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.

Freedom of Speech

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present e-petition 3393 on behalf of many Canadians, particularly those from my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

The petitioners are extremely concerned that Bill C-10 unjustly infringes on citizens’ right to freedom of expression outlined in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly that the speech Canadians engage in on digital platforms is crucial to their conveying of their basic individual expressions. Bill C-10 would provide the CRTC with the authority to control and regulate user-generated content on digital platforms that Canadians use every day and censor what Canadians post and see on social media and the Internet, providing it with sweeping powers over how Canadians communicate and express themselves online.

These Canadians want their rights upheld and due process followed. I commend you, Mr. Speaker, for so ruling yesterday.

Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the elements at the heart of Bill C-10, the discoverability of Canadian artists; francophone artists by anglophones in Canada, anglophone artists by francophones in Quebec or elsewhere in the country; the discoverability of indigenous artists, which are starting to emerge in different fields, whether it be music, dance, contemporary art; and so many other elements of our vibrant artistic scene.

That is why it is so important we adopt Bill C-10. That is why APTN and other indigenous organizations across the country have asked for the adoption of Bill C-10 as have quite a number of artistic and cultural organizations.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago a good friend gave me a really lovely collection of Canadian folk songs. In it are forgotten tunes from Quebec, which are absolutely delightful. It made me think that perhaps one of the best and most positive aspects of Bill C-10 was the notion that more of this Canadian content would be made discoverable to Canadians outside of Quebec, which would be an enriching experience right across the country.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I want to take this opportunity to talk about how our government is supporting Quebec's unique and vibrant cultural sector.

I think all members will agree that, owing to its excellence and diversity, this sector plays a key role in promoting the French language both in Quebec and across Canada, and even beyond our borders.

It is no secret. Thanks to globalization and technology, our artists are finding audiences in every country around the globe. In fact, our government eagerly promotes Quebec culture internationally, in addition to making it part of our diplomacy.

We are also making sure that we do not drown in the ocean of U.S. culture, and our Bill C‑10 is helping us with that. A big part of the mandate that the Prime Minister has given me as Minister of Canadian Heritage covers areas of shared jurisdiction with the provinces and territories.

Hand in hand with Quebec, we have developed many of our cultural flagships. Together, we can continue to showcase our culture, while also ensuring that Quebeckers and all Canadians have an arts scene that reflects them and their stories in their language.

Our partnership advances our shared interests in different ways using a variety of collaborative mechanisms. All our levels of government are currently involved in extensive discussions, and we have very productive relationships. We already work together closely in many areas, such as cultural infrastructure, audiovisual production funding and arts funding in general. Our collaboration includes Canadian Heritage and the agencies and Crown corporations I am responsible for, such as the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board of Canada and a number of national museums.

The COVID‑19 pandemic hit our cultural sector hard, harder than almost any other economic sector. Many stakeholders and residents of my riding expressed their support and appreciation for the initiatives rolled out to support the sector during this public health crisis. We worked hand in hand with our provincial and territorial partners to do this essential work, each partner's actions complementing the other's to ensure the survival of organizations and directly support artists and workers in the cultural sector.

Since people had to stay at home for many months, musicians, singers, actors, stage technicians and other industry professionals found themselves out of a job. Our museums, art galleries and theatres had to close their doors.

Over the past year and a half, my team, the public servants at Canadian Heritage and I kept in regular contact with our provincial and territorial colleagues through frequent intergovernmental and bilateral meetings, telephone calls, video conferences and written correspondence.

Our federal, provincial and territorial forum on COVID-19 gave us an opportunity to work together so we could share best practices, discuss what we had heard from our respective stakeholders, and do our best to ensure that no one slipped through the cracks, cracks that we all worked hard to fill along the way so that no one would be left behind.

For decades, the Government of Canada has been supporting Quebec's cultural industry through significant, ongoing investments. Combined with the action taken by the provincial government, these investments led to impressive, undeniable results. This solid tradition of support continued during the pandemic when both Ottawa and Quebec City stepped up to help our cultural industry.

In June 2020, the Government of Quebec announced its $400‑million economic recovery plan for the cultural sector, from film and television production to music and festivals. There have been many announcements of additional support since.

For our part, our government has offered unprecedented targeted support. On May 8, 2020, I announced new emergency funding for cultural, heritage and sports organizations. This $500‑million emergency funding has helped maintain jobs and support business continuity for organizations whose very viability was in jeopardy because of the pandemic, allowing them to survive this crisis.

Of this $500 million, $412 million went to the culture and heritage sector, with $114 million, or more than 30%, going to Quebec.

That proportion reflects the historical strength of Quebec's cultural sector and the support it receives from the federal government, thereby ensuring the survival of the French language. More specifically, Quebec stakeholders received nearly a third of the emergency funding allocated by the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canada Arts Presentation Fund and the Canada Arts Training Fund. In the same vein, Quebec stakeholders received over 55% of the emergency funding allocated by the Canada Book Fund, as well as 25% to 35% of the funding available for the subsectors of magazine publishing, new media, television and radio.

