44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 28, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, to continue on with my speech, the online streaming bill, Bill C-11—
16 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 5:22:20 p.m.
- Watch
Is the hon. member apologizing for the comment? That was the purpose of the point of order and my comments.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did note that there was a new minister on this particular bill and I am—
19 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member named the minister in a derogatory form that was based on the way that he did it. You have now identified that it is inappropriate. The only course of action for him at this point is not to try to justify it but to actually apologize and withdraw the comments. Otherwise, we have to look to the House for how we deal with this situation.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 5:23:12 p.m.
- Watch
I do recommend that the hon. member apologize, not only because the comment was derogatory but also for naming the hon. member.
I recommend highly that the hon. member apologize.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize for doing what I did indirectly that I am not allowed to do directly. I am sorry about that.
This bill continues to be an assault on freedom. There is no doubt about that.
I gave a speech on Bill C-10 in the last Parliament, and the bill made significant reference to the fact that there was going to be algorithmic transparency. That is something I was in favour of. Algorithmic transparency is something we definitely want to see.
The challenge with that concept, which comes out of this bill, is not so much that algorithms will be transparent but that the government will be able to dictate the outcome of these algorithms. That is the challenge we see.
This particular bill, Bill C-11, is again bringing the government into these spaces. We hear, over and over again, from the Liberals that they want to level the playing field.
I have a significant story about folks in my riding who would like to start a radio station. It is very easy to start a podcast in this country. There are a number of hosting services available. People are able to use Facebook Live if they want to. There are a number of ways to start a podcast, and in probably an hour someone can have their own podcast.
On the other hand, to get a TV or a radio station started in this country is difficult, particularly in a part of the world like the one I come from, which is vast and large and where there are no other radio stations. There is only a handful of people living in northern Alberta, where there is one radio station, which is the CBC. If other folks come along and would like to start their own radio station, the amount of time and energy they would need to spend to try to start a radio station in northern Alberta would be significant. We have seen this over and over again.
I am glad to hear that the Liberals want to level the playing field, so to speak. When it comes to starting a radio station in a small town in northern Alberta, folks have worked on it for literally a year. They have spent a year trying to get approvals for a radio station in northern Alberta. They could get a podcast up and running immediately.
I point out that the Internet in rural Alberta is somewhat spotty. It is probably better than in most other parts of the country, given the fact that we have the oil patch everywhere and it brings the Internet everywhere, but besides that it is still not the same as it is downtown, so the Internet is not readily available. If someone starts a podcast in northern Alberta, they may have some trouble with the Internet.
To start a radio station, something that could be broadcast to an entire community with local news and that sort of thing, the amount of paperwork and effort someone has to go through to start that radio station is immense, never mind the cost of doing that. Setting up the facilities just to broadcast is probably $20,000.
With a bill like this, the government could be trying to level the playing field and make it easier for Canadian content generators to get their content on the airways so their local communities could hear it, but it is not doing that. Instead, what the government is trying to do is pick winners and losers, which is something Conservatives have been saying all along.
The freedom of being Canadian is that people can take their message to the public square regardless of what the government has to say about it. The thresholds for starting a radio station are immense in this country, and the government is entirely responsible for that.
I am not saying the government should get out of that. In the radio space, I believe there is specifically a role for the government. We cannot have the folks with the most powerful radio kicking everybody else out of the radio waves. That would not be appropriate. We would just end up with a war.
In northern Alberta, where there are two radio stations in a small town, certainly we should be able to organize and tell one station that it gets 98.1 and the other that it gets 93.7. As long as they are not interfering with anybody else and there is not another radio station for another 300 kilometres, I do not see what the big deal is and why there are all the regulatory processes. It should be that they can start their radio stations, get rolling and not mess with the other folks.
I understand that, when we get into Toronto, for example, where there might be hundreds of radio stations all competing within one or two notches on the dial, it is going to get a bit more confusing and it is going to take more to manage that. That is the role of the government. The role of the government is to manage the differences between those radio stations.
Rather than trying to make the Internet services operate and be regulated as if they are radio stations, how about working the other way and make it much easier for the radio stations to operate so someone can start a radio station as easy as starting up a podcast in this country? That would be levelling the playing field, in my opinion. That would be trying to ensure that no matter the method of bringing one's voice to the public square, they are able to do that regardless of which mode they are using. That would be fantastic if we could level that playing field. I think that is entirely within the CRTC's wheelhouse.
Instead, we see it going the other way. We see more radio and TV legacy media struggling to compete with the new platforms and instead of the government taking the shackles off, reducing red tape and making it easier for them to compete, the government is going to put more red tape and more regulations on the Internet. Then they will take money from the Internet and transfer that wealth from Internet service providers back to the legacy media. That is where I really think this bill falls flat on its face.
This whole question of Canadian content becomes a really interesting debate. For example, there are several podcasts and folks I listen to. One of them is called Viva Frei. It is by a YouTube sensation out of Montreal. He is a good Canadian guy. He has his own YouTube channel. He is a lawyer by trade and he explains the law and how the law works here in Canada. He is generally at odds with what the Liberals are up to. Are the Liberals going to be disputing whether he has Canadian content? Would they be concerned about who is contributing to his online following? That is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about.
