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

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

Over the last two years of the NDP-Liberal government, we have seen a very uniquely ballooning government interfering in virtually all aspects of Canadians' lives. It has truly been a pattern of an expanding, intrusive and increasingly controlling and restrictive federal government, with its ill-advised discriminatory and vindictive vaccine mandates, damaging and traumatizing restrictions, demeaning and exclusionary QR codes, and of course the now infamous vaccine passports, which is probably one of the worst and most divisive public policy measures to ever be introduced in this country. It is why provinces only kept them in place for a few months before realizing the colossal mistake it was to divide, segregate and pit Canadians against one another based on health status. I am not sure how anyone ever thought segregating and discriminating against a group of Canadians would be good public policy.

However, in reality, this is simple. The Liberal government, with its NDP collaborators, has exploited the pandemic to drive its big, intrusive and overreaching government agenda. This also includes other areas of the lives of Canadians, with perhaps the upcoming digital ID, which has already been emphatically rejected by civil liberty groups, the Province of Saskatchewan and the former Ontario privacy commissioner.

The NDP-Liberal government is not just happy with the COVID intrusion. It is now expanding its surveillance of Canadians to the digital realm with respect to Canadians' Internet activities, including YouTube and social media accounts. No matter how the Liberals attempt to spin it, that is exactly what they are doing and they know it. It is similar to their political games and mistruths on the carbon tax, a tax that was supposed to be revenue-neutral but clearly is not, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They are now trying to convince Canadians that Bill C-11 is not a censorship and surveillance bill, but nobody is buying it.

Just like Canadians and stakeholders rejected the precursor to Bill C-11, which was Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, the same thing is happening again. Let us remind Canadians that true to form, the Liberals passed Bill C-10 in the last Parliament without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee. Many outstanding concerns from experts and parliamentarians over how this legislation would affect the rights and freedoms of Canadians when they are on the Internet went unaddressed because of the government's unwillingness to allow a full debate. In the new Parliament it is much the same. It does not seem like anyone supports Bill C-11, except the NDP-Liberal government, a government that seems relentlessly bent on restricting and controlling many aspects of Canadians' lives.

To be frank, I do not understand the government's obsession with wanting so much control over Canadians. Leave Canadians alone. They know what they are doing and they just want their lives back. They want their lives free of constant government discipline, surveillance and control.

Let me remind Canadians of what the Liberals did during COVID. They tracked Canadian movements, including trips to the liquor store and the pharmacy. Canadians were closely tracked by this NDP-Liberal government via cellphones without people's knowledge during the COVID‑19 pandemic. This information was made public by a report sent to the parliamentary ethics committee. The report revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada was able to view detailed snapshots of people's behaviour, including visits to the grocery store, gatherings with family and friends, time spent at home and trips to other towns and provinces.

It is encouraging that my colleagues on the ethics committee expressed surprise at how much detail the report contained, even as all identifying information was stripped out. The phone locations allowed the Public Health Agency to get a picture of gatherings occurring in people's houses, such as over Labour Day weekend. The report included a graph recording hours spent away from home in each province between Christmas Day 2020 and the week of September 19, 2021. Government officials had access to detailed information about people's movements after scooping up data from 33 million mobile devices across Canada.

This is government surveillance of Canadians, plain and simple. There is no other way to put it, regardless of the what the NDP-Liberals attempt to spin it as. It is definitely unacceptable, but it is unsurprising that the NDP-Liberal government would engage in something like this. I am certain that Canadians do not want Ottawa tracking their movements. Experts like Ontario's former privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian have questioned the government's claim. She said, per True North, “there has yet to be enough assurances that the data could not be reidentified to track individual Canadians.”

In addition to not wanting to be surveilled and tracked, Canadians do not want Ottawa telling them what they should or should not be thinking or posting to their social media accounts or their YouTube channels. At this point, it is important to note that on this side of the House, we support a level playing field between foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Let us not forget that Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules that do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and a global success.

While the government claims that there is now an exemption for user-generated content, Bill C-11 allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That means that virtually all content would be regulated, including independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. As such, critics are publicly accusing the government of state-sponsored censorship. It is simple. This bill is an affront to freedom of expression. It allows the government to regulate what Canadian users can post online or how the said content will be promoted.

Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Internet and e-commerce law research chair, has been especially vocal on Bill C-11. He has said that the government has misled Canadians on the scope of the bill. The professor's concerns with Bill C-11 include its “virtually limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope, and harmful discoverability provisions.” He added, “Bill C-11 treats all audio-visual content as programs subject to potential regulation. With exceptions that could easily capture TikTok or YouTube videos, the bill is about far more than just large companies.”

What is most concerning is that the CRTC's chairman, Ian Scott, who was appointed by the Prime Minister to the position in 2021, said that Bill C-11 needs to be open-ended so that the CRTC could have room to manoeuvre. That is a very worrying statement by the chairman of the CRTC. Let us remind the government that two former CRTC officials spoke out against the precursor of Bill C-11. They signed a petition labelling the bill an “authoritarian” move.

In addition, Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, warned that the incoming Bill C-11, meant to censor the Internet, could drastically change how Canadians interact online. Walker said that while Google is open to new regulations, current proposals border on the extreme. He added, “The closer you get to that extreme, the more concern. Whether that's on bespoke content regulation, or local content requirements, or government mandates for link taxes and other sorts of things—any flavour of one of those could actually really be bad.”

YouTube officials have also warned that if the Prime Minister's Internet censorship bill goes through, it could give the government unprecedented power over everyday content posted online. According to YouTube Canada's head of government affairs, Jeanette Patell, Bill C-11's wording is so broad that it places home videos within the purview of the CRTC. Patell also said that Bill C-11 “provides the CRTC the discretion to regulate user-generated content like a fan doing a cover song or someone making cooking videos in their kitchen or doing how-to-fix-a-bike videos.” That simply means that any video could be subject to CRTC's surveillance, control and regulation.

Twitter has also joined the opposition to the NDP-Liberal government's online censorship efforts. A submission from Twitter compared the Liberals' online hate legislation to censorship regimes in authoritarian countries such as North Korea. This bears repeating. Twitter's opinion of the government's effort to censor the Internet is that it can be compared to the censorship regime in North Korea. That is an incredible statement and the government should take heed. I doubt that Twitter officials were being facetious when they made this statement.

Twitter's manager for public policy had this to say:

The proposal by the government of Canada to allow the Digital Safety Commissioner to block websites is drastic. People around the world have been blocked from accessing Twitter and other services in a similar manner as the one proposed by Canada by multiple authoritarian governments (China, North Korea, and Iran for example) under the false guise of “online safety,” impeding peoples’ rights to access information online.

That is a powerful statement. Once again, the government needs to really understand the damage it would be doing with this bill, perhaps unprecedented and permanent damage.

To add to the long list of critics of Bill C-11, we also have Timothy Denton. Mr. Denton is a former CRTC commissioner. Mr. Denton also likened the proposed Internet regulations by this government to authoritarian regimes. He said:

It is creepily totalitarian, something you might expect out of China or Russia.... They are going to be unworkable and they are going to be, I think, unconstitutional in the old-fashioned sense of outside the powers of the federal government. I think they are almost certain to be taken down on Charter issues of freedom of speech. But they are really very unpleasant pieces of legislation.

To conclude my speech today, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-11 is another unacceptable attempt by the NDP-Liberal government to censor the Internet and, once again, restrict free speech. The restrictive, divisive and controlling NDP-Liberal government needs to finally realize that Canadians just want to be left alone.

It is time that the NDP-Liberals began paying attention to what Canadians want rather than pushing their partisan agenda of dividing, wedging and stigmatizing Canadians based on anything and everything they can conjure up.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of Bill C-11.

