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.

Broadcasting Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, especially the part about the tyranny of sensitivity. That is a new concept.

My colleague talked about the gaping hole in the bill with regard to taxing the web giants, GAFAM. I am surprised, because I always thought that Conservatives supported the principle of the less taxes, the better.

Do my colleague and his party agree with taxing web giants?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I cannot take credit for the expression “tyranny of sensitivity”. It was coined by the intellectual Mathieu Bock-Côté, to give credit where credit is due. It means that we have to be able to express ourselves even if we occasionally offend someone. That is freedom of expression.

Getting back to my colleague's question, one of the major Conservative principles in supporting our Canadian businesses is fairness. There is currently a tax fairness problem, since the web giants are not contributing to the Canadian ecosystem, while Canadian businesses are in a fiscal straitjacket as well as being shackled by the CRTC.

We believe it is important to have the same conditions for all players. The bill does not create these conditions. It is more hole than cheese.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, throughout my history in the House, I have never seen the Conservatives as allies for protecting our arts community. I see Bill C-10 as very supportive of ensuring Canadian content, among many other things.

The member critiqued the bill, and it is fair for the official opposition to provide criticism. However, I am curious if the member supports the bill going to committee. There he could again critique the bill, and possibly show some initiative on behalf of the Conservative Party by not only talking about it, but supporting it and possibly bringing forward some amendments.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague in return.

If we can use regulatory means, then why have a bill?

I thank the member for recognizing the immense contribution of the Conservatives to our culture in the country. The member might be interested to know that the first bill to promote culture in Canada was introduced by former prime minister Bennett. I was not born then and the member was not either.

I recommend that my colleague look at what the Harper government did during the economic crisis. What the cultural sector is asking for now is a package, and at that time, a package was provided to support the cultural sector in a very difficult period. All experts recognize that this was a very well done state-of-the-art program. It supported our cultural sector when it needed it the most during the economic crisis. That is exactly what is needed now as we go through this pandemic.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's comment that the Conservatives believe in equity and the importance of making sure there is an even playing field. I wonder if he could elaborate a little on that. Because of the cozy nature of the government's relationship with Facebook, for example, does the member feel this is again about the Liberals picking winners and losers?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I just mentioned, it is a basic Conservative principle that we have fairness among businesses. What we have now, and the Yale report has recognized it, is unfairness and an emergency to act. Unfortunately, the Liberal bill in front of us does not address this critical issue. It would be so simple for the government to come up with measures to establish a level playing field for all players, but unfortunately it is not. The Liberals have been talking about it for a while, and it is a lot of talk but no action.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate everything my hon. colleague contributes to this place. He was one of the first MPs I met when I got here. He is one of my caucus colleagues, and I appreciate him and all he does.

He spoke at length about the uneven playing field. In this country, concerning media, we have a national broadcaster that seems to compete in every field. It is pushing out the little guys and being subsidized by the government.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in this very important issue, which is about the role of the CBC in our country and the way the CBC can coexist with the private sector, especially at a time when the private sector has been hard hit. How can we ensure that the CBC is focused on its mandate, instead of competing with the private sector, and that we get the funds that could be very useful?

Again, there is a big void in the bill. There is nothing in it about the role played by the CBC or its mandate, nor about the fact that at times it can interfere with the private sector when the private sector has been hard hit.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about equality. I would like to talk about equality between the traditional media, which are considered important, and media like Facebook. During the election campaign, the two major parties spent tens of thousands of dollars on Facebook ads.

Would my colleague agree that they could choose to give money to our traditional media instead, to help them survive?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. She is quite right.

During the pandemic, I even approached the minister about investing in our regional weeklies and community radio stations. This was done on a very small scale. Many Quebec organizations are reaching people across the country. Ricardo's website and Véro's website come to mind. Unfortunately, our own government, the Liberal government, is investing more in the web giants' digital platforms than in our own media. As the saying goes, charity begins at home.

I fully agree with my colleague that the Canadian government has a duty to invest first and foremost in Canadian media. That should be the priority.

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

Madam Speaker, as I am a recovering broadcaster, like many of my colleagues in the room, it was very troubling to hear yesterday about another wave of layoffs, this time hitting Rogers Communications. Several very good friends of mine at the outlet in Vancouver lost their jobs. This trend has been going on for some time.

Seeing as my hon. colleague brought up the CBC, I want to know if he is onside with his leader's contention that CBC News should be defunded or basically disbanded?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I share the member's grief in seeing some of his friends lose their jobs. In my riding, there is some rationalization among local media. There used to be two newspapers in Lévis and now there is only one. The media sector has been impacted hard.

As I mentioned in my speech, the way to incentivize Canadian companies to invest in Canadian newspapers is by correcting section 19. However, this is not in the bill.

