This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal
In committee (Senate), as of June 29, 2021
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Madam Speaker, these issues will be handled in committee, and I very much look forward to debating them with my colleagues opposite.
There are a lot of factors we will have to study in this bill before making a decision. The topic of licences is a complicated one. We will probably have to very thoroughly study this aspect, but we do not have the time for that today.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to join the debate today on Bill C-10, the government's bill that purports to modernize Canada's Broadcasting Act. It raises many issues.
I have certainly enjoyed listening to the debate and seeing the passion that colleagues from all parties on all sides of the House have for Canadian culture and for the particular linguistic or regional identities that animate their corner of what constitutes Canadian culture. I want to start by identifying the objectives of the bill and then highlighting some of the challenges and some of the concerns that we have in the Conservative caucus with respect to Bill C-10.
As I said, Bill C-10 proposes to modernize the Canadian Broadcasting Act and certainly Conservatives recognize the need for change, modernization and updating, but we have some significant concerns about the way the bill fails to live up to its stated objectives. I am struck again and again by this.
I think a particular thing about the government and the way its members speak about their proposals is that they often want to focus on the objectives of what they are doing instead of on the substance of what they are doing. Regularly, government members talk about the objective being this or the objective being that, but it falls to us in the opposition to then point out that good intentions are not enough. It is not the intention but the text of the bill that becomes law, and the failure of the text of the bill to live up to the intention of the bill creates big problems for those who are then impacted by the measures that have been put in place.
More precisely, under the ambit of modernization, the bill confirms that online broadcasting is covered under the act. It seeks to introduce additional provisions for encouraging more diverse content in Canadian broadcasting, including content that is reflective of the experiences of Canadians around gender equality, as well as those of LGBTQ2+, racialized communities, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples. That is one of the identified objectives.
It purports to create a more flexible approach to regulation that would allow the CRTC to establish rules for all broadcasting services that operate in Canada. I will speak more about this in a few minutes, but, when the government talks about a more flexible regulatory approach while in the process of giving powers to an external agency, this should be a red flag for all of us.
Effectively, what this gets at, in coded language, is the fact that vaguely worded legislation is giving powers to the CRTC. These powers are not as clearly or precisely described as I think most Canadians would expect them to be. The language that the government uses around regulatory flexibility is something that I think we should watch out for and understand what is underneath it.
The legislation also purports to “modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers [and] update oversight and information sharing provisions to reinforce the CRTC’s role as a modern and independent regulator”. What is the context in which we see this legislation, and what do we make of these purported objectives?
One thing that all of us as members of Parliament should think about is how we are defining broadcasting in the world of changing technology. In a sense, as a member of Parliament, I am a broadcaster. While I do not think this speech is being livestreamed on my Facebook currently, although obviously sometimes we do that, it is likely that clips of what I am saying will end up being broadcast to my some 30,000 followers on Facebook, as well as possibly on Twitter and Instagram. Therefore, I am a small broadcaster. There are many people out there who have podcasts or YouTube channels who are using the unique power they have through social media and other channels to broadcast their own opinions. This is really a revolutionary power for everyday citizens to have.
Historically, when we spoke about regulating broadcasting, it was because there was a limited amount of bandwidth in terms of radio and television air waves. Decisions had to be made collectively about who had access to that bandwidth. There was a hope that certain content would be broadcast in that way.
However, now we are living in a world of unlimited broadcast capacity on the Internet, where people can access more of the different kinds of content that they want. That world of unlimited broadcast capacities lowers the barriers to entry in terms of becoming a broadcaster and being a person who is broadcasting their views to a wider and wider audience. This is the new world we are living in.
There are many cases where somebody working out of their basement on their own YouTube channel may have far more views and importance as a voice than certain “mainstream” networks and channels, so how do we define what constitutes a broadcaster? If somebody is running a very popular YouTube channel where they express their own views, are we going to expect them, through the CRTC, to have a certain proportion of a certain kind of content? Is that where we want to be going with modernizing this act?
