44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 28, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back here. I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
The Liberal government has no understanding of Canada, broadcasting or its history, which may be why the Liberals originally regulated broadcasting through the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
The Aird 1928 Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting was the first to examine the state of radio broadcasting in Canada. Very few remember that commission. The nature of broadcasting has changed in the past century. However, there were conclusions that are still important to remember today. The Aird report was a model of efficiency that we would do well to take note of today. It was only 13 pages long, plus a few appendices. There was only one page devoted to programming content, which is where it was noted that, “Every avenue should be vigorously explored to give Canadian listeners the best programs available from sources at home and abroad.”
This flawed legislation, Bill C-11 does nothing to provide Canadian listeners with the best programs. If anything, it discourages creative programming.
Regulating programming made some sense in the 1930s, when the forerunner of the CRTC was created. Broadcasting then was limited to radio, and with a limited number of available frequencies, the government wanted to ensure a diversity of viewpoints and that Canadians had access to the airwaves.
What did not make sense was the intertwinement of the regulator and the government-owned broadcaster created at the same time. Though the Liberals eventually realized that mistake, they continued to fail to understand the needs of Canadians and the nature of the dissemination of information in the 21st century.
The government is picking up where it left off in the last Parliament and brings us a new bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. What it does not bring is new ideas, nor does it attempt to properly define what it means by “broadcasting”.
According to Wikipedia, “Broadcasting is the distribution of audio or video content to a dispersed audience via any electronic mass communications medium, but typically one using the electromagnetic spectrum (radio waves), in a one-to-many model.”
Britannica tells us:
Broadcasting, electronic transmission of radio and television signals that are intended for general public reception, as distinguished from private signals that are directed to specific receivers. In its most common form, broadcasting may be described as the systematic dissemination of entertainment, information, educational programming, and other features for simultaneous reception by a scattered audience with appropriate receiving apparatus.
By definition, this bill is not about broadcasting. Instead, it is about extending the reach of the government in an attempt to control the Internet and free speech. It may be cloaked in technical language, amended in this paragraph here and that paragraph there, but there is no doubt, the intent is to limit the choices of Canadians.
We all know that the Internet bears no relation to traditional broadcasting. There is no frequency limitation online. The Internet is narrowcasting not broadcasting, as content creators can reach smaller segments of the population, which have not been served by traditional broadcasters.
Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. They do not need government rules that would hold back their ability to be Canadian and to be global successes. Canadian content creators make most of their money, about 90%, outside Canada. Social media platforms are global, and Canadians are taking full advantage, both as creators of content and in enjoying what is available.
Canadian social media stars do not want the government telling them what to do when it comes to their work as Canadians. When the Liberals claim that there is now an exemption for user-generated content, this legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly, which means that virtually all content would still be regulated, including independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms such as YouTube and Spotify.
What has upset the Liberals, and the reason they want to provide us with a new definition of broadcasting with this bill, is that they have lost control. Back in the pre-Internet days, the state controlled broadcasting. People needed a licence from the state in order to start a radio or television station and that could not be obtained unless they agreed to allow the state to control their content. With the Internet, the state has lost its ability to control. Each day, about 720,000 hours of content is uploaded in YouTube alone. The Liberals seem to find that offensive. They want to regulate it, to somehow bring the Internet under their control as broadcasting used to work.
If this is simply a matter of the Liberals wanting a slice of the revenue pie to help offset their record deficits, there are easier methods than attacking all content creators. Instead of attempting to regulate the entire Internet, they could concentrate on large streaming services, perhaps those with half a million subscribers or more. Extracting money from streaming services to support Canadian content does not require the overreach the government is establishing.
Even with this, the government might want to think twice. Forcing streamers from outside Canada to contribute to the various Canadian talent development funds, for example, is full of risks. Fairness would say that if the government forces these entities to contribute to the fund, then it must also allow them to access the money that the fund is generating. Rather than creating a level playing field, such a move would harm Canada's traditional broadcasters, especially those whose Canadian content is primarily public affairs or sports programming. How would the limited amount they spend on drama compare with the amount spent by streaming services that specialize in dramatic programming? In that contest, would anyone still be watching CBC?
Certainly, what this bill is not addressing is why we are regulating this. The Liberals, disturbing the free market, have never come across anything that they did not want to control, but just because they can introduce such legislation does not mean it is good legislation or that it should be passed.