Our government committed to supporting the arts throughout the recovery period. It is developing a strong recovery plan for everyone. Back in the fall of 2020, we created a $50‑million compensation fund for Canadian film and television production to stimulate the recovery of this sector, which supports tens of thousands of jobs across the country, many of them in Quebec. Since then, this fund has been doubled to allow for even more filming in the months to come.

Subsequently, the 2020 fall economic statement provided an additional $181.5 million for the performing arts sector. This investment will help artists begin to create works that can be presented once the restrictions are lifted, cover additional expenses for the presentation of shows that comply with health guidelines, and allow our creators to develop their digital offerings, in addition to stabilizing the theatre, dance, festival and music sectors.

The last budget went a step further with an historic $1.5‑billion investment to assist the cultural sector's recovery. In addition to these targeted investments, various universal programs have also played a critical role in the survival of organizations and direct support for artists, creators and other cultural workers.

We already had the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and the Canada emergency response benefit, and now we have the Canada recovery benefit. Without these measures that our government has deployed, far too many would simply not have made it through the past 18 months.

Thanks to the vaccine rollout currently taking place at a steady pace across the country, we can look forward to the coming months with some optimism. The coming months will offer us opportunities to share our culture, both with Canada and with the world.

One example is the Frankfurt Book Fair this fall, at which Canada will be the guest of honour. By participating in the book fair, we can generate more international interest in our authors by showcasing creative content from Quebec and Canada to the rest of the world.

As I said earlier, the Department of Canadian Heritage has a long tradition of supporting Quebec's cultural sector, dating back well before the pandemic. For the 2019-20 fiscal year, Heritage Canada paid a total of $240 million in grants and contributions to Quebec-based organizations, including $101 million for culture, $73 million for official languages, $21 million for heritage and celebrations, $17 million for sports, and $9 million for diversity and inclusion.

Agencies connected to the department, such as the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada and the Canada Media Fund, made financial contributions as well. Quebeckers identify strongly with many of these agencies, which have become veritable cultural institutions in their own right.

Just look at Radio‑Canada and the National Film Board, which have played and continue to play a very important role in the development and success of Quebec's cultural sector and Quebec society as a whole. These federal agencies help create jobs for thousands of people in Quebec and across the country. They are essential to the vitality of Quebec's film and television industry.

Funding for cultural projects and initiatives has also been provided. One such example is the Diamant theatre project. Two federal programs contributed funds to help a talented and world-renowned creator fulfill his dream in the heart of beautiful Quebec City. The investing in Canada infrastructure program contributed $10 million, and the—

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the finance minister decided to delay her own budget by punting debate on that budget in order to ram through Bill C-10, this at a time when our unemployment is higher than the U.K., the U.S., Japan, Germany, the G7 and OECD, and there are half a million missing jobs. That same budget said that all the pre-COVID jobs would be recovered by this month.

Will the finance minister keep her word and guarantee that every single pre-COVID job will be recovered by this month when the numbers come out early next month?

Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by marking the 30th anniversary of my wonderful political family, the Bloc Québécois. Officially born at a founding convention on June 15, 1991, the Bloc Québécois has been the only federal political party dedicated solely to defending the values and interests of Quebeckers for the past three decades.

I would also like to point out that the first member elected following the creation of my riding of Laurentides—Labelle in 2003 was Bloc Québécois MP Johanne Deschamps, who served three terms between 2004 and 2011. It was in fact from Ms. Deschamps that I got to learn the trade. I worked as her political aide from 2009 to 2011. I have learned a lot over the past few months, and I am still learning. It was a privilege to have this experience.

The women and men who make up the great Bloc Québécois family have been working for 30 years. I just want to take a minute to show just how proud we can be of our achievements.

The Bloc Québécois is working for Quebec culture. For example, there is Bill C‑10, so ably defended by the member for Drummond.

We are working for agriculture, particularly through my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's sustained defence of supply management.

We are striving to protect the environment by frequently speaking in favour of climate accountability and ending federal subsidies for fossil fuels. This cause is being championed by the all-female duo of the members for Repentigny and Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

We are working for Quebec's economy by presenting demands and applying pressure to obtain a real federal aerospace policy, support the development of Quebec's forestry industry and defend our Quebec businesses. My colleagues from Joliette, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Jonquière are doing remarkable work on these issues.

We are working for border security by calling for oversight of border management. I am thinking of our member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia among others.

Of course, we are working for the sound management of government business by holding the government's feet to the fire on issues that represent a conflict of interest, whether it is the partisan appointment of judges or the awarding of contracts to Liberal friends. I salute the hard work of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. I have been working alongside him for the past 14 months.

