse-and-buggy media.
The government really wants to tax Netflix, but does not say it wants to tax Netflix. In order to pull off this tax without saying “tax policy”, the government is changing the very meaning of broadcasting. This takes us to the heart of the problem. The Broadcasting Act, by its very nature, places restrictions on Canadians' right to freedom of expression.
I want to repeat this in order to be absolutely clear. The Broadcasting Act is designed to limit and regulate freedom of expression. The reason it has not been struck down for violating the charter is because those limits are reasonable.
My constituents know I will defend their freedom no matter what, but they understand there can be reasonable limits. The Broadcasting Act is an example of this. It places limits on Canadians' freedom to broadcast their expression. The reason for this is the technology. If all Canadians with electricity and an antenna were able to broadcast their individual expression on whichever electromagnetic frequency they chose, everyone would cancel one another out and no one would be heard.
By the nature of the technology, the freedom of one person to use a particular frequency impacts the freedom of everybody else to use that frequency. Broadcasting technology, by its nature, requires broadcasting regulation. Without broadcasting technology using limited public air waves, the federal government has no legal right to regulate the content that carries expression from Canadians or to Canadians.
Our predecessors knew that having control of Canadians' expression over public airwaves was something best kept at arm's length from cabinet, so they set up the CRTC. The Broadcasting Act regulates expression. It is baked into the legislation. It is what the CRTC does. Streaming is not broadcasting. The freedom of one Canadian to stream content does not limit the freedom of any other Canadian to stream other content.
As we much appreciate Canadian authors and Canadian painters, we do not legislate the content of book stores or art galleries to promote their expression over foreign expression. It is not because a foreign author or painter has freedom of expression, but it is because Canadians do.
We cannot pass legislation that limits or restricts Canadians' access to artistic expression. We cannot pass legislation to regulate any expression that does not infringe on the rights of other Canadians' expression. If the House proceeds with this fundamentally flawed legislation, it will be infringing on the rights of Canadians. Most Canadians will not notice the infringement beyond paying higher streaming bills. Netflix and Disney can afford to hire Canadian lawyers and lobbyists and have lunch with the chair of the CRTC. They will be fine.
Majority expression in a democracy is rarely threatened. It is the minority expression that suffers. For example, what about the foreign-language streaming services? Take the streaming service TFC, which is based in the Philippines. It streams thousands of movies and televisions show in Tagalog, and TFC accepts Canadian credit cards. The riding of Winnipeg North has 20,000 people who speak Tagalog at home. The member for Winnipeg North may want to be absolutely certain this legislation will not cause the TFC to block the Canadian Internet from accessing its service. TFC may have no choice.
Under this legislation, TFC would need to either produce Tagalog-language movies and shows in Canada or pay into a fund to support English, French or indigenous movies and shows. Netflix is already producing movies and shows here. Netflix can afford to spread its CanCon levy across five million subscribers. Can TFC afford to spread its CanCon levy across 20,000 constituents in Winnipeg North or, more importantly, can the Tagalog community in Winnipeg North afford the CanCon levy?
That CanCon levy has to come from somewhere. It can come out of the pockets of hard-working immigrants in Liberal ridings, or it can come at the expense of writers, actors, musicians, costumers and set designers in the Philippines. How does this possibly sit well with my colleagues across the aisle? It just cannot be the cultural special interest groups, who do a lot more than just sip champagne at galas in order to keep the Liberals in power at election time, so it must be about the money. It always is.
The fact is that the bill would exempt user-generated content unless it makes money. It strongly suggests that it is just a tax grab, with a side order of censorship, but in the interest of promoting listening among parties, I want to acknowledge that for some of my colleagues, in particular those from Quebec, this bill is about protecting Canadian and Québécois culture. Quebec is an island of French in a sea of North American English. In the age of broadcasting, Canadians mostly tolerated CanCon rules as the bargain for protecting Canadian culture. In the age of the Internet, we do not live next door to the United States. We live next door to everyone online. We have to turn our cultural policy inside out. We have to stop protecting our culture from the world and start promoting it to the world.
