44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/29/22 4:47:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am just going to fix my tie because a constituent said that the last time I spoke I did not fix my tie. It was the first thing I heard at Tim Hortons when I returned home—
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 4:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
You know what? I love this blue tie. Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today I am so pleased to speak to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
This bill is big, and this bill it really big news. When a lot of Canadians where I come from think of what the government does well and does not do well, it often relates to what we might watch on TV or what we might stream on the Internet, so in terms of consequences in our day-to-day lives, what we are talking about today really does matter.
It was in 1932 that the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was passed, which recognized the importance of radio broadcasting concerning educational, social and cultural development on a national level. Throughout the years, this act was revised and modernized, with the last update occurring in 1991. The world has changed over the last 30 years, especially with the rise of social media and the Internet.
Today, our current government says it is updating the act for today’s digital world to ensure that Canadian content is reflected in online programming. While there is a need to promote Canadian content and support Canadian creators, is the government truly respecting user choice, or is it trying to control what we see and hear online?
The heavy tone of all the regulations in this bill, in my opinion, is more of government oversight rather than cultural and language promotion. Why is the government telling the subject matter experts how to use their language and what stories they should be telling?
For example, under section 9.1, subsection (1)(d), the CRTC regulates:
the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres, in order to ensure the diversity of programming;
Is the government trying to tell us how many comedy, drama or horror programs that broadcasters under this act, in the age of social media and the Internet, would have to offer?
Last year, I did a survey on the previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-10. I heard from one elderly gentleman in my riding who was angry because he did not have any say over which channels he could get in a basic TV package. These are covered by the current Broadcasting Act and CRTC regulations, which would be amended by the legislation we are debating today.
In the modern era of broadcasting in Canada, more government oversight has meant fewer options for viewers. People do not want to be told what programs they have to include and pay for in their cable packages. This has led to a domination of traditional media by a few legacy giants, whose viewership continues to decline year over year as many are choosing the Internet and its vastly more diverse range of content and options.
This legislation risks causing the same reality we witnessed with cable TV, but applied to the Internet, including fewer choices, and fewer independent actors and creators. At the end of the day, is this just another attempt by the government to prop up failing legacy media?
Bill C-11 was the government’s opportunity to move into modern day concepts of broadcasting programs. The government claims it wants to modernize the Broadcasting Act of 1991, yet Bill C-11 is basically using the exact same definition of broadcasting, meaning the starting point for regulation in Canada is that all audiovisual content would be cast as programs. Had the government perhaps distinguished between conventional and on-demand broadcasters versus video sharing platforms, like was done in the European Union, there would be no need for exceptions, exemptions and exclusions, which are riddled throughout this legislation.
It is not me saying that. It is Michael Geist, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He explained that, when we start with legislation that includes everything and we try to narrow it down, we simply cannot. We end up with loopholes, undefined services, and plain and simple confusion.
Rather than clearly define what needs to be regulated as broadcasting, this bill would leave much of those decision-making powers up to the CRTC. This limitless reach of the CRTC was even identified in an internal government memo during the committee process of Bill C-10, the last iteration of this legislation. The memo stated that social media services such as YouTube and Facebook greatly expand the number of individuals and other entities than can be said to be transmitting programs over the Internet. It also highlighted the importance of limiting the power of the CRTC to regulate user-generated content.
Despite this, the government removed the exemption for user-generated content in Bill C-10. Now in Bill C-11, the government claims the exemption is back with proposed section 4.1. The government now says it listened and fixed the concerns around social media. However, when we look at proposed subsection 4.1(2), we see there is an exception to the exception, and indeed the government does allow for regulation of content uploaded to social media. How are users and content creators to know if they are the exception or the exception to the exception?
Proposed subsection 4.1(2) states:
(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program
(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them
Subsection 2(1) would define “affiliate” as follows:
in relation to any person, means any other person who controls that first person, or who is controlled by that first person or by a third person who also controls the first person
My tongue is already twisted; this is really complicated stuff. It seems to apply to YouTube creators and other creators, but with the vague definition and really challenging legislation to read and understand, we do not know. It is almost like the government tried to make it as complicated as possible so people would not understand the complexity of what it is trying to achieve, which we still do not know either.
Podcasts, one of the richest spaces for user online expression, would fall within CRTC power to regulate content as a program. This bill is trying to categorize, in very convoluted language, any and all Canadian content on the Internet as broadcasting. It simply is not. Foreign services that carry modest Canadian presence or services might not take so kindly to CRTC oversight. Their first response may very well be to block the Canadian market entirely, leaving many Canadians with less program choice, more expensive services, particularly with respect to access to multicultural programming, and algorithms that do not meet their needs online or respect their choices.
One of the key questions I get from constituents regarding this legislation is “Will I now be subject to CRTC regulations for what I watch and do on the Internet?” Recently, Darcy Michael, a comedian from B.C. with a large following on TikTok, expressed his concern with how the bill will affect artists in the digital space and those consuming culture online. Mr. Michael cautioned that CRTC oversight would limit creativity of independent artists and that the current system of “user-generated content exists because it works”. Algorithms right now, as I understand, reward content that is popular and it is shown to people who are likely to be interested. That is how Mr. Michael has made a lot of money and has done it as an artist. By showing Canadian content to viewers who are less likely to interact with it, we hurt its ability to reach foreign viewers and the creator's ability to make a living in the digital marketplace beyond the limited Canadian media landscape. Therefore, one of the most disconcerting issues is the financial impact this bill will have on Canadian creators, many of whom have large foreign audiences and are the real reason people know about Canadian culture in the first place.
In conclusion, there is so much to cover, but this is not the 1930s, the 1950s or the 1990s, when we would turn to the radio or television to hear the news or watch a local hockey game. This is 2022, and we are constantly facing new media platforms. We need to eliminate the uncertainty this bill creates. We need to avoid the problems this bill will create. We need to define key provisions, decide on what actually constitutes a Canadian creator, fully exclude user-generated content and limit the scope of the bill to a manageable size. It is unrealistic in the 21st century to think the government can regulate the Internet, and the consequences of doing what we are doing here today will be felt for a long time in ways that we do not understand.
1506 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I am supporting is the right of Canadians to decide what they want to do on the Internet with their own free time. Frankly, when a Liberal member tells me that the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage has given us a guarantee, all we have to point to is Bill C-10. The former minister of the environment frankly lied to Canadians over and over again about the impact the bill would have on Canadians and social media. I find it disingenuous that the minister would even quote—
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I have a point of order.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I retract the words, Madam Speaker, and that is a fair point. My apologies. In the debate, I should not have said that.
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to take a look at Canada research chair Michael Geist, who commented extensively on the exception to the exception and the parts from proposed section 4.1 that I quoted in my speech. I think that says enough about what the bill would do.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, how do I define freedom of expression? Well, there are a lot of definitions of freedom of expression, but of course it is always going to be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island raises a valid point, and I do believe that provisions related to promoting indigenous culture and language are in fact good. I am always reticent to give power to regulators to determine winners and losers, but I do support, in general, more supports for some of the rural indigenous communities that I represent to get their fair share of funding, which does not generally go to places where I live.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my biggest concern with this legislation is that it is lazy. I do not think the government even tried to adapt to the 21st century with this bill. It took outdated and anachronistic terms and definitions that have been in place since 1991 and is trying to apply an outdated and unworkable formula for the reality we live in in the 21st century. As I mentioned in my speech, the consequences of this bill are not just going to be felt tomorrow. They will impact the next generation in 20 years, and we do not know what we are doing fully with the content of this legislation.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
