Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Online Streaming Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud, as always, to rise in the House to speak for the incredible people of Timmins—James Bay.

We are here to talk about Bill C-11. We have to step back into the last Parliament where we had Bill C-10, which this is the update of, and what was then Bill C-11, which was supposed to be about addressing the long outstanding need to bring Canada's laws up to standard in dealing with the tech giants.

This Bill C-11 was the old Bill C-10, which should have been pretty straightforward. Who does not want Facebook to finally start paying tax? This is a company that made $117 billion in profit last year, up $31 billion in a single year, and it is not paying tax. That is what Bill C-10 was supposed to do, but then it was our modern Minister of Environment who was then the minister of heritage who turned it into a total political dumpster fire. It was so bad the Liberals had to call an election, just to get that thing off the table.

Now the Liberals have brought it back. At the time, then Bill C-11 was supposed to be the privacy bill, a pretty straightforward thing. However, that was another dumpster fire, because the Privacy Commissioner had to come out and say that the Liberal plan to update privacy rights would actually undermine basic Canadian privacy in the realm of digital technology. Particularly, the Privacy Commissioner found this American company, Clearview AI, broke Canadian law for their illegal use of images in facial recognition technology. In response, the Liberals were going to rewrite the rules so it would be easier for Clearview AI to break the law, rather than for the Privacy Commissioner to protect Canadians.

The Liberals had to call an election to erase all of that. Now the Liberals have been given, as they have so many times in the past, one more chance. The deus ex machina comes down and gives them a chance to do things all over again.

Now we are looking at this Bill C-11. I can say one thing about this Bill C-11 is that it fixed a lot of the problems with the previous dumpster fire, maybe by moving the minister, although God help the planet now that he is looking after the environment. That is just my own personal thoughts from having read his ridiculous environment plan today. What he was going to do for culture, he is now doing to our environment.

Having said that, I would say that there is a couple of key issues we need to be looking at. We need to be looking at the need for Canada's legislation to actually address the right of artists to get paid in the digital realm. For too long in Canada we sort of pat our artists on the head. We all talked about the favourite TV shows we had growing up. One of the Liberals was talking about the Polkaroo.

Arts policy should not be that we just pat our artists on the head. This is an industry. It is one of our greatest exports. We are not promoting arts as an export or promoting our artists to do the work they need to do. We saw from COVID the devastating impacts on Canada's arts industry, on theatre, on musicians and on the tech people, the highly skilled tech people who went over two years without working. We really need to address this. One of the areas where they have been so undermined is online.

Let us talk about Spotify. It is basically a criminal network in terms of robbing artists blind. The number of sales one needs to have on Spotify to pay a single bill is so ridiculous that no Canadian artist could meet it.

We have streaming services that are making record fortunes. Therefore, it is a reasonable proposition to say that they are making an enormous amount of profit and they have a market where they do not have any real competition, so some of that money, and this was always the Canadian compromise, needs to go back into the development of the arts so that we can continue to build the industry.

The one thing I have also come to realize is that what the digital realm gives us and what streaming services give us is the ability to compete with our arts internationally on a scale that we never had before, if we are actually investing. Let us not look at it in a parochial manner, like what was done with the old broadcasters, where it was one hour on prime time a week they had to have a Canadian show on. Let us actually invest so that we can do the foreign deals. Why is it I can watch an incredible detective show from Iceland on Netflix, yet people in Iceland are not seeing an incredible detective show from Canada?

This is what we need to be doing. This is a reasonable position to take. With the profits that Facebook and Google are making, they can pay into the system. That is simple. They have unprecedented market share.

I will go to the second point, which is dealing with the tech giants. It is something I worked on in 2018. Our all-party parliamentary committee came up with numerous recommendations. I have to speak as a recovering digital utopian because there was a time when I believed that when we let all these platforms come, if we stood back and did not put any regulations on them, they would create some kind of new market promised land, but what we saw was that those dudes from Silicon Valley who were making YouTube in their parents' garage morphed into an industrial power that is bigger than anything we have ever seen.

There is a term, “kill zone of innovation”, where these companies have become so rich, so powerful and have such unprecedented corporate strength that it dwarfs anything we have ever seen in the history of capitalism, companies like Facebook. When Facebook gets a $5-billion fine, it does not even blink. It does not bother it. When the Rohingya are launching 150-billion U.K. pound lawsuit for the mass murder caused because of the exploitation of Facebook's platform, we realize we are dealing with companies that are so much beyond that they do not believe that domestic law applies to them. There has to be some level of obligation. I have worked with international parliamentarians in London, and there were meetings in Washington, trying to see how we can address the unprecedented power.

