44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
moved
that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to lead our consideration of third reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This is not our first time dealing with this type of legislation. Bill C-11 is largely the same as the previous bill, which was adopted by the House on June 2021. The main difference between the two are changes in the approach to social media and the correction of drafting errors.
Our government reintroduced reforms to the Broadcasting Act in February of this year. Our goal with this legislation is to modernize the act so that it continues to serve Canadians in an increasingly digital age. Bill C-11 also delivers on our government's promise to update the act in support of Canadian content.
We Canadians are known for our rich and diverse culture. This is no accident. Rather, it is a consequence of bold action taken in the past. Our culture is the result of deliberate decisions Canadians have taken to support it, not the least of which is the Broadcasting Act, a crucial piece of cultural legislation.
The Broadcasting Act is not new. It was last amended in 1991, when I was still at Mary Ward elementary school in Niagara Falls. The years since have seen a rapid innovation in all sectors regulated by the act. The Internet has gone from a rarity to something that we hold in the palm of our hands. TV Guides have been thrown out in favour of on-demand streaming. Music has become ubiquitous, thanks to robust digital libraries. Films are now more available and instantly accessible, more than ever before. It is like having a Blockbuster store right in our own home. If we are talking about 1991 references, that is a good one to make.
In short, how we produce, access and think about content has changed dramatically. Our updates to the Broadcasting Act will continue to serve Canadians now and in the future as well as it has in the past.
I would like to highlight four main ways the online streaming act will serve Canadians.
First, Bill C-11 will ensure greater representation in our entertainment media for minority communities in Canada. Diversity is a cornerstone of Canadian identity but it is not a given. Representation matters. We must make sure that all Canadians can see themselves reflected in the stories they engage with.
Bill C-11 makes it possible for minority communities to be better seen and heard in our digital media. Some of these communities include francophones, indigenous peoples, minority language communities, LGBTQ+ persons and persons with disabilities. Canadian programming is telling those stories. It is up to us to make sure those voices are heard loud and clear, and that even more diverse voices can join them. Kim's Convenience, a show produced by CBC, follows a Korean family who runs a small business in Toronto, a distinctly Canadian experience. Schitt's Creek, another Canadian television program, leads with LGBTQ2S+ characters.
It is stories such as these that make us proud to be Canadian. They make us feel at home and they also make us feel seen and heard. We must not underestimate the power of seeing these kinds of stories on our screens. We must take action to make a welcoming space online for a diverse chorus of voices. This action includes taking steps regarding allocation of resources, which brings me to my second point.
The audiovisual interactive media sectors contributed over $19 billion to Canada's GDP in 2020. It is an important segment of the Canadian economy, yet industry trends are worrisome. Current market trends anticipate a decrease in the production of Canadian television content by approximately half a billion dollars by 2025, compared to 2020. That is a 13% decrease and 13% fewer Canadian voices to be heard.
The year 2020 was not an optimal year either. That year, Canadian television production declined by $320 million compared to 2018. These numbers are not figments of our imagination. They are facts. The industry is telling us that it needs our support and we should listen. Bill C-11 proposes interventions that can change the trajectory of these projections. If passed, the Department of Canadian Heritage projects that Canada's cultural production ecosystem could benefit by more than $1 billion annually in mandated contributions. Greater financing means that additional funding would be available to Canadian productions, which would lead to more diversity in our broadcasting.
The risk is not purely economic. We are also risking the livelihood of tens of thousands of Canadians. Film, television and broadcasting production sectors represent 165,000 jobs. We need to protect the stability of those employment opportunities, especially as we come out of a pandemic.
The pandemic limited the revenue steams of Canadian artists and creators. Many had to reinvent how they share their gifts with the world. We all benefited from their resilience. We found solace in their music, we travelled through film and we experienced community through television. Creators are there when we need them, and Bill C-11 is our way to give back to them.