My colleagues have not noticed that the world wants more Canada, and I am not just talking about the maple leaf flying in the streets of capitals across the world as a symbol of freedom. While Canadians have been binge-watching Lupin and Squid Game, people from Albania to Zimbabwe have been streaming Kim's Convenience and Schitt's Creek. Canadians are expressing themselves. This legislation threatens that expression. That threat falls primarily on minority expression, and it is what the Broadcasting Act does.
This legislation is regressive protectionism. It looks backward and inward. The members opposite still cannot see the risk this bill poses to their constituents before they vote, so they should go out and speak to them; not to the lobbyists or the special interest groups. They should ask their constituents how much they spend each month and what they would be forced to give up if the price went up by 10% or 20%.
I plan to vote against Bill C-11, because I have listened to what my constituents are saying. I hope my Liberal colleagues will listen to the minority-language voices in their ridings, because they have just as much right to expression in their language as they do.
1491 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise with interest on the member's new-found interest in diversity and inclusion. Her colleague for Lethbridge talked about an overabundance of power, but the status quo deals with some of the largest companies in the world that often do not pay the creators who are posting videos and content, unlike broadcasters in traditional forms of media.
Why is the opposition so intent on supporting companies such as Chinese giant TikTok and Google over Canadian content creators who are not earning anything?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 3:55:42 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind members that the question was posed to a specific member and I know the member does not need any additional assistance in addressing it.
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I found it interesting that the member opposite had to go to my colleague's speech to generate a question. Maybe the member was not listening carefully. I said that the point of this bill is to raise revenue for Liberal special interests. It is not the government's intent to have censorship with this bill. The censorship is just a by-product of using the Broadcasting Act.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her speech, although I had a hard time following it because it had so many elements.
I have a question for my colleague.
We all know that we are governed by the legislative, executive and judiciary powers. We all know that the power of the media and companies like GAFA cannot be ignored, since in some ways, it is greater than the government.
How could the CRTC, which has merely surveyed the damage so far, possibly require the web giants to follow its guidelines, given that it is an institution from the last century?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did not quite get the question, but the member was talking about the Broadcasting Act and protecting language and culture, which the Broadcasting Act does because there are limited channels in broadcasting. If it were a free-for-all and any Canadian could get on a broadcast channel and start broadcasting, we might have a problem. However, this is about online streaming, and when we stream online, we are not preventing anyone else from viewing what they are watching on TV. In fact, more people have the opportunity to see different shows that may not make the cut on regular network channels.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in 2020, one in four people working in the cultural sector lost their jobs. However, Netflix revenues increased by 22% in that same year. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives have always promoted tax and regulatory breaks for the benefit of the web giants and at the expense of our broadcasters and workers, who are struggling to make ends meet because of this unfair competition.
Can the member clarify why the Conservatives are planning to sacrifice the Canadian cultural sector to the American web giants?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the focus of the censorship is to reduce the ability of minority cultural groups to speak on the Internet. Netflix can afford to pay extra fees, and I am sure in return it gives generous money to certain Liberal parties. We are concerned about people such as those who live in the riding of the member for Winnipeg North. The Tagalog from the Philippines will not be able to afford what maybe Netflix can.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I begin talking about Bill C-11, I note that it is a great day today because we learned the date the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be be delivering the budget to the House, which is April 7. I look forward to the next steps in moving our country forward. Not only have we recovered all the jobs we lost and created more than we had prepandemic, but our economy is actually larger than it was prepandemic. We will continue doing what is right for Canadians, not only those lovely Canadians who live in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, but Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
It is always great to rise in the House, and it is a privilege and honour to serve the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It is also great to see a government that is delivering for Canadians, not only here in Bill C-11, the online streaming act, but also with the environment minister, jointly with the Prime Minister, unveiling the emissions reductions plan, in beautiful Vancouver on the west coast, for how we will meet our targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and how we will get to net zero by 2050. I encourage all parties to look at that because it has something to do with the agenda, much like Bill C-11, the online streaming act, is a part of that agenda.