I think most members would accept that it is not particularly reasonable for that to happen, and that the idea of prescribing parameters around broadcasting is aimed at only the very large producers and purveyors of content, but that is a slippery space to be in. It raises, I think, some questions on the regulations around the parameters of content in a world where the barriers to entry are so low. We are not dealing with the same limited supply of bandwidth in terms of television or radio that we dealt with historically.
Under the label of modernization, this bill brings the online world into the existing legislative framework, but I do not think that it engages enough with this question of whether or not the current frameworks are aligned with the kind of world we find ourselves in today. I would be concerned about the possibility that Canadians who are not running big budget operations, who are just broadcasting their views and making content of different kinds, would become subject to CRTC intervention if the level of public attention crossed a certain threshold.
I want to flag as well a continuing issue concerning broadcast regulation, and that is this issue of market demand and how we define Canadian content. It is my observation and my contention that there is actually a strong market demand for more and more diverse content. There is a great deal of interest among people I talk to in learning more about indigenous culture and indigenous communities. I think there is a real demand for that content, and that is good to see.
I think there is growing interest among people in my Alberta constituency to learn French and consume content in French. That market demand is really necessary for the increasing knowledge of those things, because if there is no market demand for these shows and messages to be produced, then people will not consume them.
It is one thing to say someone may want more diverse content on a major online video platform. The question comes down to, though, whether people will consume that content. If people are eager to consume that content then, presumably, the incentives will exist for there to be increased production of that content. As parliamentarians, I think we all want to see increasing diversity and to see that reflected in media.
I also think we should recognize there is demand for that content and some of that increase in diversity is happening. It will continue to happen, naturally, but I think it is something we should be aware of and looking at. We should be seen putting in place policies to reasonably incentivize that development, without giving the CRTC powers that are excessive, in terms of its intervention.
Then there is the question of how we define Canadian content, or how we define content in terms of whether it is reflective of different diverse communities. Something that I looked at in university was precise definitions of what Canadian content is. It always struck me as a little odd that we could have a story that takes place in California, and that is the film, but then we have an actor who was born in Canada playing a prominent role, or we have a director who is Canadian, or maybe it was filmed in a location in Canada, even though the story purports to take place in California. However, by some definitions, that film is defined as Canadian content because of the national backgrounds of some of the people involved, even though the story that is being told is not actually about Canada.
When we talk about indigenous content, I think there are some questions that perhaps should be looked at by the committee in terms of what is meant by this. If we have an indigenous actor, but the story does not show that character as being indigenous, is that indigenous content? If we have a story that purports to be about indigenous culture, but does not represent that culture accurately, and that particular show was not created through engagement with indigenous communities, does that still constitute indigenous content?
The challenge is that at an individual level we might be able to look at whether a particular representation qualifies or not and come to our own conclusions. When we have regulatory definitions of these concepts, it can raise some significant problems in terms of whether the regulations, in the way they are applied, actually achieve the intended objectives. I think that is something that members need to think about as well, as we study and go deeper into this legislation.
I think there many problems with this vague bill, which seems to be typical of Liberal bills.
The bill is vague with regard to the powers of the CRTC. First of all, it does not guarantee that foreign tech giants like Google and Facebook will follow the same rules as Canadian tech companies. Some people have accused these foreign tech giants of misusing Canadians' personal information and censoring some Canadians' opinions. Unfortunately, this bill will allow the tech giants to continue their unfettered reign over Canadians.
I am also concerned about the lack of specific guidelines regarding Canadian content and the distribution of funding to Canadian media. We know that the French language is under threat in Canada, as my colleagues have emphasized in recent days. Canada is a proudly bilingual country, and our French culture, which has such a strong presence in Quebec, is the key to Canada's bilingual future.