Creators told us they did not want to be subject to regulations in the online streaming act, and we listened. Their work will not be considered commercial, regardless of how much money they make. Our legislation would ensure that productions of digital-first creators do not face additional hurdles. Traditional broadcasters have long been subjected to certain requirements that bolster Canadian creators. We must ensure that new broadcasters, such as streaming platforms, offer our sectors the same backing. Bill C-11 would make that a reality.
My fourth point is to do with the support of artistic innovation. We wrote Bill C-11 to advance artistic innovation, not to hinder it. One of the ways we would be advancing innovation would be by changing our primary regulatory tool. As it stands, broadcasters must obtain broadcasting licences from the CRTC before they can operate in Canada. This is the bread and butter of current regulations. In this legislation, we have adopted a new approach: the condition-of-service model. Under our new model, broadcasters, both traditional and digital, could operate in Canada as long as they respect the conditions laid out by the CRTC.
The new conditions of service could be updated at any time. Previously, updates would only be made during the licensing renewal process, or every five to seven years. Our proposed model would give the CRTC the ability to seek contributions from broadcasters in support of Canadian storytellers, be they musicians, TV producers or filmmakers. All of these updates would ensure that regulations can evolve alongside the industry, rather than chasing to keep up.
I would like to change gears for a moment. I have laid out the four key things the online streaming act would do to improve cultural development and equity in Canada, but let us take some time to look at what the act would not do.
I will start with the most fundamental point. Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet. I will say it again, because we hear it from the other side: Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet. Traditional broadcasters have been regulated by the Broadcasting Act for decades. Television personalities were never regulated by the Broadcasting Act. This principle would not change under Bill C-11. The legislation would update our definition of “broadcasters” to include the platforms many of us get our content from.
The online steaming act would regulate foreign streaming companies, such as Netflix and Spotify, and domestic ones, such as Crave. Social media platforms that function as broadcasters, such as YouTube, could also fall under these regulations, but only the social media service itself would have responsibilities under Bill C-11. Content creators would not be subject to regulations. Platforms are in, and users are out.
Bill C-11 would not control what Canadians view online. On the contrary, it would pave the way for folks to view more Canadian content. With Bill C-11 we would be making it possible for Canadians to create more stories that resonate with their fellow Canadians. This fact goes back to my earlier point about the need for equal representation on our screens and in our earphones. We want to ensure that Canadians in the cultural industry face no closed doors when they tell their stories. The online streaming act would not limit the choices of Canadians, and this bill would create more choices for consumption, not less.
I want to assure every Canadian that, if this bill becomes law, their ability to choose what they watch and what they listen to would not change. We will always protect Canadians' freedom of expression.
The legislation would not overturn the Broadcasting Act. It would modernize the Broadcasting Act so that the good of that legislation continues to be experienced by future generations of Canadians for years to come. History has shown us the importance of supporting broadcasting through legislation. Thanks to the Broadcasting Act and the work of parliamentarians who passed and amended it, we grew up consuming and loving Canadian content. This content has played a role in establishing our collective identity.
Our country is vast. Geographic separation can isolate us from province to province, territory to territory and region to region. Our shared experience of viewing and listening transcends the distance. It is one of the things that unites us. The actions and achievements of past parliamentarians made it possible to hear languages we did not speak, to see coasts of our country we had not seen and to listen to music unlike what we heard in our homes.
Our job is hold open even richer cultural experiences for coming generations of Canadians. Part of my identity as a Canadian is thanks to people who saw value in giving me those experiences. I would like to return the favour for future generations.
The COVID pandemic was a challenge for many of us. We watched local businesses struggle, community theatres close and film productions cease. Despite all of this disruption and chaos, many large streaming platforms had pandemic gains. Netflix is one example. The company gained 16 million new subscribers at the beginning of the pandemic. Fairness is paramount, and streaming services should hold no preference. As they solidify their place in our media landscape, they must be subject to wise and fair regulations. Bill C-11 could require online streaming platforms to contribute to the production of Canadian audio or audiovisual content. This bill could also require them to financially support the training of Canadian creators. This kind of financial support makes a big difference in the lives of many people.
