44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, today I am so pleased to speak to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
This bill is big, and this bill it really big news. When a lot of Canadians where I come from think of what the government does well and does not do well, it often relates to what we might watch on TV or what we might stream on the Internet, so in terms of consequences in our day-to-day lives, what we are talking about today really does matter.
It was in 1932 that the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was passed, which recognized the importance of radio broadcasting concerning educational, social and cultural development on a national level. Throughout the years, this act was revised and modernized, with the last update occurring in 1991. The world has changed over the last 30 years, especially with the rise of social media and the Internet.
Today, our current government says it is updating the act for today’s digital world to ensure that Canadian content is reflected in online programming. While there is a need to promote Canadian content and support Canadian creators, is the government truly respecting user choice, or is it trying to control what we see and hear online?
The heavy tone of all the regulations in this bill, in my opinion, is more of government oversight rather than cultural and language promotion. Why is the government telling the subject matter experts how to use their language and what stories they should be telling?
For example, under section 9.1, subsection (1)(d), the CRTC regulates:
the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres, in order to ensure the diversity of programming;
Is the government trying to tell us how many comedy, drama or horror programs that broadcasters under this act, in the age of social media and the Internet, would have to offer?
Last year, I did a survey on the previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-10. I heard from one elderly gentleman in my riding who was angry because he did not have any say over which channels he could get in a basic TV package. These are covered by the current Broadcasting Act and CRTC regulations, which would be amended by the legislation we are debating today.
In the modern era of broadcasting in Canada, more government oversight has meant fewer options for viewers. People do not want to be told what programs they have to include and pay for in their cable packages. This has led to a domination of traditional media by a few legacy giants, whose viewership continues to decline year over year as many are choosing the Internet and its vastly more diverse range of content and options.
This legislation risks causing the same reality we witnessed with cable TV, but applied to the Internet, including fewer choices, and fewer independent actors and creators. At the end of the day, is this just another attempt by the government to prop up failing legacy media?
Bill C-11 was the government’s opportunity to move into modern day concepts of broadcasting programs. The government claims it wants to modernize the Broadcasting Act of 1991, yet Bill C-11 is basically using the exact same definition of broadcasting, meaning the starting point for regulation in Canada is that all audiovisual content would be cast as programs. Had the government perhaps distinguished between conventional and on-demand broadcasters versus video sharing platforms, like was done in the European Union, there would be no need for exceptions, exemptions and exclusions, which are riddled throughout this legislation.
It is not me saying that. It is Michael Geist, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He explained that, when we start with legislation that includes everything and we try to narrow it down, we simply cannot. We end up with loopholes, undefined services, and plain and simple confusion.
Rather than clearly define what needs to be regulated as broadcasting, this bill would leave much of those decision-making powers up to the CRTC. This limitless reach of the CRTC was even identified in an internal government memo during the committee process of Bill C-10, the last iteration of this legislation. The memo stated that social media services such as YouTube and Facebook greatly expand the number of individuals and other entities than can be said to be transmitting programs over the Internet. It also highlighted the importance of limiting the power of the CRTC to regulate user-generated content.
Despite this, the government removed the exemption for user-generated content in Bill C-10. Now in Bill C-11, the government claims the exemption is back with proposed section 4.1. The government now says it listened and fixed the concerns around social media. However, when we look at proposed subsection 4.1(2), we see there is an exception to the exception, and indeed the government does allow for regulation of content uploaded to social media. How are users and content creators to know if they are the exception or the exception to the exception?
Proposed subsection 4.1(2) states:
(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program
(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them
Subsection 2(1) would define “affiliate” as follows:
in relation to any person, means any other person who controls that first person, or who is controlled by that first person or by a third person who also controls the first person
My tongue is already twisted; this is really complicated stuff. It seems to apply to YouTube creators and other creators, but with the vague definition and really challenging legislation to read and understand, we do not know. It is almost like the government tried to make it as complicated as possible so people would not understand the complexity of what it is trying to achieve, which we still do not know either.
Podcasts, one of the richest spaces for user online expression, would fall within CRTC power to regulate content as a program. This bill is trying to categorize, in very convoluted language, any and all Canadian content on the Internet as broadcasting. It simply is not. Foreign services that carry modest Canadian presence or services might not take so kindly to CRTC oversight. Their first response may very well be to block the Canadian market entirely, leaving many Canadians with less program choice, more expensive services, particularly with respect to access to multicultural programming, and algorithms that do not meet their needs online or respect their choices.
One of the key questions I get from constituents regarding this legislation is “Will I now be subject to CRTC regulations for what I watch and do on the Internet?” Recently, Darcy Michael, a comedian from B.C. with a large following on TikTok, expressed his concern with how the bill will affect artists in the digital space and those consuming culture online. Mr. Michael cautioned that CRTC oversight would limit creativity of independent artists and that the current system of “user-generated content exists because it works”. Algorithms right now, as I understand, reward content that is popular and it is shown to people who are likely to be interested. That is how Mr. Michael has made a lot of money and has done it as an artist. By showing Canadian content to viewers who are less likely to interact with it, we hurt its ability to reach foreign viewers and the creator's ability to make a living in the digital marketplace beyond the limited Canadian media landscape. Therefore, one of the most disconcerting issues is the financial impact this bill will have on Canadian creators, many of whom have large foreign audiences and are the real reason people know about Canadian culture in the first place.
