44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
The Conservatives are using this bill as a bit of an opportunity to spread misinformation. What they are saying is false. People will still be able to post their content on social media.
They will be able to do what I did during the pandemic. I created a YouTube channel to sing to isolated seniors. On Monday and Wednesday evenings, I sang to entertain them. Seniors could choose songs from my repertoire, which I would then practice and sing to them. Nothing can stop me from continuing this. I was free to do that, and everyone will continue to be free to do that kind of thing. What the Conservatives are saying is misinformation.
We want to take on the web giants to give back to artists. The Conservatives do not agree with that, because they want to support the web giants and give them free rein on the Internet.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation on his speech.
It was a great pleasure to listen to him talk about improvements that have been made to Bill C‑10, including on the discoverability of content and on developing francophone content. I heard him talk more about francophone, Quebec and Canadian content also. Of course, it was the Bloc Québécois that really pushed for these improvements.
He also talked about another very interesting fact: the specific requirement to create original French‑language content, in other words content produced in French, not translated content.
I was listening to my colleague's speech and I wanted to know whether he realizes that he could almost be a Bloc member. He would just have to change his repertoire on Wednesday afternoons and I think we could get him to cross the floor.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for his question.
I can assure him that there is no one more Liberal than I am, but there is no one more Québécois than I am either. I am an ardent defender of French. I have many friends in my riding who are Bloc supporters. I am very comfortable in this seat.
When I read this bill and I saw that a francophone could create francophone content, deliver francophone content and be paid for francophone content, I thought to myself that we could not ask for better for a Quebecker.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to wish the House leader of the official opposition a very happy birthday. We are glad he is with us today in this debate right until midnight. That is quite a way to celebrate a birthday.
I wanted to ask my colleague a question.
The web giants are making record profits, crazy profits even. Musicians, however, lost $3 billion during the pandemic. In general, Canadian musicians lost almost 80% of their income. On the one hand, we have web giants making huge profits, and, on the other, we have musicians and other Canadian artists who create content getting peanuts.
What does this bill do to balance out the situation?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat some of what I said in my speech.
Back when I was a saxophone player and we were recording music, the money went to the orchestras, creators and musicians. Whether the music was recorded on an eight-track tape, a four-track tape or vinyl, we had a basic income.
What we want to do is revise this act, which has not been updated since 1991, by adapting to the new formula. This means taking the money that web giants earn through social media, without touching the content of ordinary Canadians, and using it to give artists their due and to ensure that Canadian francophone and anglophone artists are treated equitably. We want to give the music, arts and cultural community what it is owed.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, obviously Bill C-11, the online streaming act, is a very important issue to talk about today, and I look forward to outlining my thoughts about the bill, and more specifically, some of the concerns I personally have with this particular piece of legislation.
However, if the Speaker will permit me, I want to first begin my remarks by addressing a very urgent and rapidly evolving situation in the Kenora riding. There are many floods across the Kenora riding right now. In fact, Highway 105 and Highway 599 are completely closed off, meaning residents of multiple communities have no way of leaving the community for perhaps urgent medical appointments or other essential trips.
There have been multiple states of emergency called by municipalities across my riding, and the Trans-Canada Highway itself, the only corridor east to west through the country, is actually now at risk of being completely blocked. It is “passable” right now, according to the Ministry of Transportation. However, the actual current detour is going over a Bailey bridge, which cannot support the weight of a transport truck. There is certainly a very urgent situation evolving there.
I am pleased to say I did speak with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness today. He is well briefed on the situation and standing by to provide assistance should it be called upon. I want to assure all members of the House and all my constituents back home in the Kenora riding that this is a top priority, and I will continue to stay in touch with the minister on this to ensure the proper supports are in place. I want to thank the Minister of Emergency Preparedness for his work so far. I appreciate the opportunity to make note of that here this evening.
I will get back to the debate we are having on Bill C-11. In general, I certainly would support creating a more even playing field for Canadian content creators, especially up against many large foreign streaming services. However, this bill, as I am sure has been alluded to by many of my colleagues tonight, is almost an exact replica of the previous parliament's Bill C-10.