It is also much like yesterday when, joined by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, our government brought forward a national day care and early learning child care plan. I think that is something to be celebrated. I know that when we enrol my youngest daughter, Leia, in day care in October, we will benefit from it personally. That is real change. That is what we call a promise made, a promise kept.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Francesco Sorbara: Madam Speaker, if the hon. members wish to do a point of order on relevance, I would encourage them to do so. I will always speak to our government's record and how it is benefiting Canadians.
When I look at Bill C-11, I see the last time changes were made to the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, and I think about where I was as an individual in 1991 and what environment we operated in. I was beginning my first year of undergrad in university at Simon Fraser University. At that time, we did not even have email accounts. We were just given email accounts of some sort and were figuring out what was going on with this new technology. I think print was still pretty big as well. Fast-forward from then, and obviously we see there have been a number of changes in media and in what the Internet has created and we see the obvious metamorphosis that has happened in society. It is great to have been a witness to that and a participant in it.
I see today how that is impacting the lives of Canadian families, including my two older daughters, who are nine and almost 11. They receive their content and watch TV through Disney+, Prime, Netflix and YouTube, and all of their friends and cohorts receive and watch their content through online streaming. If I asked them if they knew the traditional media channels of ABC, CBS or NBC on the U.S. side, or CTV, Global and CBC on the Canadian side, I think my daughters would know the channels of Disney+, Crave and so forth much better because they receive so much content on them.
That is why it is so important that we as a government not only focus on Bill C-11, but, again, focus on achievements like a national early learning and day care plan and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and focus on what I would say is a Broadcasting Act that brings us into the modern age. We know that legislation is always a work in progress and it has to be adaptable, but we also know that in the world we live in, the government tends to be sort of reactive in the sense that technology and changes in the world will move in a much faster fashion than sometimes government can respond to. That is a natural thing. It is a natural thing that we need to now respond to what is happening online.
I want to read one quote about the support this bill has received, because I think it is exciting, it is relevant and it does bring certain aspects of the Broadcasting Act into modernity. It is from eOne Canada:
“We're excited about the Online Streaming Act, which we see as an opportunity to increase investment in Canadian content and in turn help grow Canada's creative sector and domestic talent pool even further. The strength of Canada's film and TV sector today is a direct result of both public supports and private-public partnerships formalized over many decades, and a modernized act is the logical next step. We encourage all parties to collaborate to pass Bill C-11 as soon as possible.”
When we talk about Bill C-11, we are talking about modernization. I have always been a proponent of modernizing, whether it is in our tax structure or our regulatory burdens. I actually called for that in an op-ed a few weeks ago, and this is part of that mantra. This is part of that tangent where we look at whether the acts we utilize are impacting various industries, and the Broadcasting Act is one of them.
I want to take this time to recognize the powerful impact that Canadian cultural policies have had and continue to have on creative content production in Canada and what I would call our cultural sovereignty. We know that Europeans, if I can use them as an example, protect their cultural content. We know how much they revere their cultural content and how proud they are. Bill C-11, which would amend the Broadcasting Act, takes us down that path. It ensures that we put in value, that we march with our heads up and are very proud of what our Canadian creators from coast to coast do and that they receive the support they need.
The digital age has continued to transform Canada and how Canadians share their stories and consume content in an open and dynamic global marketplace, in addition to traditional television and radio. Most Canadians access their favourite songs, films and television shows through online streaming services like Netflix, Spotify, Crave, Disney+ and many others. It is time that these services are required to contribute to Canadian stories in the same way that Canadian broadcasters always have.
Our government is advancing an important digital policy agenda aiming to help create a fairer, safer and more competitive Internet for all Canadians. The online streaming act builds upon the economic and social benefits of the Broadcasting Act. It ensures the sustainability of the Canadian broadcasting system. It continues to support an ecosystem where public, private and community elements work together to contribute to the creation and exhibition of Canadian programming, and it ushers in a new era of broadcasting.