For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. This is no accident. We choose to be different from the cultural juggernaut of the United States. We care about our cultural sovereignty. We believe our diversity should be celebrated. Our culture is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, our present and our future. It is how we tell our stories to each other.

As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists, and that is why we have all the Canadian content we love. We can see Schitt's Creek, Kim's Convenience and Corner Gas, or hear Charlotte Cardin, Joni Mitchell, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Great Big Sea, and the list goes on, including the Arkells from my home town of Hamilton. If members are in Hamilton this Friday, they could catch the Arkells at Woodlands Park. I invite everyone in the House and anyone who is watching this evening to join us for that concert.

Here is the problem: Canadians are not using cable anymore. Now online streaming is everywhere. People can stream content through their phone, their car or their TV. We all enjoy this, but streaming platforms like Amazon Prime and YouTube broadcast to Canadians without the same requirements that helped build Canada's culture. They invest in our economy in other ways, but they do not have to produce content that reflects our Canadian stories and shared identity, until now.

That is why the government introduced Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This bill ensures that online streamers contribute in an equitable but flexible way to the creation of Canadian content. It ensures that Canadians could easily find that content on their platforms.

Based on the quality of debate we have heard from the official opposition today and over the past week, I think all members of this House could benefit from a refresher of what this bill does not do. This bill does not impose regulations on content everyday Canadians post on social media. This bill does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. This bill does not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. This bill does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.

Bill C-11 also takes into account the reality that music is largely broadcast online, most notably on platforms like YouTube. In fact, a study conducted by Media Technology Monitor in 2020 found that about two-thirds of Canadian adults use YouTube to listen to music, which outpaces dedicated music services, such as Apple Music and Spotify. That is why this bill includes very important updates that would focus only on commercial content, such as music videos uploaded by labels on YouTube or livestreams of professional sports matches.

This bill explicitly excludes all user-generated content on social media platforms and streaming services. Proposed subsection 2(2.1) of Bill C-11 states:

A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service—and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act.

In plain language, this means that users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters. They will never face any obligations under the bill. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue.

With this approach, the experience for users creating, posting and interacting with other user-generated content will not be impacted whatsoever, while still standardizing the treatment of commercial content such as TV shows and songs across all platforms.

Just to be clear, clause 12 of the online streaming act explicitly states that any regulations the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. It states specifically:

For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.‍1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings.

In conclusion, now that we have been able to resolve these unfounded claims, and we have heard many of them today and many of them at committee, and I tuned in a couple of times to listen to them, let us go back to why we are here in the first place.

Just as they did with Bill C-10, the Conservatives have used every tactic in the tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. At committee, all members agreed to study the bill for 20 hours of witness testimony. However, the Conservatives did not allow the committee to get to clause-by-clause by filibustering for seven hours. They went as far as to filibuster their own study motion at one point. It is deeply disappointing we cannot move forward on our study of this important bill, especially since our arts and cultural community has been telling us how vital and urgent this legislation would be for them.

Marla Boltman, from Friends, said:

Requiring contributions from foreign tech giants that extract billions of dollars from our country will help sustain our industry while driving investment and innovation in the creation of Canadian content that continues to reflect our diversity of voices and who we are as Canadians. Foreign contributions will level the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and foreign platforms. Frankly, it sends a message to the world that Canada is open for business, but there are no more free rides. If you benefit from the system, you must contribute to it.

I could not agree more. On this side of the House, we have made our position clear. Bill C-11 is about fairness and good middle-class jobs in the cultural sector. It is about having the power to shape our culture and making sure everyone can see themselves in our culture. It is about being proud of who we are. It is about being proud of being Canadian, so let us keep moving on this important legislation.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑11. I am very proud of this bill and will explain why.

I want to take this opportunity to mention that my son started working on air in radio this morning. I wish him well with discoverability. I will also add that my daughter is a documentarian and recently produced a documentary on Montreal in the disco era. I have two children working in the arts, in French, which is why this topic is particularly important to me.

In addition, my riding of Trois-Rivières is a place where many artists converge. People are familiar with Fred Pellerin and, perhaps, the Lemay brothers. There are also people in studios producing soundtracks that are distributed all over the world, even in China. The Cogeco auditorium just recently hosted Harmonium symphonique, so it is safe to say that Trois-Rivières is awash in culture.

Speaking of culture, I want to address one criticism. In the past, a number of people—although there are fewer of them now—have asked me what the Bloc Québécois's role is in all of this. We defend the French language and francophone culture, which means that we protect and support artists.

As soon as we saw Bill C-10, we could tell that protecting French was not a strong priority. English is appealing; it is everywhere on the web and in music. I have nothing against English. However, what bothers me is that English is becoming the singular way of thinking, which means that culture is disappearing.

Let me give you an example. Recently, I was with people from the OECD who were presenting a framework for analyzing artificial intelligence. Being a language specialist, I asked the woman which language the framework was designed in. She told me that everyone had met in Paris—people from Egypt, Brazil, Canada and everywhere. I asked her what language these people spoke while in Paris, and she said that they had been working in English. There is nothing wrong with that, but the very nature of the thought process is different.

That is what people mean when they talk about losing a culture and losing a way of thinking. That is why the discoverability we have all been talking about here is important. We have to be able to develop francophone content, and it has to be a priority for online companies. With Bill C‑10, we had concerns about whether the CRTC, as a relic of the 20th century, would have the wherewithal to take action on this. We proposed amendments that addressed the situation and resolved those concerns. Our francophone artists will reap the rewards.

We also considered the impact of Bill C‑10 on freedom of expression. My colleague from Drummond proposed amendments that were agreed to, amendments that can provide reassurance to artists and content creators.

Next came an unjustified hiatus because of the election. Perhaps it was not completely unjustified; after all, I was elected. People lost money because of the hiatus because it delayed the introduction of Bill C‑11. My colleague from Drummond was undeterred. He kept working just as hard, single-handedly advancing the cause of content creators, because that is what the Bloc Québécois does: We do it all for Quebec.

We clarified the concept of decision. This may seem simple, but it is not. Decision is a word, and, as I often point out, a word is a construct of sound and meaning. We added meaning to the word decision.

We also insisted on maintaining Canadian ownership and Canadian control of the broadcasting system. We insisted and will continue to insist on the chair of the CRTC becoming proficient in French. This is not a preference, but a necessity. A culture cannot be understood if its language is not understood. Throughout the current process, the Bloc Québécois kept pressuring the government to do more for Quebec.

Sadly, the debate gave way to disgraceful comments. I am thinking in particular about the member for Lethbridge, who told Alberta media that some provisions of Bill C‑10 targeted a very niche group of artists from Quebec, outdated artists stuck in the early 1990s because they failed to be competitive on the new platforms. She went on to say that these Quebec artists produce content that Canadians simply do not want.

One would be hard pressed to find greater contempt. Throughout the debate, I heard several colleagues, especially on the Conservative side admittedly, express their concerns about freedom of expression.

That is an important topic, so I took the time to ask three colleagues in the House how they would define freedom of expression. Interestingly, other than saying that freedom of expression is important and essential, no one was able to define the concept and what they understood by it. I was not convinced by the argument.

Invoking something does not make it real. Instead of wasting time with baseless arguments, the Bloc Québécois prefers to take action and protect content creators. Quebec culture is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's mission. Broadcasting is one of the most effective tools for sharing this culture, which is our identity.

The Bloc Québécois is clearly in favour of modernizing the Broadcasting Act, which has not been updated in ages, not since 1991. Obviously, the evolution of technology has not been taken into account.