In conclusion, there is so much to cover, but this is not the 1930s, the 1950s or the 1990s, when we would turn to the radio or television to hear the news or watch a local hockey game. This is 2022, and we are constantly facing new media platforms. We need to eliminate the uncertainty this bill creates. We need to avoid the problems this bill will create. We need to define key provisions, decide on what actually constitutes a Canadian creator, fully exclude user-generated content and limit the scope of the bill to a manageable size. It is unrealistic in the 21st century to think the government can regulate the Internet, and the consequences of doing what we are doing here today will be felt for a long time in ways that we do not understand.
1506 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to quote Ian Scott, chair of the CRTC. He said, “We will never regulate user generated content. We are not interested in that.” The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, said, “once this bill has gone through the parliamentary process—”
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 4:57:57 p.m.
- Watch
I remind the member that she is not to use a minister's name. She can mention his department, but not his name.
The hon. member.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, thank you for that reminder.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage said, “once this bill has gone through the parliamentary process and received royal assent, we will make it even more clear to the regulator, through a policy directive, that this legislation does not touch users, only online streaming platforms. Platforms are in; users are out.”
I am a member of the heritage committee, so I have the privilege of speaking one on one to a lot of the stakeholders for Bill C-11. What I am hearing from members opposite is a lot of the YouTube talking points, so I am wondering why the Conservatives are so intent on supporting the web giants and not Canadian arts and culture.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I am supporting is the right of Canadians to decide what they want to do on the Internet with their own free time. Frankly, when a Liberal member tells me that the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage has given us a guarantee, all we have to point to is Bill C-10. The former minister of the environment frankly lied to Canadians over and over again about the impact the bill would have on Canadians and social media. I find it disingenuous that the minister would even quote—
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I have a point of order.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 4:59:22 p.m.
- Watch
I am sure I know what the point of order is, but let us hear the point of order and then I will rule on it.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not think it is a surprise to any member who heard the member that I will ask him to retract his comment with the reference to a lie.
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 4:59:44 p.m.
- Watch
I was going to get up on that as well.
I remind the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon that he cannot say that someone has lied in the House and he also cannot use the word “disingenuous” because that is saying indirectly what he was trying to say directly. I ask him to retract his words.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I retract the words, Madam Speaker, and that is a fair point. My apologies. In the debate, I should not have said that.
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 5:00:14 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member has 26 seconds if he wants to finish his response before I go to the next question.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to take a look at Canada research chair Michael Geist, who commented extensively on the exception to the exception and the parts from proposed section 4.1 that I quoted in my speech. I think that says enough about what the bill would do.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his very lengthy speech.
I would like my colleague to address one very simple question. How would he define freedom of expression?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, how do I define freedom of expression? Well, there are a lot of definitions of freedom of expression, but of course it is always going to be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has a very large riding that is home to many first nations with a very rich history and culture. My own riding is home to the Coast Salish people, who speak Halkomelem.
I would like to ask the member about the provisions in Bill C-11 that are going to allow first nations and indigenous people across Canada to have the ability to access broadcasting services, and probably do so in their own language, and what that is going to really mean to those individual communities. Would he not agree with me, considering the deep, rich, cultural history of his riding, that this is a very positive aspect to Bill C-11?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island raises a valid point, and I do believe that provisions related to promoting indigenous culture and language are in fact good. I am always reticent to give power to regulators to determine winners and losers, but I do support, in general, more supports for some of the rural indigenous communities that I represent to get their fair share of funding, which does not generally go to places where I live.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to ask a very important question of my friend, but I will add this before I get to my question. If the Liberal government would actually fulfill its promises, we would quit pointing out that it keeps breaking its promises, to use parliamentary language.
Does my friend think that this is such a convoluted bill because the Liberals are trying to sneak things past and regulate some things that they would not want the public to know they are going to do?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my biggest concern with this legislation is that it is lazy. I do not think the government even tried to adapt to the 21st century with this bill. It took outdated and anachronistic terms and definitions that have been in place since 1991 and is trying to apply an outdated and unworkable formula for the reality we live in in the 21st century. As I mentioned in my speech, the consequences of this bill are not just going to be felt tomorrow. They will impact the next generation in 20 years, and we do not know what we are doing fully with the content of this legislation.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 5:03:58 p.m.
- Watch
I remind the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan that once the Speaker has ruled and has accepted an apology, it is not really wise to try to stoke the fire again.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yellowhead.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
I have received many concerns about this bill from many of my constituents. They are worried this bill is against the freedoms their ancestors fought and died for. In their view, Bill C-11, which is also known as the online streaming act, is an overreach that would slowly erode their freedoms and eliminate their free speech.