The online streaming act follows on our promise to safeguard our cultural sovereignty and support our creators and creative industries. We want to continue supporting Canadian creators and showcasing their stories on screen and in song. We want to continue supporting their livelihoods and inspiring future Canadians of all backgrounds in this beautiful, diverse and inclusive country we get to call home by allowing them to see themselves reflected on all platforms, including online. Those are some of our objectives with the online streaming act.
We have listened to stakeholders, experts, professionals, parliamentarians and many Canadians and taken note of their needs, interests and preoccupations. Following royal assent of the online streaming act, our government will issue a policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to indicate our priorities when it comes to putting in place the new regulatory regime. The policy direction has two primary goals. First, it will focus on the importance of consultation and special consideration of the needs of equity-seeking groups. Second, the direction will make clear areas where regulation is needed, as well as areas where flexibility should be exercised. That is very important, as we move forward with Bill C-11, for the primary goals and the focus areas.
We will continue to consult, as the government has done since day one in 2015 when we formed a majority government, and work with all Canadians and all stakeholders. We will also, of course, ensure the regulation is flexible, while meeting the goals of the amendments to the Broadcasting Act that are brought through Bill C-11.
It is my pleasure to speak in more detail about our government’s plan for a policy direction and the steps after the royal assent of the online streaming act.
If Bill C-11 is adopted, the Minister of Canadian Heritage intends to ask the Governor in Council to issue a policy direction to the CRTC to guide its implementation of the online streaming act. A policy direction is an opportunity to clarify the government's policy intent on certain issues regarding social media platforms and digital first creators. It will also provide a level of flexibility that ensures any necessary changes can be made quickly in the future when needed.
It is so important to have legislation and acts in place that react to the changes of the day so that we can look at and make the changes we need to understand the technology and how it is changing, not only in the workplace but in this situation with online media platforms and how they are changing a sector. We can point to how changes have come forth to many industries we operate in. I remember that when I first started working on Wall Street in New York city, we had a thing called a PalmPilot. We had it by our desk and we used to tap it for our schedule. Within a year or so, that became totally irrelevant. Then we would be contacted using a thing called a BlackBerry pager. Again, the technology changed so quickly. Therefore, we, as a government in this realm, are amending this section of the Broadcasting Act of 1991 to bring it up to speed.
It will also provide a level of flexibility that ensures any necessary changes can be made quickly in the future when needed. For instance, a policy direction to the CRTC will make it clear that the content of digital first creators who create content only for social media platforms should be excluded. Of course, individual users of social media will never be treated as broadcasters under the online streaming act, and only some commercial content carried on social media platforms could trigger obligations on that platform. A policy direction will clarify that the content of digital first creators will not be part of the commercial content that can trigger obligations for platforms.
This means that the content of digital first creators will not be included in the calculation of the social media platform's revenues for the purposes of financial contributions. Content from digital first creators will not face any obligations related to showcasing and discoverability. Canada's digital first creators have told us that they do not want to be part of this new regime, and we have listened.
The policy direction will also specify the government's intent when it comes to video games, and gaming is a very big industry in Canada, whether it is in Vancouver, Montreal or here in Ontario. I will repeat again that video games are not to be regulated.
The policy direction will also allow our government to signal important priorities to the CRTC, including with respect to such topics as advancing reconciliation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people; combatting racism; fostering diversity and inclusion; accessibility; official languages; adaptation to our new digital realities; and more.
When I think about diversity and inclusion in my area of York Region, I think about how we have Telelatino, which has been a long-time ethnic broadcaster in Ontario and throughout the country. When I talk to the principals at that entity, which is a mix of Spanish and Italian broadcasting, they are obviously here and doing things in Canada and participating with the government and agencies. I want to give a shout-out to Aldo and the entire team at Telelatino, TLN, for the great work they do in promoting not only Canadian content but content from various parts of the world and bringing it to our homes on a daily basis.