The Bloc Québécois also contributed significantly to the previous version of the bill, Bill C-10, by securing the following gains: the protection and promotion of original French-language programs; the discoverability of services, and I will not dwell on this, since it has already been discussed at length; the promotion of Canadian programming in both official languages and in indigenous languages; a mandatory contribution to Canada's broadcasting system; the requirement for first-run French-language content, in order to ensure there are new French-language shows on Netflix, for example; and a sunset clause that would provide for a comprehensive review of the act every five years.

When my colleagues ask about the purpose of the Bloc Québécois, I can say our purpose is to protect, promote and take care of francophone culture. The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised us that the Bloc Québécois amendments would be included in the new version of the reform, and indeed, we see significant evidence of them. We have to admit it. That said, the wording obviously differs. Some words are changed here and there, which can change the meaning a bit, but we have to admit that it is quite clear.

Quebec's and Canada's cultural sector has been impatiently waiting for this act to be updated. It has been waiting for decades. The first request from the cultural sector is simple: ensure that this bill is passed. That is what we are being asked to do. Earlier, there was mention of the $70 million estimated by the then Minister of Canadian Heritage. It was an estimate, but a reliable one.

Since the beginning of time, it was said that everything that happened happened within the bounds of space and time. Nothing could exist outside space and time. Globalization and the Internet turned this idea upside down. In 2022, the virus has no borders, inflation has no borders and culture has no borders. It is time to pass Bill C‑11 before time ravages our Quebec and Canadian cultures, turning them into a monolith.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Trois-Rivières.

Since we are talking about culture, all of the Quebec TV series recently ended for the season, so I want to say hello to my mother-in-law, my father-in-law, my spouse and my two grown daughters, who are almost finished their school year. In a few days, we will be returning home to our riding.

All joking aside, we have raised a lot of issues since the start of this debate. This is the first time I will be speaking about this subject, and so I will put my colleagues back on the right track.

Quebec culture is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's mission and mine as an MP, and broadcasting is certainly one of the most effective tools for getting the message out and helping to define our national identity. It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this reform. We even supported time allocation before the last election. Indeed, we agree with this legislation. Why? It is because the Broadcasting Act has not been updated since 1991. Generations are getting shorter as technology evolves in leaps and bounds. It is about time.

In May 2021, in La Presse, Paul Journet wrote: “Our broadcasting and telecommunications laws were written in the VHS era”. My daughters associate VHS with that big box of memories I pull out so we can watch snippets of their mother's teenage years. Now that is old.

The system has become outdated and unfair. Unlike our radio and television stations, today's platforms, which are often run by foreign giants, have zero obligation to fund or broadcast Canadian cultural content. Our companies are at a disadvantage, and our artists are losing revenue. For example, in 2019, 52% of audiovisual content produced in Canada was not Quebec content. Let me say that again. In 2019, 52% of audiovisual content produced in Canada was not Quebec content. It was content made in Canada by foreign companies.

Furthermore, according to data from the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, the number of Canadian productions decreased by 12% each year between January 2017 and 2020. I know several producers, and they can confirm this. It is alarming and it is high time we address it.

The 30 or so titles from Quebec on Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Netflix make up 0.1% of their Canadian catalogue. Quebec film and television series producers and distributors, whose work I admire, are still finding it very difficult to sell their shows to these American streaming giants. Of course, there are very few shows made in Quebec. In September, there were none on Disney+. I invite my colleagues to go check; it is appalling. This has to change, because rich cultural expression is out there and people should be able to access it.

No more than five of Amazon Prime Video's 1,400 titles are from Quebec. When I tell my daughters that, they say they understand why we watch more shows in English than in their mother tongue.

Netflix is the only platform to have increased its Quebec catalogue significantly. I have to say I appreciate that. The California-based company has more than quintupled its production in Quebec over the past two years, from five titles to almost 30.

Even though minority communities account for 14% of Canada's francophone population, francophone television production in minority communities accounts for just 4% of the total.

When it comes to music, francophone music on digital platforms represents only 2.7% of the 10,000 most popular songs. Those numbers are hard to see.

The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, recently reported to the Canadian Press that francophone artists in Canada receive only 2% of the digital royalties paid in the country. After recording an album, an artist would receive only a few cents, especially if it is on a platform like Spotify, so it really is a poor reflection of the consumption of Canadian content on digital platforms, never mind the impact it has on the economy.

This is where our minds are right now. We have been waiting for this bill for months, and we are making a major and constructive contribution, especially thanks to my hon. colleague from Drummond who did so much to help improve it. We hoped to pass this bill before the election, when it was called Bill C-10. Now we have Bill C-11 before us, and it must pass.

I will repeat the main points. What is this bill all about? It concerns the protection and promotion of original French content. So far, so good.

Earlier, my esteemed colleague from Drummond spoke about discoverability, or discovering Canadian programming and original Canadian content, and especially having a fair share of original French-language content. The term “fair” is very important. There is also the showcasing aspect. When the content is good, it is showcased in programming in both official languages and also in indigenous languages.

There is also the mandatory contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system in the event that a business is unable to access Canadian resources for its programming. We spoke about control earlier, and I look forward to hearing the questions I will be asked. We need to have first-run French content to ensure the presence, or discoverability, of new broadcasts on platforms such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney+. There are older programs or old films that we like to watch these days, especially when we return to our ridings.

There is a sunset clause to ensure that there is a thorough review of the legislation every year. Why? Because technology changes so quickly. We have to leave some elbow room to review, compile and correct course in order to be sure, for once, that we are in tune with the times.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised us that the Bloc Québécois's amendments would end up in the new version. They are indeed there. The wording of some of them is slightly different, but the important thing is the substance. Nothing can be left to chance in a bill where we want to be able to course correct in the event that changing one simple word has a major impact on the effect of the clause.

From day one, the Bloc, backed by Quebec's entire cultural sector, was the party that worked the hardest on improving Bill C‑10 and getting it passed. Unfortunately, it was dropped from the Order Paper. I have been a member since 2019, and I learned that we have to start over when that happens.

For my last minute, I would like to say that with each month lost, though whether because of our fatigue, the filibustering or some other reason, I think about the industry. That is $70 million that is not going to our artists in Quebec and Canada.

It is time to do something about this, so I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of this bill.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf on the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to take care of a couple of things. First, there were three people in my riding who were tragically killed over the weekend, including a four-week-old infant. Last I heard, there was a young person as well who remained in critical condition after this tragic motor vehicle accident. I want to assure the family and loved ones who suffered through this that they are in my thoughts and prayers. I just want to take a moment of silence, given the passing of these three people.

On a bit of a happier note, I want to wish my dad a happy Father's Day. I did get to see him yesterday.

The last thing, I promise, before getting into Bill C-11, is that I have two friends getting married this weekend, and I want to give a shout-out on the House of Commons floor to Lucky Sharma and Aimée Marshall on their upcoming wedding. I wish them a life of happiness.

Now let us get on to why we are all here, Bill C-11, and why we are all here sitting late, with Motion No. 11.

I remember when the Liberals, as a third-place party, in 2015, touted themselves as the party of transparency. We were told, “Sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways,” and that they would not use omnibus bills. Those are for undemocratic groups like the Conservatives to use. They would not shut down debate. No, that would not ever happen.

Then we had the NDP, the party of the underdog, fighting for each and every person, being the voice for people who did not have a voice themselves, the voice for the voiceless, the party fighting vigorously for democracy above all else, supporting things like Motion No. 11, not only to curtail debate, and I cannot count how many times that has happened recently and in respect to this bill directly, but also to shut down debate.

That, to me, does not sound like either is a party of transparency. I may have expected this from the Liberals. I frankly did not expect it from the NDP. Let us face it, if the Conservatives had done this when we had a majority, it would have been called high-handed. Instead, the rhetoric is, “We just want to get this done.” This is coming from a party that took months to recall Parliament after an unnecessary pandemic election.