For 20 years, there have been calls for the government to redefine the Internet and broadcasting. Wise people resisted the argument, realizing that the Internet, in many ways, is a true example of the democratization of communications. Groups with limited or no access to traditional broadcasting, such as indigenous Canadians, now have unlimited access and the ability to tell their stories without government interference. The Liberals want that to end.
There are perhaps 100,000 Canadians deriving all their income from their online activities. The government is not content with the income it is receiving from their taxes. It also wants to tell them what to create. It does not care if they have a relationship with their audience already.
Our cultural industry is flourishing without government. Bill C-11 should not pass.
1174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my esteemed colleague how much control would be appropriate if he does not think that the government should have full control over broadcasting and online media.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the government needs to have less interference in this whole process and less control. I think less control is needed and less interference. That will make any bill regarding broadcasting and the Internet a better bill.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of South Shore—St. Margarets to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.
I was executive assistant to Canada's foreign minister when the Broadcasting Act was last amended in 1991. Email was a new thing. Foreign Affairs communicated with embassies through telex. There was no social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter or TikTok. Therefore, the revision to the Broadcasting Act under Bill C-11 is long overdue.
I will try to summarize what I believe to be the good, the bad and the ugly of this proposed legislation, and I will start with the good.
There are several important provisions in this legislation that I support, including the requirements to support the increased production of Canadian content by online service providers such as Netflix. The greater support of indigenous programming is also a good start. Coming from Nova Scotia, I also appreciate the increased support and focus on independent production of broadcasting material. It is a step forward that this bill protects the intellectual property of Internet service provider algorithms.
Now let me turn to the bad. We are hopeful that, when this bill reaches committee, the government will be open to amending it to deal with our primary area of concern, the regulation of speech on the Internet. It is true that in proposed subsection 2(2.1) and proposed subsection 4.1(1) the government has excluded individual users of social media from CRTC regulation. A similar commitment was made in Bill C-10 in the last Parliament but removed by the government at committee stage.
However, we were asked in Bill C-10 in the last Parliament, now Bill C-11, to trust the government in its commitment not to regulate individual freedom of speech. This is asking too much of Canadians who no longer trust the government. We should all be concerned when governments flaunt the law with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, abuse the public purse for family benefit in the WE scandal, ignore the views of those it disagrees with and legislate against free speech with the Emergencies Act.
Where are the “just trust me” elements of this bill? They come in proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2. This is the ugly part of the bill. Proposed section 4.1 exempts individual users of social media from the content control of the CRTC. While this is true to some extent, the government presents a legal pretzel in proposed section 4.2. Let me explain this confusing Liberal legal pretzel. The addition to this bill of proposed section 4.1, which says that censorship by the CRTC will not apply to individuals uploading content to an Internet service provider, sounds good, but what the government giveth, the government takes away in proposed section 4.2, where the government can regulate an individual’s Internet content if it generates any sort of revenue. Without knowing or seeing these regulations, this is a broad power to censor the individual.
The government is telling Canadians not to worry and to just trust it. Canadians do not trust the government. We should be especially concerned when the government, under this bill, seeks to legislate on what Canadians can and cannot say if it generates any revenue at all. Individual content creators with fledgling businesses are now being asked to trust the government that, through policy and regulation, they will not be censored. There are no legislated guarantees in the bill to prevent them from being censored.
In his last public address on April 11, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln said that “important principles may, and must, be inflexible.” Freedom of thought and speech are principles with which the Government of Canada must be inflexible in defending, so much so that Pierre Trudeau placed these inflexible freedoms in section 2 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, the very freedoms that are core to our democracy. Our defence of them must remain inflexible, as Lincoln said.
Let me be clear that our freedoms have limits. For example, in a country like Canada, people cannot incite hate speech or other violent forms of language. Both our common law and Criminal Code have placed limits on that freedom. The distinctions in our Criminal Code are just and ensure the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. If the government wishes to seek further protections for those impacted by racism and other discrimination, I know my Conservative caucus is willing to co-operate, and the Criminal Code is the appropriate legislative vehicle for such restrictions.
Bill C-11 contains more disturbing open-ended online censorship regulatory power for the government. This legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a). That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Spotify.