I would like to highlight the Bloc Québécois's efforts to improve employment insurance by proudly proposing to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefits. I salute my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît and her Émilie Sansfaçon bill.

We are working for health care by continuing to demand that the government increase health transfers. My colleagues from Montcalm and Joliette are working on this file.

We are also working for seniors by continuing to press for an increase to old age security. I want to commend my colleague from Shefford for her work on this file.

Today is a big day, a very important day for us. On this, our party's 30th anniversary, we have moved a motion stating:

That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.

Today we are not asking the House whether it agrees with Bill 96 or whether it thinks Quebec should enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a French-speaking nation. We are calling on the House to acknowledge a reality.

The amending formula to section 45 allows, or rather would allow, since I am hoping to hear in all the speeches that each and every one of us supports the motion, Quebec and every other province to amend its Constitution. That is a fact. Quebeckers chose to use this tool to enshrine in their constitution that they form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also its common language. That too is a fact. I remind the House that our motion merely asks that the House agree, as I said before, that Quebec has the right to do this and that the motion basically uses the wording of the Constitution Act, 1982.

To clarify the terms of our motion for those watching, I will simply give the example of the term “nation”. A bit of research will tell us that, when applied to a state or territory, it can be synonymous with “country”. That is what we mean when we speak of the United Nations, of which Quebec cannot be a member because it is not sovereign.

The motion states that Quebec is a nation. What does that mean? It is not about becoming a country. The motion calls on the House to recognize that Quebeckers form a nation. The Larousse dictionary defines the word “nation” as a large community of people, typically living within the same territory and having, to a certain extent, a shared history, language, culture and economy. The Robert dictionary defines “nation” as a group of people, generally large, characterized by awareness of its unity and a desire to live together. This is what today's motion is all about. I do not know what my colleagues think, but it makes me think a lot about Quebeckers and what we are experiencing today.

No matter how we turn the question over, it is obvious that Quebeckers form a nation, especially since October 30, 2003, when the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion: “That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Québec form a nation.” We agree that passing this motion will reinforce the consensus in Quebec.

There is a reason the Quebec National Assembly specified that it was reaffirming the existence of the nation of Quebec. In fact, this resolution reiterated what all Quebec governments have been saying for decades, namely, that the Canadian confederation is a treaty of union between two nations. Members spoke about this earlier.

Obviously, Quebeckers' conception of their nation has changed over the years. We see ourselves less and less as a minority within Canada and increasingly as a separate nation with its own territory called Quebec and a national government called the Government of Quebec.

Anyone who joins us on this great adventure to build a French-speaking society in North America is as much a Quebecker as the descendants of the 17th-century French colonists, and that is a good example of the Quebec nation's inclusiveness.

In closing, I would like to talk about an experience I had a few days ago. I want to recognize Jessy Gareau, a young graduate from the Centre collégial de Mont‑Laurier who signed an open letter in the Journal de Montréal. He is only 21 years old and he wrote the following, and I quote: “to adopt the necessary measures in our time to save French in Quebec”.

I commend Jessy, and I am sure that—

Admissibility of Amendments in the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage —Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie for his point of order raised yesterday regarding admissibility of amendments made to clauses 8 to 47 of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and contained in its fifth report.

The member argued that by putting the question on amendments after the expiry of the time provided for in the time allocation order of the House, the committee went beyond the provisions of the order. Accordingly, he asked the Chair to strike out from the report the amendments adopted to clauses 8 to 47 of the bill. In addition, he asked the Chair to rule out of order the amendment introducing new clause 13.1 because it was outside the scope of the bill.

Several principles come into play when considering the first issue of this point of order.

Time allocation allows for specific periods of time to be fixed for the consideration of one or more stages of a public bill. Its main effect is to determine a set amount of time for debate.

As was recently pointed out, we have few examples of time allocation motions applied to committee consideration of bills. Until last week, we had no example of such a motion being adopted since February 2001, when the House made important Standing Order modifications in regard to committee consideration of bills and the selection of report stage motions. There are few precedents involving the imposition of such an order on a committee.

The Chair is generally reluctant to involve itself in committee matters unless something extraordinary has occurred. This reluctance is even greater when the committee has not provided any insight through a substantive report to the House. While it is also generally understood that committees are masters of their own proceedings, this principle is not unlimited.

We know for instance that the Speaker may be asked to intervene when committees exceed their mandate when considering legislation. This is usually with respect to the procedural admissibility of amendments.

The member for Banff—Airdrie referred to page 779 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in his intervention. Were the principle and scope of the bill respected? Was an amendment infringing on the royal recommendation, or was it relevant? These are matters of interest for the Chair.

On June 7, the House adopted a time allocation motion concerning Bill C‑10 so that no more than five additional hours of debate be allotted to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. At the expiry of the limit, after which the proceedings were to be interrupted, and I quote, “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.”

