44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 9, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his question.
I have known the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for many years since I was elected a member of Parliament and I have a great deal of respect for him.
The content creation would not impacted in any way by Bill C-11. That is not the intent of the bill in any way. We encourage and value content creation by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This is a bill to modernize our Broadcasting Act and ensure the technological advances that have allowed streaming services like Netflix, Crave or Apple TV+ are brought under the Broadcasting Act, much like the Canadian homegrown broadcasters have been so for many decades.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, how does my colleague explain the fact that all of Quebec's creators and artists, regardless of their sphere of practice, are eagerly awaiting this bill? If anyone is sensitive to the issue of censorship, it is our creators and artists.
How is it that they are looking forward to us passing Bill C‑11, yet the Conservatives alone see it as censorship?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his question.
Quebec is a very economic, vibrant sector here in Canada, and we applaud all the artists in the cultural sector in the province of Quebec. We should take a nod from them in their support of Bill C-11 and how it would modernize the Broadcasting Act.
Also, we then scratch our heads about why the Conservative Party of Canada is against a bill that the cultural sector here in Canada supports. It makes me think about the other ways Conservatives are looking at this bill, such as for ideological purposes and partisan purposes, and not for the direct benefit of the Canadian cultural sector, including the cultural sector in the province of Quebec.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions said, “The pandemic has considerably accelerated the transition to streaming to the benefit of foreign platforms that have no obligation to showcase local cultural expressions.”
A lot of jobs were of course lost during the pandemic. A lot of people were hurt within the cultural and artistic industry. From all the years we have been waiting for this type of legislation to make it more fair for companies such as Netflix, Disney+ and Apple+, as he mentioned, to come in line with their competitors in more traditional spaces, could the member, if he has the information, share with the House what kind of funds and what the numbers are in the financial hit the industry took, which would now be added into the industry?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I work closely with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe on the Ahmadiyya Parliamentary Friendship Group, and we share the same concerns when it comes to the beer and wine sector here in Canada and some of the challenges it faces.
Obviously, COVID accelerated a number of trends in our economy and our society, from working habits to staying home and from streaming to online shopping. We need to pay attention to the changes that have happened. Exactly as the member stated, this amends the Broadcasting Act to address an acceleration in streaming services. Therefore, for the broadcasters, much like the broadcasters that are under the Broadcasting Act today that pay their fair share for Canadian artists and content creators, the same thing would apply for those services now. It would be brought in under the Broadcasting Act.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 4:33:55 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Finance; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Families, Children and Social Development.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today to this very important bill, which will certainly impact Canada for generations to come. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Foothills.
This really is about the Internet. That is what we are talking about today. It is such a marvellous thing. It has led to the creation of Canadian content being shared around the globe. It is truly the definition of free market, merit-based hard work and consistency, and there is so much it can do for Canadians and their content to share it globally with the world. From the palm of one's hand, all that is needed is the Internet or a data subscription package, and people can share their ideas with everyone with the push of a button.
It really is an incredible time that we are living in. It has only been about 15 years that Canadian content creators and producers could share their ideas so freely and so easily all around the world. This really begs the question of why, if they have had this much success and this much freedom, why is the government looking to regulate that?
Why is it looking to put constraints on the freedom that has generated so much success for homegrown Canadian content? That is the question we are looking to answer today. The answers I have heard from the government have not satisfied me that this bill is worth the risk of what it may do, and what it will likely do to Canadian content creators.
Through this piece of legislation, the government, in essence, is about to give itself authority to control what Canadians see on the Internet. Rather than Canadians getting to decide what they see, it would be the government dictating what they see when they open up their smart phones, when they pull up their YouTube app. That would be dictated based on CRTC criteria. I will go into that in a minute.
It would not just impact what we see online, it would also impact the content that Canadians themselves put online. Thousands of videos from Canadians are uploaded every minute, so we are talking about a huge impact on Canadian content creators and those who enjoy watching that content.
It is not only the Canadian content within our own national borders, but also anything that Canadians are looking to view on YouTube from around the world, that would be regulated by this bill.
Why are the Liberals doing this? They are claiming that they are the government and they are here to help content creators. They want to promote, as they say, Canadian content with government regulation. As a Conservative, that immediately brings up a lot of red flags. It also brings up a lot of red flags for Canadian content creators regardless of their political views.
How the government is going to do this is really the concerning part of this bill. The bill gives the government, through the CRTC, the power to force social media platforms and streaming platforms to manipulate their algorithms so that the discoverability of what they deem Canadian content is sort of pushed up the ranks. This is concerning. We have to remember that the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, controls what we see on traditional television and radio, and has done so for the last 50 years. It is really the ultimate gatekeeper of content in Canada in the traditional formats. That comes into play in sections 9 and 10 of the bill under what is called discoverability regulations.
