44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am standing up for cultural workers. I am standing up for those digital-first creators who have found success through online means, who have found success here in Canada and around the world because they have used new technologies. We strongly believe in updating the Broadcasting Act to bring it into the 21st century, but we should not and ought not do that at the expense of those who have found success globally thanks to new technologies.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-11 seeks to modernize the existing Broadcasting Act for the first time since 1991, primarily to bring online streaming services like Netflix and YouTube within its domain.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
In my view, it has been a long time. Bill C-11 is certainly needed. We need to modernize the Broadcasting Act. I also feel it is well-intentioned legislation on behalf of the government party, and it has good items in it, a few of which I will mention. One, of course, is the requirement for streaming services like Netflix to invest more in Canadian productions. Second is that it legitimizes the role of community broadcasting, including non-profit and campus radio stations, acknowledging that community broadcasters, through collaboration with local organizations and community members, are in a unique position to provide varied programming to meet the needs of their communities.
That being said, Bill C-11 also has significant issues. The first is that, throughout the bill, we see vague language and some contradictions, and at times it is fairly poorly written. I will give one example. In the section I will be talking about next, there is a definition of “social media service” without that term being defined earlier in the bill. As we heard from others, it skips over a really critical opportunity to update and clarify the definition of what Canadian content is.
Most important of all, despite claims that only platforms would be regulated, there are very clear provisions in the bill that would allow for user-generated content to be regulated, and the chair of the CRTC confirmed as much when he was in front of the heritage committee. One of those provisions is any time user-generated content generates either direct or indirect revenue. What does that mean? I think of a local musician who might be soliciting financial contributions on a YouTube livestream, for example, and whether that musician might fall under the regulations that are permitted under this act.
I want to be really clear. There are some who have said that this bill censors what Canadians would be allowed to watch. That is simply not true. That is not in this legislation. That said, both at committee and in the wider conversation across the country on this bill, non-partisan experts and those affected by the legislation have shared their concerns, and I would like to share a few of those this evening.
One group is the YouTube content creators themselves, Canadians like Morghan Fortier. Morghan said this: “Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It’s been written by those who don’t understand the industry they’re attempting to regulate”. Many others are on the record with concerns similar to Morghan's, other YouTube content creators across the country.
Then, of course, there are also subject matter experts like Michael Geist, who sounded the alarm. He has written often on the topic and spoke at committee. I hesitate to even bring up Mr. Geist given how often he has already been referenced in this debate over the last number of weeks, but I will quote one snippet that is important for this House to hear again, which is that Bill C-11 needs “extensive review and further reform to get it right.”
Finally, political analyst Erica Ifill shared her many concerns in a recent Hill Times article. She put it succinctly, “the new broadcasting bill still does not address core problems of the digital experience.”
For my part, I brought two amendments to the committee. One would have removed every part of proposed section 4.2 of the bill that allowed for user-generated content to be regulated at all. There are various provisions here that would open up that opportunity. Why not close those to be really clear that platforms are in and users are out?
The second was more precise but less ambitious, which was to remove just those users who generate indirect revenue. Can we not at least agree on that? This is a group of users the bill was likely not intended for, so let us take that out. Again, parliamentarians from all parties have previously said that they believe in this premise of platforms in and users out. Therefore, I was disappointed that both of these amendments were defeated at committee.
I would also like to briefly note my disappointment in the process. It was not the best moment. We saw the animosity between committee members, between opposing parties in this chamber, and that resulted in the majority of votes on amendments last Tuesday night having to take place without any debate at all. In my time here I have seen better moments. I think back to December when members came together to unanimously move forward on banning conversion therapy, for example. There have been incredible moments in this place of parliamentarians working together, but in my view, this was one of our less strong moments.
To summarize, in my view, when assessing legislation, I find myself thinking about my neighbours in Kitchener and our community, and I ask myself, “Does the bill do more harm than good?” I get it that rarely I will get to vote on legislation that fully addresses the interests of my community, so I will always support legislation that has a net-positive impact. However, my concern with Bill C-11 is that it could do more harm than good. This is the reason I did not support it earlier this afternoon, and I am not likely to support it at third reading tomorrow. I appreciate the good intentions. I appreciate that there are good elements in the bill. I certainly wish we had more time to debate it, and even to see more negotiation among parliamentarians to see amendments tabled and moved forward with.
Assuming the bill will soon be moving to the Senate, I hope senators will take the opportunity to improve the bill.
1050 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member made reference to the fact that we have not modernized the legislation for many years. However, when we take a look overall, I believe we would get a consensus from the stakeholders that the bill is in fact a step forward for an important industry, let alone artists, creators and all those involved—
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 7:32:50 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not believe we have quorum.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
There are no quorum calls after 6:30 p.m. There is a judgment.
