Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable colleagues, on Christmas Eve, I agreed to sponsor a young Iranian teacher, Mona Afsami, who has been imprisoned since October 19. I did so at the request of the Iranian community in Montreal, which is trying to draw Canadians’ attention to the brutality of the Iranian regime as it executes its opponents. This sponsorship campaign is symbolic, but it gives a face to Iran’s 14,000 political prisoners.

More than 300 European parliamentarians led the way, and about 50 Canadian parliamentarians have followed suit. Senator Ratna Omidvar and I are sponsoring Mona Afsami who has been accused of collusion against national security. She faces five years in prison for daring to protest.

The unrest began last September following the arrest of young Mahsa Amini. For not wearing her headscarf properly, she died in detention, at the hands of law enforcement.

Iranian women took to the streets without their veils to denounce the harassment and oppression they endure. This “feminist revolution” then extended to all Iranians, both men and women, mostly young, who want the end of a regime that is suffocating them. Nearly 470 protesters have allegedly died, including several dozen children. There have been at least four public executions.

The stories coming out of Iran are chilling. Prison guards reportedly severely beat young Elham Modaresi for going on a hunger strike. Her family believes her life to be in danger. Another young woman, Sepideh Qalandari, is said to have died under torture after her arrest in Tehran. Her body was handed over to her family in exchange for a promise of silence.

The torture, crackdown on demonstrations and denial of fundamental justice for detainees have been denounced throughout the world. What can we do?

Canada has very little influence over the Iranian regime as economic and diplomatic relations between the two countries are very limited, but this does not mean that we are completely powerless. The Canadian government could take inspiration from other countries and increase pressure on the Iranian regime by adding the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to the list of 73 terrorist organizations, for example.

After the violent upheavals last year, 2023 will be decisive for Iranians who dream of freedom and for those who have stood with them, including thousands of Canadians. It is time for Canada to deploy all its means to support the aspirations of our friends in Iran: women, life, freedom.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, on Wednesday, February 1, 2023, the Senate adjourn at the earlier of the completion of deliberations on Bill C-11 for that day or midnight.

Senator Manning: Thank you very much.

[English]

I don’t pretend to be an expert in all of this, senator, but I am an avid listener, and I listened to many people who came before the committee.

You’re a bit surprised that I came forward with this; I’m a bit surprised that we’re not talking about any threshold. To go back to Oorbee Roy, the single mom who was facing all kinds of financial issues, found a home on the internet through skateboarding videos and took herself out of poverty, she told us. She established a home for her two children — I believe it was two children, if memory serves me correctly — thanks to the opportunities she had through that process.

I don’t think for a moment that Oorbee Roy is going to become a national broadcaster. I don’t think for a moment that the CBC or CTV are going to have to worry about Oorbee Roy.

What I do worry about is people such as Oorbee Roy who found a way to take herself out of poverty through the internet. She is in great fear now; not only her, but several others came forward to our committee and expressed great fear over the fact that, through the regulatory process, now they are going to have an immense amount of — trying to create that Canadian content, what meets Canadian content, what the final decision of the CRTC is going to be on what is Canadian content, as well as that she will be driven away from that opportunity.

When I looked at Bill C-11 in the beginning, and read through it first — before any amendments were made — I believed then that the purpose of the bill was to create an environment where people such as Oorbee Roy could thrive any place in this world. I come from a community in southern Newfoundland of 300 people. Somebody could make a living in that community through this process.

What I’m concerned about is that the last thing you want in anybody’s face is too much government. I believe that, unless we put a threshold in place, we are putting a roadblock up to people like Oorbee Roy, and many others, who would have the opportunity to not only create something, but to make a living for themselves and their families.

We need to have a threshold; is it $10 million? The question mark is we started at $150 million. We went to 100, 50, 25 — now we are down to 10. Now do we go down to a $20 bill before we agree on something? No; I don’t know. The bottom line is, without any threshold, there is no limit. Oorbee Roy is going to be on the same level as a national broadcaster. To me, that doesn’t make sense.

Senator Manning: If the Senate gives me the opportunity, I have all the time in the world, Your Honour.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Manning, you are out of time. Are you requesting an additional five minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Fabian Manning: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-11, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 4 (as amended by the decision of the Senate on December 14, 2022), on page 10, by adding the following after line 32:

[Translation]

Senator Manning: Of all the things I will try to do in my lifetime, especially on this side, I’m not going to try to answer for what the government is going to do. I am afraid to do that half of the time, but I will leave that for another day.

What I’m concerned about is that, as I said in my remarks, your amendment may not be adopted. Yes, with all good intentions, you and Senator Simons put it forward. Certainly, it was a good amendment at the time — but, the fact is, it may not be adopted.

I am not saying that the government would adopt my amendment. We don’t know if the government will accept any amendment. We have sent back legislation from this chamber to the government, and they have not accepted any amendments that we have put forward at any time. The bottom line is that if we have one amendment, or ten, they may not accept any. The more that we have — at least that gives them some thought to put some thought into it.

The bottom line is that we’re — “protecting” may not be the right word to use — giving those people that we have called, in our discussions, “small players in the field” — giving them an opportunity to, at least, be able to stand on their own two feet, and be able to do what they are doing without interference. I believe the whole purpose of Bill C-11 was to create an avenue to do that.

The reason I put forward the amendment is because I believe that some type of threshold is needed. If we talk about no revenues, as I said, the government may not accept that, but they might be open to accepting a threshold; I don’t know.

I can guarantee you my amendment was put forward with the best intentions to protect those that we have brought before us. In my comments, I mentioned half a dozen of those who came before us and expressed this major valid concern they all have. I’m trying to find a way to address that concern. This is my way. I hope my colleagues support my amendment.

Senator Manning: I understand the concern you have. My concern is the absence of anything there to protect those people.

Having it embedded in legislation — yes, I know it takes 30 years to change something; but the fact is that, without something there, the people are not protected on the other end, in my view and in my humble opinion.

I would be more comfortable having something in legislation that people can refer to that becomes the law of the land than the fact that we have nothing there to show any protection to them.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Manning, for another attempt to bring some sanity to a very insane piece of legislation.

Honourable colleagues, how many times have we heard — time and time again, when concerns have been raised by digital content creators, by digital-first creators, in this country — “Trust us”? Trust us. User-generated content is not included in this bill.

How many times have we heard the minister, officials, government officials and sponsors of the bill come and say, “Trust us”?

“Absolutely. Platforms are in; users are out.”