As I mentioned, that is what is really going to determine what we are seeing when we open, for example, our YouTube page. It is going to be based on what Canadian content is, which has yet to be defined. To me that means it is going to be some Ottawa bureaucrat deciding what Canadian content is.
From what I understand, The Handmaid's Tale, which is a world phenomenon Netflix show based on the book by Margaret Atwood, who is, of course, a very notable and famous Canadian author, would not be considered Canadian content. That is not something that would be promoted based on these discoverability rules.
One would think, if this were for Canadian content creators to help them or give them a boost, that Canadian content creators would be over the moon about this, but in fact it is quite the opposite. Over 40,000 content creators, and that is incredible because there is a lot of content creators but not that many people who actively contribute online looking to influence and share their ideas, but 40,000 of them in Canada have affiliated with Digital First Canada and signed letters calling for the discoverability rules of Bill C-11 to be removed from the bill.
Again, 40,000 people who would be directly impacted this, who are supposed to be the ones that the government is saying it is helping, said they do not want this. That, to me, in itself, is enough to say that maybe we should park this bill, shelve it or throw it in the trash for good.
However, the government has continued on for the better part of the last three years. It is not just Conservatives or these content creators who are sounding the alarm. There are other experts in this field as well. Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada explained, “most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery...local discovery, is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance...Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry.” local discovery is what Bill C-11 would target and promote through the algorithms and their manipulation, but they have all had success without the need of any government control from the CRTC.
Marie Woolf, for the Canadian Press, who did extensive research on this, said:
YouTube itself has warned that Canadian digital creators, including influencers and streamers, could lose foreign revenue if the government forces digital platforms to promote Canadian content.
The proposed legislation that would force YouTube and other streaming platforms to actively promote Canadian content risks downgrading the popularity of that same content abroad....
Again, it is important to know that the data from YouTube says that nine out of 10 people watching the stuff that our Canadian creators put online are not from Canada. Therefore, this would have serious consequences for those who are looking to be successful online. It would limit their global audience based on the basic algorithms of YouTube.
A lot of money and livelihoods are depending on this. The number of YouTubers from Canada earning $100,000 or more is growing steadily every single year. People are already having a lot of success, again, without the government's control and so-called support.
Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO Skyship Entertainment said, “We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.”
That is what it is today, but that is not what it will be tomorrow or whenever Bill C-11 passes.
She went on to say, “If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations.... This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.”
Obviously, this will have an impact on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of speech that we enjoy.
Michael Geist, a foremost expert in this area in Canada, outlined this very well. He said:
To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions.... The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill.
He finished by saying, “If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.”
Many people have outlined the threat that this poses to free speech. As someone who loves our Charter of Rights, that is a grave concern to me and the Conservative Party.
Certainly, the elephant in the room here is, as Jay Goldberg, Ontario Director and Interim Atlantic Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said, “If government bureaucrats get to choose what content to push on Canadians, there’s a very real risk the government will be tempted to use its filtering powers to silence its critics”, which we have seen since time immemorial from governing authorities looking to quash dissent. It is happening right now in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. I really do not understand why we would open the door in Canada for our government to do that, yet here it is in the bill.
If we do not need this, then why are we doing it? Content creators tell me that they have had lots of success already. Why are we doing this? I do not know. I have yet to be convinced of the need for it at all.
I will conclude with a quote from the leader of Canada's Conservatives, who said this very well on the threat that this poses to the liberties that Canadians enjoy and the success they have received online with the freedoms we, at least today, have for now. He said:
We live in a free country. Everyday, ordinary Canadians should be allowed their own megaphones and the only limit on how loud and how vast their voices are should be whether people choose to listen to them. Everyday Canadians should be able to decide what they like by voting with their clicks. That is the kind of liberty we should extend to the Canadian people. In the marketplace of ideas, there is no role for state coercion and intimidation. There is no role for nameless, faceless government bureaucrats to decide who is heard and who is not. Everyday Canadian people should have the freedom to do that for themselves.
After eight years, it is time for a government that protects freedom of speech and consumer choice, and encourages Canadian creators instead of getting in their way, which is what Bill C-11 would do. That is why Conservatives will fight it every step of the way, and we will repeal when we are in government.
1884 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, nothing in this legislation threatens Canadian freedoms and rights, and that has been very well established. The Conservative members know this, yet they continue to give a false impression.
Given that we have a minority government, we are very dependent on opposition parties. Whether it is the Bloc, the Green Party or the New Democratic Party, we are all saying the same thing: There is no infringement on rights and freedom of speech. However, the Conservatives continue saying that.