I am sure the Speaker will remember Bill C-10, and I can see she does remember it quite well. Obviously there has been a lot of criticism, and not only from members of the opposition here in the chamber but also from folks outside of the chamber, such as experts and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They raised concerns about that bill and are now raising those same concerns about this bill.
I am hearing that at home in the Kenora riding. Given the current situation, it is not necessarily a top-of-mind issue at this very moment, but it is something many people had been raising to me over the last year, particularly since Bill C-11 was brought back in this new Parliament. I share a lot of the concerns my constituents have brought forward, and that is what I would like to outline in my comments today.
As my esteemed colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, who is here on his birthday, noted not too long ago, through the bill, the government would be giving the CRTC more power without telling Canadians exactly what it plans to do with that power. The minister noted he plans to issue a policy directive after the bill becomes law. That is problematic because in the chamber, we need to know what we are voting on. Canadians need to know what this bill is going to be ahead of time. The lack of transparency is certainly a cause for concern for many of us, myself included.
The bill would also give the CRTC the power to regulate any content that generates revenue “directly or indirectly”, which means virtually any content on the Internet could be regulated, despite the government members claiming that the bill would exempt user-generated content.
If we look back to Bill C-10 and the new iteration, Bill C-11, something that is a major cause for concern for a lot of people is that government overreach and the potential censorship that would come into play when the government would potentially be regulating all of that content. We need some transparency from the government on that.
Through this bill, the government would also get the power, if it becomes law, to boost the content it wants Canadians to see. Again, this is a very dangerous precedent to set in government overreach over what Canadians see privately on their social media and on other sites.
Unfortunately, I have a long list of concerns with this bill, but I would like to take a step back and talk about the scope of this bill. The government is talking about supporting Canadian content creators and promoting Canadian culture and heritage, and that is great, but what we are seeing in the bill is a number of measures that seem to be targeted at specific Canadians, and the regulation of what Canadians see and post on social media.
I can assure members that, if it were a Conservative government proposing a bill such as this, the Liberals would have a very different take on this legislation. Frankly, I am sure we would hear some very strong language coming from Liberal members. However, when they are doing it themselves, of course they do not see a problem.
Another question raised to me by many in my riding is, “What is Canadian content?” There is certainly a very important discussion around that, but not a lot of clarity. There are questions of whether it is Canadian content if something is made in Canada, if a Canadian contributed to it, or if a Canadian wrote something but was not actually a part of it after that. There are a lot of questions as to what Canadian content is. The government is planning to put a commission in place to determine that, but without proper debate and discussion around that beforehand, it does remain a major question mark.
Experts have said that this bill has “limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope, and harmful discoverability provisions.” When we are hearing this type of language, and not from parliamentarians but from experts in the field, it is really important that we pause and take a step back to reflect on that. Above all else, when we are talking about Bill C-11, it is important that we have a wholesome debate on that.
I know we are doing our due diligence as the official opposition to review the bill. Obviously we have some concerns with it. We want to review the bill, and hopefully bring forward some reasonable amendments to improve it. However, my concern is that we saw the government move closure on this legislation, which is quite detrimental to the debate. There are a lot of members who want to be able to speak on this and share their concerns and ideas. Having a limit on debate, moving closure and not allowing members to speak to this does a disservice to all Canadians because their views are not being properly represented in this place.
The member for Barrie—Innisfil, and once again he is being featured in my speech today, noted that this is a bill that has many concerns around the potential censorship of Canadians on social media. Now we have a Liberal government that is actually moving closure and limiting debate on this censorship bill. It cannot get more hypocritical than that.
The last thought I want to leave the House with today is that there are certainly some important measures or goals set out in this bill. There is no doubt that promoting Canadian content and ensuring Canadian communities are represented in our content is important, but Bill C-11, just like the previous Parliament's Bill C-10 does not appear to be much more than the Liberal government single-handedly deciding which content Canadians should or should not see. That is a cause of concern for me and for many in the Kenora riding, and I believe for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
1381 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague said that what scares him about this bill is the CRTC's new powers.