At every turn, government MPs in the House, the government in the Senate committee, they have done everything they can to not allow for any thresholds, to not allow crystal black and white statements that clarify for the hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of Canadians who, today, are using the digital web as an opportunity to promote Canadian culture, and who have created outstanding businesses; they are looking at this, and they are saying that what we have created is at the fate — right now — of the CRTC without any clarity in the bill.

Senator Deacon, you are absolutely right: We need to get rid of red tape in this country. We need to make things less complicated. The best way to do that is to entrench those protections in the bill before it gets to the regulatory stage.

You think we are cutting through regulations by sending this problem to the CRTC, and letting them consult for a year and come back to us with a list of regulations — without guidelines being clarified here and now in order to alleviate the concerns of generated content producers in this country? I’m sorry. I’m not going to leave it to a bunch of appointed individuals who, at the end of the day — as you’ll read in the Broadcasting Act — take their guidelines, ultimately, from the government. They have complete power. We have heard at our committee, over many months, the concerns of stakeholders — both from those in favour of and those against the bill — that the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, has an atrocious record when it comes to consultation and transparency. We also heard from many stakeholders, including large broadcasters, that in order to navigate through the bureaucracy of the CRTC, you need deep pockets and a lot of lawyers on your payroll.

So, yes, Senator Dawson, I am very excited and very stressed about this bill, more than I have been in the past, because I’m concerned about the hundreds of thousands of Canadians and digital first creators in this country who came and pleaded with us for some sanity in the legislation, and they have asked to be excluded. At the end of the day, I don’t believe Canadian culture is in peril nor at risk. I think our committee has seen in their study over the last few months that Canadian culture is booming like never before. Actors are busier than ever before. Producers are busier than ever before, as are directors, singers, songwriters and extras. Every region of the country is benefiting over the last decade; we have seen it. Movie production companies and documentary producers are coming in and using Canada as a place and using Canada’s talent and art to propel their work around the world.

The digital web has given us a market that we never dreamed of 30 or 40 years ago when we were looking at this archaic Broadcasting Act and protecting the broadcasting industry. Billions of people around the world are jumping onto YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and TikTok to look at our Indigenous talent, to look at our francophone talent and they are thriving like never before. With all due respect, I don’t buy the argument that we need to protect them.

Do you know who this bill is protecting? It’s only protecting one group of individuals, and that is the group involved in the old broadcasting model, which we all know has failed. In 2023, they are bankrupt. Bell Media is bankrupt. CBC is bankrupt. They are not making money because they are outdated. Canadians are not going to those platforms for their information anymore. Only old guys like me — old boomers — are sitting there watching the news on TV at night. My 26- and 23-year-old children walk by and laugh at me because they are streaming. Yes, they are on their iPads and their phones. I’m starting to realize they are getting information quicker than I am. That’s who I relied on in order to draw my conclusions in regard to this bill.

The traditional broadcasters can do somersaults and try to convince the government to throw more money into the Canada Media Fund and into Telefilm Canada. Change your model because, clearly, I don’t see any streamers rushing to become broadcasters, but we see every broadcasting platform going digital over the last 10 years. The CBC has spent millions trying to go digital — CTV and all of them — because that’s the way of the future.

We need to encourage Canadians and young Canadians to take advantage of that opportunity and to continue to grow, not to hinder them by basically saying to the CRTC, “Create an even playing field.” I use this analogy. We have right now the digital world — a Lamborghini — and we have the traditional broadcasting world — a horse and cart. We want to create an equal race. Well, unless you’re going to give the horse and cart a 5-mile lead in a 5.1-mile race, I’m still betting on the Lamborghini.

We have to start being realistic when we say it’s time to start reviewing our Broadcasting Act. We must understand the realities that we face today.

Senator Deacon mentioned that we must protect our industry and make sure that foreign investors don’t come in and somehow hinder the marketplace. It’s because of Netflix, Disney Plus and those foreign investors that we’ve had billions of dollars coming into Canada and that our industry artists are busier than ever before. They are working. There is a shortage. They are making money. They are paying taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency. By the way, all of these streamers, bloggers and independent content producers are paying a ton of taxes to the Canada Media Fund. Under Bill C-11, who will benefit from that? Even to this day, who benefits? The traditional broadcasters dive into that money, continuing to produce shows at taxpayers’ expense — shows that no one is watching. Do I need to pull out the ratings to let you know that, for example, no one is watching CBC anymore? Yet, the whole point of this bill is that someone is making money and someone isn’t, and for the guys who are not, there is a reason for it. Someone decided they need to be propped up. Well, prop them up all you want, but if the problem is your business model, you will die a slow, painful death.

In our committee, thanks to Senator Klyne, we heard from Indigenous witnesses. He fought hard right to the end to make sure they were heard, and they said it best. Under these new platforms, Indigenous culture from our country is being spread to places like France and South America — to all corners of the world, like never before. They pleaded to make sure that the CRTC and any element of Bill C-11 — or whatever it morphs into, because we don’t know what those regulations will be like — not stop them. They said, word for word, “Please, stay out of our way because we are being very successful.”

Why would we put in peril every Canadian who is on these platforms right now, enjoying the liberty to express themselves? By the way, we are dominating. We’re punching above our weight. Every single witness who came before our committee made it evidently clear that Canada is punching above its weight when you look at our footprint in terms of arts and culture around the world.

We are a small market. We need the world. We are not a trading country only in lumber, in agricultural goods and in energy. We are a trading country in culture as well. As Senator Richards appropriately said, there are so many people who can buy books in Canada, but there are billions of people around the world who can buy the works of Canadian authors that they like.

Now, one of the biggest problems with this bill is the scope. We must broaden our scope. We have to think large as Canadians. I think I heard Senator Miville-Dechêne say, in speaking about her amendment, that it would address thresholds and it would, for example, compel the CRTC — according to her amendment — to consider digital first creators. Correct? And I think one of the words in her amendment is “consider.”

With all due respect, colleagues, if I try to amend the bill and I’m telling the CRTC that we recognize weaknesses that we want them to address in their deliberations and their regulations and the amendment says, “I want the CRTC to consider A, B, C,” well, “consider” is not very prescriptive. We all know how the CRTC works. They’re going to consider it all right. They will hold hearings and they will report as usual. It’s not very binding.

We have fought very hard to put forward amendments with some teeth to protect content producers who are small players, who are living off their small stream of revenue — independent, Canadian content producers. A $10-million threshold is the bare minimum to provide some protection in a concrete way and to entrench it in the bill so that the CRTC has no manoeuvrability to avoid accepting that reality.

