44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 9, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I was actually involved in the radio business for quite a few years as a high school student doing the midnight to six in the morning shift at town and country radio GX94. I would use the radio voice, but it is a little scratchy. I know it exactly. Those things were meant as the local radio station. We had 25% or 35% Canadian content, but it has changed. Our Canadian YouTube content generators are not worried about southeastern Saskatchewan. They are going around the world. This is a completely different game. Absolutely, there was a time when the CRTC had a role in controlling what content was out there and promoting Canadian content, but now we are playing on a world stage, not a regional stage.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut.
I am pleased to rise in this debate, and I will try to talk about Bill C-11, instead of all the other kinds of things not related to Bill C-11 that seem to have found their way into the debate today, because it is very fundamentally important to our Canadian identity. The way we learn to understand our country and ourselves depends on the stories we tell each other, the movies we watch and the music we listen to. Therefore, it is very important that there be a space created in this cacophonous world media that is emerging for Canadian content. Otherwise, we will lose our identity as Canadians.
This bill seeks to amend and to update the Broadcasting Act. It looks at making sure there is a level playing field for the new streaming services that have taken a great deal of control over what is happening. It is a very important bill. It asks that the streaming services, which take an enormous amount of revenue out of Canada without paying taxes here, for the most part, be obliged to contribute funds so that Canadian creators can continue to create that content.
The Conservatives are focusing on people who are creating content on the Internet. However, what I am talking about is music, publishing, television and movies, and it is essential that we have that Canadian content. If we tell artists to go ahead and create Canadian content, but the money has already been sucked out of the economy that would go to finance that, then that content will not exist. It cannot exist. The money will be invested and decisions will be made by the streaming services, and they will invest those Canadian revenues around the world wherever they think they can make the most profit. This bill asks that they make an equal contribution to the revenues they are taking out of this country to make sure that Canadian content in movies, television and radio continues to exist. To me, that is the importance of this bill.
A secondary part of this bill that is very important to me is that which updates the broadcasting policy to add a requirement that when we are looking at Canadian content it includes diversity. In particular, one of the things that has never been recognized is the importance of indigenous culture and indigenous languages in this country. This bill updates the Broadcasting Act to include an obligation that the Canadian content that is being protected would be inclusive of indigenous culture and indigenous languages. I think that is a very important step forward.
It also acknowledges other forms of diversity. No one would be surprised that I belong to one of those minority communities. I think it is important that all of that diversity, whether with respect to sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic, racial or religious backgrounds, is represented in Canadian content. This bill would update those regulations to recognize how important that diversity is to who we are as Canadians. For that reason, I am supporting this bill. I have supported it from the beginning.
Do I think the government has done the best job of communicating its messages here? Frankly, no, I do not. Do I think it has done the best job of getting this done in a timely fashion? Obviously it has not. We had an unnecessary election that caused us to start over on this bill. However, that does not make any difference to the final outcome.
We are talking about Senate amendments today. Everyone knows that I am not a great fan of that other place. Most of the time, I think the House should reject all amendments from the Senate. Very few senators even show up to vote on legislation, and they are not accountable to anyone. Therefore, I have no hesitation at all in saying that we will look carefully at amendments that come forward. However, if we in the House do not think they are good amendments, we have every right to reject them, because we are the elected members who represent Canadians in the House. I have no problem sending the amendments back to the Senate, thanking it very much, and telling it that we, the elected members, will decide on legislation.
Having said all of those positive things, I cannot avoid talking for a minute about this other world that the Conservative caucus seems to be living in. It is a world where the Internet is unregulated in a free market where quality rises to the top. I do not live in that world. It is not the real world. The web giants control the content and who rises to the top already. Through their algorithms, they determine what Canadians can see. Google decides in its search engine what will be prioritized.
I belong to the interparliamentary group working on online anti-Semitism, and we have been trying to get those web giants to acknowledge their role, in this particular case, in promoting anti-Semitism in the way that their algorithms function. We had a great deal of trouble getting the attention of parliamentarians from 12 countries to this problem, which they create through their algorithms. They say those algorithms are a business secret. They cannot share how those work. They cannot let anyone have any role in those algorithms. Those are theirs, and they make profit out of them. The bill says that, in terms of discoverability, there be a way that Canadian content created in Canada can be discovered through those search engines.
Yes, there is an intervention about content and what we see. It is not an attempt to censor. It is an attempt to create opportunities for diverse material to make its way forward through the business-controlled algorithms that determine what people see and watch now. There is no wild frontier out there where everybody competes equally on the Internet. We hear the Conservatives saying there is an attempt to censor. There is an attempt to create an opening for more diversity and an opening for Canadian content. That is not censorship.
We heard very extreme statements about Canadian content here, which would, I would say, throw the baby out with the bathwater. They are saying for all these years we have had Canadian content, which has helped Canadian filmmakers and Canadian singers establish a base that they have been able to use to go on to become stars on the world stage. They want to throw that away and say no level playing field and no resources for Canadians against the rest of the big streaming giants who are funding things elsewhere.