Canadian French-language media outlets have a wealth of unique cultural content. That is why the Conservatives will work to preserve and maintain funding for French cultural programming once we are elected.
I am proud to be speaking in French today, even though it is not my first language. Many people in my province of Alberta enrol their children in French immersion programs because they want their children to proudly speak both official languages.
I am also concerned that this bill does not modernize copyright. At a time when the Internet dominates our lives, it is crucial that content produced by Canadians be protected against unfair use such as plagiarism.
Canadian artists work hard to produce high-quality content, and we ensure that their rights are fully protected. Unlike the Liberals, we Conservatives believe in modernized copyright legislation, new measures to preserve the French language, and protecting Canadians from foreign tech giants that need to assume their responsibilities.
Once our leader is elected prime minister after the next election, our Conservative government would eliminate the GST on Canadian digital platforms to support and promote Canadian media content that showcases the beauty of Canadian culture. We understand that proper CRTC legislation is important for the benefit of our nation and its people, and we wish that the Liberals understood that too.
The Conservative Party is a national party that is there for all Canadians. We are the only party with MPs in every region of the country. We are proud to have Alberta MPs who, like me, stand up the French language, and Quebec MPs who stand up for oil workers. We are the party that unites all Canadians and respects the unique characteristics of each region.
The French language is important not just to Quebec. There is a strong francophone community in my riding in Alberta, and I love working with that community. There are francophones as well as francophiles. There are communities of francophones who have been there a long time, and there are francophone communities full of newcomers.
I invite my francophone colleagues, especially those in the Bloc Québécois, to come to Alberta to discover our vibrant francophone community, as well as to visit Fort McMurray.
I would like to reiterate some of those points in English.
I am very proud to be part of a Conservative Party that is studying these issues carefully, diligently and recommending amendments, identifying problems and looking at the text as well as the intentions. I am proud to be part of a Conservative Party that is serious about uniting Canadians from coast to coast. We have MPs all across the country, Anglophones and Francophones, who recognize and defend the importance of English and French in all regions of the country. Also, we are a party that stands up for jobs and the economy in all regions of the country.
As a final note, I want to briefly touch on this. It is striking to me that the legislation speaks about the representation of people with disabilities, and it is very important it does that. However, people from all kinds of disability organizations are descending on Parliament Hill. They are deeply concerned about how the poorly drafted Bill C-7 entrenches discrimination against people with disabilities.
At the justice committee, so many different disability organizations have spoken out about those problems, calling for real and meaningful changes. The best the government can do for people with disabilities is to include in an amendment to the Broadcasting Act an expectation for representation of people with disabilities.
Sure, that is a nice to have, but if the government were really listening to people from diverse communities facing particular challenges, including people with disabilities, it would be doing far more than including a line in the Broadcasting Act. It would be taking the steps that are necessary, and that groups have been calling for, to support the dignified life for people living with disabilities. It would support reasonable amendments that have been put forward by disability organizations. It would be engaging in proper consultation instead of shutting it off.
I look forward to continuing debate on the bill.
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Speaker, the bill before us now is the first major revision to the Broadcast Act since 1991. During that period of time a number of governments, including Conservative governments, just let things slide. It was also, by the way, a time when, during Mr. Harper's reign, funding to the CBC was cut quite drastically, damaging that organization, which we have been trying to restore.
On the hon. member's point about diversity in media, over the years we have seen a huge range of diversity appear, with so many cable channels and radio stations. In fact, I would submit that nobody is broadcasting anymore; they are narrowcasting.
What would the member like to see in the bill that would get more diversity on an individual channel so people might be exposed to contrary views or different views of things rather than a constant stream of Conservativism, Liberalism, NDPism or any other -ism.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague began his comment by saying that he wished Stephen Harper had passed more bills. If only we had been re-elected in 2015, we would have passed so many more bills. It is somewhat an inconsistent complaint coming from the Liberals.
