Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I am pleased to stand today to speak at second reading to Bill C-11, which is called “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts,” otherwise called the “Online Streaming Act.”

This bill has been in the works for some time. Introduced in the Forty-third Parliament as Bill C-10, it’s now back as Bill C-11, with significant changes. Our Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications began pre-study work in June, and we returned to this work last week.

One of government’s most important roles is to respond appropriately to technological change. For much of our history, when it came to television and radio broadcasting, entry into the system was guided by something called “spectrum scarcity,” where consumer choices were limited by the technology of the day. The regulator would set conditions, including Canadian content requirements, in return for a broadcasting licence and the ability for a broadcaster to reap advertising revenues. That was and still is the business model of traditional broadcasting.

Does anybody remember the phrase, “a licence to print money”? That phrase was made famous not by the owner of a sports franchise but by the owner of a television broadcasting licence. That person was a Canadian — Roy Thomson, Baron Thomson of Fleet — who famously and notoriously described his new licence to run a television network in Scotland as his licence to print money. That was in 1956. But those profitable enterprises have seen their revenues decline with the rise of the internet, as advertisers flee to the internet platforms, and consumers flee to the vast array of choices available on streaming services and social media.

In its recent report documenting broadcast revenues and viewership in 2021, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, said that revenues from commercial radio have declined by 31% from 2016 to 2021, and those from conventional television have declined by 15% over the same period.

While television shows a one-year increase from 2020, the long-term trend is downward. Since Canadian content expenditures are tied to broadcast revenues from the Canadian broadcasters, so Canadian production as well has declined from this source.

The government has positioned Bill C-11 as a response to this changing technological and market landscape. And just as governments regulated the cable and satellite technologies in the past — and, remember, in those days, that represented an increase in consumer choice — so now government intends to regulate the new internet services.

The main goal of Bill C-11 is simple: to bring online streaming services, like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Spotify, which are now unregulated, under the Broadcasting Act and under CRTC regulation to create a so-called level playing field. These streaming services will be required to contribute to the production of Canadian content and to showcase and exhibit Canadian content. A whole new word, “discoverability,” has been invented to describe this showcasing aspect.

Bill C-11 will require contributions for official language and Indigenous programming, and there is mention of serving the needs and interests of diverse ethnocultural and racialized communities and those from other diverse backgrounds. Indeed, Canadian culture, Canadian expressions and diversity themes are very prominent in the government’s messaging around this bill.

Above all, the CRTC is charged with determining all these requirements and how they will be carried out in a way that is flexible yet predictable, fair, information-based, equitable and informed by consultation. It will be given the tools to collect information from broadcasters, to audit them and to administer penalties.

Now, some critics of the bill argue that the internet itself cannot be regulated, but the internet is already regulated all over the place. In fact, some people claim it’s always been regulated. The real question we have here is whether this is the best way or even a good way to achieve desired goals and not diminish or discourage the great offerings of the new technologies.

Over the past several months, I have observed widespread criticism of Bill C-11 focused on three major themes. The first theme involves the threat to Canadian freedoms from Bill C-11. In hundreds and hundreds of letters I have received — and I’m sure other honourable senators have also received — since the beginning this year, Bill C-11 is seen to be the end of freedom in Canada. Here is one example of a letter:

Dear senator, I am terrified that our wonderful democratic nation is at the brink of banning free speech. I implore you to vote against Bill C-11. It must be defeated if we hope to keep our country democratic.

This was a letter to me from a woman in British Columbia just a few weeks ago.

So many letters and calls have the same message, yet the vast majority of these folks do not articulate how this bill is actually supposed to end democracy. I, for one, do not think the end of Canadian democracy is at hand, at least not from Bill C-11.

A second theme that has gained widespread attention and criticism is focused more specifically on the potential intrusion into viewer or listener choices by direction that will be given to firms to alter their algorithms for the purpose of making Canadian content more visible on platforms.

I would like to make two points here. Bill C-11 states that the CRTC cannot make orders that would require the use of specific algorithms. However, we do need more clarity on this, especially in light of the contradictory comments made to our committee by the CRTC last June. In fact, the CRTC chair, when he came to our committee, very much muddied the waters on this issue of algorithms, unfortunately, for many people. He had many very valuable things to say, but he most certainly muddied the waters on this issue of algorithms.

My second point is that we also need to focus on alternative methods to achieve visibility of Canadian content — that is, methods that are alternatives to algorithms. There has been a lot of time spent on this topic of algorithms; in fact, I think maybe too much time has been spent. Nevertheless, I’m hopeful that our committee can shed some light on this complex issue.

A third theme that is still getting the lion’s share of attention and criticism is the regulation of user content. Now, the minister has repeatedly said that platforms are subject to regulation and that individuals or users themselves are excluded. Bill C-11 does state this. But the bill also includes the so-called exceptions to the exclusions, which allow the regulation of user content in certain situations. Therefore, colleagues, we are back to the same conundrum as when we started, and this vexing and important issue remains on the table.

Other questions have received less attention but are still important. Should the CRTC have so much more power? Can the CRTC successfully carry out all the new responsibilities and tasks assigned to it? Should the CRTC have more direction from Parliament than Bill C-11 now provides? What will be the bill’s impact? What will happen to Canadian content in production into the future? Will the existing broadcasters really be helped by any of this? After all, that is supposed to be one of the main goals. Will creators from diverse backgrounds benefit from this bill? Will new technologies and innovation actually thrive into the future?

There is much for our Senate committee to examine. However, I want to speak very briefly about the process that has accompanied deliberations on Bill C-11 to date.

Let’s look back over a year ago to June 2021 and Bill C-10. That process was a mess. That bill spent four months in committee at the other place, which met 30 times — 12 times with witnesses and 18 times for clause-by-clause consideration, followed by filibustering and a rare imposition of time allocation at committee. So that was a disaster.

With Bill C-11 this year, I consider that the process was actually rather similar, only this time it happened within four weeks instead of four months at the House committee. Meetings with over 50 witnesses were followed by filibustering, closure motions and over 50 amendments passed in one evening on June 15 of this year. Does this sound to you like a thoughtful process? Does this give you confidence in the bill before us?

Clearly, sober second thought is greatly needed. Now, there are many good elements to this bill. In a Nanos Research national poll conducted for The Globe and Mail in May, two thirds of the public said they support the idea that streaming services should financially contribute to creating Canadian content just as Canadian broadcasters do. So we do see that high-level support for the idea of Bill C-11.

Also, Bill C-11 enjoys the support of stakeholders across the arts and culture and broadcasting communities, including many people in the Toronto community where I live. I have to say that a couple of weeks ago, one of the stakeholders told me that he really doesn’t like to mention Toronto very much. But I have no hesitation in talking about my city. My city is a vast, creative community of tremendously successful and creative people, and there are many, many people in my community who support Bill C-11 — organizations like the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, the Canadian Independent Music Association, the Directors Guild of Canada, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Ethnocultural Media Coalition and many of Canada’s major television broadcasters.

But there are many outstanding issues, which I mentioned earlier, and the process in the other place, in my view, was fraught. Colleagues, I look forward to the next several weeks of Senate study and debate, for Bill C-11 will receive the sober second thought it so clearly needs. Thank you.

[Translation]