That is not the Canada I want to live in, and that is not the way we should approach what is absolutely a changed environment. That is what this bill tries to do. It tries to respond to that changed environment that the streaming companies have created and to make sure there is a role for our stories, our music, our movies and for us as Canadians on the world stage.
That is why I will continue to support Bill C-11. I hope the Conservatives believe what they are saying. I am not sure they do, but I hope that they are arguing from a very honest perspective. I just do not understand how creating opportunities for Canadians is censorship.
1254 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my riding, I have met with many news and content creators from many diverse backgrounds, and they share very important news and stories from their local communities to ensure that there is strong representation in media.
What would be the consequence if this bill does not pass, if that is something that the member has not mentioned already?
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what happens and what the Conservatives are failing to recognize is that business-dominated streaming services and Internet result in the most homogenous material going the farthest. It actually works against diversity. Those who have a smaller market, because they are appealing to serving their own local communities and their own local culture, will not advance as far in this free competition that the Conservatives see out there. What we need is a bill like this that would create that opening, that opportunity and that funding for Canadian content that will respond to the diversity of Canada.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill has gone back and forth in the House for a long time. the NDP's position before was completely different from what it is today.
I would ask the hon. member to tell us what kind of revelation happened for New Democrats to have changed their minds all of a sudden.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we started with Bill C-10, which was definitely worse. I think what the member is referring back to are the concerns we were expressing at that time. Some of the changes that came in Bill C-11 reassured us, and one of those changes is the very one the Conservatives are harping on. That is the change that made sure that user-generated content is not affected by this bill.
What Conservatives are ignoring is that there is an exception. If those making their own content have a million subscribers and they are making money out of that, then, yes, the CRTC will have an ability to look at that. It is not what the Conservatives are saying, which is that we should have a blanket exemption that nobody who is making money on the Internet has to report to anybody or be accountable for anything. That was one of the major improvements between the first version of the bill and the bill that New Democrats are now supporting.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are here in Ottawa attempting to modernize the Broadcasting Act to better protect our local content. Quebec has made some demands. We are trying to advocate for those demands. Conservatives say they are proud Albertans and want nothing to do with regulations. Today, people asked questions during question period. They asked the minister if the prospective order will respect Quebec's demand that it be consulted in matters affecting Quebec culture.
It is complicated. Personally, I like simple things.
Does my colleague realize that, if Quebec were independent, this would be a lot easier?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a perplexing question for me. Quebeckers have decided in referendums a couple of times that they wish to be part of Canada, so I will go with what they have decided.
However, I do think an important point we were raising in debate about this bill, outside the chamber, was whether Celine Dion, an example the Conservatives like to cite, would be such a big star without Canadian content. We were having a debate about whether it was the Eurovision Song Contest or the Canadian content requirements that allowed Celine Dion to build her world fan base. I do not have an answer to that question.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague for making a lot of sense of this bill. It can be complicated, and there has certainly been a lot of back and forth that has made this bill seem different from what it actually is. I am glad he was able to nail that down. I appreciate that.
One of the things that New Democrats consistently talk about is those big companies, the big CEOs, paying their fair share. A big part of what we are pushing for in this type of legislation is exactly that, that those big web giants would actually pay their fair share and not get away with taking advantage of the tax loopholes, and contributing fairly to—
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 5:17:31 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke a few seconds to answer.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an important question.
We do already require Canadian broadcasters to make those contributions that help support Canadian content. It is just not fair that we allow the web giants to get away with not making similar contributions.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am pleased to represent Nunavut in speaking to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act again. I spoke to this bill before it reached the other place, and I am pleased to speak to the amendments made upon its return to this place.
I have heard some of the debate this morning, and throughout the day, I have heard the word “misinformation” used by all parties. It is really unfortunate that the bill is being used as a way to pit Canadians against each other.
I am glad to see that supports for indigenous creators will still be given in this bill so they can share their talents online. It is important that small content creators can share their art. They need to be able to reach a larger audience, as this is where they can be discovered and profit from their own talents.
Uvagut TV and Isuma TV are Inuit media channels that provide great Inuit content. Their content is made by Inuit for Inuit and can be easily watched in Nunavut and abroad. They do not have the same ability to compete with web giants such as Netflix and Disney+.
Canada's broadcasting system offers very little content that reflects Inuit lives, and even less content in Inuktitut, despite the fact that two-thirds of Inuit speak Inuktitut. Online streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+ are not required to play Canadian artists on their channels, and very little indigenous content is being added to these streaming services.
Bill C-11 would ensure that Canadian media broadcasters are obligated to produce programming that includes indigenous languages. This change would enable more indigenous people to access programming in their languages. This would also expose indigenous creators and artists to a broader viewership.
Many people in this room have never watched TV programming that is not in French or English. I want my grandchildren to see and hear Inuktitut wherever they go. I want Inuit programming on Netflix and Disney+ created by Inuit. When content is not created with and by indigenous people, mistakes will happen. We must create a better future for generations of indigenous content creators.