Bill C-11 is before us today, thanks to the dedication of Canadians, public servants, industry professionals and parliamentarians. The Broadcasting Act guided the creation of great Canadian content for many years. We are grateful for the experiences it enabled us to share in the current era it helped us usher in, but we cannot let past decisions determine what tomorrow looks like. It is time for Canada to take greater control in today's digital era to fight for greater representation; to strengthen cultural growth and cultural sectors; to safeguard jobs and music, film and television production; and to evolve with the times and not fall behind them.
I am proud to stand behind legislation that will help Canada do that. I would like to commend the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his passionate defence of this legislation. His leadership has been critical in getting the bill to this point. I would also like to thank the Minister of Environment for the work he did on this legislation when he was the minister of Canadian heritage.
Now it is our turn to act. In passing this legislation, we will bring about a new era of Canadian content creation. We will ensure a promising future for our artists, our creators and our storytellers. We will shape what future generations think of when they picture what it means to be Canadian. Let us give them a future they can see themselves in.
With that, I invite my hon. colleagues to support this legislation.
2043 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as for controlling what Canadians watch, the Broadcasting Act regulates television. I do not make the member watch Roughriders games, nor does the government or the CRTC make him do that. If he wants to watch the BC Lions, he is free to do that. If he wants to watch American football, he is free to do that.
With respect to algorithms, the law specifically prohibits the CRTC from regulating algorithms. With respect to what Mr. Scott said, what the member and Conservatives have left out is that Mr. Scott said the current legislation, as drafted, already allows the CRTC to regulate online platforms, but that Bill C-11 builds a wall around it. Platforms will have obligations; users will not. That is how it has been for the last 50 years under the CRTC for traditional broadcasters. It will continue to be the same for online streamers.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, modernizing the Broadcasting Act is important, and levelling the field between Canadian broadcasters and web giants is essential. Even with these needed changes, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook and other web giants still do not pay their fair share on the profits they make here in Canada.
Why is the government delaying the implementation of a digital services tax? Why are they protecting the profits of the web giants and refusing to make them pay their fair share?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on this rare occasion, I actually had an amendment passed on Bill C-11, and it was with the aid and assistance of the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I wonder if he would like to expand on that experience of collaboration in the interest of community broadcasting and engagement of citizens through community non-profit activity, an aspect of Bill C-11 that has not been referenced much so far in this round.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, talk about seeing something that is just not there. I think conspiracy theory 101 is the lesson from the other side here. What Bill C-11 is all about is fairly straightforward. It is the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. It is as simple as that. Maybe the Conservatives get a gold star nowadays if they mention the word “freedom” in their speeches. I do not know where the member is getting the information from.
If the member wants to be consistent with what he said, does that mean the Conservative Party of Canada's new approach to the CRTC is to get rid of it? Are they saying the CRTC regulations should not be applied to other media streams? Is that what the Conservative Party's position is today?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when the government put forward the first iteration of the bill in the last Parliament, I received a number of communications from constituents who were concerned about amending the Broadcasting Act. The major issue they had with it were the channels they were forced to pay for when they bought a TV cable package.
Does my colleague believe that the Government of Canada is applying a similar type of approach to the Internet that so many Canadians disagree with, when it comes to all of the channels they are forced to pay for just to get basic television in their homes?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith on the quality of her French. That was perfect.
I could take 20 minutes to answer that question. Of course the government should have imposed tax rules on online businesses much earlier. Even now, I do not think adequate measures have been brought in, far from it.
When it comes to contributing to the broadcasting system, to the cultural industry and to content, some companies are making an effort and trying to do something, but it is still not nearly enough. I do not want to point fingers at every single company, because there are some that are trying to produce things here.
However, several aspects still need to be fixed or brought in. Rules and a legal framework are needed. Once the framework is in place, it will be much easier for these businesses to generate original Quebec and Canadian content that meets both our expectations and the financial needs of the community.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really do not feel like answering the question. I would much rather react to my colleague's comments.