The Conservatives quoted experts who think there might actually be no need for legislation to accomplish the goal of boosting the discoverability of francophone and Canadian content.
I would like my colleague to help me understand exactly which of the CRTC's new powers are a problem for the Conservatives.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the question gives me the opportunity to reiterate what I said in my comments. Giving sweeping new powers to the CRTC without any indication of what those powers will be and how they will be used is a cause for concern. The hon. member mentioned the experts. The experts have said that this bill has “limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope”. I cannot say it any better than that.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I know that the member for Kenora has a huge indigenous population in his riding.
I would like to ask about the sections of this bill regarding indigenous people. One says, for example, “provide opportunities to Indigenous persons to produce programming in Indigenous languages, English or French, or in any combination of them, and to carry on broadcasting undertakings”. Does the member consider sections such as these censorship?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I certainly would not consider that censorship. As I mentioned off the top, there are some very important goals set out in Bill C-11 and some important aspects of it in terms of promoting Canadian content. I know from my constituents, particularly those in the remote northern first nations of my riding, which I know are still further south than the member's, but northern as far as Ontario goes, that culture is so important, especially in the remote, isolated communities, and anything we can do to promote that and to ensure that traditional languages and practices are preserved is definitely very important.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his measured tone. I may not have agreed with everything he shared, but I do appreciate the tone he shared it in.
My question is with respect to making sense of the user-generated content provisions of the bill. My understanding of proposed subsection 4.2(2) is that it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, which would ideally cut out concerns with respect to a parent who might be posting videos on Facebook, for example.
I am looking to better understand the member's concern with respect to user-generated content. He used the term “censorship”. If it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, does that not address the concern?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, we do not always agree on everything, but I have always found that his interventions in this place are very balanced and positive, and I appreciate his contribution to this chamber.
From my point of view, to the member's point, the issue I take is with the wording “directly or indirectly generates revenues”. That opens up the door and makes it a bit more of a grey area in terms of what could possibly fall under this category. That is why I think we need to have more debate on this and more discussion. I suspect, based on some of the comments I am hearing today, that this will end up in committee and I am hoping that all parties at committee will be able to work together in order to clear some of this up and make sure we bring forward a better bill for Canadians than the one we currently see.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me begin by sharing my concern for the residents of the hon. member's riding. I know they are in good hands and he is going to work extremely hard on their behalf to ensure that the situation is rectified for the safety of all the residents he represents.
This was once a place of informed debate. The concern with this bill, specifically as it relates to the CRTC and the policy directive to the CRTC happening after the bill is passed, causes me and, I am sure, many Canadians great concern. I am wondering if the hon. member can reflect on what the consequences of that may be as it relates to the online content of Canadians.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for his kind comments.
I would simply say that the lack of clarity, the fact that there is no transparency on what that directive will look like, really leaves it open to interpretation. It leaves it open to the fact that any Canadian content could fall under this.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, good evening to all my hon. colleagues this evening as we continue to debate Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which is very important to the modernization and amending of the Broadcasting Act. This evening, I would like to focus my remarks on the bill and what it means for the disability community and accessibility in particular.
So far, our debate on the online streaming act has largely focused on how the bill seeks to expand the legislative and regulatory broadcasting framework to include online broadcasters.
However, we must not forget that it is also about making the broadcasting system more inclusive. Ensuring that the Canadian broadcasting system serves all Canadians is an important goal.
In 2019, our government passed the Accessible Canada Act to make Canada barrier-free by January 1, 2040. This historic legislation allows the Government of Canada to take a proactive approach to the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to accessibility in sectors under federal jurisdiction across Canada, which includes broadcasting. Accessibility is part of our government's progressive digital policy agenda, which aims to create a fairer, safer and more inclusive Internet for all Canadians, including disabled Canadians.
Both the Accessible Canada Act and the Broadcasting Act have a role to play in eliminating barriers to accessibility in the broadcasting sector. They work together to remove the barriers to accessibility that people with disabilities continue to face in society on a daily basis.
