SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 176 - Mar/30/23

Mar/30/23 3:42:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is the member who was heckling me when I was reading Gord Sinclair's quote. I really wish he had given me the rest of that heckle so I could have at least heard it through his question. It is inaccurate to suggest I do not understand the context of this bill. With respect to his suggestion that all I did was attack Conservatives, that is not true. He did not listen to the first eight minutes of my speech. The fact is, I did talk about artists, about how content impacted me as a child and is impacting my children, and about how I saw this legislation would improve the content my children are watching today.

120 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

Mar/30/23 3:43:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford. Today I am speaking, along with many others, about an issue fundamental to the future of our country. Do we as Canadians live in a country that believes in the principles of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and supports free speech on the Internet, or do we deviate and support the principles of censorship and the pursuit of wokeness and conformity? What do we value as Canadians? The fact is that the Conservative Party is the only political party in Canada that stands for freedom of speech and the rights of Canadians to express themselves freely on the Internet. Margaret Atwood called Bill C-11 “creeping totalitarianism”. We have, and we will, fight this legislation to the bitter end. Is it a losing fight? Probably. We have heard many times, when the Prime Minister asked the leader of the NDP to jump, that the only question he gets in response is “How high?” That does not mean that Conservatives would not fight. However, it does mean that, when Conservatives form the next government under our new leader, we would repeal this horrible attack on free speech. Much has been said about the obvious move toward censorship and government control over what we see and post. However, I want to come at this from a different angle, which is that of The Littlest Hobo. I grew up in the 1970s in rural Saskatchewan. We had colour TV, I am not that old, but our house only had two channels: CBC and CTV. It was the golden age of government censorship of what we could watch on TV. Back then, the CRTC was not as concerned about political censorship as we would see with the result of Bill C-11, but it was very concerned that we watch Canadian programming, instead of that evil, awful American programming. Every day, after school, I had to endure a half-hour of the The Littlest Hobo, because it was literally the only thing I could watch on TV. Now some may have enjoyed the show. I did not. This was the result of the government dictating to Canadians what it felt we needed to watch on TV. Thankfully, we eventually got U.S. TV channels in our house, and we were able to finally watch what we chose to watch and not what the CRTC told us we could watch. Everyone who has grown up in the Internet generation has always had full control to watch whatever they want to watch on the Internet. The government has so far been unable to censor them and force them to watch the content it deems important. With Bill C-11, the government would be throttling the Internet and forcing Canadians to watch things it deems important: The Littlest Hobo of this decade. Do not get me wrong. I am not against Canadian content in any way. I just want good content, wherever it comes from. Canada produces some amazingly good content. For example, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood was written by a Canadian author and is being filmed on Canadian soil. It stars Canadian actors and it employs Canadian producers, but it fails to make the cut. It is not considered Canadian by the CRTC. This just demonstrates the silliness of the government trying to dictate and control our creative industries. The last thing our creative industries in Canada need is more government control. Canada has amazing content producers, from big-name actors, producers and artists down to small content creators on YouTube, Instagram and other platforms. We must keep them free to compete in a global world, rather have the government pick who are the winners and who are the losers. How does Bill C-11 work? How does the legislation actually strangle the freedom of individual Canadians on the Internet? At the heritage committee, one witness, J.J. McCullough, used a metaphor that I believe captures this law in a nutshell. He said, “It's like promising not to regulate books while [simultaneously] regulating...bookstores.” The approach of the NDP-Liberal coalition is to regulate everyday social media platforms that Canadians use: Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others. This would directly affect every Canadian, as the platforms would be told by the government which of the content created is allowed or not. It is as if someone walked into a bookstore but would only be allowed to see the books on certain racks. They would not be allowed to see the books on other racks in the rest of the store. The government agency overseeing this is called the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, CRTC. These are the same people who forced me to watch The Littlest Hobo as a kid. The CRTC has been around for a long time, and, in