44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is an urgent matter for actors, creators, producers, and film and theatre directors, but I have a problem with one section of Bill C‑11 that I would like to change at committee. I think it would be better to have more days in July so we have enough time to do a proper study and give the creative sector what it needs as soon as possible.
What does my colleague think about putting in some more time here so we can do a good job on Bill C‑11?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. We worked on Bill C‑10. We consulted the entire creative industry, all the groups, all the associations. In the end, we failed because the Senate blocked it. We started over with Bill C‑11, which is more fleshed out. We tweaked a few details to keep everyone happy. We have been working on this for two years. An extra month will not change anything. Everyone has been consulted, everyone agrees and everyone is eagerly awaiting this. Everyone in the creative industry is waiting.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is the second time I am rising in the House to speak to this bill. I also spoke when Bill C-10 was introduced and first debated. I have been very interested in this subject for many years.
I would like to share an experience I had before I was elected. I was a legislative assistant to my predecessor, the well-known Quebec and Canadian politician Clifford Lincoln, who, at the time I worked for him, was the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the 1990s. Mr. Lincoln is a visionary. He wanted the committee to undertake a fairly thorough, wide-ranging study of the Canadian broadcasting system. The study was spread over several meetings, over several weeks and months. In the end, the committee produced a huge document, an extraordinary tome, on Canada's broadcasting system. I think it was even used in some post-secondary courses, because it essentially became the bible on our broadcasting system.
We realized, even then, that the system was changing very quickly with the new technologies. The committee hired two researchers on contract for the adviser: an academic from the Université de Montréal and an academic from the University of Calgary. I remember that one of the academics, who was an expert, said that in a few years, everyone would be their own documentary filmmaker. He said we would have a device that we could use to film all sorts of things and create our own videos and our own high-quality films, real documentaries of everyday life. In fact, that is where we are now. The broadcasting system has changed extremely quickly.
This bill is essential if we want to adapt to new realities, and we need to adapt urgently. Franco-Canadian and Quebec culture are under constant pressure—obviously we all know that, it has been said in the House—by the cultural machine that exists for the most part in the United States. It is well funded, very powerful and it attracts a wide audience on a regular basis. That means there is enormous pressure on Canadian culture, including Quebec culture.
When the Conservatives constantly challenge this bill and, before that, Bill C‑10, they are not doing any favours to those who want to protect and promote Canadian and Quebec culture. By dragging their feet, the Conservatives, in my opinion, are harming our Canadian creators, including our Quebec creators.
We keep hearing from the Conservative opposition that Bill C-11 is a form of censorship and citizen control by the government, and that Canadians will somehow have their freedom of thought limited by seeing a streaming service menu with a smattering of Canadian works visible on it. I ask members to think back to the 1970s, when the federal government created the MAPL system for radio. Suddenly, we had to listen to a minimum percentage of Canadian music on the radio. Imagine: a kind of music dictatorship.
The boost to Canadian musical performances was significant after the MAPL system was instituted. By the 1990s, Canadian music artists dominated the charts around the world in multiple categories. Actually, by the 1990s, Canadian women music artists dominated the global market. Alanis Morissette, Shania Twain and Diana Krall come to mind.
We do not hear the Conservatives referring to the introduction of the MAPL system as the dark age of radio censorship by the Liberal Pierre Trudeau government. After all, unlike today, there was a limited of number of musical outlets available to access music then. There were no Internet-based music platforms, only a finite number of radio stations owned by corporations, not listeners.
Why did the Conservatives at the time not cry “censorship” or “lack of free choice”? Why did they not say, “We cannot choose what we want to listen to”, “There are no alternative sources”, “There is a limited number of radio stations”, or “If we want to listen to something else, we have to pay at the music store, which is a form of taxation”?
Why did the Conservatives not say, “Stop telling us what to listen to on the radio”? They never asked, “Why will these Liberals in Ottawa not let us listen to what we want?”, or “Why do we have to listen to The Band, The Guess Who, Susan Jacks, Robert Charlebois, Ian and Sylvia, and Michel Pagliaro, alongside the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan and so on?”