I wonder if they applied the same principles to the Broadcasting Act that they are applying today, or going back to the traditional act, where there were Canadian content mandates, for example. Is it the Conservative Party's policy today that it would also get rid of this so that there would not be a level—
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 4:45:34 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul a chance to answer.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the control is right in the bill. Clause 9, for example, the one I talked about in my speech, would dictate discoverability. It would provide the CRTC, the ultimate gatekeeper of traditional content platforms, the ability to force online streaming platforms and social media platforms to comply, under pain of a $10-million fine, I will add, with the enforcement of discoverability laws. They will downgrade a video that does not meet the government's definition of “Canadian” and will upgrade a video that does. To me, that is absolutely a limit on the free speech of the individual who is deemed not Canadian enough by the government's vision of Canada, which, as the Conservative Party has made very clear, we take great issue with over and over again.
That is in the bill itself. I do not know what to tell the member.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that Bill C‑11 paves the way for algorithm manipulation. That is worrisome. Can she tell me how, technically, it is possible to manipulate algorithms?
How does she know, technically, that Bill C‑11 will provide control over algorithm manipulation?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is from the reading of the bill and the experts in Canada who have been telling us this. I mentioned a number of expert opinions, whether they are from Michael Geist or other legal experts. They have explained to Canadians that it is discoverability rules that would dictate what social media and streaming platforms can do with their algorithms to ensure they are meeting the standard of what is Canadian.
I will say to members of the Bloc Québécois that I am surprised they are supporting this. They seem very keen to separate themselves from Canada, yet they are handing over the power of their own content creators, to be dictated to by a major Canadian gatekeeper, the CRTC. It really does not make sense and is not in line with what they believe in and how independent they want Quebec to be. This bill would ensure that what Quebec content creators get to share online and what other Quebeckers get to see would be dictated by a major Canadian gatekeeper. I cannot really square that circle.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, is the member telling us that algorithms and access to algorithms are easy things to decrypt? Is that actually what she is telling us?
Basically, as she sees it, the only way to avoid any interference in broadcasting and streaming is to abolish the CRTC.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the member is asking me the same question twice, so I will repeat that clauses 9 and 10 in the bill would dictate discoverability to social media platforms. As I have said three times now, or four if I include what I said it in my speech, this will mean that when someone opens their YouTube page, if it is not Canadian enough based on the criteria from the CRTC, as dictated in clause 7 of the bill, it will not be promoted based on the algorithms.
Perhaps the member is not aware what an algorithm is, and that is okay, but an algorithm is determined in the very software of the legislation. He may want to just google that quickly if it is still available online—
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 4:49:31 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very proud as the member of Parliament for Foothills to see the incredible growth of the film and television industry in Alberta, where The Last of Us, the largest production in the world, has just finished filming, much of it in my riding. What this has done is inspire a whole new generation of content creators, who are going out on their own once they have learned the craft and learned the trade from some of these massive productions. They are doing it on their own, many of them from rural communities across my riding in southern Alberta. I know that is happening across this country.
We have had dozens of emails from many of the same people involved in the film and television industry in Alberta, and they are raising grave concerns about the direction of Bill C-11 and the impact that it could potentially have on their ability to grow their viewership, grow their subscribers and be successful artists and entrepreneurs. I am an elected official, and when we have hundreds if not thousands of these content creators and artists raising the alarm about potential legislation, that should be all we need as parliamentarians to slam the brakes and say that clearly there is something wrong with the legislation being proposed.
If anything, the House of Commons should be doing everything we possibly can to raise awareness and promote and showcase the incredible Canadian talent we have across this country. However, clearly, with Bill C-11, experts from a wide variety of genres are raising concerns about the potential of this legislation, and they come from across the political spectrum.
I found it very interesting that my Liberal colleague, earlier in his presentation, said the Conservatives are only listening to the fringe base of their party. I would argue that Margaret Atwood is definitely not what we would consider a fringe supporter of a right-wing Canadian party. We also have young content creators and entrepreneurs from across the country who are saying that this legislation is pushing the Canadian government and how we deal with Canadian content into totalitarianism. We are going in a direction that I thought we would certainly never go in Canada.
Government members like to say that Canadian talent will not succeed in Canada or on the international stage unless they are coddled by the government and this massive bureaucracy. However, we are hearing from Canadian artists themselves that they want to be successful on the international stage and that they can be and are being successful on the international stage without government help. In fact, the government is going to put up obstacles so they cannot reach international viewers.
J.J. McCullough, a YouTube content creator who appeared at committee, is a professional YouTuber from New Westminster, B.C. He was talking about hundreds of Canadians who have millions of subscribers and more than a billion views on their YouTube channels. They have done this without massive government intervention. They have done this without the Liberal government putting its thumb on the scales of the algorithms on the Internet. They have done this because they are incredibly talented. They know how to use the Internet and know how to find their followers. They are finding unique and entertaining content to put up online.
I would like to quote Mr. McCullough:
Given the broad powers of the CRTC, which Bill C-11 expands to include digital platforms, the Canadian YouTuber community is right to worry that the continued success of their channels could soon be dependent on their ability to make content that's Canadian enough to obtain government endorsement.