There is no question that the House, by adopting a time allocation motion, has decided to limit the study of the bill in committee. The committee continued its study of the bill, and committee members debated and proposed amendments until the end of the time allocated.

When the committee reached the five-hour mark, it had to interpret the House order and reconcile it with the decisions previously taken in regard to the amendments put forward by both independent members and committee members, as well as context surrounding its consideration of the bill.

The House order is silent about the amendments submitted by independent members deemed moved in the committee and about amendments for which committee members had given notice and that had already been distributed to members but not yet proposed.

Ultimately, the committee decided that all amendments received prior to its five-hour deadline would be put to a vote, but that no further amendments or subamendments would be considered.

It is clear that the committee considers all the clauses of the bill and that amendments submitted by representatives of all the recognized parties, as well as by a member belonging to a party that is not recognized, were proposed for the vast majority of them after the five-hour deadline had passed. The Chair is not empowered to pronounce itself on the circumstances surrounding the study of these amendments, it can simply note the result.

As mentioned earlier, the precedents in regard to the interpretation by a committee of a time allocation motion are very few. That said, in the view of the Chair, the terms of the House order were clear and stated that, at the expiry of the five hours, no further debate ought to take place nor amendments moved or adopted.

I therefore rule that the committee exceeded its authority by putting the question on amendments after the five-hour mark. However, in the list of amendments made to clauses 8 to 47, the Chair notes that the amendment made to clause 23, which added text to line 7 on page 20 and replaced line 8 on page 24 of the bill with new text, was the consequential result of an amendment previously adopted by the committee to clause 7 of the bill. Accordingly, this amendment will stand.

All other amendments made to clauses 8 to 47 are declared null and void, and will no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of the bill be published with all possible haste for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

Finally, with respect to the amendment that created new clause 13.1, I would agree with the member that this modifies a section of the Broadcasting Act that was not covered by Bill C-10. As such, it is a violation of the “parent Act” rule and it goes beyond the scope of the bill. Consequently, it is also declared null and void and will not form part of the bill. Report stage, the next step in the legislative process for this bill, will accord an opportunity for amendments to the bill to be made.

I thank the House for its attention.

Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my question again, because I did not get an answer at all. I heard the hon. member talk about the importance that his party seems to place on the myth that Bill C‑10 would infringe on freedom of expression, but that was not the point of my question at all. I wanted his opinion on the importance that should be placed on protecting francophone and Quebec culture in the legislation that is voted on here in the House of Commons, and particularly on the urgent need to pass a bill, such as Bill C‑10 on broadcasting, in which specific regulations and a specific framework would be enshrined to protect francophone culture.

That is really what I want to hear from the hon. member, not rhetoric about freedom of expression. We have already heard a lot of that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member did give us a nice history lesson.

Today we are talking about the French language and about Quebec and francophone culture, and we are also in the midst of a rather heated debate on Bill C‑10, an important part of which is designed to protect francophone culture. However, there is a lot of opposition to this bill in my colleague's party.

I would like to hear my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord speak to how important it is to protect francophone culture through laws, such as the Broadcasting Act, which we are in the process of reviewing.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, how is this possible?

At the beginning of her speech, my colleague said that she was an artist, a composer, so how can she not automatically be excited about the idea of promoting the talents of Canadian and Quebec artists? That is the purpose of Bill C‑10. The bill is designed to ensure that multinational digital corporations, the web giants, are subject to the same regulations that the traditional Canadian broadcasters have almost always been subject to. Bill C‑10 is good for artists and good for the cultural community.

I sincerely wonder why my hon. colleague does not support and embrace this bill, like the majority of Canadian artists do.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I would like to present today's speech based on the perspective I bring from my previous profession as an artist.

Being a professional artist, whether a composer or writer, is an extremely difficult vocation to pursue, attain and sustain. There is a huge gap between those who have talent but have not been able to get their big break, and those who have found stardom. Secure gigs as staff writers or contracts to long-term projects are limited and competitive, and most artists pursue other careers to pay their bills.

As a composer, I have been around creative people most of my life. Artists are dreamers with a lot of discipline with their art and tireless hope to find their rainbow's end. They give their best performances whether for a three-member audience at an open mike or at an outdoor concert with hundreds of listeners. Artists do not tire of doing their best and following their dreams, because they are driven by the love of creating and the dream of sharing their work with a captive audience. For most artists, it is a labour of love.

A talented artist gets their big break when they are discovered by a large enough following that will help their career become sustainable. That is why songwriters want their music to eventually make its way to radio, television and film, and writers want their stories on TV and the big screen. However, anyone who has navigated the entertainment industry knows that there are gatekeepers who ensure media platforms give precedence to major players and minimal opportunity to the small players. They also base their content on market reach and capital.