There is one thing that changed fundamentally when we saw the growth of this power. There used to be a principle that the telecoms would always tell parliamentarians, which was that we should not be blamed for what is in the content because, as they say, the pipes are dumb. We just send out the content and people choose, but people do not choose the content on Facebook and YouTube because of the algorithms. It is the algorithms that make them culpable and responsible.

I refer everyone to Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who demanded Facebook explain how many of these stolen bot pages were driving misinformation during the convoy crisis here in Ottawa. Congresswoman Maloney wrote, “Facebook’s history of amplifying toxic content, extremism, and disinformation, including from Russia and other foreign actors” is well known. It is no wonder that some members on the Conservative backbench are so defensive about this bill. My God, this is their main source of news. What are they going to do if we start dealing with bot pages that they think is something that came down from the promised land?

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to address bot accounts. We have an obligation to hold these companies to account. What does that mean? Number one, it is about algorithm accountability. I do not care what someone watches on Facebook or YouTube, that is their business, but if the algorithm is tweaked to show people what they would not otherwise see, Facebook is making decisions for them.

I would refer my colleagues to Tristan Harris, the great thinker on digital technology. He spoke to the committee in 2018 and said, “Technology is overwriting the limits of the human animal. We have a limited ability to hold a certain amount of information in our head at the same time. We have a limited ability to discern the truth. We rely on shortcuts” like thinking what that person says is true and what that person says is false. However, what he says about the algorithm is that the algorithm has seen two billion other people do the same thing, and it anticipates what they are going to do so it starts to show people content. What they have learned from the business model of Facebook and YouTube is that extremist content causes people to spend more time online. They are not watching cat videos. They are watching more and more extremist content. There is actually an effect on social interaction and on democracy. That is not part of this bill.

What the all-party committee recommended was that we needed to address the issue of algorithmic accountability and we needed to address the issue of the privacy rights of citizens to use online networks without being tracked by surveillance capitalism. With this bill, we need to ensure that these tech giants, which are making unprecedented amounts of money, actually put some money back into the system so that we can create an arts sector that can compete worldwide.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that Bill C‑11 will be passed as soon as possible.

I applaud the work that our colleague from Drummond did in committee. I am very happy that Bill C‑10, now Bill C‑11, is before the House today.

I do not understand why anyone would oppose this bill. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act is archaic and toothless.

Francophone cultural content is in decline, and all our broadcasters are losing momentum. I believe we must act to resist the web giants of the world. Personally, I find this very important.

My question for the member who spoke is this: If this bill passes, it will go to committee. How much time will it take for the CRTC to implement the changes?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

History seems to be repeating itself. Canadians will recall, but here we are again. Having debated Bill C-10 last spring, we are now debating its replacement, Bill C-11. The new heritage minister will try to tell Canadians that he has fixed the problems that existed in the former legislation. However, this is an extremely misleading statement.

My time is short, so I am going to cut to the chase. The government claims that the bill is about support for Canadian culture and levelling the playing field. I would like to see Canadian culture promoted and celebrated, so let us explore that for a moment.

I have two questions. First, is the bill about meeting Canadians where they are at in the 21st century and celebrating the amazing work being done by digital first creators to produce Canadian content and enhance culture in their very own unique way, or is the bill about the government imposing its definition of Canadian content in order to fulfill a government-driven agenda? Second, will the bill truly level the playing field, or will it be used as a cash grab in which those who have worked hard to expand their viewership and generate revenue are forced to subsidize the traditional media industry, which is producing content for which there is little to no demand? I realize that these questions make the government uncomfortable, but they must be asked in order to understand this legislation.

My grandparents were not required to subsidize horse and buggies when cars became an alternative. Society moved forward in an innovative way, because it just made sense.

In effect, Bill C-11 would put in place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which will govern how easily creators, those who post, are able to make their content accessible online to those of us who view it. In other words, it would impact what Canadians can and cannot access. It would be an act of censorship.

The Internet is a vast, infinite and magical space where all Canadians, no matter their background, are able to post and engage. In the new public square where we engage with one another, we do it through writing, audio and visual arts. For many Canadians, socializing online is the new norm. If passed, Bill C-11 will thwart our freedom in this new space.