Do members know why? It is because the Conservatives had moderate and reasonable leaders in those days, such as Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. Do members know why the Conservatives do not object to CanCon in radio today? It is because they know Canadians love their Canadian music and Canadian music artists, and to attack Canadian music would be unpopular, even among the members of their base.
To say the government would be censoring the Internet through Bill C-11 is laughable. No, it is actually preposterous. Such talk creates unfounded fears, and it alarms Canadians for no reason. To say one can censor the Internet today is akin to standing next to Niagara Falls and saying that one can stop the massive and endless flow of cascading water. There is as much chance of the government being able to censor the Internet as there is of me capturing air with my hand, so let us stop the hyperbole and let us stop the antics. They are not worthy of this place.
I received an email from a constituent the other day who strongly opposes Bill C-11. They were obviously on the Conservative Party blast email list. I could tell by some of the themes that kept coming up. I wrote back to explain the facts about the bill, including the reference to charter guarantees in the body of the bill, so I think I will take a moment to read some of these charter guarantees.
It says this quite clearly in the bill:
10.1 For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings.
It is here in black and white. It is in the law.
We can tell the opposition not to worry about it, that it is in the law and that all these guarantees are laid down in the law, but they will not believe it. They still send those emails to their supporters saying the Liberal government is trying to censor their thoughts and trying to influence the way they think for political purposes. It is in the law.
It says this as well, in proposed subsection 2(3), under “Interpretation”:
(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with
(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings
It is not even legalese. It is extremely clear, and even a non-lawyer like me can understand it.
When I wrote back to this individual, I also referenced the mandatory charter statement that accompanies all bills tabled by the government, a requirement, as members know, that was instituted by our Liberal government. This was not a requirement before 2015. At that time, when the government introduced a bill, there was no independent charter statement by Department of Justice lawyers, who have the professional responsibilities of integrity and calling it like it is. There was no independent charter statement on a bill, so we saw a lot of bills being introduced by the Harper government that really pushed the limits of charter rights.
I told the individual who wrote to me that the bill is an extension of the decades-old policy of taking measures to ensure Canadian culture is supported in a cultural marketplace dominated by a powerful cultural industry centred outside of Canada and whose priority is not, understandably, Canadian cultural content, to be honest. The person wrote back and said that if Canadian cultural products cannot stand on their own and if they cannot compete in the Canadian cultural marketplace, those products should be left to wither. I thought deep down that this is exactly the Conservative mindset when it comes to culture.
The problem with this view is that it is based on a naive conception of the marketplace and on how the marketplace works in today's reality. It is the ideological belief that today's marketplace is Adam Smith's marketplace: a small town square market where there are no power imbalances between buyers and sellers, and no one buyer, seller or small group of these distorts transactions and bends them to their financial interests. However, that is not an accurate description of the modern marketplace, and I think members will agree.
The fact is that whoever controls distribution controls the market. They control what the market has the opportunity to choose from and consume. This is true in the market for goods and services, which is why, as we know, the banks want to get their hands on insurance. They want to monopolize that market and make sure we buy insurance from them in addition to everything else. This is a normal impulse on the part of market actors, but it is the job of the government to make sure that there are measures in place to prevent this natural tendency toward market dominance from taking place.
In the cultural marketplace, the distributor decides what the audience will see. That is why we have worked so hard to maintain a Canadian-owned broadcasting system in Canada. It is about maintaining an independent distribution system for programming, domestic homegrown programming. If we did not have CTV, Global, CBC/Radio Canada and Télé-Québec, and only had ABC, CBS and NBC in the Canadian broadcasting space, none of the popular Canadian programs we have come to know and love over the years would ever have seen the day. It is that simple.