Wait, Madam Speaker, there is more. We have over 100 amendments that were moved in committee without any sort of scrutiny. To me, that is undemocratic.

If I could sum up one of the issues I have with this bill, it comes down to a question that I asked the hon. parliamentary secretary. I asked him about TV shows that he had referenced and his saying, if I understood his argument correctly, that we may not have these TV shows if it were not for Canadian content. I challenged him in a question, asking, “Where in Bill C-11 do we preserve the existence of these television shows?”

Somewhat predictably, he did not point to anything in particular. He said that it depends on the content of the shows. That is the interesting part. Here is the problem: this is the classic “the Liberal government knows best”. It is for the government to decide what the appropriate content is.

People ask, “Well, what is the problem with this?” This is the government essentially preferring some media over others, but not only is it preferring some media over others; it goes beyond that, because we do not know exactly how the government is going to go about preferring some media over others. We really do have a compound problem there.

One, why are we preferring? It is ostensibly for the reasons that have been outlined by the government, but then we have this vacuum in which we ask ourselves, well, how are we going to go about that? Rather than flesh that out and rather than spend the time at committee to do this, the government rammed through over 100 amendments. To me, that does not sound like a government that is bent on getting this right, as we have heard so often, because this needs to happen on an act that has not been updated since 1991.

Make no mistake: I am not advocating for the status quo, but I am opposing what we have seen here.

Frequently from the government we have heard, “Why do Conservatives not just get on board with the changing times?” That completely misses the point. The Conservatives are prepared to get on board with the changing times. Just because we are not prepared to get on board with it being done in this way does not mean we do not recognize the necessity for change.

Rather, we have a bill that has been rammed through. If this bill was truly good for the country, why is the government trying to get it done so quickly? It is obviously a near copy of the deeply flawed Bill C-10, which had a number of concerns raised by experts.

I do not deny that we live in an increasingly digital world. We need laws and policies that reflect the world we live in today. I am in my 40s, yet I find myself increasingly telling my family members and my mother that I need a text message rather than a phone call, because we are going back and forth constantly, living in a busy world that is increasingly dependent on electronics.

I am sure I am not the only one who feels as though, while we used to fall asleep reading a book 20 or 30 years ago, we probably now fall asleep doing different things and watching different things.

All that is to say that yes, the law needs to be updated. The question then becomes how Parliament appropriately intervenes, and just because Conservatives are opposed to the intervention itself, the unique intervention that has been put forward, does not mean that an intervention is unnecessary.

Canada's Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and content creators, but what we have here would be giving the power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet. In my view, that is not the appropriate way to go about this. This, to me, is an exhortation for more government involvement and more power in what we do. It feels like it never ends when we see the government slowly but surely encroaching into what people will watch, but it is not even clear as to how the government would do that, and that is a really substantial concern.

This bill, in my view, targets user-generated content. That has been discussed at length, and I will not go into it much more. Despite the government's assurances, companies like YouTube still identify areas of the bill that would identify user-generated content. Despite the exemption for user-generated content, this legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That is rather broad.

When we are talking about indirect generation of revenue, where does that line end? Does it end at one person removed, one job removed or one dollar removed? How do we actually judge that? These are unanswered questions that would have been wonderful to answer at committee, and there were many witnesses who would have been prepared to answer these questions.

According to the CRTC chairperson, Mr. Scott, the CRTC issues approximately 250 decisions annually. For an administrative board, that is relatively small. That is fewer than five per week, so I ask myself how we can expect the CRTC to have this capacity. Again, this is consistent with what I am saying. We are just going to grow the CRTC even bigger. That is the answer. That is the response to this. It is to make more government with more policies with more workers, which is going to cost more taxes for ultimately questionable ends.

I am only four pages into a 10-page outline. I have a lot more to say, but I know my time is coming to an end. As much as others here might like to hear it, I know we are under time constraints, so I will answer any questions from my colleagues with that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Bill C-11 is yet another attempt by the Liberals to regulate what Canadians can say and see on the Internet by granting unprecedented powers to the CRTC with, importantly, no clear guidelines or limits on how that power would be used.

The minister has made many claims about Bill C-11. He says that it would protect Canadian identity and culture, that it would help promote diversity and marginalized groups in Canada, and that it would tell Canada's story to the world. These objectives are commendable, but the big problem is that Bill C-11 would actually accomplish none of them. Instead, it would threaten the viability of Canadian digital content creators, stifle innovation and grant unprecedented new powers to the CRTC to dictate what Canadians can read, what they can listen to, and what they can say and see on the Internet.

Like its predecessor, Bill C-10, Bill C-11 is not about promoting Canadian content. It is really about censoring views and ideas that the Liberal government does not like, all under the auspices of strengthening Canadian culture. The bill's so-called discoverability provisions would essentially push content in front of Canadians, if that content is considered Canadian enough, whether people want to see it or not. If it fails to pass the government's definition of “Canadian”, it would be pushed down in the queue where it cannot be found. The CRTC would essentially decide which content creators succeed, what content Canadians see and what content Canadians do not see. The minister has recently declared that he alone would develop rules on what content is defined as Canadian. That is a pretty shocking revelation, that he considers himself the single arbiter of national identity.

This is especially disconcerting since the NDP-Liberal government is also currently developing an online harms bill, which has been so shrouded in secrecy that only recently an access to information request uncovered thousands of pages of negative comments by stakeholders. Critics warned that the original Liberal government plan would amount to censorship. I understand that a new proposal is now being put forward, given all the criticism. It would apparently place the onus on digital platforms to deal with harmful content. Based on the Liberals' track record, no one should believe that this proposal would pose less of a threat to individual liberties than their other ideas. I am not sure how they would tackle real online harms, such as non-consensual or child sexual abuse material, which is often not enforced through platforms right now.

On Bill C-11, thousands of Canadian artists, content creators and policy experts have voiced extreme opposition. They point out that pushing content to viewers who are not interested in it would actually harm Canadian creators, because the algorithms will penalize content that viewers do not interact with.

Justin Tomchuk, a Canadian producer who operates two very successful YouTube channels, noted, “Our channels have highlighted Canadian products for the world to see and purchase. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would make that more difficult and potentially destroy our visibility internationally.”

Dr. Irene Berkowitz, a senior policy fellow at the Toronto Metropolitan University’s Audience Lab, also testified at committee, and Matt Hatfield said that it's “very risky for a small country like Canada to encourage this kind of model of prioritizing our own content. The benefits are pretty meagre if we make it work for our local content. The risk, if a larger country like France were to do the same thing, is enormous to us.”

Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, said:

Bill C-11 is...a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad. It mistakes platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Facebook for broadcasters like the CBC, Netflix and Amazon Prime. It doesn't understand how those platforms operate, and it ignores the fundamental importance of global discoverability.

Those same points echo around the Canadian arts scene. Scott Benzie, the managing director of Digital First Canada, which advocates for digital content creators, said, “Most concerning about C-11 is that there is still room in the bill for the government to force platforms to put 'approved' Canadian content ahead of independent Canadian content and artificially manipulate the algorithms. Even in the best-case scenario this bill only has downsides for digital-first creators, while the traditional media industry gets their funding doubled.”

The reality is that traditional broadcasters like the CBC would receive more funding under Bill C-11, while independent innovators driving Canadian digital leadership will be left behind. Not only will Bill C-11 not promote Canadian digital content or strengthen Canadian culture, but its discoverability provisions will stifle innovation and impose severe restrictions on what content Canadians can access.

During committee hearings, the campaigns director of advocacy group OpenMedia, Matt Hatfield, said, “Manipulating our search results and feeds to feature content that the government prefers instead of other content is gross paternalism that doesn't belong in a democratic society.”