My only conclusion on why there’s such pushback from the government is that, at the end of the day and with all due respect, I just don’t believe when government says that, “Platforms are in, and independent digital content producers are out.” I don’t believe them; I’m sorry. If you won’t accept a threshold of $100 million, $50 million, $10 million, why would I believe you are going to accept any threshold on goodwill? How many of you will buy a product and have a contract in which everything is highlighted except the delivery date? How many of you would accept that?

“Can you just put the delivery date?”

“Oh, no, trust us. You will get it by February 1.”

“Well, yes, but can we just put it in the contract?”

“No, no, no. Just trust us.”

Please, colleagues, at a bare minimum, can we please accept this reasonable amendment that will give a little bit of hope to those young Canadians across this country who are looking for some clarity and some security so they can continue to promote their cultures and their businesses in a fair, free market way? Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Housakos: I totally agree with you that regulating the World Wide Web is very complicated, and, once you embark upon that, it becomes a runaway train. We know what happens when the CRTC takes what seems to be a complicated matter: They like to add multiple layers and make it complicated.

My understanding is that Senator Manning is trying to carve out broadcasting undertakings here. You are absolutely right that $10 million is a lot for small players. It is minuscule for the big players, and we’re going after the big players. I think this amendment attempts to say that we are all in favour of getting the big giant streamers to pay more, but let’s protect the small independent Canadians.

My question is on your and Senator Miville-Dechêne’s amendments, which I did support and I think they are a good step. The problem is that they are not very rigid or prescriptive. It gives the CRTC full latitude at the end of the day.

How hopeful can we be that the amendments as they currently are, with such wide latitude given to the CRTC, have the desired effect?

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Manning for the intention behind this amendment. However, I believe, if I may say so, that the senator may be conflating two separate issues with Bill C-11. The first has to do with user-generated content created by small social media producers. I share the concern of Senator Manning and Senator Housakos that clause 4.2.2 of the bill, as originally written, was an exception to the exception that had the potential to scope in small YouTubers and small TikTok artists because the criteria was whether it generated revenues directly or indirectly. It could have been a very small amount of revenue, or it could have been revenue that was created not from advertising or subscription but from sponsorship or from selling products.

Because I very much shared the concern voiced by Senator Housakos and Senator Manning, Senator Miville-Dechêne and I worked very hard to craft an amendment that surgically removed all user-generated content of this type from the bill.

As I explained in my earlier speech, the amended bill you have before you fixes this problem by removing all revenue thresholds or mentions of revenue and scoping the bill specifically to include commercial content that has that unique identifier number that is only given to commercially released music. If I sing a song on YouTube — and I shall spare you an example — that would in no way have a unique identifier number except perhaps a user-content warning. So it would scope in that commercially produced music released by large commercial labels and scope in, for example, a sports specialty channel that rebroadcasts a sports game on Facebook. Those would be the only people who are now covered by the bill before you.

I understand what Senator Housakos is saying. We have no guarantee that the folks in the other place will accept our amended bill. I would say to you that the strongest way to send a message to the government that this amendment is absolutely essential is for us to be united as a chamber in saying that this is the correct surgical solution. There is no political blowback. We are not doing this for partisan reasons. We are not doing this to be obstreperous. We are doing this because we listened to 138 witnesses, and we came up with a workable compromise.

Now we come to the issue of thresholds.

I have been taking the time, while Senator Housakos was speaking, to review the testimony we heard at the Transport Committee. The threshold issue, as I recall and as my quick read through the transcript supports, never had anything to do with social media users. What it did have to do with was small streaming services.

This remains a concern because the question is that it is fine that Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime and Apple TV have huge revenues, and it is one thing to scope them in. What do you do with a small streaming service from Nigeria that is serving a Nigerian-Canadian diaspora population? What do you do about a small streaming service that is offering audio content in Punjabi? What do you do about a small streaming service serving an ethnocultural community or a community that has very specific interest that does not reach a broad general audience?

That was the threshold question in debate. It was never about social media users because they would never be captured. Even the most extraordinarily successful YouTube vlogger is not going to be making $150 million or $10 million. In fact, if you think about it logically, this could never have included YouTubers because YouTube makes more than $10 million, makes more than $150 million. This amendment would not protect somebody who is uploading content to a platform like YouTube or TikTok. Our amendment to clause 4.2.2, which is in the bill now, does that. This threshold would do nothing to protect them because they are on YouTube and TikTok, which have revenues well over $10 million in Canada.

The question that remains is what we do about those small niche streaming services. I thought long and hard before bringing a threshold amendment myself. When we spoke to the experts, the challenge was how to create a threshold that can stay static in legislation. What I would hope for is the intention behind Senator Manning’s amendment, which is not a bad intention, should be encapsulated in regulation. I want to say here on the record that I think it would be ludicrous for a small international streaming service that serves a niche language audience in Canada, a diverse and multicultural country, to be accidentally captured by legislation that is clearly meant to target the largest behemoth streaming services.

My final concern about the motion that we have before us is a technical one about the clarity of the language. Now that I have the amendment, it says, “regulations shall not prescribe a program of a broadcasting undertaking that generates annual revenues of less than $10 million.”

I’m not clear whether the $10 million refers to the broadcasting undertaking or to the program. There is a huge difference. Is it the intention of this amendment to scope out a program that generates annual revenues of less than $10 million, or a broadcasting undertaking that generates annual revenues of less than $10 million? If it is the former, almost no program would generate that amount. If it is the latter, a service like YouTube or TikTok would easily be scoped in, and then this amendment would do nothing to help those social media users that Senator Manning is rightly concerned about.

Therefore, I would suggest that this is an unclear amendment that does not do what its avowed intention is. I suggest to you also that we need to have further discussion to make sure that small niche streaming services are indeed exempted in regulation.

I thank Senator Manning for bringing forward this amendment, but I will not be able to support it.

Senator Simons: With respect, Senator Housakos, I don’t think there is a wide latitude. There was in the bill that came to us, but I think, as amended — and I am grateful that you supported the amendment — it is pretty clear. It includes only, at the discretion of the CRTC, pieces of professionally recorded and released music that have that unique international identifier number and things that have been previously broadcast on conventional broadcasting. It is crystal clear at this point, I think, that it absolutely does not include social media users.