This bill would give the CRTC enormous powers by putting the commission in charge of regulating streaming services and video sharing sites as well as traditional broadcasters. Will the regulator be prepared to handle sweeping jurisdiction over audiovisual services around the world? Where is the evidence the CRTC has the expertise to address these issues?
Matt Hatfield, campaign director of Open Media, stated, “The online streaming act continues to give the CRTC the power to use sorely outdated 1980s ideas about what 'Canadian' content is, to control what shows up on our online feeds and what doesn't.” By making the CRTC the de facto regulator of the Internet, the Liberal government's strategy poses a serious threat to innovation, competition and freedom of expression.
There are still concerns the law could apply to people using and posting content on social media. It is simply a “just trust us” approach. It is all there in the text of the new legislation, which looks remarkably like the old legislation known as Bill C-10.
While the bill numbers have changed, the purpose of Bill C-11 has not. The bill states its purpose is to add online undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings. The reason for that is so the CRTC can determine the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be Canadian programs.
Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators who need rules that do not hold back their ability to be a Canadian and a global success. The Liberals claim there is now an exemption for user-generated content, but this legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly. That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube or Spotify.
The term “web giants” is frequently used by the Liberal government when talking about Bill C-11 and broadcast reform. According to Facebook's Ad Library, at the time Bill C-11 was tabled, the Liberal Party of Canada's Facebook page spent $4,233,000 on paid ads since June 25, 2019, and the Prime Minister's Facebook page spent $2.8 million on paid ads. How does the Liberal government justify its attack on so-called web giants in speeches while it keeps putting money into Facebook to promote itself?
If this bill passes, Netflix, Prime, Apple Music or Stitcher accounts would be required to ensure the discoverability of Canadian content. What exactly are the details? Public Works and Government Services Canada's own annual report on Government of Canada advertising activities from 2020 to 2021 shows that the Liberal government spent $11.6 million on advertising on Facebook and Instagram, $3.2 million on Twitter, $2.8 million on Snapchat, $1.5 million on Linkedln, $377,000 on TikTok and $265,000 on Pinterest. Why does the Liberal government say one thing and spend taxpayers' money in another way?
Dr. Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa said, “for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a 'program'.”
There are many issues with Bill C-11 for digital-first creators that are said to be given to the CRTC. It is too broad and could include every piece of content online. Most alarming is that there is still room in the bill for the government to force platforms to put approved Canadian content ahead of independent Canadian content and artificially manipulate the algorithms. This bill only has downsides for digital-first creators. While the traditional media industry gets their funding doubled, the requirement for streamers to pay into the creation of Canadian content could see some services leave Canada.
Digital content creators in Canada have been successful in building platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export Canadian content to the rest of the world, not only bringing revenue from other countries back home to Canada but also hiring local taxpaying Canadian workers. These achievements should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.
Bill C-11 is presented to support the future of the broadcast industry but ignores all the global reach of Canadian digital success stories in favour of an outdated delegated broadcast model. The only thing that Bill C-11 will succeed at is falsely swaying the procedures of social platforms. This could eventually have a negative effect on Canadian content. What it will do is marginalize the people who, through their hard work and dedication, are making an impact by sharing Canadian content worldwide. YouTube's algorithm, which applies across borders, detects whether a video has been watched, ignored or turned off partway through, as well as whether it gets a thumbs-up or it is disliked. This influences how the content is promoted, not just in Canada but beyond its borders.
Bill C-11 subjects streaming companies, such as Netflix, to the same rules as traditional Canadian broadcasters. It would force web firms to offer a set amount of Canadian content and invest heavily in Canada's cultural industries, including film, television and music. Because of our relatively small population, will they make these financial investments to create Canadian content?
The bill will also update the 1991 Broadcasting Act, which predates the Internet revolution that changed the way people watch film and video content and listen to music. The government says the bill would not regulate user-generated material and would give platforms room to decide how they promote Canadian content, yet critics warn this could lead to the regulation of people posting videos on YouTube. In 2020, Oxford Economics calculated that YouTube contributed $923 million to Canada's gross domestic product, including payments from ads alongside YouTube videos and royalty payments to music labels.
I question whether the government should even get involved in determining what constitutes Canadian content. With Bill C-11, it would seem the Liberals don't want to hear from digital-first creators and their thoughts on the destructive impact Bill C-11 will have on them if passed. If passed, Canadians could see fewer services offered, more government regulation of what we can watch or listen to online and a loss of jobs.
Bill C-10 was problematic. Its replacement, Bill C-11, is no better and should be scrapped. We Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.
In closing, we Conservatives will continue to bring forward amendments to protect Canadians' free speech and the livelihoods of independent content creators by carefully reviewing every aspect of Bill C-11, and we expect the Liberal government to allow the full study and review it requires.
1270 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the importance of protecting Canadians' free speech. However, I would like to know whether he understands that the bill does not affect the content that social media users create. The bill targets the platforms and the web giants.
Does my colleague not think it is good for these major companies to promote Canadian content, as the bill would require?
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