theory, it is responsible for ensuring Canadian content on radio and TV. They are the reason cable is so expensive and why many of us are cord-cutting. Basically, the CRTC is a bunch of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa elites, appointed by the Prime Minister, whose jobs would be to decide what we consume and what we post. This law would effectively give the CRTC the authority to set out conditions, requirements and exemptions for what is to be restricted or to be allowed. For example, the law would give the commission the authority to make orders imposing conditions affecting such things as “the proportion of programs to be broadcast” being “devoted to specific genres” and “the presentation of programs and programming”. Despite its vague language, it is clear that the government plans to give the friends of the Prime Minister the power to decide what the people see, quite literally policing content. They do this under the guise of promoting Canadian content, but that is just an excuse to grab more power and to limit the freedoms we enjoy. That is exactly what Bill C-11 does. It gives the CRTC the authority over platforms like YouTube. These platforms would be forced to comply with regulations that prioritize content to be displayed to individuals over others, depending on what the CRTC deems to be the priority. That is exactly the problem. This law would “encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity”. Who will decide what content is reflective of Canadian opinions, ideas and values and exactly what those are? Of course it is the friends of the Prime Minister. This one phrase would reprogram the algorithms of your platforms to show you what the government wants you to see, rather than having your preferences deciding what appears in your feed. The NDP-Liberals do this under the banner of diversity and inclusivity. The truth is that, right now, open platforms allow for, and facilitate the exchange of, diverse and inclusive content better than a government with a political agenda ever could. The party that prides itself on multiculturalism is now putting a rubber stamp on what is Canadian and what is not. Canadian culture and interests are always expanding and are being influenced by many different artists, genres, languages and the trends of the day. The government is the last organization I would want creating Canadian culture. Ultimately this is the difference between the Conservative approach on this issue and the approach of the NDP-Liberals. They are concerned about government control and how to have power over Canadians. Conservatives are devoted to freedom. We want Canadians to be able to live their everyday normal lives on the internet. It is simple as that. Let us talk about how this legislation would affect Canadians. As Neal Mohan, the Chief Product Officer for YouTube, has explained in countless interviews, Bill C-11 would harm Canadian content creators. Some may argue that YouTube is a massive corporation simply looking after its own interests. Of course, on one level that is true, but YouTube contributes over a billion dollars to the Canadian economy and creates roughly 35,000 jobs in this country, so it does have a stake beyond the confines of Silicon Valley. Bill C-11 would essentially decide who the winners and losers of this market are, based on the qualities and conditions set out by the CRTC. Rather than helping the little guy, this government plans on putting barriers that impede them from success. By creating more red tape, we would not just harm the economy but, more importantly, we would harm each Canadian who depends upon the internet to generate income. Nowadays, that is a lot of people from all age groups and all walks of life. This law would cover any content individually generated that touches a user trying to make even the smallest dollar. The Liberals will say that this bill would not touch personal content like cat videos but that is simply not true. Even the current Liberal-appointed chair of the CRTC told the truth by mistake and admitted that Bill C-11 would regulate content generated by individual users. According to YouTube and others in this field, forcing content to be displayed in one’s feed may have a negative impact on content creators within Canada and would harm the very people the government claims that it wants to protect. We all know what happens when the government tries to force-feed us content that we don’t want, like The Littlest Hobo. We do not want to watch it, yet the government shoves it down our throats anyway. At least CBC TV shows are voluntary right now. Just wait until the algorithms are required by law to put these in our YouTube searches, then in our Facebook videos and then in our Insta stories. There will be no escaping the government-approved content, so we will shut it off. One does not see what one wants, and the so-called Canadian content shoved down one’s throat will go unwatched. It is a lose-lose situation, like most things that this current NDP-Liberal government does. Bill C-11 is a threat to our fundamental rights and is setting up the foundation for censorship. Whether one is a YouTube content creator, a social media influencer or even just a viewer, Bill C-11 would limit Canadians from seeing and watching the content they choose. People in Saskatoon West are worried about what is to come if this legislation passes, and that is why we must kill Bill C-11.