There really is no better definition of “censorship” than what the Liberal government is trying to do in Bill C-11. Censorship is at its very core. The Liberals even used censorship to cut off debate and ram through an unprecedented 150 amendments to the bill with no discussion or explanation. Over the last two weeks, the Liberals have effectively censored their own censorship bill.

Canadians will remember the fiasco of Bill C-10, which the Liberals introduced last year. Under Bill C-10, people's everyday expressions, which could include pictures, audio and video, would have been magically turned into broadcasting programs when transmitted by third parties like social media firms over the Internet, unless the CRTC or a cabinet policy directive said otherwise. Almost any individual-generated content would become subject to regulation. That is why Internet law expert Michael Geist called Bill C-10 an unconscionable attack on the online free expression of Canadians. As the Liberals stifled debate and used tactics like closure on Bill C-10, Conservatives did propose amendments to protect individual users and smaller players in the market by exempting streaming services and social media users with lower revenues, but the Liberals rejected that common-sense compromise.

Now the minister claims that this new bill, Bill C-11, addresses the concerns about Bill C-10 and that Canadians can be assured that regulating user-generated content on the Internet is now off the table, but that is just not true. In fact, when asked at committee hearings about whether Bill C-11 includes the potential for regulating user content, the CRTC chair, Ian Scott, acknowledged, “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required”.

The Liberals have tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with Bill C-11 by apparently reintroducing some original safeguards, while at the same time introducing a new provision that effectively negates the safeguards. I think we all agree with the goal of updating Canada's Broadcasting Act and bringing it in line with the realities of the 21st century. Conservatives have said repeatedly that we support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, but Conservatives believe we can achieve that reform while also protecting individual rights and without turning the CRTC into an all-powerful censure board with almost no limits to its regulatory authority.

Should Canadians entrust the Prime Minister and the government with the power to regulate what Canadians say and see? Let us look at their track record. There have been many examples of this particular Prime Minister cracking down on those with whom he disagrees, from former senior ministers who defended the principle of judicial independence, like the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, to denigrating and demeaning fellow Canadians who want their freedom back and to end federal mandates, and helping perpetuate misinformation and fake news about them, their motives and their actions. The Prime Minister has actually called Canadians who disagree with him un-Canadian. Therefore, is it any wonder that Canadians would be skeptical about his plans for the cabinet appointments who will define Canadian content for regulation?

This penchant for using the unbridled power of the state against the individual Canadians is embodied in Bill C-11 and in coming legislation the Liberals will claim is necessary. However, stakeholder groups that have been involved in consultations so far have called the Liberals' proposals dangerous, with the possibility of expanding the powers of regulators over time and significantly impacting the free expression and privacy rights of Canadians.

My constituents are clear about their views on the Liberal government's heavy-handed attempts to regulate and control what Canadians are allowed to say and see on the Internet. They have told me they do not agree with the Liberal government's censorship measures. No government agency responsible for broadcasting in a free and democratic society should have the kinds of powers and unchecked discretion as are proposed in Bill C-11. Canadians have fought and died to defend rights to freedom of thought and expression. In a society that cherishes these values, Bill C-11 would leave the door open for real abuses of power against the free expression rights of Canadians.

My Conservative colleagues and I will remain steadfast in working to stop the NDP-Liberal government from taking away the free expression and individual rights of Canadians. In its present form, we oppose Bill C-11, given the potential for it to establish a regime of censorship, control and regulation while not achieving the outcomes its proponents purport.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hope I was clear in my speech that this is the reason I am voting for Bill C-11. It is important and urgent that we pass Bill C-11 now.

We saw the last Parliament's attempt to pass Bill C-10. It is not the fault of any of us in the opposition that we had an unnecessary election, which caused Bill C-10 to die on the Order Paper, but Canadian performers and creators have been waiting a very long time to see a modernization that takes into account the way their income is undermined by online streaming. We need to do this urgently, and if it turns out that, as many have warned us, there are mistakes made in other parts of the bill, I hope we will go back and fix that later.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, for once I have to agree with the member for Winnipeg North. The Conservatives just do not seem to want the bill to pass in any shape or form. They voted against Bill C-10, an old version of the bill. They asked the government not to reintroduce it. They have not gotten any wins for workers during the whole pandemic.

Why are they siding with web giants like Netflix who do not pay their fair share, instead of supporting arts and culture workers, who have suffered so much in the last couple of years, and passing this bill?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her speech. As she mentioned earlier, I had the pleasure and privilege of working with her on Bill C‑10 last year.

I almost rose earlier on a point of order. I believe there is a standing order that states that we cannot lie and we cannot spread misinformation. I believe I heard my colleague say that she was 50 years old. Enough is enough. We are being taken for fools. This colleague is not 50. If she is 50, then I am 85.

That said, I recall that we worked very hard to advance Bill C‑10 last year despite the obstacles we faced. I would like to know whether my colleague has had the chance to take a look at what is in Bill C‑11, and if she found that there were things missing that we had added to Bill C‑10.

Are there amendments that she would have wanted to make to Bill C‑11 this year, even with the good work done on Bill C‑10?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I look at the House, and I look at all of those who are supporting the legislation and know how important it is that we bring forward this long overdue legislation. Then, I see the Conservative Party not supporting it, and I question that. I wonder why that is the case.

Part of me thinks that it is because right now they are without a leader and they are, in fact, blocking everything that happens in the House. They have been filibustering our foreign affairs committee for over a month, and they are blocking us from being able to do the jobs we want to do in this place. Maybe that is part of it, but then I think about when the Conservatives were coming to the committee when we were looking at Bill C-10, and I will make a bit of a joke that I made then.

The member for Lethbridge yelled “freedom” so many times that I swear she seemed a bit like she was imitating Braveheart, except I would say in Braveheart they only yelled it once, so perhaps she could be a little more succinct. Also, when we were in committee, we saw a literal turning door of the “front-benchers” of the Conservative Party coming to our committee wanting to talk about Bill C-10. This would be good and important, if we had ever seen any of those members come to our committee to talk about COVID supports for artists.

If I had ever seen the member for Carleton come to my committee to talk to our group about how we need to support artists in his community, that would be one thing. If I had ever seen the member for Calgary Nose Hill come to the heritage committee to talk about truth and reconciliation and the acknowledgement of September 30 as the Day for Truth and Reconciliation, that would be another thing. We never saw any of that. We just saw them then, so I am asking myself why this is the case.

I actually talked to one of my Conservative colleagues who said that every time they sent out an email on Bill C-10, they raised about $2,000. I have to think that this looks a lot like a fundraising campaign. This does not look a lot like good policy to me. This looks a lot like there is an option there to make some money, and of course that is hard for me to understand and hard for me to accept, because Edmonton Strathcona is the heart of the artistic community, as well.

We have a strong francophone community, but we also have an incredible artistic community, so I do not want members of that community to suffer and I do not want members of that community to not have the opportunity to benefit from taxes being raised or from funds going into the cultural community. For example, when Bill C-11 is put in place, over a billion dollars will go back into our cultural community in Canada. That is not taxes. I want to make it really clear that this is something the web giants would pay. It is not something the government would pay. Multinational corporations would be paying into our artistic sector.

What I think about is how much money Netflix has, how much money YouTube has and how much money all of these multinational corporations make, and why I would not want them to pay their fair share to support organizations like the Blues Festival in Edmonton Strathcona, the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, the Edmonton Fringe Theatre Festival, the Edmonton Heritage Festival, the SkirtsAfire Festival, theatre groups like the Alberta Musical Theatre Company, Concrete Theatre, where my good friend Mieko Ouchi used to work, Firefly Theatre and Circus, Fringe Theatre and Grindstone Comedy Theatre. I can tell members they had the most incredible Pride event there just a couple of weeks ago, and anyone in Edmonton Strathcona during Pride needs to go the Grindstone.