It is certainly important to review the mandate of the CBC. It was recommended in the Yale report. However, again, there is a void in the bill in this regard; there is nothing about it. We are willing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

I have stated the obvious on a few occasions in the past, and I would like to make it crystal clear today: One nation does not entrust its soul, identity, art, culture, history, dance, music, theatre, cinema and, least of all, language to another nation.

We learned that the Liberals and their NDP butlers will vote against the Bloc Québécois's bill on French-language proficiency. This is proof that one should not entrust one's language to another nation. This is not posturing. It is based on something we can measure and assess over time. Bill C-10 contains two clear examples of the danger of entrusting one's soul, culture, language and art to another nation.

I will start with foreign ownership. This is so blatant that nobody could get me to believe that the government does not know what it is doing. If it does not, it should not be here. Right now, there are rules saying that a broadcasting or telecommunications undertaking must be under Canadian control. This gives some protection to the arts and various forms of expression—Canadian, in this case—from the hegemony of power that dominates global culture today. It makes no sense to give up this protection and replace it with a cheque, as if our soul were for sale to the highest bidder. In our case, that is our next-door neighbour.

The idea that one's soul, culture, arts, music, and songs should not be left in the hands of another nation applies to Canada as well. Margaret Atwood is not Californian, and Robert J. Sawyer is not Texan. This surrender, this laying down of arms before American culture is extremely dangerous.

Here is an extreme example: An American web multinational required to invest 30% in Canadian production can mandate an undertaking it bought in Canada to produce a TV series in English only. What is in it for us? This is a serious setback.

The other example, of course, is the percentage of French. In previous programs, particularly the music ones that I am familiar with—I even sat on the Canadian Music Council, which some will find amusing—there were rules requiring a certain percentage of French. Often, in the agreement, it was 40% French. Why was that? Because first of all, it takes a critical mass to provide a basis for professionalizing these sectors. This was true in the music sector for Musicaction, FACTOR or even Fonds RadioStar, among others.

That was before a formal review of the rules, as is now proposed. Today, this obligation must be enshrined into law. This assurance that French-language production has access to basic tools and a minimum of resources must be maintained. It now needs to be formalized.

Let us not kid ourselves. If this obligation is not enshrined into law, then what the CRTC will understand is that, both for Canadian ownership and for maintaining the percentage of French content, Parliament's intention is not to protect, but rather to not protect. Indeed, there is no such thing as a neutral position, and the law is supposed to set out Parliament's intent.

The government said that it did not want to set a percentage for French-language content, for fear that the minimum percentage would become a maximum. I felt a pang, and realized it was true. Imagine Netflix, Disney+, Spotify and Canada deciding one day that they want to invest 45% in French content but they would not dare do so because the minimum was set at 35%. It is as though they do not understand the meaning of the word “minimum”. People are smarter than they think.

This does not have a neutral effect. The call for capital that comes with that 30%, on top of what companies are already able to do under this kind of legislation, is channelled to English-language productions. We have all seen those series produced by Netflix for Netflix, some of which are filmed in the native language and then dubbed in English, but the English subtitles do not match the English words being said. People generally stop watching halfway through an episode because it is completely unwatchable. The lips do not match the words being spoken, and those do not even match the subtitles. It may be because I am not too bright, but I do not find that enjoyable. Others decide to do the series in English right off the bat. Netflix is happy, people are watching at home and everyone is happy.

This does not have a neutral effect. We emphatically stand up for these people. These are actors, singers, authors, performers of all kinds who have the desire, because that is in their soul, to express themselves in French, to bring out what they have inside that needs to come out, because that is what being an artist is all about. They want to express themselves and to do it in French. Some may dabble in other languages from time to time, but that is where their soul is and that is what they want to do.

It is not just the current money or the new money that will be channelled. There is a call for capital to do business and take over the world. Producers are doing business. I used to be a producer and I was not making songs. I was selling the product. Producers want to go and work where there is the biggest market in English, with all the money that is in those web multinationals. This does not have a neutral effect. I tell francophone artists that they must not let themselves be taken for a ride. The resources that are now invested in French-language production will drop. It will not be the same. It will certainly not go up. It will drop, because, without any form of protection, the call for capital will go to English.

I think it is fair to say that the bill in its current form does not make anything better. In fact, it could even make things worse. Everyone is gushing over the French language at this point, but their actions will reveal how they truly feel; before then, however, someone has to stand up and say that this will not do.

If this is corrected and if Canadian ownership and the percentage of French is included in the act, then the modest expertise of the Bloc Québécois, which has occasionally touched on this a bit, will be put to good use.

Otherwise, I wish to inform the House that the Bloc Québécois will take as much time as it takes, but it will never give up its soul, which is first and foremost, like Quebec's, French.