It is important to mention that streaming services are both distributors and producers. They therefore have an interest in showcasing their own content. The Internet and streaming services are, by definition, not traditional broadcasters, but they are distributors of cultural products nonetheless, and powerful and ubiquitous ones. There is no reason they should not contribute financially to the creation of Canadian cultural products. There is no reason they should not pay their fair share like everybody else.
It is time for the Conservatives to get on board, stand up for Canadian culture and creators and stop telling Canadians that there is a conspiracy to control what they see, think and feel. Such persistent efforts, in my opinion, are a nefarious form of disinformation, and that is why we are at this point here today where we have to get on with the bill. It is a bill that has covered two legislatures and time is pressing. The cultural sphere is galloping ahead with new technologies and new streaming services surrounding us and, of course, providing cultural content that we like to consume. It is not all going to be Canadian, but we should be able to see what the Canadian offerings are.
Somebody asked me the other day if I guessed this means that the CRTC, that great force of evil in the Conservative mind, is going to be writing algorithms for Netflix and Crave TV and whatever other streaming services that we have. The bill says, in black and white, on page 14 of the bill, “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.”
Why does the opposition not come clean and mention this in its speeches? It is here in black and white in the bill. The opposition does not care. Even if it is in the legislation, somehow it does not exist. Let us keep going with the talking points that we probably see, I do not know as I do not subscribe, in those blast emails that are moving around the cybersphere as part of the Conservative leadership campaign.
It is here in black and white in the bill. It is also in black and white that the bill does not apply to users of social media. I think it is time to move on. Canadian culture needs the support. It needed the support yesterday. It certainly needs it now. It is time.
2131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really agree with the last thing he said, namely that culture needs the support.
I have had a concern about this bill from the outset, and I would like my colleague to comment on this. It concerns community media.
We have been hearing that regional media could come together to negotiate. However, I am worried that there are not enough revenue sources for community media, which are fundamental to having very local information.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am trying to get a better grasp of the question. It seems to relate to Bill C-18 on news content, the bill that will force web giants and traditional media to negotiate together and ensure that compensation is provided for the content used and paid for by traditional media.
I saw somewhere in Bill C‑11 that schools, for example, do not have to worry because they are exempt. I believe, although I am not certain, that this does not really have to do with community media.
Another clause in the bill states that it will not apply to a service that is too small. The CRTC will not have time to regulate the thousands of websites belonging to creators. Let us face it, the CRTC does not have the capacity to regulate all of that.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member a fairly specific question about the content of his speech. He spoke about charter statements and the importance the government attaches to charter statements. We have seen multiple cases in which the government has table-dropped amendments to its own legislation and it has not offered a revised charter statement to line up with that change in policy.
We saw that in another case with Bill C-7, where the government changed its policy in response to a Senate amendment but did not offer a revised charter statement. On the previous version of this bill, Bill C-10, we saw the government adopting changes from government members in committee without revised charter statements. This is a government that, through the Emergencies Act, has suspended the charter and then we have had contradictory stories told by the minister.
I am very suspicious of the stated commitment to the charter. It seems increasingly like these charter statements are then subsequently ignored through amendments and not updated. It suggests that this is just an effort by the government to whitewash an attack on human rights.
Most specifically, why does the government not have a practice of offering updated charter statements when bills are amended as a result of the amendments government members have put forward when they come out of committee?
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member has mixed in the Emergencies Act with this. The Emergencies Act did not suspend the Charter of Rights. This is another falsehood that is being peddled by the opposition.
I do not think one should take charter statements lightly. The member has essentially impugned the professional integrity of the lawyers at the Department of Justice, who are not just parroting government lines; they analyze a bill based on their own professional expertise and knowledge and they produce a charter statement that they feel is accurate. I do not think we should take charter statements lightly.
In terms of Bill C-7, the government was responding to court decisions. I think they are a very credible form of input.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to look back on the Canadian content requirements from the past and realize they offered the chance to have conversations with each other as Canadians and not some form of tyranny.