His point about the value of individuals consuming content from a variety of different perspectives and not just being in an echo chamber is a very good and important point. However, I do not necessarily think this it is a point that the government can do all that much to solve or should do all that much to solve. It is always going to be up to individuals in a free society to consume the content they want. Even if we have intellectual diversity in a particular newspaper or particular channel, it is up to people to read what they want, or watch the shows they want or tune things out. This is an important cultural question, but not everything comes down to the action of government.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his efforts to speak French. I commend him for that.
I would like him to clarify something. I am not sure I heard the same thing in French as I did in English. In French, the member said that it was important to protect francophone culture. In English, he seemed to be saying that too much legislation is bad and that the free market and diversity are good.
The issue for Quebec is the protection of francophone culture. If the government does not intervene in this regard, nothing will happen. The government needs to intervene by setting guidelines for francophone content and subsidizing it. I would like to remind my colleague that less than 50% of people in Montreal have French as their mother tongue, and that figure has fallen below 80% in Quebec as a whole. There is an important culture to protect. This requires legislation that will protect French-language content in the media. This legislation is flawed, and the government should give the CRTC guidelines.
Does the member believe that the government should intervene to protect francophone culture? Over the past few days, his leader has been saying that francophone culture is important. Conservative members took a stand in favour of francophone culture.
Is this really important to my hon. colleague?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, the member is right that I did not repeat the same words in English and French. We have interpreters operating and I think the point is available to people in both languages.
In response to his question, I am happy to emphasize the point that the French language is very important. There are absolutely legitimate measures for government to step in, protect the French language and preserve its use, recognizing the reality that the use of French is threatened and that the Government of Canada can and should step up on the protection of the French language. However, I do not think that is exclusive with the recognition that there is real demand in the market and communities. People want to learn French as well. It is not just a matter of the government. It is also a fact that the government, individuals and civil society all have an interest in working together and taking steps to do this.
As Conservatives, we take a balanced approach. The government has a role. At the same time, it is not all about the government in every case. There is a role for government, there is a role for civil society and there is a role for everybody—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about the gap in the share of advertising going to Google and Facebook. We have seen over 200 publications and local newspapers collapse over the last decade. We have seen a lot of producers of Canadian content displaced by the pandemic and the disparity has grown even further.
The government talks about building back better, yet it tables a bill without a sense of urgency when many jobs are at stake, whether in local media or producers, especially in my riding where indigenous communities are having a difficult time getting their stories out. How are they supposed to compete with these multinational web giants, which do not pay their fair share of taxes in Canada?
While we have this opportunity to build back better, could my colleague speak to the sense of urgency that is needed right now to improve the legislation?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, Canadian content is very important. The member mentioned the indigenous communities in his riding that want to tell their stories, and I think there is a significant appetite for people to hear those stories. I have talked to many people in Canada who are not from indigenous backgrounds. They desperately want to learn more about how they can engage better and really understand the ideas and traditions that are part of our indigenous communities. We need to think of how to do that on a level playing field where we do not have existing tax advantages for some of these non-Canadian organizations.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Madam Speaker, my colleague has raised a very good point about the Liberal government talking a lot about supporting official languages. However, in places like Quebec, many Quebeckers are unsatisfied with the government's handling of that, ensuring they can receive services in English or French, particularly French, when they are looking for government services.
A number of people in the community of Peachland in my riding have retired from Great Britain. Many of them have told me they watch BritBox on Amazon Prime. BritBox is a British channel devoted exclusively to British drama, soap operas and other types of content. Under this bill, these streaming companies have to provide Canadian content. How does that work with a service that has specific British content for the retirees in my riding to enjoy a narrowcast, as my fellow member from British Columbia has said? What will they do if they cannot have this diversity and enjoyment in the quiet of their homes?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague makes a very important and thoughtful point.