More to this point, this amendment doesn’t speak to social media users. This amendment, as I read it, would in no way capture a mom who puts her skateboarding adventures on TikTok, or a comedian who posts his stuff to Twitter, because those platforms make way more than $10 million. This amendment wouldn’t help the people who you are trying to help, whereas the bill, as currently amended, does.

That said, I think it is important that we say on the record that there is a remaining concern about streaming services, because the thresholds were never supposed to be about people giving cooking tips on YouTube. They were supposed to be about how we deal with ethnocultural streaming services that fall below the threshold of the big companies.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your speech, Senator Manning. I would also like to express my appreciation to the committee members, who were very patient during the nine meetings where we did the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I just wanted to express my appreciation.

[English]

I would like to state the government’s position on this. The proposed amendment would create a revenue threshold for social media users and user-generated content.

Again, I know Senator Housakos has said that, but I will repeat again that the government stated that the obligation is on the platforms, not on social media users and the content they create. As noted by a Canadian Heritage official during clause-by-clause consideration, the CRTC is only to regulate those undertakings that are in a position to contribute in a material way to the policy objectives of the act. Additionally, the CRTC should regulate in a way that is responsive to the nature of the undertaking.

I just wanted to mention also that the government has been clear that it opposes the establishment of thresholds of this nature. They are likely to introduce distortions in the application of the policy. It creates circumstances where business practices, business organizations and accounting procedures can be structured in such a way as to avoid or fall below the threshold regardless of the amount set.

I would encourage senators to vote against the amendment.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Omidvar for bringing this motion forward. It is timely and widely supported, I’m certain, including by me. I want to thank her for the advance notice of her intention to ask for leave, which then allowed us all to discuss it in our respective groups and understand it.

I want to say, on behalf of our group, that we would like to register a concern: It is the rising practice in the House of Commons of bringing unanimous consent motions — especially on issues that are emotionally charged and sometimes on issues that are politically charged — where denying unanimous consent would make those who might want to better consider or study the motion vulnerable to ridicule or disrespect.

So I would ask — not in this case; this is a very worthy case — that we not tread the path that the other place is treading by using unanimous consent motions for things that are other than extremely urgent and time bound and not designed to force somebody to sit uncomfortably in their chair. Thank you.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Thank you, senator, for the question. Some work has been done since the committee was formed. The committee began by making a list of all the topics that may be of interest to senators who are members of the committee and to their group. That was a rather long process. We wrote the list with the idea that we might try to get through it.

We started with relatively simple topics that weren’t contentious.

So far, three reports have been adopted by the committee. Two of the reports have been presented and adopted by the Senate, and one report has been tabled. We’re about to finish the fourth report.

We drafted the report on the election of the Speaker pro tempore. We changed the Rules accordingly to ensure that we elect the Speaker pro tempore properly from now on.

Our second report was on the significance of First Nations objects, clothing or ceremonies. One of the questions we asked ourselves during the drafting of this report was whether we wanted to add anything to the Rules that had previously not been officially recognized.

Our third report allowed us to review the committees’ mandates. We conducted a stylistic analysis of the wording of these mandates because in the Rules there were different types of descriptions. Some of the text of the committees were described by the themes that they should or could address, while others were descriptions that were more general in nature.

We reviewed the description of all the committees to adopt a more general view of their mandates since it is always the Senate that refers matters to committees. Therefore, it isn’t useful to provide a restrictive list of subjects for committees. This report was tabled and adopted.

We included in this report changes to the names of certain committees. The name of the Committee on Aboriginal Peoples was changed to Committee on Indigenous Peoples.

We then prepared a report on the creation of a special Senate committee on human capital and the labour market, but the report was not adopted.

As you know, during our study for this report, we heard from the chairs and former chairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and we agreed that there’s one field that the Senate hadn’t studied very much — the field of human capital, human resources and the labour market — and that we should make room for this subject.

The committee hasn’t been established at this point because there are concerns about our financial and especially our human resource capacity, as well as our capacity, within the Senate, to complete the work for that committee. However, we will resume studying that committee soon at the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.

We also undertook a review of the Standing Orders, at the request of the clerks of the Senate, to correct some language that didn’t really reflect current Senate practices or that was outdated. The language has been standardized, and you will soon receive the fourth report on this matter.

We also worked very hard last November to try to see if we could find common ground on the motion on equality of Senate groups, as it was known, which ended up combining motions from Senator Woo and Senator Tannas —

Hon. Dennis Dawson moved third reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, today I again have the pleasure to speak with you at third reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Modernizing the Broadcasting Act is a key legislative priority for the government. This bill will clarify that online streamers are subject to the act and will update the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s, or CRTC’s, tool kit to put in place a new regulatory framework.

[Translation]

Modernizing the law means adapting it to today’s reality and laying the groundwork for the future. This must be done in a way that takes into account today’s reality — a reality where digital technology is increasingly present in people’s lives, a reality where there are a variety of business models in the current Canadian broadcasting system. The legislation must therefore establish an up-to-date regulatory framework with clear direction, the necessary tools and the flexibility to remain relevant.

[English]

As you all know, the last major update to the Broadcasting Act dates back to 1991. As we all have seen, since 1991, there has been tremendous change in the broadcasting sector. The arrival of the internet and new digital technologies has changed the way we communicate with each other and the way we consume our culture. More recently, with the pandemic, we have seen how technology is taking a huge place in our daily lives, and it is clear that this reality will not change.

The sector has undergone change at an unprecedented pace. The majority of Canadians now turn to online streaming services to access their favourite music, their favourite movies and their favourite TV shows. Services like Netflix, Spotify, Crave, CBC Gem, club illico are household names alongside the traditional services of radio, television and cable, and these traditional services remain important, especially to certain demographics. Canadians stream 2 billion songs in a single week using services like Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music.

According to a survey conducted by l’Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, or l’ADISQ, 61% of respondents said they listen to music on online services like Spotify and Apple Music. But that does not mean online broadcasters have replaced traditional broadcasters. In that same survey, 60% of respondents noted that they use the radio as a tool for discovering music. Make no mistake; although the consumption of media has changed, it has not come close to replacing traditional broadcasting. What hasn’t changed, however, is our regulatory system, and it desperately needs to be updated.

The general director of l’ADISQ, Eve Paré, testified before us during the study undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. She said:

This situation is a concern for creators and producers, but also for the public, who are very attached to their culture. In that same survey, we learn that 73% of Quebecers believe that the government should adopt legislation so that services such as Apple Music, Spotify and YouTube also have to contribute to funding this content. In addition, 70% of those who stream music say they would like to see recommendations of French-language music from Quebec.