With respect to the online streaming act, Bill C‑11 helps make Canada barrier-free by strengthening certain provisions of the Broadcasting Act that are designed to provide rights and protections to people with disabilities.
In this regard, the CRTC already has the power to impose accessibility requirements on traditional broadcasting services. To meet the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers, broadcasters generally need to caption 100% of their programs and meet various quality standards for captioning, including accuracy. To meet the needs of blind or partially sighted consumers, certain broadcasters are required to provide described video for appropriate programming in prime time.
The CRTC also requires cable companies and satellite services to offer persons with disabilities a trial period of at least 30 days so that they can see if the service and equipment meet their needs.
Lastly, the CRTC requires these same companies to supply their subscribers with set-top boxes and accessible remote controls when available.
The online streaming act updates the key tenets of the Broadcasting Act to strengthen the accessibility of the Canadian broadcasting system. First, it states that the system should include all Canadians, including persons with disabilities.
Second, it states that the Canadian broadcasting system must offer programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities. I want to make it clear that our bill strengthens this objective by striking “as resources become available” from the Broadcasting Act.
This is so that the availability of financial resources specifically can no longer be used to justify the existence of barriers that prevent the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
Finally, the online streaming act amends the Broadcasting Act to clarify that the CRTC should regulate the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that “facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities”. The policy direction to the CRTC will reinforce this objective.
In addition to these key principles, our bill gives the CRTC the power to impose conditions of service on traditional broadcasters, such as TVA and CTV, and online broadcasters, such as Netflix and Illico, as well as cable broadcasters, such as Videotron and Rogers, to ensure programming accessibility. The CRTC will have the power to impose conditions of service that relate to the identification, prevention and removal of barriers to programming access.
The bill would also give the CRTC the power to impose monetary penalties on broadcasting services that do not comply with the regulations or orders. Conditions of service would therefore be linked to monetary penalties. As such, the CRTC would be able to impose monetary penalties on broadcasting services that do not comply with the requirement to provide closed captioning or described video.
I said earlier that the Broadcasting Act works hand in hand with the Accessible Canada Act to remove barriers to accessibility in the broadcasting sector.
Under the Accessible Canada Act, broadcasting undertakings would be required to comply with accessibility regulations and prepare and publish accessibility plans describing how they will identify, remove and prevent barriers in their operations. They would also need to prepare and publish progress reports on these plans and establish ongoing feedback processes.
The CRTC and the accessibility commissioner share responsibility for ensuring compliance with and enforcing the Accessible Canada Act in the broadcasting sector. Both bodies can impose financial penalties on broadcasting companies that do not comply with the various provisions of the law.
With the passing of the online streaming act, we have an opportunity to make the Canadian broadcasting system more accessible and inclusive and to better support Canadians who, for too long, have been marginalized because of barriers to accessibility.
To achieve this, our bill will ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system, through its programming and employment opportunities, meets the needs and interests of all Canadians, including those living with disabilities.
I thank my colleagues for their time this evening and for listening to my remarks on Bill C-11. I look forward to questions and comments.
911 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is great to be here tonight, late in the night, debating Bill C-11. I asked the member's colleague this question before, and I am going to ask him as well—
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe the member is wearing a button he was asked to remove.
Mr. Arnold Viersen: I am sorry.
21 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 9:56:28 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you.
The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 9:56:28 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things the Liberals talk about incessantly with this bill is levelling the playing field. As I iterated to the member's colleague just prior to this speech, a couple of organizations in my riding are trying to get a radio station started, and it takes, on average, three years to get approval from the CRTC to get a radio station. It seems to me that one of the things that would level the playing field would be to make it so that someone could sign up for a radio station in about the same amount of time it takes to sign up for a podcast, which is about 45 minutes, maybe less.
Would the member not agree that in levelling the playing field between heritage media forms and new media forms, we should be trying to reduce the barriers for all of them? On the Internet there is unlimited freedom. One can reach a large network. People living in northern Canada often do not have good Internet access or the capacity to get podcasts, but if we could get local radio stations fired up in about the same time it would take a podcast—
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