The draft policy direction will be prepared in the months to come and published upon royal assent of the online streaming act. It will reflect relevant legislative amendments adopted during the parliamentary review of Bill C-11 and the important feedback the government continues to receive. In the last session of Parliament, I sat on three committees and I know how important the role of committees is in allowing members the opportunity to provide feedback to strengthen legislation from the government of the day to make it better, more flexible, more efficient and more reflective of industry and stakeholders. “Better is always possible” is what we say at committee. I know all my hon. colleagues do a wonderful job in providing feedback and bringing their views to the legislation that is a brought forth, and that will include Bill C-11.
Once the direction is published, all stakeholders, including members of the public, will have an opportunity to provide additional feedback. A summary of their feedback will be published prior to the issuance of the final direction.
I listened intently to some of my hon. colleagues from the official opposition prior to my opportunity to rise and speak. I listened intently to some conspiracy theories, if I can use that term, being bandied about by some of the official opposition members, and I encourage them to submit this feedback into this feedback loop. A summary of their feedback could be taken in and published. If they would like to say that, it would be great, because I am still scratching my head about where with some of the stuff that is spouted forth comes from. I will try to understand it even better, but I am just not sure if I can.
The policy direction will provide the CRTC with the guidance to move forward quickly on the implementation of the new legislation and may even provide direction on the timelines for implementation of key elements of the regime.
I really need to speak to this point, because inherent in this act is obviously a policy direction or directive that would guide the CRTC in moving forward. The feedback mechanism would be in place to ensure that the online streaming act and the amendments to the Broadcasting Act really hit the nail perfectly and get that right. We are getting this right. We are moving in the right way.
We have listened to concerns of Canadians, we have listened to concerns of stakeholders, and we have listened to the feedback from stakeholders. That is what the right thing to do is as a government. It is to listen, to sit down and to talk to all viewpoints within industry, whether it is directed by ourselves or by the consumers, and we know that changes have to be made. I go back to 1991, the last time changes were brought forward, and I think of how the world has changed since 1991 for all of us, and hopefully in a positive manner.
In my humble conclusion, I want to repeat that the online streaming act would work to ensure that no matter how Canadians access their content, they should be able to see themselves in stories and songs that reflect their experience and their communities. When I think about that, I ask what it is to be Canadian today, as we all come from various backgrounds and various parts of this country. With the cultural content we consume, we need to obviously take a step back and always think about what Canadian content is and how we provide for it and finance it and assist it. We know other countries around the world assist their cultural industries, and the tourism side as well, to a great degree.
Whether it is Spotify, Crave, Disney+, Amazon Prime or Netflix, I think we pay for all of them in my household. We know there has to be a contribution here for the benefit of Canadian content. We know how valuable Canadian content is and we need Canadian content creators to have the opportunity to make sure the stories and histories that everyday Canadians see and hear are told. That is so important.
Before I finish up, I will say that members can rest assured of our commitment to carry out consistent and thorough consultations with everyone who has a stake in the implementation of this bill, including members of the official opposition, whom I have been reading some very interesting things about these days. This commitment will extend to the implementation and the subsequent policy direction to the CRTC.
I wish to thank members for their ears today and for hearing my thoughts on Bill C-11. I would like to say that this is part of our government's record of moving forward on a number of initiatives. That is what governments are elected to do, and it was great to see the national early learning and day care plan come to fruition yesterday. Today it is the emissions reductions plan, which is substantive, and today we are also debating Bill C-11, the modernization of our Broadcasting Act, and bringing over-the-top or online platforms into the modern age here in Canada.
3023 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 4:19:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C‑5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member, during his speech, made a comment about digital-first creators. He said that they will not be captured by this legislation. This is a talking point that is used over and over by the government.
It is very clear in the legislation that anything that uses music will be captured, and therefore the CRTC regulations will be applied to those things. TikTok videos, by their very nature, use music. That is how they are created and that is how they are structured. If a TikTok video posted by a digital-first creator has music, then the regulations of the CRTC would be applied to it.
I would like the hon. member to help me understand his pretzel logic as it relates to how these TikTok videos might possibly be exempt from the regulatory arm of the CRTC.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