What does “indirectly” mean? The government asks for us to just trust it. Last Parliament, Conservatives were quick to point out the flaws in the nearly identical bill, Bill C-10. It was not just Conservatives sounding the alarm. Experts, lawyers, academics and many more people testified at committee and spoke publicly about the problems with the bill.
A former CRTC commissioner said that the bill would be like a hammer to intimidate freedom of expression. Today, given the continued development of technology and the conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic, much of that dialogue takes place on places like Facebook, Twitter and other websites. This bill would infringe upon the ability Canadians have to post online and to express themselves freely, even if their post “indirectly generates revenues”. Furthermore, the bill would infringe on the rights Canadians have to access content online, which means that the right to view freely would be infringed upon if the bill passes.
To all my colleagues, I ask if they trust the government to decide what they can say, read and watch online. Bill C-11 would give new, undefined power over the Internet to the CRTC, which was built to balance the needs of competing broadcasters, not those of citizens.
The only regulator of thought a Canadian should deal with is themselves. I can assure members that constituents in my riding do not want the censorship elements of this bill rushed through the House of Commons without thoughtful debate and hearings. They want clause 4 amended, and I trust the government will listen to Canadians in this respect at committee and amend this bill.
I ask members to be guided by the words of Lincoln that important principles must be “inflexible”. Be inflexible in defending free speech and amend the section of this bill that would give the government the ability to censor individuals on the Internet.
It is my hope that courage will manifest in all MPs and we can all work toward a Broadcasting Act that upholds the freedoms of Canadians, improves Canadian and indigenous content, supports independent production and does not stifle speech online.
1211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, is the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk aware that the bill consistently says that it is within the meaning of the protections of freedom of expression and the charter, both in the original Broadcasting Act and in these amendments?
I do not see, though I am very suspicious of the government, any way that the government is trying to control what we think or say under Bill C-11.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, after 10 years of a Conservative government, with our coming into government, there were a number of legislative initiatives that were brought forward. This is the first major overhaul of the Canada Broadcasting Act and it had to go through a process of consultation. We do need to recognize the fine work that the departmental officials have done.
The most important thing is that we finally have the legislation here. We are in a position because we are at the beginning of our mandate. Who knows? Maybe, with the right support, we can continue on for the next three years. We have the time now. Let us see if we can pass the legislation and amend legislation that is long overdue, as I know would be very supportive to our industries.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, certainly I am pleased with Bill C-11 so far, but there are things that trouble me within it, for instance what happened in amendments to Bill C-10, in the last Parliament, to Canadian ownership of our Canadian broadcasting. That seems to be a little bit more wobbly. There is a lack of clear support for smaller producers and smaller creators, but there is this other piece of work that we need to do on broadcasting, and that is what I will ask my question about.
When will we see the government provide a comprehensive framework legislation and funding to get the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation back to what it should be doing? Ever since it put Wheel of Fortune on air and competed with private broadcasters, I have felt that the CBC, as it should be, was slipping between our fingers.
When we talk of this country not being unified, I think of Peter Gzowski, who has passed away. He and Morningside used to hold us together in the same way that watching the news with Knowlton Nash held us together. Something has gone wrong with the CBC. I am a big fan, but I feel as though competing with private broadcasters has not been the way to go, and we need to get back to a CBC that is more like the BBC.
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say that it takes about $20,000, in terms of equipment, to get set up. Yes, it is a hundred per cent much more difficult to get on the radio. However, the equipment is readily available. If someone has the $20,000, they can have the equipment up and running overnight. However, what someone cannot get is the licence to start broadcasting overnight. That takes several months, several review boards and all these things. There is a significant case in northern Alberta where I am dealing with the CRTC and we are unable to get a radio station in northern Alberta where there is only one other radio station servicing the entire community.
As for the algorithms, Ms. Ramneet Bhullar, in her article, talks about the algorithm manipulation. She says this is an odd fix because, rather than stating that the government cannot manipulate the algorithm, they can demand an outcome, which is essentially manipulating it.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am once again honoured to have the opportunity in this place to speak to the matters contained within Bill C-11, the online streaming act, the new name. I say “again” because, as many will remember, in the previous Parliament we tackled these issues under a different bill, and it was called Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.