[Translation]

For several years, streaming services have had a significant impact on our broadcasting system. The reality is that satellite and cable services are losing subscribers. The broadcasting system has lost revenue, advertisers and viewership to online services.

However, despite all this, the law hasn’t changed. The government and parliamentarians have been working carefully on this bill for a long time, and the number of citizens who participated is a good indication of how important this topic is.

The Senate has done its work. Over the past several months, we’ve had important conversations. We heard from over 130 witnesses who came to talk to us about this bill. Colleagues, I thank you for the extensive work you have done. Now, we need to get the proposed online streaming act passed to support our creators, our cultural industries and all Canadians.

[English]

Bill C-11 is part of a broader set of initiatives put forward by the government to create a forward-thinking digital policy agenda, including the online news act that we talked about a few minutes ago and the government’s commitment to address online safety. Bill C-11 aligns with other acts and legislative instruments and respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also helps Canada fulfil its international commitments, such as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is important that we modernize the broadcasting framework. This is the task at hand.

It has been almost two years since Bill C-10 was introduced to modernize the Broadcasting Act, and I am before you again. In 2021, when we had Bill C-10 before us, I remarked that neither I nor the government had the intention to ram this legislation through the Senate. Well, here we are in 2023, and 20 months later you can see — some people doubted — that I was telling the truth.

Before Bill C-10, in June 2018, the Government of Canada appointed a panel to review the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative framework. That panel studied these issues for two years and published a report called Canada’s Communications Future: Time to Act. They received over 2,000 written submissions. That same year, it turns out, my colleagues and I on the Transport and Communications Committee began a study on this topic, but we deferred to the national panel’s study.

With the committee report on Bill C-11 presented to this chamber late in 2022, we have finally finished that study.

When I rose to introduce Bill C-10 to you, I noted that the bill had already received considerable input. With 112 days at committee stage at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, with over 40 meetings and close to 50 witnesses — not counting departmental briefings — the bill reflected the work done by parliamentarians and substantial input from industry and community stakeholders. Collectively, the interested parties recognize the need to modernize the act, even as their opinions may differ on the details.

As this bill reaches us today, Bill C-11 has received even more input. As tabled, the bill builds upon the work done on Bill C-10 during the last session with targeted changes to social media and some technical amendments. Parliamentarians once again had the opportunity to amend the bill during the House of Commons’ clause-by-clause study. Senators once again had the opportunity to study this bill.

As I said earlier, we have had many witnesses come before us at the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and just as promised for Bill C-10, neither I nor the government pushed to ram Bill C-11 through the Senate.

In fact, we welcomed an expansive study and heard from every single person and group that requested to testify — every single one.

Your faithful committee and I patiently and openly listened to their requests, their opinions and their concerns. We listened to professors, lawyers, cultural sectors, associations, unions, researchers, consumer groups, official language minority communities, government regulators, taxpayer federations, digital creators, traditional broadcasters, independent broadcasters, online audio streaming services, et cetera. As you can see, a lot of people gave their opinions and we’re proud of the report that was adopted.

Your committee and I listened patiently to 138 witnesses over 31 meetings totalling 67 hours and 30 minutes. We listened patiently, and when we heard the confusion and misinformation surrounding the bill, at the end of the study we then heard from government officials who put to rest many of the misconceptions that had been put on the table.

[Translation]

Furthermore, concerns expressed about how streaming could negatively impact the broadcasting sector are neither new nor hypothetical. However, it is important to contextualize the facts because the decision not to impose obligations on online services dates back to the previous century. At the time, those services weren’t having much of an impact on the broadcasting sector. It was important to let those innovative new services evolve.

That is obviously no longer the case. The world has changed, and the imbalance caused by lack of regulation must be fixed as soon as possible so that web giants contribute their fair share to supporting Canadian music and stories just as traditional Canadian broadcasters do.

[English]

Critics have suggested that this bill will result in foreign players withdrawing from the Canadian market. This is not the case — in fact, we have observed the opposite. These platforms — more than 75 online streaming services, including the big ones we all know — are available in Canada. More are coming and their content libraries are growing.

Online streamers compete directly with regulated broadcasters. In some cases, due to licensing, the only way Canadian consumers can view the latest and most popular series in tentpole franchises, like “Andor” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power,” is through streaming services. Even “Kim’s Convenience” and “Schitt’s Creek,” content commissioned by the CBC, is being watched by Canadians on platforms like Netflix instead of on Canadian services like Gem.

In the past, when Canadian broadcasters licensed foreign programming, these services in turn supported Canadian programming through regulatory obligations. However, streaming services are not presently required to support the broadcasting system as traditional Canadian broadcasters do. This is a problem that requires urgent action and one that the online streaming act directly addresses.

This is not a quick cash grab or punishment to those who have enjoyed success in an unregulated environment. The online streaming act is not about picking winners and losers in the landscape of Canada’s broadcasting system. It does not compromise the personal freedoms of Canadians by censoring the internet.

This is about updating our laws and regulations to revamp the framework of our broadcasting system for today and for tomorrow. It is about providing the certainty and structure for sustainable success into the future.

What it does is simple: The legislation accounts for the realities of modern broadcasting and ensures a level playing field where all commercial players materially contribute to attaining the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. This bill is asking platforms that benefit from Canadian culture to contribute to our culture.

Our chamber has an important role to play within our democratic process and has performed that role admirably. We studied its merits and aims to better understand how it will work and why it is so important. We have carefully listened to every point of view that has been presented. And ours is only one part of the process. Following this work, consultations will be held with everyone that wants to participate, and that is by design in this bill.

Many of our colleagues have raised important issues throughout the study of this bill. I hope that they will continue their engagement on these issues through the consultation process.

At a high level, the online streaming act addresses many important issues.

The online streaming act advances the interests of Canada and Canadians in several ways. Canadian broadcasters compete on an uneven regulatory playing field. Right now, Canadian broadcasters are subject to the full extent of Canadian broadcasting regulation, and online streamers are not.

The online streaming act is critical for sustaining the support ecosystem for Canadian culture, music and stories by levelling the playing field and ensuring the health of our cultural broadcasting sector. It is needed to secure sustainable investment in Canadian stories, both for TV and film; it is recognized by music stakeholders as critical to supporting and making discoverable our music and songs, in all of our languages; and it provides space within our broadcasting system for our communities that have faced systemic marginalization. Equity‑seeking groups deserve to see themselves represented onscreen and to have opportunities to fill key creative roles in Canadian productions.