At the end of the day, we call them the arts, but they are a business that uses the arts for capital. I am speaking neither for nor against this. There is room for commerce and art to contribute to economic prosperity together. What I am concerned about is the inequity of opportunity when industry gatekeepers determine the culture of a nation because of their mass reach. It is not a level playing field for artists who have a lot of talent and simply want to express themselves without having to succumb to the matrix for marketability that large corporations define.

Broadcasters and artists continue to have a symbiotic relationship, but not all artists are welcome to participate in this symbiotic relationship. Having CanCon regulation is a good thing to the extent that it safeguards Canadian content, but in practice CanCon is applied by corporations to Canadians who have already found their success to a large degree and who fit the marketability matrix. Fortunately, with or without CanCon, Canadians artists are still rising to the top and I am pleased by the diversity of content that broadcasters are tapping into today. There has been progress.

The digital world turned the entertainment industry upside down. It allowed independents to enter the arena without having to pass through gatekeepers. With fewer CD and DVD sales, big-name entertainment corporations and independents turned to download sales, but download sales were hurt by pirated content. With the shift to online streaming, the revenue source for creative content producers has become fluid with the prominence of Internet usage. Now Canadian broadcasters are also threatened by foreign players, as foreign content enters the Canadian digital market.

In response, the government may have thought to update the Broadcasting Act by increasing discoverability for artists and levelling the competition for broadcasters, and voila: here is Bill C-10. Originally, Bill C-10 was supposed to level the playing field by regulating large online streaming services, such as Disney+, Netflix and Amazon, to meet Canadian content requirements, just as for Canadian radio and television stations.

Through the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC is given power to issue broadcast licences to allow radio and TV stations to operate, and to regulate broadcasting while meeting conditions on the kinds of programming they can air and community standards. A portion of their programs, often 20% to 40%, is allotted to be Canadian content, and broadcasters can also be mandated to pay licence fees and contributions to the Canada media fund: a federal agency that subsidizes Canadian television and film.

The update that Bill C-10 proposes is a new category of web media called “online undertakings”, which would give the CRTC the same power to regulate the web that it has for traditional TV and radio stations without having to apply for licences. It seems simple and straightforward, but there is a glitch that could turn this seemingly benevolent piece of legislation into a Trojan horse.

Bill C-10 defines web media as “an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”. This definition is so vague that it could include everything from Amazon Prime to anyone with a website or a podcast. Programs under the Broadcasting Act are defined to include images, audio or a combination, of which written text is not predominant. This would refer to podcasts, photos, videos and memes, but not the written content on news articles and posts. It could include everything from a multimillion dollar film produced for Netflix to a 15-second pet video on TikTok.

I was shocked to learn that, while Conservative heritage committee members proposed an amendment to Bill C-10 to set some safeguards to limit regulations to online undertakings with more than $50 million a year in revenue and 250,000 subscribers in Canada, which would apply only to large streaming services, the Liberals rejected it. That means that not only was the government aiming at big companies but also that broadcasting is now being used to control everyday Canadians.

Section 2.1 and section 4.1 were two exemptions in Bill C-10 for social media. Section 2.1 refers to users who upload onto social media platforms. Thus, the user would not be subject to conditions like Canadian content requirements or contributions to the Canada Media Fund, which the CRTC would impose.

That exemption remains on Bill C-10, but section 4.1 was taken out of the bill. It dealt with the programs that users upload on social media, indicating that the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act could not regulate programs that only consist of user-uploaded programs, but the Liberals removed that section in the bill.

In summary, section 2.1 regulates speakers, while section 4.1 regulates speech. With the deletion of 4.1, the CRTC can regulate the content uploaded on social media and also regulate the social media platforms that allow users to publish content, just as it regulates content licensed on regular traditional stations.

The Liberals keep telling Conservatives that 2.1 will safeguard users, but the absence of 4.1 removes a safeguard from content. Bill C-10 has expanded the powers of the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act to provide grounds for the CRTC to adopt regulations requiring social media sites such as YouTube to remove content it considers offensive and discoverability regulations that would make them alter the algorithms to determine which videos are seen, more or less. Violations for these regulations could be very high for the individual and the corporation. These are the details of concern. I take issue on the infringement of personal freedoms and freedom of expression of Canadians. Even the B.C. Library Trustees Association is saying it needs clause 4.1 back. These are librarians and libraries.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the gap between artists and their audience is discoverability, but if the discoverability is regulated through controlled algorithms, then it creates yet another barrier for artists. Why should the CRTC define what listeners should discover instead of allowing audiences to determine that for themselves? Why is the government trying to bring a barrier between artists and their audiences?

The minister keeps saying they want Canadians to tell their stories, but why is there a gap in the bill that would allow someone or an entity to determine which stories are to be discoverable? Artists have already faced an industry that was dominated by large companies to determine what was worthy of discovering and promoting through broadcasting giants, so why should the CRTC be given access to gatekeep discoverability?