This is a new bill and a new title, but we still have the same issues that exist with this bill. It was interesting because, moments ago in committee, the heritage minister admitted that Bill C-10 was flawed. He said that proposed section 2.1 should never have been in there, and 4.1. He mentioned those two that we fought on this side, in Bill C-10, for weeks. Unfortunately, even with the flawed bill, it passed the House but then the Liberals called the unnecessary election and the bill died.
However, this is the first time the Minister of Canadian Heritage has actually admitted Bill C-10 was a flawed bill. Here we go now with Bill C-11, an update. We all know the update is necessary. It has been 30-plus years since we updated the Broadcasting Act. I was even a young broadcaster 30-plus years ago when this came out. At that time, believe it or not, there was no Internet. It was just radio and TV back then, a little bit of newspaper. Of course, the Internet came and the World Wide Web, as we know it today, has changed a lot.
There were no Internet companies and no online streaming services to compete with the healthy Canadian broadcasters. However, when the predecessor of this bill was drafted in Parliament last session, we addressed four major areas of concern where the government legislation lacked significant consideration. I mentioned a couple of those in proposed sections 2.1 and 4.1, but we will go on.
First was for social media companies we all know, such as Facebook, Google and their various properties like YouTube, to pay their fair share. We agree. Second was creating that level playing field for digital platforms, like Netflix and Spotify, to compete with the conventional Canadian broadcasters. Third was to define Canadian content. This is the important one. We need to define Canadian content production and media fund contributions by digital broadcasters. What is the formula?
Last was the power given to the CRTC, better known as the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, to attempt to regulate in such a broad manner. This is an organization that struggles to enforce its own regulations now. We can even look, today, at Russia Today. They really never did take it down. It was the big conglomerates that moved in and took Russia Today down, like Bell, Rogers and Shaw. It is interesting. I think we could all agree the CRTC should have moved long before Russia Today was pulled down from Canadian programming.
Forty years ago, Internet companies and streaming were not even a consideration. Digital information has become absolutely accessible to everyone in this country. The demand for mainstream media, television and radio has nosedived. Streaming services have become the primary source of entertainment for many Canadians. Television stations have had to downsize their operations, along with radio stations. Many have gone dark in this country. The same is true for radio.
Right now, radio stations have another issue. Their revenues have dropped as much as 40%. Part of the problem is the public broadcaster, CBC. The government gave it another $150 million more during COVID to compete against private broadcasters. As I just said, private broadcasters' revenues have gone down 40%. CBC has gone up $150 million more in the budget, meaning we can see what is happening in the market. CBC, the public broadcaster, is going up, while the private broadcasters' radio listeners are going down, and thus advertising is not as good.
The result, as in my province of Saskatchewan, is that we have seen a major decline in local content. Easy access to digital content has been beneficial to the consumer, but with the outdated Broadcasting Act, the broadcasting sector has had some steep hurdles to overcome, and I mentioned those just seconds ago.
It is therefore fair to ask this: What does a modernized act need to accomplish? Does the government's latest attempt, Bill C-11, actually achieve this goal?
The first concern we should all address is the notion that the Internet needs to be regulated. We need clarity and clearly defined parameters on which aspects of the Internet would be regulated and to what extent. Would Bill C-11 create an environment where virtually all of the content would be regulated, including independent content creators earning just a modest living from social media platforms such as YouTube?
As I mentioned, Bill C-11 is almost a copy of the previous Liberal offering, Bill C-10, which was flawed and failed to address many of the concerns addressed by the experts during its hearings. When we speak of creating a level playing field, is it in the context of giving Canadian content creators the protection they need to produce and compete without impeding their ability to succeed at home and globally? Regulation, done properly, would support the success of Canadian content producers and would meet the objectives of the Canadian heritage mandates to support artists and the cultural sector. However, the bill before us leaves very little hope that this is what would be achieved.
I remain very concerned about the CRTC being tasked with administering the act. I have been in the business of television and radio for over four decades, and I have seen that the CRTC is already stretched to its limits with the broadcasting and telecom situation in this country. If the CRTC lacks the capacity to carry out the current mandate effectively, how can it be expected to take on the Internet?