As the minister said, the online streaming act is not about regulating what people post online. This has been made very clear, time and time again. Rather, it is about seeking an equitable contribution from all big streaming services that are in the business of distributing commercial content.

I’d like to highlight the word “equitable” here. As we heard during our study from both the CRTC and government officials, contributions can take any number of forms that are not necessarily monetary:

With respect to expenditure requirements, that money is never transferred. An expenditure requirement stays within the company. It’s essentially an investment obligation on their part to invest that in Canadian production, but they still retain control in the decision making over how they will do that.

We do expect some services, because they may not have a big production footprint here or otherwise, that their contribution may look more like what we know now for cable and satellite companies, which is a contribution to a cultural production fund, such as the Canada Media Fund. Those revenues, though, do not go to the department. That transfer is overseen by the CRTC, and that money is remitted directly to the Canada Media Fund, for example.

We also heard from both officials and stakeholders themselves that they already contribute to our cultural entertainment sector in a variety of ways.

This debate comes at a pivotal moment. After the transformative innovations of the early internet era, we are amidst a new wave of the digital revolution. The government will ensure that new technologies work for — not against — our democratic institutions and, importantly, that they will further Canada’s cultural interests.

Our overarching objective remains to ensure continuing support for Canadian stories, music and culture in a sector that is increasingly saturated by foreign online streaming services and web giants.

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has listened carefully to various groups of stakeholders. Working together, members of this chamber have developed proposals to further improve the bill, and I am sure more amendments might come forward over the next few days. Amendments from all parties and groups were proposed and adopted. No voice was shut out. No witnesses nor any of our colleagues were not heard.

Our broadcasting regulatory framework is out of date. Its application is uneven, and this imbalance will continue to hurt our creative industries until this legislation is passed and its thoughtful processes are completed. An imbalanced system does not serve the interests of Canada nor Canadians and limits our ability to realize the cultural and broadcasting policy objectives that the Broadcasting Act is ultimately meant to protect.

The government is asking us to work together to see this bill through the legislative process in a timely fashion, in the interest of our artists, our creators and Canadians altogether. I believe we are doing precisely that, while appropriately listening, considering and providing our sober second thought.

We must update our legislation to reflect the reality of digital disruption in the sector.

Honourable senators, we are faced with an important task; righting the regulatory asymmetry between traditional and online broadcast undertakings has been delayed for far too long. I wrote in 1982 that policy initiatives at that time were designed to develop greater appreciation for Canada’s rich social, historic and cultural heritage.

The goals I wrote about at that time remain true today. The regulations of that day, however, are outdated.

The process around modernizing the Broadcasting Act has seen considerable remarkable debate and discussion. In some cases, prevailing misconceptions and fears have obscured the real issues. These misconceptions have, time and again, been discussed, analyzed and rejected.

[Translation]

I’m well aware of some parties’ concerns about Bill C-11. It is time to come up with solutions. We have to address these regulatory challenges right now by requiring online music and video broadcasting services to contribute to our culture just as traditional broadcasters have always done.

I would point out that, under the 1991 Broadcasting Act, traditional broadcasting companies had to be owned and controlled by Canadians and had to be licensed. They could, and still can, broadcast programs from the international market and American stations.

In exchange for participating in the Canadian broadcasting system and accessing the national market, these companies had to finance, acquire and broadcast Canadian programs. They were also required to make programs available to Canadians and contribute to the creation of Canadian programs, including programs in French.

[English]

This does not happen by accident. It was intentional, and it worked. Our broadcasting system saw an increase in demand for Canadian programs. Our creative talent flourished, and our cultural industries saw predictable investments upon which they could plan to build and grow.

However, the support system for our stories and music has been eroding as revenues shift away from traditional broadcasters to online streaming services. This puts the support system for Canadian stories and music at risk.

Honourable colleagues, a primary goal of the renewed approach to regulation is to provide sustainable support for Canadian music and stories in the years ahead. The bill aims for fair treatment of programs consumed on different platforms, regardless of how they are transmitted.

New legislation will shift away from issuing broadcasting licences to a new condition-of-service model. This provides the CRTC with a new and more flexible way to seek contributions from broadcasters and to impose other conditions, including conditions related to discoverability and showcasing of Canadian programs. The latter is particularly important for Canada’s musical artists, particularly French-speaking artists and others trying to compete in an industry dominated by heavyweights. In this framework, broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings, would be required to make financial contributions to support Canadian music, stories, creators and producers.

I’d like to address two notable themes in the bill that merit some clear and specific mention here. They are the treatment of digital-first creators and the approach to social media.

The bill is clear that digital-first creators are not considered to be broadcasting undertakings. A producer of audio-visual content that is primarily produced and intended for online distribution as user-uploaded content on a social media service will be excluded.

Some critics of the bill have suggested that 30% of digital-first creators’ revenues could be contributed to arts funding. This is simply not true. Digital-first creators will not be required to make financial contributions to support Canadian content.

Large social media services will be asked to contribute to Canadian music and storytelling if they provide commercial content, such as music and TV shows. You’ve heard many examples raised during this debate. Since digital-first creators are exempt, their revenues will not be used to calculate the contributions that social media services make to support Canadian content.

Additionally, digital-first creators will not be subject to discoverability or showcasing requirements. Again, despite what some critics of the bill have claimed, the government has heard the concerns of digital-first creators and is responding to them through a recalibrated approach to social media.

Discoverability can also come in a variety of forms, as we have heard during the study at committee. Discovery is an objective, and the CRTC will be empowered to consult with industry stakeholders to set out what discovery looks like in an online space. Whatever it looks like, digital creators will not be subject to those regulations, as they are exempt from the bill.

As the minister has said many times: platforms in, users out. I said that in my speech last year, and I am saying it in my speech again this year.

In summary, these provisions ensure that social media services contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system in a fair and equitable manner when they provide the same services as traditional broadcasters and other online streamers. At the same time, it can be done in a way that respects the rights, freedoms and choices of Canadians online.

To help understand why action is urgently needed, let’s look at the current economic reality in the sector.

[Translation]

Broadcasting is an important economic driver, which supports Canada’s creative industries and its evolving cultural identity.

Together, the Canadian broadcasting, film and video, and music and sound recording sectors contribute $14 billion to Canada’s GDP and create more than 160,000 jobs. I’m speaking to my colleague who is an expert in finance to clearly demonstrate how important these sectors are.