1783 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 3:53:46 p.m.
Watch

“Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on.” Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fredericton.

26 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 3:53:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record that I loved The Littlest Hobo. I grew up watching that show, but the insulting way that the member has characterized Canadian content only serves to support why Bill C-11 is so important. I do want to ask a question about his opening statement as part of his discourse today. He mentioned the pursuit of wokeness for our side. I would love for the member to define “wokeness” and why he is seemingly against it.

88 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Mar/30/23 3:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, now I am traumatized because I heard the words of the song and I heard from someone who liked the show, although I respect the fact that she liked the show. What is important here today, the thing that we are trying to convey, is that this bill is being rammed through Parliament. It is very ironic, actually, that the bill is partly about censorship. It is interesting that part of what is happening today in the House, right now, is that the government is closing down debate on it, which limits how much we can talk about this. It is very clear that there are many questions still to be answered. There are many voices in Canada that support it and there are many that oppose it. There are many more questions that need to be discussed and to be talked about, and there are amendments that need to be made. There are amendments that the Senate took many hours to propose to the House and that were utterly rejected by the government. We are here today to just highlight that we should not be done with this legislation today. We should continue working on it and trying to improve it.

204 words

Censorship

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/30/23 3:55:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. For a while now, the Conservatives have been saying that they are standing up for Quebec by opposing Bill C‑11 and that their love for Canadian and Quebec culture knows no bounds. I will do my colleague a favour. I would like to give him the opportunity to name his three favourite francophone artists from Quebec, other than Celine Dion.

72 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Mar/30/23 3:55:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is definitely a trick question. The part of this that is really important, too, is that we do need to stand up and support our Canadian artists. What this bill misses is the fact that in Canada we have amazing artists, whether from Quebec or from English Canada. Our content creators and our artists in Canada are among the best in the world. We can compete on any stage at any time. When the government steps in and starts to create winners and losers, that affects everything and that disrupts the natural way that things work. We need to give our artists, producers and content creators the tools they need to produce that content without trying to limit them and without trying to restrict them. Many of the messages we have heard from some of these people is that this bill will restrict them, and it will limit their ability to market themselves outside of Canada.

159 words

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Mar/30/23 3:56:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear my colleague comment on Margaret Atwood's comments about Bill C-11. She referred to this bill as representing “creeping totalitarianism”. That is a term that is very difficult to misconstrue or take out of context. It is stark. I welcome the member's comments on that.

56 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Mar/30/23 3:57:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting time, when someone like Margaret Atwood, who is a great Canadian artist, actually makes a statement that this bill is “creeping totalitarianism”. As my colleague mentioned, that is a very bold statement. It is also a very strong statement. I know members opposite would criticize that it was taken out of context. If one looks at the context, she is questioning what is going on in the bill, saying that there have been good intentions, but the result of those good intentions is “creeping totalitarianism”. This is something that we must be very careful to avoid. This is yet another example of a strong Canadian voice from the artist community who is questioning this bill and who is saying that we need to look at it deeper. Maybe we need to do some different amendments, but we just need to not pass it in a big rush, which is what they are trying to do today.

166 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/30/23 3:58:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to table the Globe and Mail article— Some hon. members: No.

