44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
Madam Speaker, we absolutely need to have some kind of rules and regulations against the web giants because the member is right. They are not doing good Canadian content. Indirectly though, they are basically using algorithms that the CRTC is going to have the power and control over. In other countries it has already been promoted or talked about how anywhere from 80% to 85% of content that was censored or banned actually should never have been. There is where the question lies. It is on the regulations. Are we actually going to be banning Canadian-approved content that should never have been banned by the bill? That is the biggest question that we cannot answer right now.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Quebec's cultural sector suffered greatly under the Harper Conservatives, who made massive cuts to cultural spending. At the same time, they inexcusably neglected to regulate the web giants, which took in all of the advertising dollars.
This bill is designed to ensure the discoverability of Quebec- and Canadian-produced content. If my colleague is against that, I would like to know how he would help our cultural and media sectors, because it seems to me that, in the past, the Conservatives did absolutely nothing in this regard.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is quite interesting. I agree that we need to regulate the web giants in order to make sure that they are paying their fair share when it comes to any kind of Canadian content, whether it is news or even people who are promoting their own artistic ways.
One of the problems though is that it is a false sense of security knowing that, if it is Canadian-produced content, automatically it is going to be promoted by the web giants. That is not necessarily the case. Are they going to promote it or are they just going to leave the country? We only have a population of 38 million. There is more population in the state of California than in all of Canada. We have to understand that a lot of these web giants do not have to cater to Canadian content.
The other side that we need to look at is whether it is going to be censored on Canadian content. Because of the CRTC, there is potential that, regardless if it is made in Quebec or not, the CRTC could end up censoring Canadian content simply because it does not agree with whatever type of media form or whatever the message was in that video that was posted.
214 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, our cultural workers have been losing jobs and income. In fact, in 2020, one in four people working in the cultural sector lost their job, but Netflix revenues increased by over 22% in the same year.
The Conservatives seem to think it is okay for Netflix not to have to pay its fair share. Why?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the member misunderstood what I was saying. I have said all along that the web giants need to pay their fair share. They need to make sure that they are paying for what kind of Canadian content they have, whether it is news, types of videos or types of music, even pictures of artists they have promoted. Everyone needs to pay their fair share to make sure, so I think you were misled a little there because I have never said they should not pay.
My concern is about the big corporations. Are they actually going to promote or enhance Canadian content simply because they are told to, or are they just going to ignore Canada and go on to other countries around the world where there are fewer rules and regulations. That is my concern with that.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