Is the hon. member, like me, puzzled about why the Conservatives seem to prefer letting the web giants and the streaming services determine what we watch, instead of supporting a bill such as this that would make room for indigenous people, Quebec content and the diversity that is Canada? I fail to understand why Conservatives prefer to let the big web giants and streaming services determine what we see.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the Conservatives see some political upside in arguing and feeding into this idea that the government is trying to get people all the time. This has been their narrative for a long time. It is the populist narrative. It is the populist narrative of conspiracy theorists.
I believe, and I think they are wrong in believing this, and time will show this but they will make their own decisions at that time, they seem to think this conspiratorial narrative is going to pay off in the long term. I do not think it will.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I support so much of Bill C-11, but I am very troubled by the sections that I think need more work. I hate to see anything rushed through this place, and my friend from Lac-Saint-Louis will know that is my view.
In the past number of years, I have been so blissfully happy since I got married to John Kidder. I am suddenly related to Eric Peterson, who is my brother-in-law. My step-daughter, Janet Kidder is a serious actor who has been successful. There are parts of Bill C-11 that work for them.
The other day on a flight, just by coincidence, my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre ended up sitting next to the fantastic Stewart Reynolds, the comedian who goes by the name Brittlestar. He said to him, “I don't think the people who drafted Bill C-11 understand our industry of content created YouTubers. I don't think the bill has it right yet.”
I would do anything to see us get help to Canadian culture, to Canadian content and to our brilliant actors, directors and all the people who need to do the work for production without getting it wrong for the new and emerging sector that I have to admit I do not understand the way I understood Canadian content, as my friend talked about, when we started making sure radio had Canadian content.
The bill is not perfect. Why do we not work on it more?
255 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I am extremely impressed that the member has a connection to Eric Peterson. I used to watch him on Street Legal back in the day. He is a great Canadian actor. I believe I have seen him on stage as well.
There will be opportunities for amendments at report stage. The fact of the matter is there is obstructionism taking place. Perhaps we could have more input, but then we would not get the bill. We could sit on this bill until the next election, because that is what the Conservatives would do. They would obstruct and obstruct.
There would be guidelines coming out from the CRTC. There would be consultation around those guidelines. There would be ample opportunities for creators and the performing arts community to have input into that process, because that would feed into the kinds of regulations we have.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, who is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, of which I am a member.
Alain Saulnier, a former journalist and news director at Radio-Canada, just released a book entitled Les barbares numériques about what he refers to as digital barbarians.
Could my colleague explain why the official opposition seems so cozy with the digital barbarians?
That is what the Bloc Québécois does not understand. All artists and creators want us to act quickly, but the bill continues to be disrupted and delayed. Why are they on the side of these digital barbarians?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this question is in keeping with the one asked by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan or yet another member. I think it is a Conservative political strategy.
People obviously like Netflix and Crave, and I am no different. I watch good shows that are obviously not all from Canada or Quebec. People like the content, and the Conservatives are trying to take advantage of that.
Moreover, people can sometimes be suspicious of the government, and the Conservatives think that the magic political potion is to play into those suspicions, stirring in the fact that consumers like their online services. Well, I think the Conservatives are wrong.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, it is a pleasure, as always, to stand to represent my riding of Nunavut. I always appreciate my constituents' ongoing support and the feedback that they provide to me.
I will share my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach. I always appreciate his great interventions in the House. He is such a great role model for young indigenous men and for all those who identify as two-spirit.
I am pleased to stand to debate Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I have debated this bill and I am pleased that the New Democrats support this important bill. Having heard the debates since the bill was first introduced in February, I have maintained that it is an important bill that supports the broadcasting of indigenous content.
In Canada, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation has been a leader in broadcasting Inuit content on television. It has broadcasted a lot of Inuit cultural content, as well as content in Inuktitut; by Inuit, for Inuit.
I think that this bill has the potential to ensure great Inuit content by online streaming providers like Uvagut TV and Isuma TV. Both of these online providers have already made a huge dent in information that is already available online. I am sure that Inuit TV, which will be a new broadcasting streaming provider, will also be able to share some great Inuit content, hopefully with a huge audience as well, especially if this bill is allowed to pass.