32 words

Globe
Rise

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Mar/30/23 3:58:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many constituents who are really concerned about Bill C-11, the online streaming act, and the corrosive impact it would have on their freedom to use social media, to hear and view online information and to post user-generated content. Like so many of the intrusive actions undertaken by the government, my constituents simply do not understand why the Liberal government continues to try to fix problems that do not exist. At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Who do we trust? Who do Canadians trust? Is it our Liberal Prime Minister, who has become so notorious for making hundreds of promises that he has no intention of keeping? Do Canadians trust a Liberal government that claims this bill is all about the Broadcasting Act, or do they trust the many experts who assert that this bill is an attack on our freedom to use the Internet and social media? The purported premise of this bill was to ensure online streaming giants, such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney+, meet Canadian content requirements similar to those that Canadian broadcasters have to comply with. However, this bill would do much more than that. It would create a new category of media power to regulate them and to require them to invest in Canadian content, just like the big broadcasters, and that is the rub. What the government refuses to admit, but what has been confirmed time and time again by experts and stakeholders, is that the Liberal government is for the first time ever inserting itself into the Internet space by giving the CRTC, which we know is a group of bureaucrats appointed by the Liberal government, the power to prescribe what Canadians can and cannot see, hear or post to social media. The CRTC would also have the power to regulate the algorithms that determine what information will appear in a search bar. The bottom line is this. This legislation would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching content of their own choosing. Instead, Ottawa bureaucrats would control what Canadians can see or watch through streaming services. They would also dictate what we can or cannot post to social media. Even worse, Bill C-11 would harm Canadian digital content creators in their ability to reach international audiences and achieve global success. Our Liberal friends across the way would have us believe that I am exaggerating, that we Conservatives are exaggerating and that there is nothing to see here, as it is just a benign piece of legislation that would make sure streaming platforms contribute to Canadian content. However, many experts, like law professors Michael Geist and Emily Laidlaw, former CRTC commissioners Timothy Denton and Peter Menzies, and even Canadian author and icon Margaret Atwood, are sounding the alarm and suggesting that what is at stake is Canadians' right to be heard. In fact, Margaret Atwood said this bill amounted to “creeping totalitarianism”. Think of that term and what it connotes. Make no mistake: This is a new form of censorship that the Liberal government is engaging in, and our ability to hear, watch and post what we want on social media is clearly at risk. Again I ask, who do Canadians trust? The Internet and the different social media platforms have opened up a remarkable opportunity for Canadians to expose their created content to the global marketplace. Right now, they do not have to go through the established artistic gatekeepers, the big broadcasters, like Bell Media, Rogers, the CBC and Corus Entertainment, that in the past had made it impossible for many Canadian artists and creators to promote their content within the global marketplace. The Internet and evolution of social media platforms carved out space for every Canadian to create and promote the product of their imagination without any gatekeepers getting in the way. Each Canadian now has a voice, which cannot be silenced by vested interests and corporate gatekeepers. Consumers certainly do not want this bill, nor do digital creators. In fact, those creators do not want this bill because it has never been easier for producers of online of Canadian content, including those from linguistic and cultural backgrounds, to reach a global audience with the content they wish to showcase, until now. With Bill C-11, the Liberal government is wrestling control away from consumers and giving its bureaucrats the power to tell us, the consumer, what we can and cannot watch, hear or post. The Liberal government wants to stifle our freedom. Let us not kid ourselves. This is a fight over the freedom to create, to speak, to perform, to imagine and to expose our gifts and creativity to the world. It is about the freedom to be heard and seen around the world. Bill C-11 would take even greater control of our search bars. Instead of directing people to the things they want to view, it would direct them to things the government and its bureaucrats want them to view. Meanwhile, homegrown talent and content creators right here in Canada will stagnate and lose the opportunity to be judged based on merit within the global marketplace. Content would be subject to a set of criteria that bureaucrats in Ottawa would use to determine its level of Canadianness. The government, of course, has protested that user-generated content would not be compromised. I ask again, do people trust the Liberals? This is the same government that promised balanced budgets, electoral reform and greater transparency yet failed to deliver. In fact, Université Laval did a study after the 2019 election, and how many of the Liberal promises were actually fulfilled? It was only 52%, which means almost half of their promises were broken. That is from Université Laval. It is the same government that has been embroiled in countless scandals and ethical failures. Again I ask, do we trust the Liberals when they tell us there is nothing to see here, not to worry and be happy? When the Senate inserted a provision in this bill that would assure Canadians that user-generated content would not be captured, what did the Liberals do? They nixed it. They nixed that amendment. Again I ask, do people trust the Liberal government? The Liberals say one thing in public, and then when given an opportunity to stand behind it, they do the exact opposite. Make no mistake: This bill would regulate what can be seen, heard and posted online. If the CRTC does not do it, people can bet their boots that the Liberals will require YouTube and Facebook to do the job for them. This bill hurts consumers and creators, and it has even drawn ire and concern from the provinces. In fact, Quebec has written a letter to the government expressing its concern and asking for more consultations before the bill moves forward. For all of these reasons and more, we Conservatives, in this House and in the Senate, are the only ones to stand in the breach and oppose Bill C-11 in its current form. The Liberal-NDP coalition has rejected all attempts to improve the bill, including clarifying the issue of user-generated content. I want to assure Canadians that a future Conservative government would repeal Bill C-11, the censorship bill. Let me close by saying this. After eight years of division and conflict, the government has again profoundly failed Canadians by attacking our fundamental right to free speech and by shackling Canadian creators, who simply want to expose their ingenuity and creativity to the world, proving again that the Liberal government cannot be trusted. Canadians deserve better.

1278 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 4:08:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to venture a guess that somewhere in this great nation, Margaret Atwood is shuddering every time she is being taken out of context and her words are being used against this bill. In this discussion, I am willing to admit that there are voices of dissent and that there are those who do not like it. However, there are, of course, many voices in support. The member spoke a lot about trust. Does the member trust the voices of Quebec actors, singers and producers? How about bands and musicians from rural New Brunswick in my riding? Does he trust the voices of those who want to see this bill pass without further delay?