The minister says he wants to protect the languages of minorities, but the minister should know that much of ethnic programming is created by underfunded, independent producers who never see any advertising money because it goes straight to the network. Where is the support these independent grassroots producers need? Again, the small players are left behind.

The minister says artists have said Conservatives are not supportive of them, but who is the minister speaking with? I do not think he has the numbers of small players on speed dial. Were they consulted for this bill? If any artist thinks that Conservatives are not supportive of artists, it is because the Liberals have created this wedge by refusing to reinstate 4.1. They are forcing Conservatives to bow for democracy, and we are the only ones who seem to be doing that. The Liberals have created a custody battle that I do not want to be a part of.

I want to support content, and I want to support our broadcasters, but why does it have to be a battle between choosing between them and democracy? We put forward a motion at committee calling for new charter statements to be provided, but the Liberals voted to shut it down.

I cannot help but wonder if the Liberals have an agenda for omitting 4.1. Artists who are still striving to find a rainbow are discriminated against and exploited. They face financial instability for following their hearts. Most will never get fully compensated for the investments they have made in their careers.

If the Liberals had simply fixed 4.1, I would not have my suspicions. The fact that they have not done something so simple with something that was originally there, makes me come to the conclusion that they are playing political games against Conservatives, at the expense of struggling artists.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will start from the beginning because I do not think we can pay honour to our fallen RCMP officer enough. For colleagues who missed it, this is the first time I have been on my feet since an RCMP officer in Saskatchewan was run over and killed in the line of duty. My thoughts and prayers are with Constable Shelby Patton's family.

I know his brothers and sisters are thinking about him. When one member is lost, the whole team is affected across the country. On behalf of the constituents of Regina—Lewvan, all Conservatives and all members in the House, our thoughts and prayers are with the Patton family. God bless them, and hopefully they can get through this very difficult time.

Moving on to Bill C-10, the bill talks about how we have to really make sure the rule of law is in place in our country. The member for Calgary Skyview brought up some very good points when asking the member for Yellowhead a question. There is a very diverse community in Calgary Skyview and the member talked about how many people have come to Canada because they see it as a beacon of light, a beacon of freedom, where people are not afraid to express themselves. They are not afraid to get in trouble with their government if they say something. We should always strive to be that beacon of freedom in Canada, where people are allowed to express themselves and have the freedom to put whatever they want online, where people can have independent thoughts without fear of government reprisal. A lot of the speeches on this side of the House have covered that topic again and again.

Our colleagues on the opposition and on the government side have asked why we are so against this bill. One of the fundamental beliefs in the Conservative Party of Canada is the belief in the freedom of speech. I have given a first reading speech on Bill C-10 as well. It is a 30-year-old piece of legislation, so there are some things that need to be renewed. Members on all sides of the House agree legislation does have to be renewed and reviewed in a timely manner. There are some areas where we agree.

One of the things that just came forward is that in the updated legislation, the Liberals have taken out the part that would regulate individual content and now the CRTC would have the power to take down content from individuals. We have no way of knowing if any of the amendments that were passed address this issue because there was a gag order put on the amendments and we do not know what is involved with them all.

Like my colleague, the member for Yellowhead, said, there are 120 amendments to this piece of legislation and a quarter of those were brought forward by the government that introduced the bill in the first place.

We are rushing through this and the government has brought in time allocation so we cannot study this bill to its final conclusion. I was in the legislature of Saskatchewan for eight years and have been here for two years. I do not remember seeing any piece of legislation in my 10 years that had 120 amendments to it. On its own, that shows there were some issues early and often with this piece of legislation.

Talking about time allocation and the duty of this House, I know my colleagues and friends from across the way, as well as the member for Kingston and the Islands and a few other of my Liberal colleagues, talk about us playing political games. They say that Conservatives are trying to waste time and are using stall tactics.

As this bill has to do with freedom of speech, we did a little run down of what has been going on in a few of the other committees lately. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Liberals have been filibustering for 73 hours and for more than four months. At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Liberals have been filibustering for 43 hours. That is a long time. At the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals have been filibustering for 35 hours. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, in its study looking into sexual misconduct in the military, the Liberals have filibustered for more than 16 hours and the Chair suspended unilaterally more than 23 times. That is impressive.

I know my colleagues in the Bloc bring up Mr. Harper and the disdain for Parliament. I do not know if Mr. Harper's government had a chair who unilaterally closed down debate 23 times.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was filibustered for 10 hours over three months, February, March and April, to prevent a study into Canada taking from the COVAX vaccine supplies.

This august House is where we are supposed to have debate and be able to talk about different ideas, whether it be Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, NDP. Right now, we are going through a time when the government continues to say the opposition is holding up debate, when we can clearly see, in committees, that the Liberals are trying to stifle any dissent among opposition parties on what kind of bills they are trying to bring forward. I have not even mentioned that the government prorogued Parliament for months because of the WE scandal.