Over the past decade, the percentage of Canadians who subscribe to online broadcasters has grown from 6% to 78%. Even if we only focus on the last few years, the revenues of online streaming services have seen fast and substantial growth, while traditional broadcasters have seen steadily shrinking revenues.

[English]

This is no surprise. After all, we know that the world of broadcasting has changed. In addition to this new reality, the Canadian broadcasting sector is facing long-term structural change.

Without intervention, current trends in the market are expected to result in a decline in the production of Canadian television content. In 2020, we had already seen a $320 million drop in production compared to 2018 levels.

Sustainable, long-term support for the system is required to enable ongoing success for Canadian creators, producers and broadcasters. That is what this modernization is about. That is what the online streaming act will achieve.

[Translation]

The status quo is unacceptable.

[English]

Cultural policy is a main element of this legislation. Ensuring the continued viability of the Canadian broadcasting system is also about our cultural sovereignty. Culture can play a role in the process of truth-telling and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and healing.

[Translation]

These are some of the cultural policy issues that the Broadcasting Act addresses. It seeks to ensure that our broadcasting system is more fair and inclusive, that it will support the livelihood of Canadian artists and creators and that it will celebrate the lives of Canadians, who want to see more of themselves reflected on the screen and in song.

[English]

Real gains for Canadians are achieved through this legislation. These gains are a cornerstone for the survival of community media, local news, French language, racialized communities, third-language programming and so much more.

We have heard at committee that this legislation will give these content producers more breathing room in the space that they occupy.

We have heard from witnesses that foreign broadcasters need to play by the same rules as local broadcasters. Kevin Desjardins, President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, said it best when he testified at committee:

Canadian broadcasters are desperate for regulatory clarity and certainty. They need to know the rules they and their foreign competitors will be operating under to plan their businesses, and they need to know the rules will be fair and equitable. Canadian broadcasters are willing to compete, but they cannot do so in a system that allows increasingly dominant players to take as much as they want and only give back as much as they like.

Furthermore, this legislation also aims to ensure a space within our broadcasting system for Indigenous storytelling and Indigenous languages. Monika Ille, the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network told our committee:

There are also additional references in the bill to support Indigenous language programming. The regulatory policy section in paragraph 5(2)(a) of the Broadcasting Act will require the CRTC to take into account the different characteristics of French, English and Indigenous language broadcasting as well as the needs and interests of Indigenous peoples. This is the first time Indigenous language content has been placed on an equal footing with English and French language content in the act.

Colleagues, we are truly making progress with this act.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I would like to review the process that will take place after third reading of the bill. If we pass a bill that is different from the one passed by the other place, the bill will be sent back to the House of Commons so that it can review our amendments. The House of Commons will then have the choice to accept all, some or none of our amendments. Whatever the other place decides, it will send us a message informing us of its decision.

Our objective is to agree on the same bill. Once we achieve that objective, the bill will receive royal assent. Then, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC. A policy direction is often used to tell an organization how to implement important policies. The CRTC’s policy direction will indicate the priorities for implementing the new regulatory framework.

The policy direction has two main objectives. First, it will focus on the importance of consultation and the special consideration of the needs of equity groups. Second, the policy direction will clearly indicate the areas in which regulation is necessary and the areas where caution must be exercised.

Once the policy direction is published, every stakeholder, including members of the public, will have at least 30 days to share their comments. Let me emphasize that we’re bringing in a regulatory process similar to those in other sectors. This means that the proposed policy direction will be published, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make comments, then the final policy direction will be published.

The CRTC will have its own public process as it develops measures for bringing into force the legislation. This will be done within limits clearly set out in the legislation and in accordance with the proposed policy direction.

To sum up, before the legislation is brought into force, the CRTC will receive a policy direction from the government. That policy direction will have two objectives: focus on the need for public consultations with members of marginalized communities and clearly highlight areas where regulation is necessary. Through hearings, members of the public will then have the opportunity to express their points of view.

Then, the final version of the policy direction will be published. The CRTC will begin to implement the legislation through its own process. That is what we heard at committee meetings.

This is what Mr. Ripley, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, communicated to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications about the process:

The way we see this playing out is that once the bill achieves Royal Assent, the CRTC at that point would begin its regulatory processes and hearings to put in place the necessary regulatory instruments to bring the online streaming platforms into the system. As for what that will look like in practice, the CRTC is skilled in this. They are used to doing these kinds of hearings. They would put up a notice and invite submissions about the forms that those would take. It would be open to all interested parties to participate in those processes, including online streaming services, the creative community here in Canada and groups representing the public interest. Then the CRTC would enter into its decision-making and publish its final decision at the end.

The online streaming bill offers many opportunities. It offers the opportunity to achieve greater diversity in perspectives, to realize and consolidate gains for many communities and to ensure inclusive support within our broadcasting sector. The Canadian broadcasting sector is very diversified. We are fortunate to have content producers who come from various communities. For example, I’m thinking of OUTtv, which offers LGBTQ+ content, or APTN, which offers Indigenous content.

The online streaming bill will provide Canadians with the opportunity to diversify the content they consume. To provide greater diversity of perspectives and inclusive support that represents and aligns with our communities, Canadians of diverse backgrounds must see a broadcasting system that reflects the importance of diversity and inclusion.

It is important to note that Bill C-11 addresses an urgent and long-standing problem, specifically the imbalances in Canadian broadcasting for equity-seeking groups that have never received this support.

[English]

Bill C-11 strengthens our broadcasting system by including an explicit broadcasting policy objective requiring that it include all Canadians.

Another strengthened objective requires that accessible and barrier-free programming be provided. Accessible and inclusive broadcasting are not an afterthought; they are foundational pillars on which to build.

[Translation]

In terms of diversity and inclusion, one of the goals of the bill is to put diverse and marginalized voices in the spotlight. For example, Indigenous people, racialized people, 2SLGBTQI+ communities, people with disabilities and women must be represented on screen and behind the scenes.

Historically, these voices have been under-represented in our broadcasting system. The goal is to expand content choices for all viewers and listeners who have difficulty identifying with content or finding content that reflects their reality. To that end, the broadcasting system must support and promote programs and creators from diverse communities and backgrounds.

[English]

The broadcasting system cannot be updated without ensuring that all Canadians from diverse communities and backgrounds see themselves reflected and supported. While some lament that niche markets will be lost, this is simply not true. The proposed legislation makes space for all. It cements that we are a country that not only invites diversity but encourages it and supports its creation.