Again, the minister will try to tell us that all the problems have been fixed. He will point to convoluted parts of the bill in order to try to prove his point, but here is the thing: If the minister is telling the truth and has nothing to hide, why is the bill not crystal clear? Why is the Liberal government choosing to use muddy language by placing exceptions within exceptions in order to confuse people?

There are many flaws in Bill C-11, but I will focus on three of them today: the first is the overabundance of power that it would place in the hands of the CRTC, otherwise known as the “Internet czar”; the second is its negative impact on creators; and the third is how it negatively impacts viewers.

If passed, the bill will give the Internet czar, the CRTC, almost unlimited power in order to regulate the Internet. Talk about an attack on freedom. The CRTC could have been given very specific, very narrow guidelines, but the government chose to give it free rein to amend, to exempt, to include. The Liberals claim that bringing more government intervention, and this is an interesting one, will boost Canadian culture, but that is not true. I mean, tell me a time in history where more red tape and regulation has increased innovation, incentivized artistic creation and brought about prosperity? Members cannot, because it does not, ever.

Let us talk about creators. One of the biggest complaints that we heard from digital first creators last time was that the bill would regulate their content online. Members can think of TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, podcasts, YouTube and, yes, even cat videos. Now, the minister will claim once again that he fixed it by adding section 4.1(1) back into the bill, but the problem is that section 4.1(1) is immediately followed by subsection 4.1(2), which creates exceptions that nullify 4.1(1). It is pretzel logic. It is confusing and purposefully muddy.

Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He seems qualified. He has pointed out that, under the act, digital first creators can be described as broadcasters and therefore forced to comply with the CRTC regulations.

In other words, essentially any audiovisual material could be brought under the scope of this bill, not just large streaming platforms, but even individuals who use music. The member opposite actually even clarified this earlier in her own speech.

This means that TikTok videos, which essentially always use music, and YouTube videos, which mostly use music, will in fact be captured under this legislation. This means creators, right off the top of their revenue, will have to pay 30% into an art fund. They have to pay in, but they do not get to pull out.

It also means that the content of digital first creators will be assessed based on how Canadian it is. The CRTC, the Internet czar, will of course make the conclusion. That material will then be promoted or demoted accordingly. The minister will try to tell Canadians that what I am saying is not true, that only big companies, such as Netflix and Disney, will be caught by this legislation, but if that is the case, I would again ask the government to clarify that and to say it outright. It does not. The bill does not. It is purposefully muddy.

Let me talk about the negative impact that the bill will have on viewers, members, me and Canadians. Imagine going on YouTube to look for videos on Black voices but being shown instead a bunch of videos on hockey in Canada, having never searched for hockey before, and all of a sudden those are the videos that are being fed to you. That would be extremely frustrating.

What we are talking about here is discoverability. It is the use of algorithms to make some content accessible and other content not. It bumps it up or down. Sometimes it can be found on page 1. Sometimes it is found on page 53. Currently YouTube carries material based on a person's individual preference. It bumps it to the top of the page if a person likes it, if maybe they have watched similar videos in the past.

This legislation would force content, so-called Canadian content, in front of the eyeballs of Canadians at the expense of showing them the content they actually really want. It totally disrespects and disregards Canadians' freedom, choice and desire to watch certain things over others, all because the government has an agenda.

Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch. That desire, that free will, should be respected. I have not even addressed the problem with the definition of CanCon, which is absolutely ludicrous. Let us talk about that for a moment. CanCon, or Canadian content, is that content that the government would actually be putting at the top of the page.

A bilingual Canadian sitting in his Montreal condo producing YouTube videos about maple syrup and hockey, all while using the Canadian national anthem in the background of his video, would still not get counted as Canadian content. Can members imagine that? In fact, based on the definition of CanCon, the only ones who will receive the government's stamp of approval are members of the traditional media.

The CRTC will define who is in and who is out, who gets noticed and who does not, who gets to be on page one and who has to get bumped to page 53. An individual's preferences are inconsequential, and the government would now decide.

In Canada, we are punching above our weight in what creators are able to produce. It is absolutely jaw-dropping. They literally share their talent with the world. It is incredible. Lilly Singh, a famous YouTuber, has pointed out, “creators who have built their careers on the Internet need to be consulted on these decisions.” She went on to say, “In trying to do what seems like a good thing - highlighting great Canadian-made content - you can unintentionally destroy a thriving creative ecosystem.”