He goes on:
...it really makes me wish that we could just erect this big wall between old media and new media. I, as a new media creator, do not want to live in the world of old media. There's so much regulation. They have all of these financing issues. They want these subsidies....
In the new media world, which is much more dynamic, we're all independent. We're self-employed. We don't deal with government, and we don't have to have huge teams of lawyers to navigate all of these media regulations. If we feel like working with Americans, we just do and we don't have a big existential crisis about it. We've been very successful.
He continues:
It's based on our ability to produce content that the masses want to watch—not only Canadians but a global audience. No Canadian YouTuber is successful just by appealing to Canadians. They are successful because they appeal to a global audience. That is the way that media works in the 21st century.
Imagine we have a Canadian story told by a Canadian for Canadians, but we are going to have a bureaucratic monster, the CRTC, make the decision on what is Canadian and what is not. That story, a Canadian story told by a Canadian for Canadians, may not be deemed Canadian content by the Liberal government and the CRTC. That is not right and that is not what this bill should be intended for.
Canadian content creators should not have to be filtered through the CRTC and this bureaucracy, which has a political or ideological lens. These creators are successful because what they are doing is unique and shows their talent. That is all they should need to be successful. We should be proud of that, not suppressing it.
That is what worries me about Bill C-11. We are politicizing the whole idea of Canadian culture, Canadian identity and Canadian artists. Canadian culture and what constitutes being Canadian is about being grassroots. It is about coming from the bottom up. However, Bill C-11 was created from the top down, and we are going to have a bureaucracy dictating to Canadians what Canadian content is and what they should be watching.
It is clear in clauses 7 and 9 of Bill C-11 that the CRTC would have the authority to dictate what content will rise to the top, what will not and what constitutes Canadian content. What is worse is that clause 7 clearly states that cabinet will have the authority to influence the CRTC, how the algorithms are set and what is deemed Canadian content. I want to be clear here. No government, no political party and no level of bureaucracy should have that kind of power and that kind of authority. Canadian content should be dictated by Canadians: what Canadians want to see, what Canadians want to support and what Canadians are willing to purchase with their hard-earned dollars.
This is about integrity and public trust, not only regarding the government but regarding Canadian broadcasting and Canadian content. If there is even a whiff that what people are seeing on a YouTube channel, Facebook page or Twitter account is being influenced by any level of government or any bureaucrat, it is wrong, and we are going to lessen the trust and integrity in what we are seeing online.
The Liberals have a chance to prove to Canadians their argument that what we are seeing in the writing of the bill is not really what is going to happen, which I find odd. If the Liberals truly believe that what is in the bill is not accurate, then they would support the amendment they put in the bill, then took out of the bill, the one that clearly exempts social media content from the implications of Bill C-11. However, they have refused to support that amendment.
What that clearly states to me and to Canadians who are raising concerns about this is that the Liberal government is not being honest. It is not truly being supportive of the fact that YouTube creators and artists are going to be impacted by this bill. The Liberals can say what they want, but they are not putting their words to action. They should be supporting this amendment to ensure that our talented content creators are not being impacted. Again, no government, no bureaucrat and no political party should have authority over dictating what is Canadian content and what Canadians can see, hear and read online. That should be up to Canadians and Canadians alone.
1386 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent Canadians from uploading or watching whatever it is they want to watch. There is nothing in this legislation that would impede the rights or freedoms of Canadians, contrary to what the Conservative Party continues to espouse.
The issue is for me is why the Conservative Party continues to not want to support Canadian content by modernizing the act. He talked about the old system versus the new system. We would be modernizing the act, because 1991 was a long time ago. There were not any iPhones. There was not any Facebook. The need to modernize the act is there today.
Does the Conservative Party believe, ultimately, that—
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 5:00:37 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Foothills.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, modernizing the act does not mean modernizing it and putting all the power within the government and the CRTC. That is not what Canadian content providers want.
To my colleague's question, nothing in the bill suppresses the power and influence of Facebook, YouTube, Bell or Rogers. None of what the Liberals are saying actually happens. The entire intent of Bill C-11 is to provide more control and more influence to the CRTC and the Liberal government over what Canadians watch, see and read on the Internet. It is that simple.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as members have mentioned several times in the House, there is legislation dating back to 1991 that helps promote local content, including Quebec content. That legislation from 1991 has become a bit outdated. Inequality grew between the different platforms, so to continue to protect Quebec content, the legislation needs to be updated.
We have three options. The first is to update the legislation, which Bill C‑11 would do. The second is to keep the old obsolete legislation and become culturally American. The third is to do what some Conservatives want, namely to withdraw any type of regulation and become culturally American even faster.
As my colleague does not want to opt for the first choice, does he want to become American with the second option or the third option?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