Broadcasting reform can support First Nations, Inuit and Métis storytelling, music and culture. The government has listened to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The need to focus on Indigenous storytelling, narrative sovereignty and content creation is clear. Bill C-11 will see important improvements to Canada’s broadcasting system to better reflect our relationships with Indigenous peoples for the first time.

In particular, the broadcasting framework will make space, regardless of resource availability, for diverse First Nations, Métis and Inuit perspectives. Indigenous communities are ready to produce and broadcast more content. What lacked before Bill C-11 was the resources.

I quote the Co-Executive Director of the Indigenous Screen Office, Jesse Wente:

To us, the central focus should be the modernization of the definitions associated with broadcasting and broadcast undertakings, ensuring that there is equitable access and support for marginalized communities and that there be specific supports for Indigenous storytelling and Indigenous languages broadcasting. We believe new platforms, even those based outside Canada, should contribute financially to support Canadian storytelling and that there should be dedicated supports for Indigenous storytelling within that. . . .

Colleagues, this is what Bill C-11 will achieve. Bill C-11 removes the previous limitation “as resources become available for the purpose” with respect to providing programming that reflects the cultures of Canada within our broadcasting system. This is how it should be. It should always have been this way.

New technologies and platforms can aid in the revitalization of Indigenous languages. It’s heartbreaking to know that many of our Indigenous languages, such as Oneida, Cayuga and Seneca, are on the brink of extinction, according to the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger project.

Ensuring space for Indigenous peoples to have narrative sovereignty is important and will support our efforts to revitalize Indigenous languages. Modernizing the act includes changes to help Indigenous peoples tell their stories from their own viewpoints and perspectives and to see themselves represented in our broadcasting system. This bill emphasizes the importance of Indigenous-controlled broadcasting services and productions.

French language programming is also a cornerstone of our broadcasting future.

[Translation]

Bill C-11 strengthens original French-language content and production, which shouldn’t rely solely on dubbing and subtitling. Broadcasters, both traditional and online, must make original French-language content a priority on their platforms.

More and more people are speaking out about how foreign programming is mostly in English and there’s so much more of it than there is of original content and production in French — even though this is something francophone communities across the country really need.

Our committee heard how pleased official language minority community advocacy organizations are with the language provisions included in Bill C-11. The Executive Director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, APFC, Carol Ann Pilon, shared the following with the committee:

APFC welcomed Bill C-11’s historic focus on the Canadian audiovisual ecosystem, particularly its formal consideration of the OLMCs and the objectives it set for the broadcasting system as a whole to reflect the specific needs and interests of those communities.

I see that Senator Cormier is listening intently to this part.

Thanks to an agreement between Quebec’s main film distributor, Les Films Séville, and streaming services Netflix Canada, club illico and ICI Tou.tv, our favourite francophone films can reach new audiences and generate more revenue. More and more opportunities like these will become available to the francophone creative sector as the world tunes in to its vibrant voice.

As a senator from Quebec, I feel it’s particularly important to ensure ongoing support for Quebec’s audiovisual media sector. I really want to focus on the experience of francophones and anglophones in minority communities. Canada’s linguistic duality is heavily reliant on the country’s broadcasting system. This legislation addresses the needs and interests of minority francophone and anglophone communities across the country. They want to be identified and named in the bill as a means of ensuring their long-term growth and development.

[English]

The Broadcasting Act contains objectives for English-speaking and French-speaking minority communities. The legislation clarifies that any interpretation and application of the act must respect the federal government’s desire to enhance the vitality of these communities and to support their development, as well as ensure the recognition and use of official languages in Canadian society. The CRTC must also enhance the presentation of programs created and produced by these communities, in addition to taking into account their specific needs and interests.

[Translation]

The broadcasting system, including the new digital players, plays an important role in the transmission of language and culture in Canada.

[English]

Honourable senators, we must act now. Our artists are a source of inspiration, breathing life and energy into our diverse communities on a daily basis. They revitalize the spirit of our culture. They elevate and celebrate our heritage as Canadians. They make us laugh, they move us and they make us reflect on who we are. They have been there for us, and we need to stand up for them. To put it simply, the goal of the bill is to promote and protect our culture in the digital age.

It is clear that we need to modernize the Broadcasting Act. The bill has broad support across Canada’s cultural industries. Moreover, this bill is in the public interest. It is about making sure that we continue to uphold Canadian values in our society as technology and consumer habits evolve. After all, are we not citizens and people, as well as consumers and audiences?

[Translation]

The Minister of Canadian Heritage used to say that a day without culture would be boring, and I agree with him. The world is watching what we are doing. We are leading the way. I hope that together we will be part of the solution.

[English]

As I have explained, your committee and I have listened patiently to everyone that wished to be heard. The Canadian broadcasting and cultural sectors have also been waiting patiently. Colleagues, I believe we have been patient enough. Now is the time to act and to pass this bill. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Well, maybe he’ll ask for an additional five. In the three minutes, I’ll have a very short question and a short precursor to the question.

As we all know, colleagues, digital-first creators in this country are the driving forces behind platforms. Whatever the platform is — YouTube, TikTok, Twitter — it is the digital creators who are the driving force. So, Senator Dawson, when you say — and you have said it; the government has said it — “We want platforms in, users out,” if that was the actual case, would you accept an amendment that says, in black and white, “Platforms in and users out”? In which case, if we all agree to put that black and white in the legislation, we would pass this unanimously and go on with our lives. Would you be amenable to pass and support an amendment, and put — in black and white — what you consistently have said?

Senator Dawson: We have repeated constantly during the meetings — and to the witnesses that have come in for us — that digital-first creators are not going to be controlled by the government. It might have been an interpretation that existed in the old Bill C-10. The government, when they came back with Bill C-11, made it clear — again, trying to find an amendment that says, “Platforms in and users out” sounds sexy and might sell membership cards, but it certainly doesn’t help improve the legislation.

Senator Housakos: Senator Dawson, it has nothing to do with sexy. It has to do with the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are right now independent, user-generated content producers that want some security. All we are asking for the government to do is put — in black and white — in the legislation what you are claiming. Why is there a hesitation when it comes to putting it in the legislation instead of just giving Canadians a “trust us” promise?

Senator Dawson: Again, you were at all the meetings with me. The government has always repeated that digital creators are not involved. Trying to find a creative amendment that will reach your objective — we didn’t need to do that. The bill clearly indicates that it does not apply to digital creators.