Now, we are here talking about Bill C-10, about stifling debate, and I have given 12 examples of how the government has stifled discussion and debate in committees and in the House of Commons, in Parliament.

When we talk about this, why are Conservatives so against Bill C-10? It is because we are hearing it from our constituents. People are scared. They see Bill C-10 as a very slippery slope of what could be in the future. Many people have come to my office wondering what their kids are going to be able to put on the Internet to express themselves in five years. Are they going to be able to have any free, independent thoughts? Are they going to be able to criticize the government, or is someone in the CRTC, the czar, going to be watching content on YouTube or Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or TikTok? Are they going to get a knock on the door or a call to take down their content because it does not agree with the government's position? That is what people are actually calling about and what their concern is.

People can groan and say, “Oh my, how is that possible?” We are here to represent the people of our ridings, not to carry the water for the government. That is another thing. The government members are acting like it is up to the opposition side to pass bills. We listen to the Minister of Finance saying it is time for the opposition to help them pass bills. When has it been the government asking this and saying it is the fault of the opposition that it is not getting its legislation through? That is like a teenager who went out partying the night before blaming her friends for not getting her homework done. It is not our responsibility to make sure that the government implements its agenda. It has never been the opposition's responsibility and it never will be. It is time that the government took responsibility for its own actions.

Possibly, the Liberals are not getting their legislative agenda through because they prorogued Parliament, because they filibustered committees again and again, and that is why legislation never got to third reading and never got to this House. At some point in time, a member of the government will have to stand up and say that maybe they are responsible for the games they are playing now with time allocation, especially in committee, where it has not been done in 20 years. That could be a fact as to why the Liberals are not getting their agenda through.

Finally, one other thing that makes people concerned about Liberals bringing forward legislation that would regulate their free speech is the fact that even if it is not going to be this bill, people just do not trust the current government. Members may not believe this, and I was shocked myself when I found out, but since 2015 there have been over 35 failed Liberal promises. If they wonder why people do not trust the government, it is because it does not keep its word.

This is from a long-serving Liberal in Saskatchewan, and this is really when we get into the psyche of a Liberal politician. I will never forget this. He said, “You know what it means when you break your promise? It means you won.” That is unbelievable, because if they win they are able to break their promises. It is something that will stick with me for as long as I serve in this chamber.

When it comes to Bill C-10, the Conservatives will continue to stand up for the average Canadians to make sure their voices are heard.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I stand today, and I hope my colleagues will indulge me for a moment.

This is the first time I have been on my feet in this place since a tragic accident in Saskatchewan where we lost a member of the RCMP, Constable Shelby Patton, who was killed in the line of duty. I send my deepest sympathies to his family, friends, colleagues and all of his brothers and sisters in the RCMP. Our hearts are with them at this very difficult time.

Constable Patton was killed in the line of duty at a traffic stop at Wolseley, Saskatchewan, and the people who committed this crime have been captured. Our hearts go out to the family of the slain hero and RCMP officer. Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved.

Moving on to Bill C-10, I think about everyone who enforces the rule of law in Canada and how everyone is able to express their opinions and say what they want. The member for Calgary Skyview just said that a lot of people from around the world see Canada as a beacon: A place where they can come without fear of censorship or of not being able to express themselves. I think this country should always be known as a beacon of that light and freedom. This is why we on the Conservative side are trying to fight so hard to make sure that Bill C-10 is right.

My colleague and friend for Yellowhead talked about some of the things in the bill that need to be reviewed. The Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed in 30 years, and a lot has changed in this country over that time. Conservatives are not disagreeing with renewing and reviewing legislation to make sure that it is up to date and current with the times—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

On February 5, I spoke to Bill C-10 before it was referred to the heritage committee on February 16. Here I am speaking to Bill C-10 again, a few months later, now that the bill has returned from committee. Most times when a bill returns from committee, we see a couple of amendments here and there to fine-tune it before passing it along to the Senate, but with BIll C-10, it is not a vew changes here and there. This bill is completely different than its previous form.

What is even more abnormal about this is the fact that so many of the amendments came from the Liberals, the ones who introduced the bill in the first place. The government owes it to Canadians to explain why so many amendments were introduced after the fact and why it is pulling every trick in the book to try to push legislation through without proper debate and while ignoring legitimate concerns.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is using tactics to make people believe that Conservatives are anticulture and standing in the way of Bill C-10, when in fact, many experts who testified at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage agree this bill is flawed and needs further review.

Protecting Canadian content is important for Canadians, but what good do rules around Canadian content do, if Canadian content is not properly defined. The minister recently demonstrated in committee that even he does not know what classic Canadian movies actually count as protected Canadian content under this legislation.