Morghan Fortier of Skyship Entertainment is so eloquent when he put it this way, “In Canada, digital content creators have built a successful thriving industry on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export a huge amount of Canadian content to the rest of the world.... They've done this through their entrepreneurial spirit, their hard work and largely without government interference or assistance.

“This achievement should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.”

Bill C-11 is presented as a means to support the future of the broadcast industry, but it completely ignores the global reach of Canada's digital success stories in favour of an antiquated regionalized broadcast model.

Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital first creators. It is a direct attack on our choice as viewers. It is actually a direct attack on the advancement of arts and culture in Canada in the 21st century. The bill needs to die 1,000 deaths.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech from my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Bill C‑11 corrects a concern that was raised during the study of Bill C‑10, the predecessor of Bill C‑11, which was dropped in the previous Parliament.

Bill C‑11 clearly states that the CRTC will not be able to use algorithms to verify whether digital platforms are meeting the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act.

I have a question for my colleague. If it turns out that algorithms are the only way to verify whether the objectives are being met, what might the solution be? How will we ensure that the platforms are meeting discoverability and other objectives?

[Scott Benzie]

I don't know...I'm kind of paying to run the organization.

Buffer Festival started 10 years ago out of the Canadian Film Centre. We started a not-for-profit called the “Buffer Foundation” to train indigenous youth on reservations and teach them how to become storytellers. Coming out of that, COVID hit, and then Bill C-10 hit, and we realized that there needed to be an organization to speak for digital first creators because they were about to get railroaded, so we built Digital First Canada—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

From some your comments, I guess I'm concerned that your organization is more of an anti-Bill C-10, anti-Bill C-11, organization than a pro-creator artist organization.

My concern is that these platforms have incredible unchecked power over creators. These are some of the largest companies in the world, and in looking at your website and your Twitter account, both for you personally and for your organization, they are absent anything except for C-10.

My question is whether everything is hunky-dory with these major corporations and no changes are required, because that's what's coming through loud and clear from your silence on social media and on the Internet.

[Scott Benzie]

Yes. We run workshops all the time. In fact, we did a program called “Road to Freedom”, where we went into indigenous communities and trained young indigenous voices on how to be digital creators. We left behind gear, information and infrastructure for them to continue to be Canadian storytellers. We run workshops every year for digital first creators. We have another organization called “Buffer Festival”, which is an arts festival.

Digital First Canada didn't exist because it didn't need to until Bill C-10.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I really enjoyed. I especially liked the bit about quotas. When I was a little younger, hearing the same two or three songs by Ariane Moffatt and the Cowboys Fringants on the radio over and over bugged me even though I love those artists. Fortunately, time and musical diversity have granted us an appreciation for those kinds of quotas.

This might be more of a comment than a question. I would like to take a moment to recognize my colleague's work on this bill, especially its previous incarnation in the last Parliament as Bill C‑10. Since our election in 2019, I have rarely seen such a tremendous amount of work go into making sure the Bloc Québécois's amendments are in the new version of the bill, so I wanted to take a moment to congratulate my dear colleague.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga for his question. Following our discussion this afternoon, I thought he might ask his question in French, but maybe next time.

Amendments were debated and voted on last year when the House was studying Bill C‑10. I was pleasantly surprised to see those amendments as clauses here in Bill C‑11.

There are indeed provisions designed to promote the use of official languages by broadcasters, online or otherwise. It is indeed very important to promote minority cultural communities and indigenous cultures. In fact, I am absolutely delighted to see that the latter are becoming much easier to discover in various media and it is well worth doing so.

That is yet another example of why it is so important for us to make the rules ourselves and apply them to foreign companies with a digital presence here.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, as an aside, I would first like to point out to the House that, like many of my colleagues, I am wearing the colours of Ukraine today.

I was in Montreal yesterday, along with several of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, to take part in the rally in support of Ukraine. A number of rallies were held across Canada and Quebec. I saw yesterday why the people of Ukraine will emerge victorious from this conflict. Whatever the outcome of this Russian assault, the people of Ukraine have embarked on a path that will inevitably lead them to achieve their goals. When a people or a nation decides to live freely and to live in a democracy, the path to get there does not stop until the ultimate goal has been reached.

Quebeckers are worried about loved ones who are currently stuck in Ukraine. One of my constituents in Drummond, Mr. Nelson, comes to mind. His wife is sheltering in the basement of the school where she teaches in Nizhyn. He has not heard from her, although perhaps it is for some silly reason, like she cannot charge her phone or has no way to reach him. I want Mr. Nelson to know that the Bloc Québécois and his representative will never give up.