Another one I follow is Redneck's Québec. It is another one I am really excited about. His antics on the snowmobile are impressive. Larry Enticer is another one I think is great, along with Rut Daniels. These are all great Canadians who have their own following on the Internet, and it is, in my opinion, definitely Canadian content. However, how and where are these decisions going to be made? Will these folks, whom I really appreciate on the Internet, be given the benefits of this new regime being brought in by Bill C-11?
I hope I have been able to explain the two issues around this bill, which are who defines what Canadian content is and also the levelling of the playing field. We do not have to bring the streaming services up to the same amount as the radio stations, but rather bring the radio stations down so they can compete with the streaming services.
1348 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to be honest. I had a really difficult time following that logic around making it easier to get on the radio. I imagine what makes it difficult to get on the radio is purchasing all of the equipment, including the antennas. Yes, I am aware that the CRTC has a lengthy application and the amount of work to fill it out. The real thing that would make it hard to get on the radio, I imagine, would be all the equipment that one needs for radio that they do not need to get on YouTube or whatnot.
Nonetheless, on this point of algorithms and the government setting up, I think it is important to point out to many Conservative members that the legislation specifically says, “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.” It is clear from the legislation that there cannot be government control over the algorithm, despite the fact that this member would suggest otherwise.
181 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 feel somewhat like my colleague opposite, who said that he did not really understand our colleague's position. I gather that my colleague is afraid that algorithms will be altered by the legislation. However, the bill states the exact opposite.
Clause 4.1 of the former Bill C-10 led to a major impasse in the last Parliament and unfortunately compromised its passage. The current bill specifies that social media creators, users and influencers will be exempt from the application of the act. On what basis is our colleague attempting to discredit this new bill, when it has been corrected—
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 5:35:33 p.m.
- Watch
I must give the hon. member the opportunity to respond.
The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just again on that point around algorithmic transparency and the manipulation of algorithms, the bill specifically says that the government cannot regulate the algorithms, but what happens in practice is that the regulations for Canadian content will effectively manipulate the algorithm. If the government can say a certain percentage of one's content must be Canadian content and it must show up in one's feed, then that is essentially manipulating the algorithm. That is precisely what Ms. Ramneet Bhullar said in her article.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the topic of manipulated algorithms, I would tend to agree. One would only have to reference all the fake participants and followers among the Conservative leadership candidates. When talking about algorithmic manipulation, look at what just happened in the occupation.
Would the hon. member agree that big corporations, such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and the like, have a disproportionate impact on our discourse and would he agree that they need to be perhaps broken up, as well as some of the big conglomerated mainstream media outlets that we have like National Post and others?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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, the member for Guelph is so right. Much of our new-found talent came from YouTube and progressed from there. Many do not deserve to be on YouTube, quite frankly, as their careers will never lift off, but it is a way to try to get started. As we move forward on Bill C-11, the discussion will be what to do with the Internet, YouTube and so on, because many performers in this country are making a pretty good living right now putting their talent on YouTube instead of on the traditional media that we know today of radio and TV.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood on his speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with this colleague on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We certainly do not always have the same views on all issues, but we certainly have the same passion for media and culture.
He was involved in the discussions about Bill C‑10 on broadcasting in the previous Parliament, and with Bill C‑11, we have a bill that is not far removed from what we had before.
Does my colleague look favourably on the upcoming work in committee? Does he intend to work constructively to develop, improve and pass Bill C‑11 on broadcasting, which, as everyone knows, is eagerly awaited by the industry?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Drummond is a valuable member on the Canadian heritage committee, and he has been on it for years. We worship his input and always have interesting conversations.
He is a member from the province of Quebec, and one of the issues with Bill C-10 was protecting Quebec culture. We did not see eye to eye on that. Netflix is not going to shoot a show or production in Montreal because it has a limited segment of the population. It would rather do it in English because there is a larger audience.
We will go forward with Bill C-11. The member was in the same committee I was, and changes were made to proposed subsection 2(2.1) and proposed section 4.1 between the old bill and the new bill. Maybe it is time for this bill to pass with those two new changes. We will see.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. The Conservatives have made it clear that they are good friends with our American neighbours and have referenced the importance of Canadian content as well. Does the member agree that Canadian content, such as “the medium is the message”, is a value to be protected, or is this more about allowing American sensationalism, such as “make America great again”, instead?
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nunavut. I was in Nunavut four years ago for a two-week tour with Senator Dennis Patterson and enjoyed it immensely.
The member would know that APTN was formed in this country because voices were not being heard. That is right. The public broadcaster, CBC, did not do a good enough job of broadcasting the voices of Canadians. What had to happen? APTN television, out of Winnipeg, was formed. Why? It was to give a voice to Canadians. I hope that voices in Nunavut will be heard correctly as we move along on Bill C-11.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