Over the past month I have received countless emails and phone calls from constituents in fear of the government's legislation. They want to know what they can do to stop it. One man even said to me that this legislation embodies the same police-state-like control he emigrated to Canada to escape.

The question I get most often is, “Why?” Why does this legislation contain an amendment giving the CRTC this much power. Why is the government trying to push this through so quickly? Why does the government think it has a mandate to police the Internet?

Conservatives recognize that the Broadcasting Act is in need of updates. No one is arguing against that. When Conservatives raise legitimate questions about user-generated content being affected by this legislation, instead of providing answers, the minister diminishes our concern and proceeds with his carefully scripted paragraph about why the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated, even though we are already agreeing that it needs to be done.

I have to point out the irony in the fact that we are being censored here in the House of Commons on a debate regarding censorship. Instead of allowing Bill C-10 to go through full and proper review, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion to shut down debate on Bill C-10 early, and effectively censored our debate on censorship.

Here we are, around midnight, mid-June, speaking for the last time to a bill that would have the power to limit our freedoms and could change the way Canadians are able to use the Internet. The government imposing time allocation on this bill, which is fundamentally flawed, is wrong because it attacks freedom of expression. The minister is attacking our freedom of expression as parliamentarians, who are just trying to do their jobs. Instead of telling us Conservatives that we are preventing work from moving forward and that we are anticulture, the government members should be explaining to Canadians how they can possibly justify this time allocation motion, when the committee still has many amendments to review. This is deeply concerning to not only me, but also to many Canadians.

I also want to talk about the precedent legislation like this could create for the future. In a society that values freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Bill C-10 would leave the door open to a massive abuse of power concerning the rights of Canadians.

It is not enough for the minister to stand in the House of Commons and claim this bill is not meant to target ordinary Canadians. Words spoken by the minister mean nothing if they do not coincide with the wording of the actual legislation.

The amendment regarding user-generated content aside, Bill C-10 creates a regulatory mess of a streaming and broadcasting industry in Canada. There are real harms that could come with this legislation as it currently stands. This bill is far broader than many Canadians realize, and certainly broader than the minister has claimed. This has led to a lack of understanding of the consequences of the bill as it relates to the general public.

With so many amendments being brought forward in such a short timeframe, it is hard for the public to keep up and stay informed. One thing we must always remember as parliamentarians is that we work for the people. It is our duty to keep our constituents informed and to seek their input on legislative matters. With this amendment being added, and this legislation being rushed through the legislative process so quickly, I fear many members will not have adequate time to properly inform and consult their constituents on this issue.

It is with extreme disappointment that I am speaking on this legislation tonight, knowing that so many voices have been silenced and important dialogue on this bill will not be heard. The government claims that limitations are integrated into this bill, so that it is not too overreaching.

The minister said in the House of Commons, “user-generated content, news content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation could be imposed.”

This claim made by the minister is false, as there is no specific economic threshold that is established by the bill, which means that all Internet streaming services carried in Canada, whether domestic or foreign owned, are subject to Canadian regulation. That would mean if someone has Canadian subscribers, this law would, regardless of where the service provider is located, apply to them.

The limitations the minister is referring to are that the bill gives the CRTC the power to exempt services from regulation. It also leaves it entirely up to the CRTC to establish thresholds for regulations once the bill is enacted. This is dangerous, and while I have confidence in the work that the good people working for the CRTC do, it is our duty to legislate, not the CRTC's, and that means properly defining the term “significant economic threshold”.

Bill C-10 now has over 120 amendments, of which about a quarter were put forward by the government itself, even though it wrote the bill. My Conservative colleagues at the heritage committee did everything they could to fix the problems with Bill C-10 in the time they had. My colleagues say that in review stage, the work at committee was going well and progress was being made. That is until the Liberals decided to bring forward an amendment to include social media.

This amendment was so large it changed the scope of the bill entirely. It was at that point people, including experts, former CRTC commissioners and thousands of Canadians across the country, starting raising objections.

As I wrap up my speech, I am thinking of all the flaws contained in this bill and worry for the future of freedom of expression. While I do not suspect this bill was brought forward with malicious intentions, the wording in this legislation could set a terrible precedent.

It is okay for the government to admit when it is wrong and when it has gone too far. Now is the time for the government to acknowledge that it needs to take a step back, re-evaluate and correct the course.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Green Party is representing its constituents very well and effectively in Canada's Parliament.

Bill C-10 was better before, because it was more effectively protecting individual users and their content. With the amendment that removed section 4.1, it took a lot of that freedom away. A lot of the benefits of this act have been destroyed because of that, and we would be better if that were put back in. The freedoms the minister keeps talking about are illusory. It is one thing to say content providers, people who add content to YouTube and platforms like that, are not being regulated, but if the platform is being regulated, then that freedom is illusory.