Freedom of expression is a topic that we could debate for many hours. I would say that, when it comes to broadcasting legislation, there also needs to be parameters that in some way guide what we can and cannot say.
In fact, this is something that we already do in everyday life. There is a rather universal concept that is generally understood by all, in Quebec and across Canada that one person's freedom ends where another's begins.
There is nothing in this bill that infringes on freedom of expression. I am not sure if that answers the question from my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, but, since I am saving the two or three insults I have for him for later in private, I will stop there.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. We do need to give ourselves the latitude to review the legislation and change things that are not working. Things are moving so quickly with the arrival of these web giants. The digital universe is evolving so quickly that we can barely keep up.
I think we will have to keep an eye on this and monitor the evolving technologies and content consumption patterns. We do not consume content the same way that we did five years ago, and that will probably change again in another five years.
A provision requiring that the House review the Broadcasting Act every five years will allow us to keep up and make it so that we do not end up with a completely outdated law in need of a total overhaul 30 years from now.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, much of the work was also done during the study of the old Bill C‑10, so we need to look not only at the study of Bill C‑11, but at all the debates on the Broadcasting Act.
People in the cultural community, especially those in Quebec, told us there was an urgent need to act and warned against missing this opportunity. That is why it was so important for us to press the government to move forward and pass this bill. Too much time has been wasted already.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague has brought forward. One of the things that is really important for us to recognize is that over the years we have seen significant change. In the early 1990s, when the Internet really started to take off, we started to see more streaming really beginning. It was not really until the late 1990s. The Broadcasting Act has not been amended in any significant way since then. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is so critically important, just recognizing technological changes, for this act to be modernized.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right: The world has changed. A Broadcasting Act that was brought forward in the 1990s would clearly not be sufficient for what artists in this community are facing today. In fact, I am just going to quote, if I could, from a constituent in my riding. She is, in fact, Juno prize-winning singer and musician Maria Dunn. She wrote to me with her support for Bill C-11, and said that “online broadcasters must have the obligations to invest in and showcase Canadian creations.” This is from a Juno-winning artist whom I have the great privilege of representing in this place, so we can all say that what was appropriate in the 1990s cannot be considered appropriate now in 2022.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to be interrupted with a quorum call. Many people working throughout the day often go to the MP lobby to get something to eat. I suspect we will find that on all sides of the House. It does not mean there is a lack of interest in what is taking place. The lobby is just through the door.
I want to pick up on the point that things have changed. Back in the nineties, the Internet started to speed up in a very significant way. There was nothing called Netflix when I was first elected. When we look at the speed that is required to have the type of streaming we have today, it was not even being imagined by most people back then. That was the time we last saw the modernization of Canada's Broadcasting Act.
Most Canadians understand and appreciate why it is important to have the CRTC, for example. Based on some of the arguments put forward by the Conservatives today, I am beginning to think they would get rid of the CRTC if they were put in government. That is just based on some of the comments they have put on the record. However, if we reflect on the important role that the CRTC has played in Canadian society, it is really—
223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and debate legislation. It is unfortunate that we have to do it under the guillotine of a guillotine motion whereby all stages were time limited and Canadians did not have the opportunity to fully engage on this piece of legislation.
I would remind the House that this is the first major update to the Broadcasting Act in over 30 years, and the government saw fit to ram this through committee, report stage and now third reading with limited debate. However, the Senate—the unelected, unaccountable branch of government—can take all the time it wants. It is allowed to have witnesses and it is allowed to hear from Canadians, but here in this House, the people's House, the elected branch of Parliament, we are being forced to deal with this.
The practical effect of this piece of closure upon closure upon closure is that key stakeholders never had the chance to appear before committee. I would remind the House as well that many of the limited number of witnesses we did have expressed significant concerns. I am sure the government would be interested to know that over a third—39.3%, to be exact—of the witnesses who appeared had significant concerns with this piece of legislation. In fact, 31% thought it should be defeated altogether because of its poor drafting.