This long preamble on the situation in Ukraine is somewhat related to what we are debating today. War in the digital era plays out at different levels than it did a few decades ago, or even one decade ago. These days public opinion is infinitely easier to manipulate. We have seen it many times and examples have been pouring in for a few years now. It is a threat that we must confront urgently.

An example of this came up just today. My colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood mentioned it. This afternoon, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and we talked about the Russian propaganda media, Russia Today, which has been banned from several Canadian cable companies. I am not saying that muzzling or censorship is the solution. I want to make it clear that this is an exceptional measure.

The solution is not always to silence the voices of people with different opinions, and I pointed this out to the minister earlier. I told him that this was warranted in the case of Russia Today, which is broadcasting disinformation and propaganda from the Russian regime to justify Russia's despicable attack on Ukraine, but I said that this instance must not create a precedent for censoring or silencing other press or media outlets that might broadcast questionable content that we do not agree with or condone.

This is why a bill on the Broadcasting Act that takes today's reality into account is so important. As members know, the current legislation was passed in 1991. I think we explored the issue thoroughly during the debate on Bill C‑10 last year. This old and outdated legislation is long overdue for revitalization and modernization. I am very pleased to finally rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which will also address online streaming.

It is rather sobering to see that, 16 months after a bill that was urgently awaited by the cultural industry, broadcasters and the media was first introduced, we are essentially back to square one. I say “essentially” because some improvements were made to Bill C‑11. These improvements were obviously the result of the numerous amendments proposed when the bill was studied in committee last year. I also want to point out that many of these improvements were championed by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, in particular the improvement regarding the discoverability of Canadian and French-language content and content from different cultural communities, which add colour and beauty to our cultural universe.

Had Bill C-10 passed, the CRTC would now be holding hearings to regulate the industry with a view to creating a more level playing field for all actors in cultural sectors and broadcasting.

Had Bill C-10 passed, we would be starting to see our content creators, programming undertakings and artists getting back to creating television shows, movies and music because they would have renewed confidence in the government's ability to create an environment where their content will do more than just make Chinese and American billionaires richer.

These people are not asking for a pandemic relief program. They are asking to create, sing, dance, produce shows, play, produce and earn an honest living through their passions.

We have lost many people and a great deal of expertise in the cultural and radio and television sectors since the start of this pandemic. Many people have left for more stable and less stressful sectors because they are also mothers and fathers. We underestimate these people's contributions to society.

I will repeat it, because I get the impression that it takes time to sink in, that it is not immediately or quickly understood: Culture is not an expense. Culture is an investment. Culture pays off. Culture contributes to the Quebec and Canadian economy. Artists and cultural workers are not a bunch of lazy old fogies who live off subsidies. Culture is an industry worth about $60 billion per year. Culture is an industry that supports more than 600,000 people in Canada. It is is wealth. It is not just wealth from a financial perspective, it is our wealth because it both reflects and conveys what and who we are as a nation. Culture conveys to the whole world what our identity is, what our values are, what our personality is, what our colours are.

If the means of disseminating our culture are taken away, what will be left of us? The rest of the world will continue to think that Canadians play hockey, that they drink beer and Tim Hortons coffee, that Quebeckers wear arrowhead sashes while eating poutine around a campfire in winter. We will see the usual familiar clichés that all of us are a little tired of seeing around the world. That is what our television, our radio, our cinema allow us to convey. They allow us to showcase our stories, what and who we are.

We must ensure that our creators, producers and broadcasters can continue to do just that on the new platforms forced upon us by the new technologies on which we are becoming increasingly dependent.

We have heard a lot of criticism about the regulation of content. Sometimes the criticism is ideological, while other times it is more partisan. Sometimes it is well-founded, while other times it is less so. I think the criticism is relevant in the sense that everyone is entitled to their opinions. For instance, someone might not be a big fan of quotas for French-language content.

I started working in radio as a young host in the mid-1980s. Canadian music quotas and francophone music quotas were just starting to be imposed. I can say that it really got on my nerves, because it was not very cool, even though there was some great music there. There were some excellent artists, but the choice was still pretty limited at the time. There was not a huge pool of music for the different styles of radio, for example. The radio station I worked for was much more youth oriented. We definitely had a little less to choose from in those days.

I can admit quite honestly now that I used to find it annoying to have to comply with francophone music quotas. However, over time, I began noticing the positive impacts of that regulation, that push to promote francophone content on Quebec radio stations.