14 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
We do not have quorum, but we also are without the Constitutional requirement of quorum. In other words, for those in the NDP House leadership, we want them to confirm that they did not agree to the government's unconstitutional extension of hours—
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, you cannot give a point of order when I am still doing my point of order—
19 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member is out of order, and I would ask the hon. member to stop.
16 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 7:33:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member does not have the floor.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
16 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, and I was paying close attention, was not given the floor at any time by the Speaker. No one who has not been given the floor by the Speaker is allowed to speak. Once the Speaker stands, everyone is to sit down.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the point I was getting to is that the member, I am sure, is aware of the importance of modernizing the act, and that the vast majority of the stakeholders see the proposed legislation as a step forward. The broader community, being Canadian artists, creators and workers in the industry, see it as positive legislation. I wonder if the member can reflect on that aspect.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I did mention the hon. member and I gave her the floor, but as soon as I saw where it was going, I got up again. There is no reason for a point of order. Those items have been debated more than once and the Speaker has ruled.
The Speaker has made a ruling, and it can be found in the Debates of May 2, 2022, at pages 4577 and 4578. I would invite the member to read the ruling of the Speaker to find that this matter has already been settled.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to make clear to the parliamentary secretary that I do agree with him.
As I said in my speech, it has been quite some time since the Broadcasting Act was first passed. There is an important need to modernize the Act, and I am glad the governing party prioritized that. I also believe it is important to get it right. While there are many stakeholders, as he has mentioned, who are supportive, there are also many others, some of whom I mentioned, such as Canadian YouTube content creators, who are quite concerned.
I go back again. Yes, it is a difficult decision not to support this legislation, but the analysis I am doing is weighing harm versus good. My concern here is that, with this legislation as currently written, given some of the vague language and allowing for user-generated content to be regulated as it does, it is open to the possibility of more harm than good.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is one of those rare occasions, and perhaps not so rare, when the blues and the Greens are on the same page on something, and it is on section 4.2.
The member mentioned in his comments the ambitious versus less ambitious amendment. I want to talk about the less ambitious amendment that would take out indirect revenue and the impact that would have on at least ensuring that those who are paid by the platforms would be captured, but those who have indirect revenue through licensing deals or through sponsorships would not be captured. I wonder if he could expand on that and how that would have been a small change that would have had a big impact on digital-first creators and how they do their work.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to offer multiple options, and it was my intention to say, “Here is a concern I identified.” I had the chance to speak to it, and I offered a few ways the committee could consider addressing it. I know other parliamentarians did as well.
In my view, at least taking out user-generated content with indirect revenue would have been a reasonable amendment. It is also my view that, had we had less of the rhetoric in this place and more of a collaborative engagement among parliamentarians across party lines, there would have been an opportunity to say, “This is a reasonable one. We can agree on this piece. We will put aside our differences over here.” My sense, with this particular legislation at this time of year, is that it did not allow for some of those improvements. I believe all of us should be reflecting on the reasons why those reasonable improvements did not see the light of day.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are here on traditional unceded Algonquin territory and say meegwetch.
It is a great honour to speak to Bill C‑11 this evening. As everyone knows, this bill would amend and modernize the Broadcasting Act, something that has not been done in 30 years, even though we have seen enormous changes in the various delivery platforms. The biggest changes have to do with online streaming rather than television and radio broadcasting. There have been changes for our actors, creators and musicians and with respect to the issue of Canadian, Quebec and indigenous culture.
First of all, this bill is not perfect. I have problems with certain aspects of it, but I have decided to support it anyway, and I will explain why. I thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre, another Green MP. We made different decisions, but we agree on the problems and the reasons why he will be voting no and I will be voting yes.
It is a complicated bill. I want to start with a few things, just to clarify what it is not. Moments ago, a very talented new member of Parliament, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, spoke about wishing that we could put in a more concrete, entrenched form that freedom of expression and freedom of speech are respected in this land and that every Canadian knows they have a right to those things.
I would say, with all respect to that member, we have that. We have the right of free speech in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Beyond that, the act that this bill amends but does not cancel, repeal or wipe out the words of, the Broadcasting Act, has for the past 30 years entrenched the right of Canadians to freedom of expression. Nothing in this modernization in Bill C-11 would change, in any way, our right to freedom of expression. This bill does not censor anything. It does not change what we can see and what we cannot see, or what we can hear and what we cannot hear. It attempts to achieve greater protections for many different varieties of Canadians against the powers of the new digital world.