There was not unanimity. There was barely a plurality who saw this bill as a perfect piece of legislation in its actual form. Canadians did not have a chance. Let us hear from some of the groups that did not have a chance to appear before the committee.
The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network contacted the committee and wished to appear, but could not appear. Ethnic Channels Group did not have an opportunity to appear. The Community Radio Fund of Canada, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Radio-Canada International Action Committee all contacted our committee to appear and share their views on this piece of legislation. They could not do that because of the actions of the government in ramming it through committee and through this House.
The practical result is that when it came to clause-by-clause study, every single clause, every single amendment was forced to be put at 9:00 p.m., without debate, without amendment, without even reading the amendment into the record. Canadians watching at home—and there were Canadians watching at home who were concerned about this piece of legislation—had no clue what parliamentarians were voting on. What is more, we only received these amendments that same day, with no time to consult key stakeholders in the industry or key creators who may have had concerns or viewpoints on potential amendments. We could not contact them. We could not talk to them. We did not have the opportunity to have that conversation, and instead every single clause, every single amendment was put without debate, without amendment, without even being read into the record.
That is not how committee ought to function. That is not how deliberative democracy ought to function.
I want to be clear. We had several key amendments that we felt would improve this piece of legislation. I want to talk about one that actually succeeded, despite the best efforts of the Liberal government. Every Liberal voted against this amendment, but thankfully the opposition stood firm and eliminated part II licence fees. For far too long, the government has been charging part II licence fees for domestic Canadian broadcasters. It is a tax. It is solely a tax levied on Canadian broadcasters. It is not levied on foreign streaming giants, only on Canadian broadcasters.
The government keeps talking about levelling the playing field, but their idea of levelling is just adding more regulatory burden on everyone rather than truly having a positive impact on domestic broadcasters. Thanks to the Conservative leadership on this issue, we eliminated part II licence fees, saving Canadian broadcasters over $100 million in tax, money that simply goes into the government coffers. It does not go to CRTC. It does not go to programming. It does not go to promoting Canadian culture. It does not go towards promoting Canadian content. It is just more money that goes into the government coffers.
There were other amendments that we proposed that would have improved this piece of legislation. I would say the most important were related to section 4.2, user-generated content. I note that the Green Party had similar amendments that would have either taken out or significantly modified section 4.2 to ensure once and for all that user-generated content was not captured.
Unfortunately, in each case the government voted down each of those meaningful amendments. Liberals even voted down eliminating two words that would have at least taken out indirect revenue. Anyone who spends time talking to digital first creators, talking to those who use digital platforms to promote their content knows that when we are saying “indirect revenue”, it captures a whole swath of the Internet. That is the concern Canadians have had from day one.
I know this has been mentioned before, but this is an important observation from Canada's most successful YouTube channel. Morghan Fortier said:
Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It has been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad.
She went on:
Worst of all, proposed section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet use of everyday Canadians and small businesses like mine that are not even associated with broadcasters.
That is the reality. Conservatives stood up for those creators to try to narrow the exception to the exception that is found in section 4.2, but of course the government members voted against the idea.
Conservatives also stood up for Canadians to try to bring in a definition of “discoverability”. We want to ensure that Canadians can find their favourite Canadian content online. We want to ensure that when Canadians log on to one of the platforms, they can find Canadian content. What we do not want to see is one piece of Canadian content being promoted over another piece of content, with the CRTC deciding which Canadian content is most Canadian or which piece of content should be promoted over another piece of content.
We introduced measures that would have ensured that algorithms were kept out, that Canadians were not going to be subjected one way or the other to promotion of content, but of course our efforts, which included the definition of discoverabilities and included protections for Canadians, were also voted down.
We also suggested that there should be an updated or a clear definition of “Canadian content” to ensure that Canadian stories are told, that Canadian actors, Canadian technicians, Canadian directors and producers are encapsulated into a broad definition of Canadian content so that those films and television shows filmed right here in Canada and those actors who have striven all their lives could find success here in Canada.