In this age of online content, there are so many different kinds of “broadcasters”. They are, in many cases, focused on very specific things. There is BritBox, which provides British television shows. I presume there will not be much French language or Canadian content on BritBox. On the other hand, there might be a broadcaster from France or another French-speaking country that does not have any English content.
There are different examples like this where a broadcaster is focused on a specific thing. It is reasonable for those entities to exist. The way we will see more diversity and content is when people seek it out. I think that is starting to happen. Giving vague powers to the CRTC without clarity with respect to what they are, what they mean or how they would function creates significant concerns for people regarding how services like BritBox would be affected.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
I am happy to speak to this particular bill because it would really bring us into the 21st century. As everyone has said, it was in 1991 that we amended the Broadcasting Act and we have done nothing about it since, so I am happy to speak to this amendment of the Broadcasting Act.
In 1991, we were in a predigital era. From 1991 until now, we have seen a change in how people access information and entertainment. It is through streaming on their own devices, iPads, computers or whatever. They are not accessing it the usual way anymore, so we need to get in tune with the times and move this forward.
At the same time, we have heard since 1991 from Senate committees, House of Commons committees, independent panels, and the media and cultural sectors that it is an important time for us to recognize that, while we have certain rules for Canadian media and entertainment, we do not have the same rules for the Internet giants from the United States and internationally that enter our homes every day through these various devices and are not regulated.
They have shown that they do not wish to self-regulate. They have been asked to self-regulate and they have shown they will not do that, so it is time to regulate them because we regulate Canadian content, Canadian broadcasting, Canadian news, everything about Canadian media. Therefore, Canadian media is at a total disadvantage when we look at the unregulated international media. This is not something we are doing just because we are Canadians and want to be parochial. It is not.
The European Union is saying it needs to maintain European cultural content. Australia is saying it needs to look at Australian cultural content. Everyone is concerned about the disinformation that is unregulated and spread by international giants. Our own Canadian media have to be careful about how they process information, what they say and how they say it, because they are subject to CRTC rules on this issue. We are bringing everything down to what I call “levelling the playing field”.
One of the important things about this is that 1997 was the last time Sheila Copps decided to go to bat for Canadian content, when she looked at how magazines coming into Canada were giving us news from the United States and everywhere else, but very little Canadian news. Journalism is under stress right now because we are not getting a lot of Canadian news from our own journalists as they are being laid off rapidly. Therefore, we are getting the news from international news aggregators, such as Google and Facebook, that are taking everybody else's news from whatever source, not necessarily a source that is regulated for the veracity of its content. They are taking it from anywhere, they are aggregating it, people are reading it and they do not know what is true or what is misinformation or disinformation.
By not regulating themselves, these Internet giants are also not following rules on things like hate content or looking at the content that is spread that is very dangerous and harmful, yet our Canadian media have to follow all these rules. We are bringing this up to scratch so that we are on a level playing field.
It is also important that when Sheila Copps in the 1990s talked about Canadian content, she also looked at how she could protect the music sector. She got a lot of flak for it, but it worked out to be exactly what we needed. People were buying blank tapes, downloading everybody's music and playing it without having to pay a charge, so she added a surtax on the buying of blank tapes. That money went into a pot so that we could create what later turned out to be a great time for Canadian music. It began to be spread around the world. We saw that the divas were mostly Canadian. We saw all of this happening.
It is time we stand up not only for Canadian content but for Canadian cultural sovereignty.
We also want to reflect that Canadian culture is very diverse. It is a culture made up of official bilingualism, of French within and outside of Quebec. The government said clearly in the throne speech that it is going to protect that. We have indigenous cultures, which are so rich. We have many ethnic and racialized cultures, along with LGBTQ voices. We know, geographically, the Atlantic provinces' cultural content is very different from B.C.'s. We need to get to know each other as Canadians. We need to understand each other's stories, hear them and tell them.