The CRTC struggles to cope with the 4,000 or 5,000 entities in the broadcasting sector. We are seeing it in the industry committee now. Rogers wants to take over Shaw, and although this started last year, we still have no definitive action from the CRTC. Will it make a ruling soon on the takeover worth $26 billion? Can it even predict the number of entities that it will be required to look after once online streaming is added to its mandate? How much money and how much talent would the CRTC need on board to keep up with the bill? In fact, does it even understand the scope of the undertaking yet? How many years will it take to understand the criteria and scope and accumulate the resources needed to carry this out?
During our last debate on Bill C-10, I asked this of the CRTC chairman, Ian Scott, who, by the way, is stepping down in September after five years: How is the CRTC ever going to pay for this? He gleefully told the committee that it would be going directly to the Treasury Board. Well, we know what that means: The taxpayers will be paying more for their services.
What is perhaps most disappointing is that the CRTC will be handed the power to develop the rules of regulating, and it can make those rules up as it goes along. This act would endow the CRTC with the ability to determine its own jurisdiction without constraints.
1254 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear the hon. member across the way, especially given his background in broadcasting. However, I did not hear what I was listening for in his speech. My question is about the support of our artists and creators, the people who bring the content to broadcasters, whether in radio or streaming services. There is a value gap. They are simply not paid for the value they create. The act would be put in place to address that and to bring support to our artists and creators.
Could the hon. member comment on how the act could improve the lives of artists and creators in Canada?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I join colleagues today from the national capital region, I respectfully acknowledge that the land on which I am located today is the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
The online streaming act is about updating the Canadian broadcasting system so that it better reflects our current environment. Our environment has changed drastically over the years since the last time our Broadcasting Act had any major reform back in 1991.
Although much of the discussion has centred on technological shifts over the last 30 years, today I want to focus our attention on the concerns and achievements and priorities of indigenous peoples with respect to broadcasting. Updating the act is necessary to affirm the important place that indigenous peoples have within the sector. We need to ensure space for indigenous voices, indigenous stories and indigenous sovereignty in the broadcasting system. So much has been achieved in the broadcasting and audiovisual sectors by indigenous peoples in Canada in the past 30 years.
The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network was founded in 1999 and recently launched its digital platform, APTN Lumi. ImagineNATIVE launched in 2000 and now is the world's largest indigenous media and arts festival. The Indigenous Screen Office was founded in 2017 and has quickly become an integral part of Canada's audiovisual sector. Canada's first national Inuktitut television channel, Uvagut TV, launched in January 2021, and helps to promote and revitalize Inuit cultures and languages.
Let us take a moment to recognize the accomplishments of indigenous broadcasters, of indigenous creators and storytellers. Let us build on that as a strong foundation.
There is no doubt in my mind that the online streaming act can support greater diversity, authentic representation and narrative sovereignty for indigenous peoples in Canada. Music and video are powerful media for shaping culture and changing opinions. Historical representations of first nations, Métis and Inuit people in the audiovisual sectors have reinforced racist notions toward indigenous peoples and have stifled their voices. It is now essential that the amendments to this bill advance narrative sovereignty for indigenous screen-based storytellers and support opportunities for indigenous persons working in this sector. These changes will ensure that indigenous peoples will see more of themselves reflected on screen and will support indigenous peoples in their efforts to revitalize indigenous languages and cultures.
We hear that indigenous communities desire ownership and control of cultural content. We understand the importance of self-determination for indigenous peoples in Canada in not just seeing themselves on screen but in participating in the creation of songs and stories that are shared within Canada and across the world. Modernizing this legislation is an important first step in our shared path toward a more modern, more vibrant, more inclusive broadcasting system in Canada.
This bill intends to further support indigenous peoples in the broadcasting system. Many indigenous peoples rely on oral history and community transfer of knowledge, language and traditions. Broadcasting can assist that through the preservation of indigenous perspectives. Broadcasting is an education tool that can help break down stereotypes and advance reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. I imagine the tremendous benefits to Canadian society if indigenous voices are enhanced.
We created space for discussion. We listened with interest. The following key messages are what we heard: Indigenous storytelling, content creation and narrative sovereignty are important. Representation of indigenous peoples and the diversity of interests among first nations, Métis and Inuit is vital. The online streaming act follows on the path of ensuring that indigenous peoples can tell their stories from their perspectives and find content in the broadcasting system that reflects their lives and their experiences.