Here is what John Lewis, international vice-president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, said about Canadian content:
Under the current system, The Handmaid's Tale doesn't qualify as Canadian. It's based on a novel by Canadian author Margaret Atwood, who served as a consulting producer. It features Canada-centred plot lines, was filmed in Canada—employing hundreds of Canadians—and garnered 75 Emmy nominations. Canadians were recognized internationally for their skill in art direction, production design, hairstyling, makeup artistry, costume design, visual effects and editing.
But The Handmaid's Tale is not Canadian content.
We tried to have the government commit to updating the Canadian content rules prior to going ahead with Bill C-11, but of course it did not happen, and we are still waiting for the minister's policy directive to the CRTC. Bill C-11 provides very broad powers to the CRTC, but much of that will be filled in by the policy directive that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will send to the CRTC.
Canadians deserve to know how the minister wishes to see the CRTC implement those measures, but we have not seen that policy directive. The minister will in fact not disclose it until after royal assent, so Canadians and parliamentarians here in this place and in the other place are forced to vote on Bill C-11 before seeing how it will be implemented.
1465 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am standing up for cultural workers. I am standing up for those digital-first creators who have found success through online means, who have found success here in Canada and around the world because they have used new technologies. We strongly believe in updating the Broadcasting Act to bring it into the 21st century, but we should not and ought not do that at the expense of those who have found success globally thanks to new technologies.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-11 seeks to modernize the existing Broadcasting Act for the first time since 1991, primarily to bring online streaming services like Netflix and YouTube within its domain.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
In my view, it has been a long time. Bill C-11 is certainly needed. We need to modernize the Broadcasting Act. I also feel it is well-intentioned legislation on behalf of the government party, and it has good items in it, a few of which I will mention. One, of course, is the requirement for streaming services like Netflix to invest more in Canadian productions. Second is that it legitimizes the role of community broadcasting, including non-profit and campus radio stations, acknowledging that community broadcasters, through collaboration with local organizations and community members, are in a unique position to provide varied programming to meet the needs of their communities.
That being said, Bill C-11 also has significant issues. The first is that, throughout the bill, we see vague language and some contradictions, and at times it is fairly poorly written. I will give one example. In the section I will be talking about next, there is a definition of “social media service” without that term being defined earlier in the bill. As we heard from others, it skips over a really critical opportunity to update and clarify the definition of what Canadian content is.
Most important of all, despite claims that only platforms would be regulated, there are very clear provisions in the bill that would allow for user-generated content to be regulated, and the chair of the CRTC confirmed as much when he was in front of the heritage committee. One of those provisions is any time user-generated content generates either direct or indirect revenue. What does that mean? I think of a local musician who might be soliciting financial contributions on a YouTube livestream, for example, and whether that musician might fall under the regulations that are permitted under this act.
I want to be really clear. There are some who have said that this bill censors what Canadians would be allowed to watch. That is simply not true. That is not in this legislation. That said, both at committee and in the wider conversation across the country on this bill, non-partisan experts and those affected by the legislation have shared their concerns, and I would like to share a few of those this evening.
One group is the YouTube content creators themselves, Canadians like Morghan Fortier. Morghan said this: “Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It’s been written by those who don’t understand the industry they’re attempting to regulate”. Many others are on the record with concerns similar to Morghan's, other YouTube content creators across the country.
Then, of course, there are also subject matter experts like Michael Geist, who sounded the alarm. He has written often on the topic and spoke at committee. I hesitate to even bring up Mr. Geist given how often he has already been referenced in this debate over the last number of weeks, but I will quote one snippet that is important for this House to hear again, which is that Bill C-11 needs “extensive review and further reform to get it right.”
Finally, political analyst Erica Ifill shared her many concerns in a recent Hill Times article. She put it succinctly, “the new broadcasting bill still does not address core problems of the digital experience.”