As time passed, more and more new bands and new musical genres came along and were discovered because of the regulations that were put in place to showcase our music and our artists. There were extraordinary positive impacts.

Today, there could be radio stations with 100% French-language programming and listeners would never get bored. They would not necessarily hear the same thing all the time, even if some radio programmers believe that the same songs should be replayed just about every hour. That is another matter and another debate.

The positive effects of implementing such regulations are tangible. If it worked for radio, if it works for traditional media, it is also going to work for digital media. We must do it for digital media for the same reasons that I mentioned earlier. We show the entire world who we truly are through our media, our art, our culture, our programs, our movies and our talent. We are more than just beer and coffee drinkers, more than just lovers of poutine wearing arrowhead sashes and gathering around a fire. Culture dispels clichés.

The need to quickly bring in new broadcasting regulations, to refresh the ones that have been in place since 1991, is even more urgent given the current crisis in the cultural industry, which has certainly been aggravated by the omnipresent digital media and digital corporations like GAFAM. These giants are gobbling up our news media's profits and their share of the advertising pie. It is time to regulate this.

I have some figures to share. Since the beginning of the pandemic, out of the 180,000 jobs lost, whether temporarily or permanently, more than 50,000 cultural sector workers, artists and content creators decided to throw in the towel and do something else. They went off to get another job. They have families to feed, and they cannot stay in a situation where they do not know when the next crisis will crop up or what impact it will have on them.

These people no longer want to go through that kind of stress. More than 50,000 people in Canada have decided to do something other than the work they loved above all else. One of these days, we will have to come back to this and think about how much importance we give to our artists and content creators. We might want to consider reviewing the Status of the Artist Act. I want that to happen soon. It will be important to do that, because these self-employed cultural workers lack even a modicum of financial security, as they are excluded from government programs by virtue of their status. That means we lose them in times of crisis, which is what we are seeing right now.

The Union des artistes, a Quebec-based artists' union, polled its members earlier this year, and the numbers are alarming: 61% reported having lost interest in their artistic trade, 35% had sought help for mental distress, and 15% had suicidal thoughts during this period. The Union des artistes has 13,000 members, so 15% is a lot of people to be having those thoughts.

Culture is important, but we also need to talk about broadcasters. Up until a few years ago, companies across Canada were operating in a system that they helped to build and that afforded them some protection from the invasion of powerful foreign consortia and major media outlets. This was, in large part, thanks to the legal requirement that this system be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.

For decades, these companies helped develop Canadian and Quebec content, highlighting and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity. These companies spent and are still spending a lot of money to be able to operate and meet the licensing requirements. Many of these companies are key parts of our economy, in Quebec and across Canada. These companies still bear a massive burden just to be able to operate as broadcasters.

What message are we sending these builders, these major employers, these broadcasters that have been required to contribute to helping artists and niche broadcasters thrive?

Niche broadcasters, which may have less influence, have had the opportunity to thrive and offer programming for cultural communities. ICI Télévision in Montreal is a wonderful little TV station that I think everyone should check out.

There is also APTN, which does such a good job of promoting the culture of our first nations and serves as an example for the entire world. People come here to learn from APTN's expertise and apply it in other countries. I think we can be proud of that, and it is thanks to our broadcasting system that we can have success stories like this one.

The message we are sending our broadcasters right now is that it is okay for the big sharks to swim in our little fishbowl, siphoning off the bulk of the advertising revenue without having to contribute significantly to the system. However, it is our broadcasters who must comply with burdensome, increasingly costly, counterproductive and decidedly unfair regulations as the industry transforms.

These days, there is a lot of talk about politicizing issues. It is true that a lot of politics is done on just about everything, and I think that is normal. We are in politics, so it is normal to politicize issues. Otherwise, I do not think we would be in the right place. However, I think there are issues that require us to rise above and look beyond ideology or filibustering. We need to be open and aware of the issues we are debating here.

Bill C‑11 may not be perfect yet, but we will have the opportunity to work on it. I think this is a bill with a very good foundation, and it certainly does not deserve to be blocked the way Bill C‑10 was last year.

I sincerely hope that all members and political parties in the House will see this bill as a necessity for our Canadian and Quebec broadcasters, but also for the entire cultural industry, for our artists, our content creators, our artisans and our self‑employed workers in the cultural sector.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

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.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

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.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

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—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

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.