We have the Northern Light Theatre, we have Theatre Yes, we have Blues on Whyte, the Northern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium, the Metro Cinema and the Myer Horowitz Theatre. Outside of my riding is the Starlite Room, but I still visit it quite regularly. The Starlite Room had one of my very favourite concerts: I got to listen to Propaghandi, a Canadian band, play there. Just a couple of weeks ago on my 50th birthday, I got to see Corb Lund sing, and I will tell members he is someone they should not miss. They should certainly be trying to support the Timms Centre, the Old Strathcona Performing Arts Centre, Varscona Theatre, Walterdale Theatre and the Yardbird Suite.

Francophone organizations in my community include the Chorale Chantamis, the Chorale Saint-Jean and the Flying Canoë Volant, where, as I have probably told everyone in the House, one can race a canoe down a ski hill, dressed up as a beaver. Also, there is L'Association Franco-Albertaine de L'UniThéâtre, the Fête-franco-albertaine and the FrancoMusik Alberta Association. There are alternative media that this would support, including the CJSR radio network of the University of Alberta, The Gateway and Le Franco.

All of these organizations are really important and integral to my community, and every one of these organizations could benefit from this fund. They could benefit from the money that would come in from multinational corporations.

I am never going to stand in this place as the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona to fight for the rights of big corporations over the rights of artists, over the rights of community groups and over the rights of the small organizations that make Edmonton Strathcona so incredibly special.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in this place and speak to Bill C-11.

I have to begin by saying that I was one of the members of the heritage committee in the last Parliament when Bill C-10 came forward. I greatly appreciated working with my colleague from the NDP, the heritage critic in the last Parliament, and I thank him for his intervention today. I learn so much every time he speaks. He is such a very clear communicator. I greatly appreciate the contributions that he has made to this debate this evening.

I also want to recognize some of my friends in this place right now who were on that committee, with whom I very much enjoyed working. Unfortunately, I will not say that was the same for all members of our committee, but I will get into some of that detail in a little while.

To start with, I want to talk about just how vital this Bill C-11 legislation is. It is so important that we take the opportunity to level the playing field between the web giants, these big multinational corporations, and the artistic community in Canada. I am talking about the artists and the venues that support those artists, which are then in turn supported because we have a strong artistic community. The theatres, newspapers and radio stations, all of these things that get support when we level the playing field are so important. I am going to go through some of the organizations in my riding and say a little about them later on.

I want to just highlight a couple of things we have heard about over and over again from the Conservative Party. That is that Bill C-11 applies to user-generated content. They know that is not true. They know that except for very specific examples, that is not the way this bill has been set up. We know that this bill provides opportunities for indigenous people. It provides opportunities for programming for Canadians to hear and be exposed to indigenous language programming. It supports minority communities.

Many people do not know this about Edmonton Strathcona, but there is a huge and very vibrant francophone community in my riding. It is a part of why I have spent so many hours, not very successfully, I will say, trying to learn French so that I can speak French in this place and recognize the vital role that francophones play in our community in Edmonton Strathcona.

These are the things that we are pushing for with Bill C-11. When I sit at committee I hear, of course, that the Liberals brought this bill forward and they support the legislation. The NDP strongly supports this legislation as well, and the Bloc Québécois supports the legislation. The Green Party, which I think one of my colleagues mentioned, under—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague across the way made, but I take a different approach. He made reference to Bill C-10 and the amendment process. I think it clearly demonstrated the interest of the government, when modernizing the legislation, to get it right. We saw a number of amendments that, in fact, ultimately changed the form of Bill C-11, and I think that is good for the industry as a whole and for future Canadian content.

The member made reference to the word “freedom”, and I think there is a fear factor out there, as some are trying to say that this is a limit on an individual's freedoms. Could he provide his thoughts with regard to the issue of the Conservative Party in essence saying that this is an attack on individual freedoms?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech with an aside once again. I am definitely making a habit of starting my speeches with an aside. I want to do this and I think everyone will be fine with it, because last Friday was graduates' day. In Quebec, we celebrated students graduating from high school, CEGEP, vocational school and other schools. We applauded their efforts and their determination at an important step in their studies. I therefore wanted to take a few moments to commend graduates in the riding of Drummond. I am thinking in particular of Elsa Darveau and Ève Turgeon, two young ladies that I adore. Back home, I want to applaud my stepson Christophe and his girlfriend Sophia who are also headed to CEGEP. I want to commend and congratulate everyone graduating in Quebec and Canada, and all those taking this big step in their studies.

I hope that this will be the last time we rise to speak to Bill C‑11. I am optimistic that it will be. We worked on Bill C‑10, we worked on Bill C‑11. It is time to pass this bill that our cultural and broadcasting industries have awaited for such a long time.

I must say that we put a lot of hours into Bill C‑10 after it was introduced in 2020. The spotlight was on us, as members of Parliament, and we were being congratulated and patted on the back by our colleagues and others, but there is a whole team working behind the scenes. I want to acknowledge my support team, which did extraordinary work during our study of Bill C‑10 last year and during our study of Bill C‑11 now before us.

I especially want to thank my assistant Mélissa, who did an amazing job planning more than 60 meetings with stakeholders from all across the industry and who worked non-stop to prepare for the committees. She did an amazing job. I thank my friend Éric, who contributed his thoughts and experience, our research friends, Michael and Vincent, and the whip's team, Paul, Marie-Christine and Charles.

I want to say a special thank you to my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, who is here in the House today. Last year, she held meetings on Bill C-10, and she put in a lot of effort. It was a bill that she cared a lot about. I imagine she is pleased today to see that Bill C-11 will be passed. She was a singer in a former life. Actually, that is not true. She will always be a singer. In fact, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the opportunity to benefit from her talents at just about every meeting. I think this bill was particularly close to her heart because she has made a living from singing and she knows how important the Broadcasting Act is to the entire cultural industry. I therefore thank my colleague for her wonderful help.

I feel like I am giving a thank-you speech at an awards ceremony, but I think it is important. I hope others will follow suit.

I also want to say a big thank you to the interpreters, the committee staff, and the clerks' office staff, who do an absolutely incredible job, always behind the scenes. Without them, I do not think we would be able to get anything done. I want to sincerely thank them as well.

With that, I want to focus on a number of very important things that were added to Bill C‑10, which I spoke about earlier. My pet analogy is that Bill C‑10, as introduced on November 3, 2020, was like a blank paint-by-number. The numbers were there, but they were in need of paint to fill in the structure and content of a bill that was lacking on both fronts.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary talked about Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11 as though they were essentially one and the same. He is not completely wrong about that, but he should have said that it was actually the final version of Bill C‑10 as amended and the version of Bill C‑11 as introduced that were virtually the same. That is an important distinction because a lot of work was done on Bill C‑10. Specifically, a lot of work was done to take out significant sections of the Broadcasting Act, for example, paragraph 3(1)(a) on the Canadian ownership and control of broadcasting entities. Last year, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to Bill C‑10 to replace it with the following: “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and foreign broadcasting undertakings may also provide programming to Canadians”.

The wording has changed a bit in Bill C‑11. Without getting into it too much, we would have preferred the wording from Bill C‑10, but this is still an important amendment.

We often say that the Bloc Québécois put the protection of French back into the broadcasting bill. That is true, and it is in Bill C‑11 because we managed to add it to Bill C‑10. Here is what the new subparagraph 3(1)(i.1) says: “reflect and support Canada's linguistic duality by placing significant importance on the creation, production and broadcasting of original French language programs, including those from French linguistic minority communities”.