For my part, I brought two amendments to the committee. One would have removed every part of proposed section 4.2 of the bill that allowed for user-generated content to be regulated at all. There are various provisions here that would open up that opportunity. Why not close those to be really clear that platforms are in and users are out?
The second was more precise but less ambitious, which was to remove just those users who generate indirect revenue. Can we not at least agree on that? This is a group of users the bill was likely not intended for, so let us take that out. Again, parliamentarians from all parties have previously said that they believe in this premise of platforms in and users out. Therefore, I was disappointed that both of these amendments were defeated at committee.
I would also like to briefly note my disappointment in the process. It was not the best moment. We saw the animosity between committee members, between opposing parties in this chamber, and that resulted in the majority of votes on amendments last Tuesday night having to take place without any debate at all. In my time here I have seen better moments. I think back to December when members came together to unanimously move forward on banning conversion therapy, for example. There have been incredible moments in this place of parliamentarians working together, but in my view, this was one of our less strong moments.
To summarize, in my view, when assessing legislation, I find myself thinking about my neighbours in Kitchener and our community, and I ask myself, “Does the bill do more harm than good?” I get it that rarely I will get to vote on legislation that fully addresses the interests of my community, so I will always support legislation that has a net-positive impact. However, my concern with Bill C-11 is that it could do more harm than good. This is the reason I did not support it earlier this afternoon, and I am not likely to support it at third reading tomorrow. I appreciate the good intentions. I appreciate that there are good elements in the bill. I certainly wish we had more time to debate it, and even to see more negotiation among parliamentarians to see amendments tabled and moved forward with.
Assuming the bill will soon be moving to the Senate, I hope senators will take the opportunity to improve the bill.
1050 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to make clear to the parliamentary secretary that I do agree with him.
As I said in my speech, it has been quite some time since the Broadcasting Act was first passed. There is an important need to modernize the Act, and I am glad the governing party prioritized that. I also believe it is important to get it right. While there are many stakeholders, as he has mentioned, who are supportive, there are also many others, some of whom I mentioned, such as Canadian YouTube content creators, who are quite concerned.
I go back again. Yes, it is a difficult decision not to support this legislation, but the analysis I am doing is weighing harm versus good. My concern here is that, with this legislation as currently written, given some of the vague language and allowing for user-generated content to be regulated as it does, it is open to the possibility of more harm than good.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are here on traditional unceded Algonquin territory and say meegwetch.
It is a great honour to speak to Bill C‑11 this evening. As everyone knows, this bill would amend and modernize the Broadcasting Act, something that has not been done in 30 years, even though we have seen enormous changes in the various delivery platforms. The biggest changes have to do with online streaming rather than television and radio broadcasting. There have been changes for our actors, creators and musicians and with respect to the issue of Canadian, Quebec and indigenous culture.
First of all, this bill is not perfect. I have problems with certain aspects of it, but I have decided to support it anyway, and I will explain why. I thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre, another Green MP. We made different decisions, but we agree on the problems and the reasons why he will be voting no and I will be voting yes.
It is a complicated bill. I want to start with a few things, just to clarify what it is not. Moments ago, a very talented new member of Parliament, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, spoke about wishing that we could put in a more concrete, entrenched form that freedom of expression and freedom of speech are respected in this land and that every Canadian knows they have a right to those things.
I would say, with all respect to that member, we have that. We have the right of free speech in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Beyond that, the act that this bill amends but does not cancel, repeal or wipe out the words of, the Broadcasting Act, has for the past 30 years entrenched the right of Canadians to freedom of expression. Nothing in this modernization in Bill C-11 would change, in any way, our right to freedom of expression. This bill does not censor anything. It does not change what we can see and what we cannot see, or what we can hear and what we cannot hear. It attempts to achieve greater protections for many different varieties of Canadians against the powers of the new digital world.