118 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Mar/30/23 4:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the voices I do not trust are the voices of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government. Time and time again, the Liberals make promises and give assurances, and then we find out that in fact those assurances were false. There is no reason for Canadians to have any trust in the government. That is why we have looked at this legislation very carefully. When Margaret Atwood, the iconic Canadian, uses the term “creeping totalitarianism”, it is hard to misconstrue that statement. We understand what she meant. Unfortunately, the Liberals are hiding from that truth and are claiming that she was misunderstood and that we are taking her out of context. How does one take “creeping totalitarianism” out of context?

126 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/30/23 4:10:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will try again. Once again, my colleague from Abbotsford, like other Conservatives, says he is defending Quebec culture. I asked his colleague to name some Quebec francophone artists, but he could not, so I will help him out. We have, for example, our national poet, Gilles Vigneault. He is probably the most well-known artist in Quebec. Anyone concerned about Canadian culture, as he likes to say, knows who Gilles Vigneault is. To make things easier, I will ask my colleague to name his favourite Gilles Vigneault song.

91 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Mar/30/23 4:11:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to that member, whom I respect very much, that the Government of Quebec has spoken about this and expressed profound concern over Bill C-11. That government has actually sent a letter to the Liberal government expressing this concern and calling for further consultations before this bill goes forward. I know what those concerns are. One is that user-generated content would no longer be free. In other words, user-generated content would be regulated by the CRTC's government bureaucrats. That is something no Canadian should be supportive of.

96 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/30/23 4:12:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to read a section of Bill C-11. It reads: (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 I wonder if the member can explain why the Conservatives keep talking about freedoms being taken away when the bill explicitly states that freedom of expression would be complied with.

76 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Mar/30/23 4:12:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to read proposed section 4.1, which supersedes that section. By the way, I would also encourage her to explain to her constituents and to Canadians why it is that when an opportunity was presented to the Liberal government to ensure that user-generated content was not compromised in this legislation, the Liberal government removed that amendment. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, one would say. There is something rotten in the way the Liberal government conducts its business. It pretends to be one thing and promises to be one thing, but it will be quite another matter when this legislation comes into force. People will see what the government has done. We on the Conservative side of the the House stand for freedom. We will continue to promote the freedoms that Canadians have under the charter, and we will not have those freedoms compromised by poorly drafted, wrong-headed Liberal legislation.

162 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 4:13:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-203 Bill C-44 Bill C-43

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall Ottawa Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 30th day of March, 2023, at 10:03 a.m. Yours sincerely, Ian McCowan Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, C-43, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, and Bill C-44, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