There is an important nuance here that I think is worth bearing in mind and repeating. The bill talks about “original French language programs”, not programs in French. If we had stuck with “programs in French”, as the bill seemed to suggest before we amended this clause, then content dubbed in French would have been given equal weight regardless of the original language. What we were calling for, and it was entirely legitimate for us to do so, was original French content, meaning broadcasting companies would be required to produce original content in the language of Molière, Vigneault, Leclerc, Lévesque and myself.

I am talking a lot about Bill C-10 because we added a few things to it, some of which also made their way into Bill C-11, so they have been discussed again.

One of them was the issue of discoverability, which really got people talking. It has become quite hackneyed and used to spread appalling misinformation. I talked about discoverability in the House last week, and I think it is pretty straightforward as a concept. It aims to ensure that local content is promoted, easy to find and available on any broadcasting platform.

I cannot imagine anyone thinking to themselves that, yes, we produce great content but that we need to make sure that no one can find it, so as not to completely confuse the algorithms of the big foreign companies, which will stop liking us.

I was elected by Quebec voters, who want me to protect their interests. I was not elected by multinational corporations that are based abroad and who report virtually no revenue, pay virtually no taxes and contribute virtually nothing to our broadcasting system and our cultural industry in Canada.

I therefore have no problem imposing discoverability requirements on these businesses, because I find that it makes sense. I find it contemptible that this requirement has caused so much outrage and been used as justification by those who claim that this broadcasting bill essentially amounts to censorship.

Another very interesting addition made to last year's bill is the sunset clause. This emerged from the realization that the Broadcasting Act has not been updated, revised or amended for more than 30 years, and that if nothing were done, it would more than likely be quite some time before a new act were adopted or amendments made to the new Broadcasting Act.

Why would we not require a re-evaluation at specified times to make the necessary amendments and adjustments? That is one of the fine additions included in Bill C-10, and then in Bill C‑11, and it will require the House to review the Broadcasting Act every five years. If some things are not being done properly today, we will not have to wait 30 years to correct them.

Bill C‑11 has had quite a strange trajectory. We can agree that the process was a little messed up. In other words, it was short-circuited or neglected. I apologize; perhaps I could have used a better term.

It did not help that the Conservatives decided they were going to oppose the bill in any way they could, by filibustering during some very important meetings, even though the study process had already been planned out when the committee received the bill. In response, the government opted for a closure motion, which made it tough to talk about amendments and advocate for amendments.

This meant that the committee was not able to have the types of discussions it would normally have when amendments to bills are proposed. I think that the discussion can open members' minds. I wanted to hear my colleagues make arguments, even the ones I find far-fetched. In committee, we are meant to discuss, listen to what others say and keep an open mind. This is how we can amend Bill C‑11 as effectively as possible.

A few Bloc Québécois amendments were rejected. I think the main reason they were rejected is that we did not have the opportunity to explain them. There was no room for debate, particularly on the control we want to have over online companies, or rather the control we refuse to have over them.

It is unbelievable. When we tried to force American, Chinese and international companies, foreign companies, to hire Canadian and Quebec human resources, creative resources and talent as much as possible, I was told that it is impossible because the companies are already investing a lot of money. I was told that we cannot force them to hire locals because that would be too upsetting. That is what I was told. These companies and the web giants say that they are already contributing a lot and that it would be inconvenient if they were forced to use Canadian resources as much as possible. To that I say, they are always nibbling away at the advertising pie and taking the revenues for themselves.

I really want members to understand this. People in this flourishing industry are on the verge of switching careers. They no longer have an income, and media outlets are closing up shop, yet web giants tell us they do not want us to impose those kinds of constraints. Our doormat of a Canadian government lies down and has no problem letting them walk all over it.

I sincerely hope the government will take a somewhat firmer stance, especially when it comes to orders the CRTC can give. The CRTC does actually require good faith negotiations between the companies that create programs and those that distribute or broadcast them, and obviously that includes online platforms in our current system. That means the CRTC would need the tools to impose fair negotiation rules should good faith negotiations not happen. That idea was turned down too.

I was told it would not work, that the government could not give the CRTC tools to respond should negotiations not take place in good faith. That means big corporations will be able to walk all over our little-guy production companies and carry on exploiting our Quebec and Canadian content creators for profit.

Who might need these negotiations to be protected? Small programming businesses might need that, although many of them have grown. Consider APTN, for example. APTN's wonderful model is being emulated around the world. New Zealanders were inspired by what APTN has done in Canada and created a similar channel. CPAC is another example. I think everyone here is quite familiar with CPAC. We can also think of The Weather Network. These are all businesses that need this protection, but they are not getting it because we think that if we are too strict with online businesses, they will be angry. Do we really think they will go away because they are angry? They make billions of dollars.

Here is another thing that really frustrated me. We hear about balancing the market, making the market fair to ensure that our traditional broadcasting companies are not penalized in relation to online companies. In that regard, I am quite happy that the part II fees, which imposed significant and onerous financial conditions on licensed broadcasters, have been dropped. I think dropping these fees should really help them, or at least give them a little breathing room. However, the CRTC still cannot issue orders.

Let us talk about one of the amendments that I thought did not make much sense:

The [CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting...any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking that is required to be carried on under a licence.

I said that the idea of a licence should be removed because we want that to apply to online undertakings. However, that was rejected. People did not want that to apply to online undertakings. It is as though they were still scared of the big online company monster. It is as though they were afraid of stepping on the toes of the giant.

We are afraid to step on the toes of the giant, but that giant is crushing us and we are saying nothing about it. We think it is amusing because we can watch our movies and our shows. We do not even realize that our creators are starving.

Bill C‑11 will pass. The result of the vote will be close, but it will pass. I hope that the fears of those who have profusely expressed them will be allayed when they eventually realize that the “censorship” and “control” of what they envisioned are fabrications. These arguments are pure fearmongering and really have no merit. All the rambling that took place over the past few months and the Conservatives' systematic filibustering when Bill C‑11 was being studied in committee has only resulted in the postponement of important studies, such as that of bill C‑18.

More than 450 news businesses have closed their doors. This is a crisis. Because so much time has been wasted for unfounded ideological reasons, a slew of media outlets, including small regional media, are on the brink of closure, and I find that outrageous. I think that these people should show their frustration by pounding a table and making sure their MPs hear them. It is absurd that Bill C‑18 cannot be studied sooner and that we must wait until the fall to discuss this urgent matter.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is a fundamental right in Canada. It is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in fact. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

These rights are what makes Canada a modern democracy. They are not trivial principles. They should not be up for debate. Interfering with fundamental rights is the sign of a dying democracy, yet the Liberals have shown, time and time again, that they are dead set on desecrating this right by regulating and censoring the social media content that Canadians are able to see online.

I just want to go back a little with the history. This bill was first introduced back in November 2020, as Bill C-10, and by February 2021, the Liberals had removed a clause from the bill exempting user-generated content, which extended the legislation to encompass everyday social media content created by Canadians. Before the bill could pass in the last parliamentary session through both Houses of Parliament, I raised a point of order and exposed the Liberals' reckless approach to implementing this bill. I submitted in my point of order that several of the amendments to Bill C-10 that were made in committee needed to be struck down because the government's committee government members had grossly exceeded their authority in more ways than one.

This point of order, which was upheld in its ruling, effectively defeated the chances of the bill being able to proceed before the Liberals called their early election back in 2021. Then, of course, to no one's surprise, when Parliament reconvened after that election, the bill was re-introduced as Bill C-11, which we have before us.

In order to ensure its passage, the Liberals decided to pass Motion No. 11 in the House, which has allowed them to push through the passage of this legislation by bypassing standard procedure. When that was not enough, the Liberals decided to pass several motions to shorten the committee's study and to limit witnesses, and then accused Conservatives of filibustering every time we opposed one of those anti-democratic motions.