I am going to focus a little time on some specific examples. Before I talk about the good the bill does, let me say where I hope we will observe closely how the bill works, and be more than prepared to take it up again within the next year or two. I would suspect we would, if we have the problems that we fear we may have with the failure to make sure that Canadians who in the government's intentions are not supposed to be caught by this bill, are not, and if we have problems differentiating the impact of the bill on those people from the impact on the large digital platforms, whether it is Netflix, Crave or HBO. We are not intending to capture users who place their content on YouTube.
One of the differentiations that I found quite useful, and that I actually heard from Professor Michael Geist, was that there is a difference between a platform, a place where we can put things, that is “curated” versus one that is not curated. That is the word he used. I wish the government had used that kind of language in Bill C-11, because I think it would clarify things a great deal.
In other words, instead of concentrating on who does what on a platform, we should differentiate between the systems and differentiate between the platforms. If we were to say there was this area where there was a conscious effort to promote certain content, it would be a curated place. This is versus one where everybody could put stuff up: It is not being curated to meet a certain purpose. If it is being curated to meet a certain purpose or to create different profit, that would have been a better differentiation than we have in Bill C-11. What we have in Bill C-11 has left us divided.
I do not disagree one bit with my colleague for Kitchener Centre that this bill should be much better and clearer on the question of platform versus user. Platforms will be in and users will be out: I believe that is the government's intent, but the drafting does not make that sufficiently clear. I think we will have to go back to it and improve on and clarify this.
I remain concerned that the CRTC has a lot of clout and power in this. I hope we see that the CRTC is guided by the best information from people who are skeptical about this bill to make sure its use does not do anything but improve the situation for Canadians, both those who enjoy the products of creators and those who create. I hate to use the word “consumption” as if people consume culture, and I will not use it. People who enjoy culture, who are edified by culture and who feel ennobled by culture, those of us who are essentially the audience, need to benefit from this act just as the creators do.
Regarding the discussion around platforms versus users, I do not think the government has it right yet, so why am I going to vote for this bill?
When I look at the creative community, there is no question about this as it is empirically documented. The rise of the digital broadcaster has reduced the economic status of Canadian musicians and Canadian creators versus those in the U.S. Just to give members one example from the world of music, a traditional broadcaster generally sent 49¢ out of every dollar from Canadian music to the U.S. That sounds like a lot. Then, we see that the digital broadcaster sends 64¢ out of every dollar to the U.S. From 49¢ to 64¢ is a big difference to someone who is living on those earnings. In fact, I do not know how Canadian musicians can live on their earnings. In the past year, in 2021, on average Canadian musicians writing their own material earned $67 total in royalties from digital streaming platforms. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that people who are writing their own music in Canada have their income reduced just by virtue of what medium they use to share that material.
We need to have a Broadcasting Act that promotes Canadian creators within Canada and overseas, and we hope this bill will improve things. Certainly, the Canadian Media Producers Association, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, SOCAN, and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA, are saying that for their own survival as artists we need desperately to redress that imbalance. When it goes onto a digital platform, Canadian artists are paid less. They are valued less, and will turn from that career because they cannot make ends meet. As the rise of digital access to creativity overtakes the traditional, the situation will only get worse, and that is the trend line we see with the digital media and the online sharing of everything from music to film, video and TV.
There is a huge creative class in Canada. As a matter of fact, just to give some context for it, the membership of the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers is 175,000 people. By the way, SOCAN does not just promote these brilliant creative people, but it actually runs the system that collects the royalties and distributes them fairly, so when we go outside of that system we are seeing the funds to pay musicians the royalties they deserve slip through their fingers without capturing it. That is why SOCAN is so strongly in favour of Bill C-11.
The same is true of how people feel across the spectrum of other artistic endeavours. We have heard a lot in this place about films like The Handmaid's Tale. It is hard to say one loves The Handmaid's Tale when, as a feminist, one would wonder how Margaret Atwood could see the future coming before we did. I dread the day I go to shop with my debit card and it is taken from me. It is not sufficiently Canadian content when the leads, the producers, the people holding the cameras and the people yelling “cut” are not Canadian. That is what Bill C-11 hopes to repair.
1448 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