I am going to focus a little time on some specific examples. Before I talk about the good the bill does, let me say where I hope we will observe closely how the bill works, and be more than prepared to take it up again within the next year or two. I would suspect we would, if we have the problems that we fear we may have with the failure to make sure that Canadians who in the government's intentions are not supposed to be caught by this bill, are not, and if we have problems differentiating the impact of the bill on those people from the impact on the large digital platforms, whether it is Netflix, Crave or HBO. We are not intending to capture users who place their content on YouTube.
One of the differentiations that I found quite useful, and that I actually heard from Professor Michael Geist, was that there is a difference between a platform, a place where we can put things, that is “curated” versus one that is not curated. That is the word he used. I wish the government had used that kind of language in Bill C-11, because I think it would clarify things a great deal.
In other words, instead of concentrating on who does what on a platform, we should differentiate between the systems and differentiate between the platforms. If we were to say there was this area where there was a conscious effort to promote certain content, it would be a curated place. This is versus one where everybody could put stuff up: It is not being curated to meet a certain purpose. If it is being curated to meet a certain purpose or to create different profit, that would have been a better differentiation than we have in Bill C-11. What we have in Bill C-11 has left us divided.
I do not disagree one bit with my colleague for Kitchener Centre that this bill should be much better and clearer on the question of platform versus user. Platforms will be in and users will be out: I believe that is the government's intent, but the drafting does not make that sufficiently clear. I think we will have to go back to it and improve on and clarify this.
I remain concerned that the CRTC has a lot of clout and power in this. I hope we see that the CRTC is guided by the best information from people who are skeptical about this bill to make sure its use does not do anything but improve the situation for Canadians, both those who enjoy the products of creators and those who create. I hate to use the word “consumption” as if people consume culture, and I will not use it. People who enjoy culture, who are edified by culture and who feel ennobled by culture, those of us who are essentially the audience, need to benefit from this act just as the creators do.
Regarding the discussion around platforms versus users, I do not think the government has it right yet, so why am I going to vote for this bill?
When I look at the creative community, there is no question about this as it is empirically documented. The rise of the digital broadcaster has reduced the economic status of Canadian musicians and Canadian creators versus those in the U.S. Just to give members one example from the world of music, a traditional broadcaster generally sent 49¢ out of every dollar from Canadian music to the U.S. That sounds like a lot. Then, we see that the digital broadcaster sends 64¢ out of every dollar to the U.S. From 49¢ to 64¢ is a big difference to someone who is living on those earnings. In fact, I do not know how Canadian musicians can live on their earnings. In the past year, in 2021, on average Canadian musicians writing their own material earned $67 total in royalties from digital streaming platforms. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that people who are writing their own music in Canada have their income reduced just by virtue of what medium they use to share that material.
We need to have a Broadcasting Act that promotes Canadian creators within Canada and overseas, and we hope this bill will improve things. Certainly, the Canadian Media Producers Association, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, SOCAN, and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA, are saying that for their own survival as artists we need desperately to redress that imbalance. When it goes onto a digital platform, Canadian artists are paid less. They are valued less, and will turn from that career because they cannot make ends meet. As the rise of digital access to creativity overtakes the traditional, the situation will only get worse, and that is the trend line we see with the digital media and the online sharing of everything from music to film, video and TV.
There is a huge creative class in Canada. As a matter of fact, just to give some context for it, the membership of the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers is 175,000 people. By the way, SOCAN does not just promote these brilliant creative people, but it actually runs the system that collects the royalties and distributes them fairly, so when we go outside of that system we are seeing the funds to pay musicians the royalties they deserve slip through their fingers without capturing it. That is why SOCAN is so strongly in favour of Bill C-11.
The same is true of how people feel across the spectrum of other artistic endeavours. We have heard a lot in this place about films like The Handmaid's Tale. It is hard to say one loves The Handmaid's Tale when, as a feminist, one would wonder how Margaret Atwood could see the future coming before we did. I dread the day I go to shop with my debit card and it is taken from me. It is not sufficiently Canadian content when the leads, the producers, the people holding the cameras and the people yelling “cut” are not Canadian. That is what Bill C-11 hopes to repair.
1448 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I listen to the member speak, I think about the Canadian industry. It seems to me that the Canadian industry will be further ahead with the passage of Bill C-11 than if it is not passed. I wonder if the member could give a clear indication whether she appreciates that or she disagrees with that.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I hope I was clear in my speech that this is the reason I am voting for Bill C-11. It is important and urgent that we pass Bill C-11 now.
We saw the last Parliament's attempt to pass Bill C-10. It is not the fault of any of us in the opposition that we had an unnecessary election, which caused Bill C-10 to die on the Order Paper, but Canadian performers and creators have been waiting a very long time to see a modernization that takes into account the way their income is undermined by online streaming. We need to do this urgently, and if it turns out that, as many have warned us, there are mistakes made in other parts of the bill, I hope we will go back and fix that later.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