Last week, the Liberals finally moved closure through Motion No. 16 to force the bill through committee clause-by-clause consideration with limited or, in many cases, no debate. On June 14, just last week, the Canadian heritage committee was forced to sit from 11 in the morning until 12:15 at night to complete clause-by-clause of 172 pages of amendments, over 100 of which were passed without allowing for so much as one second of debate.

I would say that bypassing debate and rushing through an unprecedented bill is an insult to Canadians, and it only allows the government to avoid accountability. Parliament has a democratic responsibility to thoroughly examine the implications of Internet regulation, and Canadians deserve to know the truth about this deeply flawed bill. The Liberals are stifling freedom of speech by curtailing parliamentary process.

Ironically, by limiting MPs' ability to speak, the Liberals are symbolizing the censorship contained within this bill. The government does not just want to regulate the Internet and hinder freedom of speech, it is also determined to interfere with parliamentarians' right to speak and debate the same legislation that is looking to interfere with people's rights and freedoms.

Back to the bill itself, under the auspices of amending the Broadcasting Act, the legislation contained in Bill C-11 infringes on the rights and freedoms of every single Canadian who uses social media. This bill would give bureaucrats at the CRTC sweeping powers to regulate online social media content based on famously irrational criteria. It would allow the CRTC to decide what content it considers to be Canadian enough, and then force social media companies to promote that content and bury the so-called un-Canadian content, so it would be nearly impossible to find. This would effectively result in censorship.

Moreover, analysts are saying that the bill could allow the CRTC to automatically subscribe Canadians to a certain list of Canadian YouTube channels, such as the CBC, without even asking their permission. It already mandates that cable providers do this in the subscriptions they offer to Canadians, so for the CRTC officials, I am sure doing so online would only be the next logical step in their mind.

Essentially, the government has decided that Canadians are not responsible enough to choose for themselves what they want to see on social media, so it is turning on the parental controls. This notion that Canadians need to be made to watch certain content that has been deemed as socially and culturally appropriate by the government and discouraged from watching other content is the result of an out-of-touch, paternalistic approach to governing what seems to stem from Liberal elitism.

As it stands now, Bill C-11 would determine what content is Canadian enough based on a famously flawed and outdated points system, which was developed in the 1980s, decades before the advent of social media. This black and white points system designed for legacy media, has resulted in a series of truly embarrassing rulings from the CRTC in recent years. For example, an Amazon Prime series focused entirely on the Toronto Maple Leafs was ruled to be not Canadian enough under this points system. The film adaptation of the famed Canadian novel The Handmaid's Tale was also deemed to be not Canadian enough, and Deadpool, the award-winning Marvel movie based on a Canadian character, filmed in Vancouver and co-written by a Canadian, was also deemed to be not Canadian enough under this system.

Maybe we should take some comfort in the fact that the minister responsible has promised to review and update these criteria for determining what is Canadian enough, but, then again, maybe not. Strangely enough, the minister boasted about a meeting with the German minister of culture to consult with her about how to update these criteria for determining what should be considered Canadian content. He decided it would be a good idea to get on a plane, fly across the Atlantic on the taxpayer dime, and talk with Europeans about the best way to approach Canadian legislation on what is Canadian content. Maybe the minister could have consulted with Canadians instead. They are the people he has actually been elected to serve. This is just an idea.

Of course, the minister has said that he will not reveal how he is planning to change the rules until after the bill passes through Parliament. By doing this, he is leaving both Canadians and parliamentarians completely in the dark about what his legislation is going to look like in practice. It begs this question: What content will the Liberal government deem to be Canadian enough on people's social media? Will it have to be made by Canadian citizens? In that event, what about permanent residents or people here on study or work permits? Will it have to be produced in Canada? What would that mean for Canadians living abroad who make social media content? Will it have to be only in an official Canadian language? What would that mean, then, for cultural groups in Canada who speak another language?

Perhaps, and I suspect this is the actual plan, the Liberal government will require that content producers subscribe to a certain set of values to be truly considered Canadian content. The Liberals already demand faith-based groups to adhere to the Liberal Party's stance on certain issues to meet the eligibility criteria for the Canada summer jobs program. Therefore, it would be fair to assume that they will likely do the same in determining what content would be considered Canadian on the Internet or on social media.

The most alarming power given in this legislation is slipped into an unassuming clause buried in the text of the legislation that quietly allows the CRTC to create regulations “respecting such other matters as it deems necessary for the furtherance of its objects”. These 14 little words give the CRTC a blank cheque to act however it likes and arbitrarily create regulations whenever it feels it is necessary. CRTC bureaucrats are not elected officials, and they do not answer to Canadians. They should not be able to unilaterally create new regulations. It would be undoubtedly undemocratic to give them such broad, sweeping powers.

Under Bill C-11, the minister responsible assured Canadians that amateur content such as cooking videos or cat videos that people upload online would not be regulated under this proposed regulation, but officials at YouTube Canada were quick to respond to this comment by asserting that they had studied the legislation and the bill certainly would give the government the power to regulate amateur content.

I certainly know who I would believe with respect to that. That means that any content posted on any social media service could be subject to these arbitrary standards. One thing is clear. The Liberals are determined to censor our social media content, and that, by itself, is wrong.

On top of that, with the legislation being this broad, it is impossible to discern why something could be censored or the motivations behind it even. The Liberals are essentially saying to Canadians that they are going to censor what social media content we can access. They will not even tell us how they are going to censor it, but that it is okay and to just trust them on this one. I do not think so. I do not think most Canadians think so. We have seen far too many examples of the government trampling on charter rights to trust it.

We have seen how, under the Prime Minister, the government tested facial recognition technology on millions of travellers at Toronto Pearson International Airport without their knowledge or their consent. What happened to freedom?

We have seen how the government has been collecting cellphone data since the beginning of the pandemic without the consent of Canadians. What happened to freedom?

We have seen how, during a largely peaceful protest in downtown Ottawa, the government invoked the Emergencies Act to use unjustified and extraordinary powers against its own citizens. What happened to freedom?

We have seen how the government has discriminated against people based on their personal medical choices to bar them from air travel, despite a complete lack of scientific evidence. What happened to freedom?

In a recently revealed submission to the Department of Canadian Heritage, Twitter protested the recent proposals that would allow the government to block website access on the Canadian Internet saying that the measure would be similar to the kind of censorship found in places like China, North Korea and Iran. The submission goes on to say that the proposed measure “sacrifices freedom of expression to the creation of a government run system of surveillance of anyone who uses Twitter”. What happened to freedom?

The government is obviously not interested in respecting the rights or freedoms of people. The alternative to Bill C-11 is freedom. The only solution is to keep the government out of the equation.

Canada has long been home to many renowned actors, film makers, artists, performers and social media icons. It is belittling of the government to think that the only way Canadian art and culture can survive is through punitive legislation that forces people to watch it. The quality of Canadian content speaks for itself. The last thing it needs is to be propped up by a Liberal censorship regime.

Without government intervention, social media can continue to be a free market of ideas, content and information. Under this system, individual Canadians are left to decide for themselves what they want to see on social media. They will watch what they want to watch and ignore what they do not. Only under this self-regulating system can freedom truly exist.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, as my hon. friend opposite did, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-11, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my father, as Father's Day is coming up this weekend. I thank him for all his love, guidance and support over the years. He is currently undergoing chemotherapy and is not feeling 100% himself. However, my three brothers, my mother, all of our extended family and I know he will be back to 110% soon. I just want to say we love him.

I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-11. Although I believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be renewed, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-11 because, in many ways, it is simply a revival of the flawed and failed Bill C-10 from the previous Parliament.

The government claims that Bill C-11 is being introduced to protect Canadian content creators. However, the bill fails, as many such entrepreneurs are opposed to this legislation. The bill fails, for example, Chad, who lives in Upper Stoney Creek in—