A way to learn about someone is through their media. Indigenous people need to be represented through mainstream media. With better funding, indigenous programming can have French and English subtitles. This bill is not perfect, but it can help create a space for small independent creators to showcase their work.
Streaming companies hold a lot of power in what we watch. They need to be pushed to be inclusive. It is not enough that indigenous programming is only shown when it is convenient to them. Indigenous creators exist in Canada, and they need our support.
Promotion of indigenous art and media is an essential part of reconciliation. Call to action 84 calls for representation of indigenous languages, cultures and perspectives. Bill C-11 could expand on this call to action and ensure that all media channels are promoting indigenous content.
I will turn back to today's debate. The use of fearmongering language is causing confusion and fear among Canadians. The Senate amendments are supported by large corporations, including YouTube and TikTok. They say that Bill C-11 would cause the CRTC to police content. However, this is not factual.
I will conclude by quoting what Alex Levine, president of the Writers Guild of Canada, was reported as saying regarding Bill C-11. He said, “We only work on Canadian content. We don't work when, for example, Netflix or HBO decides to shoot a show here.” The report goes on to say, “Without the bill, Levine says market forces mean Canadians ‘will see a world reflected back to them that is determined by studio executives in Los Angeles and not by Canadian artists.’” Like Mr. Levine, I prefer to see a world reflected back from indigenous peoples and Canadians, not studio executives in other countries.
667 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Nunavut, who is good friend, colleague and strong member of the New Democratic Party. I want to thank her for her tremendous work in ensuring that the digital kind of media, both audio and visual work, of indigenous people is valued, heard in this place and truly funded, governed and regulated in such a way that it brings to light the incredible contributions of indigenous artists.
Would the member like to highlight some of the remarkable artists in her riding of Nunavut who are contributing to the arts in phenomenal ways?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I have mentioned two of them: Isuma TV and Uvagut TV. They highlight the great talent that exists in Nunavut. I hope that more Canadians go to their websites to watch what they can, to learn about Inuit culture and what we do to make sure that Canada is a better place.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record with regards to Bill C-11.
However, there is a certain sector of society that is starting to buy into a lot of misinformation. Somehow we have people concerned about individual rights, freedom of speech and not being able to watch what they want on the Internet, which is all based on false information. We have the Conservative Party promoting that misinformation.
I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regards to how that is, from my perspective, unhealthy when we get people promoting false information.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, to put it simply, I very much prefer to have the CRTC determine what is reflected back in what it regulates regarding online streaming as opposed to studio executives who are outside of this country, and that is what we are talking about in the bill. There has already been content regulation for TV, there has been content regulation for radio, and that content regulation needs to happen for online streaming, because so many Canadians are online every day.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for highlighting some of the important organizations.
I want to mention that corporations, particularly American-owned corporations like Disney+, Netflix and some of the other major producers and streaming services, would seek to ensure that they are not regulated and would not have to contribute to our existing art scene here in Canada. However, this legislation would give that regulation to ensure that Canadian content is present on those services. It is an important piece of Canadiana. It something we see on our cable television, something that is required for our radio, but it is not something that is required on our streaming services. We also see Conservatives continuously defend these corporations, which otherwise would see finances derived from their profits go to the small producers and artists across the country.
Could the member speak to how important it is to support artists on the ground, grassroots artists, and to ensure that they have the financial ability to do that?
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, to respond to the great question from the member, the bill would help make sure that those major corporations like Netflix and Disney+ do share their profits. They are making huge profits by helping to entertain Canadians. Not only should they be allowed to hire and ensure that there is indigenous content, they should also be contributing some of their profits back to indigenous broadcasting in Canada as well, making sure that, as Canadians, we are proud of our heritage, which is founded on indigenous people's lands, and showcase why it is important to recognize Canada as a place of indigenous peoples.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Yiddish proverb will then have to wait until after we resume. I am saving it for next time.
In addressing Bill C-11, which is in fact a censorship bill, I want to go into the legislation. I am going to start with clause 7 of the legislation that is being proposed, which would amend section 7 by adding a “for greater certainty” clause after subsection 7(6). Generally, I like these types of clauses, but not this one. It says:
For greater certainty, an order may be made under subsection (1) with respect to orders made under subsection 9.1(1) or 11.1(2) or regulations made under subsection 10(1) or 11.1(1).
Since I am not burdened with a legal education, I had to go back to the Broadcasting Act to discover what exactly we are amending. With respect to policy directions, the cabinet would be able to order any of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1) and any of the objectives of the regulatory policy set out in subsection 5(2). Licensing, fees and access would all be determined, if the cabinet chooses to direct the CRTC on what it can and cannot do when it comes to licensing content creators, who gets to be a content creator in Canada and what gets to be Canadian content.
In fact, let me go on to regulations generally, which is section 10 of the actual Broadcasting Act. It goes into quite a bit of detail on what the cabinet would be able to order the commission to do. When members of this House are getting up and saying “No, no, this is not what it does”, they are saying that people like Michael Geist are wrong. He is a professor who is renowned in Canada as the leading Internet law expert. The government is saying to ignore the experts because they are all wrong. In fact, in the House committee—
341 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