154 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 4:16:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see my hon. colleagues continue debate on a very important bill, Bill C-11. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member and my esteemed colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, beautiful Vancouver Island, a wonderful place on the Sunshine Coast area where I have many friends and where I was raised. We are debating a very important bill that would modernize the Broadcasting Act, which has not been touched since 1991. It has generated a lot of debate and passion, but it is really important to stick to the facts of the bill at hand and not get lost in the rancour, hyperbole and, frankly, the misinformation, if I could be so direct. I am pleased to rise today in support of the online streaming act, Bill C-11. The online streaming act seeks to update the Broadcasting Act to reflect the reality of Canada's broadcasting climate today and prepare for the future. For decades, broadcasters in Canada have shown us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. That did not happen by accident. After all, we live right next door to the world's largest exporter of culture and entertainment. I can say first-hand, having lived in the United States for over seven years at one point in my life, it does export a lot of culture and entertainment, not only here in Canada but throughout the world. There is quite a dynamism in its entertainment business, which we also have here in Canada, a very vibrant film industry and music industry. We made a conscious decision to support our fellow Canadians, to help them share their talents and their stories with the rest of world, much like every other country does. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. It is why we have all the Canadian content we love. Whenever we see Schitt's Creek, Orphan Black and Corner Gas or hear Lisa LeBlanc, Coeur de pirate, Joni Mitchell, Céline Dion, Jessie Reyez, Mother Mother, Classified and the Arkells, it makes us proud to be Canadian. Our culture is who we are. It is our past, our present, and most definitely and definitively our future. The last major reform, as I stated at the outset of my comments, of the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, a year after I finished high school, which is a long time ago, and before dial-up Internet was widely available in Canada. Online streaming services like Crave, Netflix, TOU.TV, Apple TV+ and Spotify have dramatically changed how we watch television and movies and listen to music. Today, believe it or not, most Canadians are using YouTube as their primary music streaming service. I see this with my children, who are 10 and 11 years old, two of the three, who watch much on YouTube in terms of sports and entertainment. However, those online streaming platforms are not subject to the same rules as traditional broadcasting services like over-the-air television, cable and radio. This bill would ensure that everyone who benefits from the Canadian market is paying their fair share to support Canadian culture, in both official languages, as well as indigenous languages. With a population of almost 39.6 million people, our market is continuing to grow and it is a sought-after market for content producers and platforms from all over the world. The world has changed a lot since 1991. In the last 30 years, Canadian society has evolved, and so have our values. Diversity and inclusion are important to Canadians, so they must be key elements of our cultural policy. Improving the fairness of our broadcasting system means being more inclusive, supporting the livelihoods of Canadian artists and creators and enriching the lives of Canadians who want to see more of themselves on screen and in song. Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized Canadians, women, LGBTQ2+ persons and persons with disabilities deserve to have the space in order to tell their stories to other Canadians and to the world. Frankly, Canadian stories are unique stories. They need to be told, we need to encourage that, and that is exactly what this bill would do. These values are clearly reflected in the online streaming act. The bill presents us with an opportunity to ensure that the broadcasting sector is truly inclusive of all Canadians, including anglophones, francophones, Canadians from Black and racialized communities, Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds and socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and Canadians of all ages. It would ensure that the circumstances and aspirations of all Canadians are reflected in the broadcasting system, many for the first time in Canadian history. I would like to share some of the important perspectives that were heard throughout the House and Senate study of the online streaming act to show just how transformative these changes could be for our country. We all know of the intense debate and scrutiny Bill C-11 has gone through in both Houses. Culture can play a role in the process of truth-telling and reconciliation with indigenous peoples and healing. As part of our commitment to reconciliation, Bill C-11 proposes important updates to Canada's broadcasting system. The online streaming act would remove the language “as resources becomes available” about supporting indigenous culture from Canada's broadcasting policy goals. This is as it should be. I will quote Jean La Rose, President of Dadan Sivunivut, “We have a unique place, and this language would better reflect Parliament's wish to recognize in legislation the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. Amendments passed in both the House and the Senate strengthened this commitment in the bill. Ultimately, this bill would create more funding and more opportunities for indigenous creators to tell their stories in the language of their choice. Currently, programs that reflect indigenous peoples and racialized and ethnocultural communities remain few and, unfortunately, far between, and creative employment opportunities are slim. Who tells the story is as important as the story itself. Our government is committed to building a better future where Black and racialized creative voices, talent and work are celebrated, sought after and supported. Joan Jenkinson, executive director of the Black Screen Office, told the heritage committee, “Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country. The proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will prioritize greater equity and inclusion.” This is something we should all be proud of and something we should all support. In fact, amendments were adopted by both Houses to recognize the unique experiences of Black and racialized Canadians and incorporate their unique stories into the goals of the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-11 would also provide more opportunities for persons with disabilities to fully participate in the broadcasting system. It would update the broadcasting policy goals of Canada to ensure that our system should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests of all Canadians first, specifically including persons with disabilities for the first time in Canadian history. It would also update the act to remove language that specifies that programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities must only be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system when the resources are available to do so. When David Errington, president of Accessible Media Inc., appeared before the Senate committee, he told parliamentarians that “By removing that qualifying language, the government is signalling that it expects that Canadians with disabilities will be treated like all other citizens for the purposes of broadcasting policy.” Again, this is how it should be. As members can see, this legislation would provide real opportunities for Canadians, including community media, local news, French-language productions, Black and racialized communities, third language programming, and so much more. Importantly, this legislation would also takes steps to ensure there is space within our broadcasting system for indigenous storytelling and indigenous languages. Canada has changed greatly since 1991. It is time that our broadcasting system reflected that. It is imperative. I hope all of my colleagues, and I understand the NDP and the Bloc are in support, will join me and our caucus in supporting Bill C-11. It is time to bring our broadcasting system into the 21st century. I look forward to questions and comments.

1435 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Mar/30/23 4:25:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the member opposite could provide an answer to a question one of the independent senators had as they were going through the bill. Could he actually provide a clear definition for what the term “discoverability” means?

45 words