There are specific sections in this bill that directly lead to the support of indigenous programming. Without this bill, these important broadcasting and programming providers will continue to struggle with competing against web giants like Netflix. I appreciate the space provided in this bill to improve and update the Canadian broadcasting policy by clarifying that the system needs to respond to the needs of Canadians, and specifically to the needs of racialized communities and those who represent the diversity that Canada enjoys, including indigenous peoples.
What I would like to see discussed by committee are assurances that require broadcasters to broadcast indigenous languages, as this bill has a gap that needs to be filled to ensure that indigenous languages are also included.
I had the pleasure of sitting at PROC when it was studying the Elections Act. It was talking about the study on indigenous languages in Canada. We learned some interesting statistics about indigenous languages.
For example, there are 175,825 people who speak Algonquian languages. Manitoba has 21.7%, Quebec has 21.2%, Ontario has 7.2%, Alberta has 16.7% and Saskatchewan has 16%. As for Inuit languages, there are 42,065 people who speak Inuktitut in Nunavut and Quebec. There are 23,455 people who speak Athabaskan languages, with Saskatchewan at 38%, the Northwest Territories at 22% and British Columbia at 18%.
I am not going to go through this whole list, but I do want to highlight that there are hundreds of thousands of indigenous languages, and we need to do our part to make sure that we can help promote, preserve and revitalize them as Canadians. If we are to remain true to reconciliation, we have to ensure that we practise that in any bill that has an impact on all indigenous peoples.
I appreciate in addition that this act does address the concerns related to freedom of expression by stating that this act would be directly guided by ensuring that freedom of expression is understood and used in this bill. I have been surprised in past debates by concerns that freedom of expression would be restricted through this bill. I have stated that I do not think the bill would do that, given that it would promote and ensure that content that is important to Canadians, especially indigenous content, is allowed to be supported. We all know that in online streaming there is huge competition in mainstream Canada that does not create enough space for indigenous content to be incorporated into any of the airwaves that we are talking about.
Finally, I have very much appreciated the priority in ensuring that we all work together to make sure that we are doing what we can for all indigenous peoples, including first nations, Métis and Inuit, and specifically in this bill's support it so that not only are we ensuring well-being for our current indigenous peoples but are also focusing on protecting our indigenous cultures, including first nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, for the future.
764 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the excellent, unique and necessary perspective that she just brought forward into this debate on this important bill.
What would happen to indigenous artists and content creators, and also indigenous languages, if this bill were delayed or deferred or even defeated in this House?
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think there would continue to be unfair competition. It is just too difficult for indigenous providers to be on the same level of competition against mainstream providers like Netflix, which have millions in revenue that these indigenous providers do not have access to. I hope that answers your question.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 4:52:43 p.m.
- Watch
I hope it answers the hon. member's question.
The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's insights. I want to add to the comment from my hon. colleague across the way that the other option would be that the bill could also be improved.
My hon. colleague from the NDP referenced the fact that she was looking for some changes at committee to incorporate some of these indigenous languages. What is her perspective on this very motion that we are dealing with, which is actually trying to reduce the opportunity for improvements to the bill and testimony at committee?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, doing everything that we can to ensure that we are all contributing to the protection and promotion of indigenous languages is paramount, and we need to do what we can. This could mean levelling the playing field for competition in the online streaming act, but definitely also referencing more in relation to indigenous languages. The indigenous languages have been at risk for far too long, and we need more of our bills to address protecting indigenous languages. I hope that answers the member's question as well.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for such an important speech. I appreciate her efforts to promote indigenous and minority languages. It is important.
I have some concerns about the bill, especially for very small media outlets, such as community media. The question was asked earlier: Will they be able to get their share of the pie?
A lot of things have yet to be determined. The details will be worked out through negotiations. That means there is some uncertainty. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