What I always hear from Canadian creators is that they are actually out there writing stories, etc., and it is being pilfered by other people. They are not getting any kind of reimbursement for their intellectual property. Let us talk about how we are going to reimburse Canadian intellectual property. Let us talk about how we are levelling the playing field. That is what this bill is doing.
It is not a nefarious bill. Nobody is saying that people will not have the opportunity to stream what they want. All we are saying is that the CRTC has required that Canadian entertainment must have up to 45% of its production as Canadian content. They must put money into creating that. However, we have not said this for all of the other media content we get from media giants, which are making a lot of money from Canadian content and not reimbursing that to Canadians and not reflecting the diversity of Canadian life and Canadian regionality. We do not want this in a global world.
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, from UNESCO, said something about this back in the late 1990s. He said that globalization has one flaw to it: that the world is now in some kind of amorphous culture and we are losing a sense of our own sovereignty, our own cultural identities.
Europe has taken a step to make sure that is not going to happen. It is doing something similar to what we are doing. Australia has also taken steps to ensure this. We do not want Canadian media to be under certain restrictions and regulations, and then have international media giants spreading information, disinformation, hate and all kinds of inappropriate things on the Internet, which we cannot regulate.
This is a good time. The idea that we could get money and that they are required, like Canadian media, to put money into creating Canadian content is something that our creators need. Our music industry needs this. All of that wonderful intellectual property needs this.
Nobody has to tell us, as Canadians, what great storytellers we are, what great writers we have, what fabulous producers or content we have. We can just look at Schitt's Creek and see it has become a major piece of Canadian storytelling and Canadian comedic acting.
We need to protect that, but more than anything else, we need to level the playing field. This is not asking the CRTC to do something nefarious. It is just asking them to make the same requirements and regulations for the international media giants, which do not have to follow any of these rules, and level the playing field for Canadian media.
They are also going to be required to contribute to Canadian content in the same way that Canadian media must do. We are also saying that they need to reflect the diversity of Canadian culture, which is very different from other international cultures. This is not something that is strange, big brother or anything like that. We are just trying to level the playing field. We are trying to give our Canadian content a break and make sure we tell and hear our own stories. This is important. The regulation of information is very important.
We look at all the panels, Senate committees and House of Commons committees, the last one being the committee I chaired that gave its report in 2017, which pointed out that we are not seeing ourselves in our own news, media and entertainment. We are not hearing indigenous voices or regional voices. We are not seeing the racialized, LGBTQ and ethnic groups within our country telling their stories.
We are unique as a nation. We are very different and we need to reflect that difference. Maybe other people streaming Canadian content out there in France, the United States or anywhere else might learn about who we are as Canadians. They might actually be inspired by some of the things we can do and say—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We have to go to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Madam Speaker, Irene Berkowitz published a report on behalf of her and her colleagues called the “Watchtime Canada” report. I have spoken about this in the House before. There are over 160,000 Canadian YouTube content creators right now and, under the existing rules, 40,000 of them have been able to monetize and hire 28,000 Canadians.
These particular content creators have been able to produce such good content, made in Canada by Canadians, that it is now pushed up and they are able to make a living from it. Is the member not concerned that by arbitrarily changing the rules we will see other Canadian content that may not be as high quality get pushed to the front of many Canadian YouTube screens? That could harm an industry, these mom-and-pop operators that have worked so hard to produce high-quality content.
Is the member not concerned that by changing those rules, it actually may harm some Canadian content that is already being watched because it is great content, not because it meets an artificial algorithm dictated by the CRTC?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I am not concerned.
Specifically this bill, as the member would understand if he had read it carefully, does not apply to the mom-and-pops or the guy in his mother's garage doing whatever they need to do. This applies to international megabusinesses that are making money by entering everyone's homes without any regulation whatsoever. We are talking about Google. We are talking about Facebook. We are not talking about me making a dance video in my living room tomorrow morning, which I intend to do. We are not talking about those things.
We are talking about regulating groups that are making billions of dollars by using other people's intellectual property—