The act creates space for programming that reflects indigenous cultures and indigenous languages. It specifically states that the Canadian broadcasting system should “provide opportunities to Indigenous persons to produce programming in Indigenous languages, English or French, or in any combination of them, and to carry on broadcasting undertakings”.
It states, “programming that reflects the Indigenous cultures of Canada and programming that is in Indigenous languages should be provided”. This policy statement is now no longer qualified by the words “as resources become available”. This is as it should be.
The online streaming act will contribute to other activities designed to support indigenous peoples and culture. The government continues to work closely with the Indigenous Screen Office to empower communities and support Canada's diverse indigenous screen-based storytellers.
Indigenous artists and stakeholders have raised many concerns over the misuse and misappropriation of indigenous arts and cultural expressions. Historically, indigenous stories have been excluded from mainstream media and, if included, were mostly told from the perspective of non-indigenous people. Supporting indigenous creators through an indigenous-led funding mechanism ensures that decisions over funding allocations are made by indigenous decision-makers, helping to advance narrative sovereignty in the audiovisual sector.
With the announcement of $40.1 million over three years in budget 2021, the government is fully committed to supporting the Indigenous Screen Office as well as to providing additional ongoing funding so that more indigenous stories can be told and seen.
This bill would support indigenous creators so that they can tell their own stories in their own words, and it emphasizes the need for indigenous-run broadcasting services. The bill will contribute to fulfilling existing commitments through the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government is committed to take action through consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples to take all measures necessary to ensure that the bill as introduced is consistent with the declaration, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the declaration's objectives and table an annual report on the progress to align the bill and the action plan.
In addition, the government is committed to partner with first nations, Inuit and Métis people to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and to collaborate on the implementation of an action plan to respond to the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
As highlighted through these measures, broadcasting can play an important role in promoting and protecting indigenous languages, arts, cultures, traditions and perspectives that ensure that advancing reconciliation between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples is continued and comes to a resolution. I am hopeful that the online streaming act will move us further along the path towards reconciliation.
Broadcasting plays an important role in making sure that all Canadians see themselves represented. It is a tool used for sharing information, making each other heard and listened to, while reminding us of our many origins and shared journey. It is the ability to shape culture, change opinions and point the way toward a better, more inclusive future.
The work does not end here. We are committed to continue listening to and speaking with indigenous peoples to ensure that their voices are heard and their stories are seen on screen. We are committed to meaningful partnerships and engagement with indigenous peoples to ensure the promotion and revitalization of indigenous cultures and languages. We are committed to ensuring a more inclusive space where that vital role of culture in the process of healing and reconciliation will be realized. Culture continues to play a role in the process of healing and reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
Indigenous cultures have been insufficiently reflected in our broadcasting system, which is a problem that the proposed online streaming act is trying to rectify. Culture is paramount to healing and reconciliation. It is at the core of understanding and moving forward together. I strongly urge the members of the House to support the online streaming act.
I would like to share my own personal experience with all of this. I immigrated to Canada when I was 12 years old. Throughout my youth, I did not really get to understand and appreciate the lived reality of indigenous peoples. It was not until I grew older that I actively sought to educate myself.
The best way for us to really include these cultures, to really try to actively reconcile with indigenous peoples here in Canada, through our online streaming is for us to make sure the way we are broadcasting and what we are broadcasting is inclusive, diverse and, most importantly, helps to shape the future of what we want our Canada to see.
We talk a lot about Canadian values. If we do not feel indigenous people are included in that, then we fail.
I will stop there as I believe I am out of time.
1442 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:31:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague on the foreign affairs committee, and it was a pleasure, in the previous Parliament, to work with him on the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
There has been a lot of discussion about the role of misinformation, and in particular there are concerns about RT. It is important to note some of the content we heard in the last Parliament. There are various so-called media outlets that are state-backed coming out of Russia and China that push misinformation and that also sometimes feature atrocities as part of their programming. There are instances, for example, of forced confessions and human rights abuses that are happening in the context of TV production, yet they are licensed to operate in Canada.
I wonder if the member could comment on the need, as many members have said, to address the issue of RT, but also to look across the board at state-backed misinformation and propaganda coming into Canada and whether those entities should have privileged access to our airwaves. Of course, they still exist on the Internet, but in my view they should not have the privilege of broadcasting licences and access to our airwaves.
206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
