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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to start by illustrating the situation in which we live to the House. Digital technologies have completely changed the way Canadians discover stories, how they stay informed, how they are entertained and how they learn and share with each other.

From 2011 to 2019, the number of Canadians with Netflix subscriptions has grown from one in 10 to nearly six in 10. The number of Canadians using Spotify to listen to music online has jumped from 2% in 2014 to nearly 30% in 2019. We welcome these innovations that bring so much richness to our lives and so much diverse content. However, prolonging the status quo will only further undermine our ability to tell our own Canadian stories.

If we do not react, funding for Canadian television and music production will continue to decline. What we risk in the long term is nothing less than the loss of our cultural sovereignty. The production of francophone, anglophone and indigenous works and programs will be jeopardized.

That is why we are taking action. The Broadcasting Act was enacted in 1991, before the Internet, smart phones and online platforms. Its regulatory framework is frozen in the past.

On the one hand, we have Canadian companies that play by the rules and invest in our Canadian stories. On the other, we have online broadcasters that operate outside any regulatory framework and make money off the system with no obligation to give back. No, resistance is not futile.

One system for our traditional broadcasters and a lack of for online broadcasters does not work. This outdated regulatory framework is unfair for our Canadian businesses; it threatens Canadian jobs. It undermines the ability of Canadians to tell and hear their own stories.

We are tabling this bill for three main reasons. First, the act will strengthen our cultural sovereignty. Canada is blessed with two official languages and the unique history and stories of our indigenous peoples.

We need to put mechanisms in place to ensure Canadians can tell their own stories and express their own culture, now and in the future.

Second, implementing the new Canadian audio-visual regime under the act will generate almost $1 billion in foreign investment per year in our films, television and music.

That means more quality jobs for our economy, more opportunities for our creators and talent in the production sector, for our artists, designers and authors, and for many other people who specialize in areas in which Canada is internationally renowned.

It means greater stability for the sector. These are the same people who entertained us and made us smile during the first wave of COVID-19, and who are still doing so now, during the second wave we are now in.

Third, the act aims to ensure fairness. Asking online broadcasters to shoulder their fair share of the effort is not a luxury. It is a matter of fairness.

Our government believes those who benefit from the Canadian system should contribute to it fairly. This legislation would provide stronger financing mechanisms and would give more prominence to what is produced in Canada in English, French and indigenous languages. It will encourage better representation at all levels of production for equity-seeking groups: for women, for members of the LGBTQ2 communities, for people with disabilities and for racialized Canadians, including Blacks and people of colour.

In fact, this bill provides Canadian creators and producers with the means of achieving their ambitions. It takes into account the diversity of Canadian perspectives and their contribution to our rich and unique culture. A modernized act would guarantee that Canadians of all identities and from every background are reflected in their broadcasting system and that they can take part in it and enjoy it. In short, our stories and music must have a place in the online broadcasting universe.

In a more practical manner, the bill proposes the implementation of a modern, flexible regulatory framework for the CRTC to apply fair rules to all broadcasters and ensure it has the necessary tools to do its job effectively.

We will also go a step further and will instruct the CRTC on how to use these new tools. This will happen once the bill receives royal assent, as the bill makes amendments that allow for this essential policy directive.

In our direction to the CRTC, we want the specific needs of the French language and Canadian francophones to be recognized in a digital world dominated by the English language. On this point, I would like to add that this is perfectly in line with the throne speech, which states that the government “has the responsibility to protect and promote French not only outside of Quebec, but also within Quebec.” I know that this is an important point for all members of the House and for all Canadians, since the protection and promotion of the French language are essential for everyone.

Let me get back to our direction to the CRTC. We also want to accord special consideration to indigenous communities, as well as greater recognition of their realities and contributions. Lastly, we want to focus on racialized communities to ensure that they are fairly represented in the ecosystem.

The way the regulation currently works is it establishes a minimum investment from Canadian broadcasters into our ecosystem. In effect, this creates a baseline of investment.

With the bill and this intended policy direction to the CRTC, we aim for the CRTC to add an additional mechanism on top of this baseline. We intend to ask the CRTC to implement an incentive mechanism that would encourage behaviours that are inclusive and ensure no one is left behind.

Some of the elements we would like to see being incentivized are: diversity in key creative positions, the role and place of Black Canadians in our system, the retention of our rich intellectual property in Canada and fair and transparent compensation for our musicians.

I would like to point out that we are listening to Canadians. This bill addresses key recommendations presented by the independent expert panel in January. Urgent action was needed to bring online broadcasters into the system.

Our approach is balanced, and we have made the choice to exclude a number of areas from the new regime. User-generated content will not be regulated, news content will not be regulated and video games will be excluded. Furthermore, only broadcasters that have a significant impact in Canada will be subject to the legislation. In practice this means that only known names and brands will be subject to this legislation.

When my daughter opens an online streaming platform, I, like many other parents, want to know that she is being offered the choice to see a Canadian series with her favourite actors, like District 31 with Vincent-Guillaume Otis. I would like her to have the choice to see a documentary on the history of indigenous peoples in Canada, for example. After all, it is our history and it is up to us to tell it.

When my daughter listens to music on another platform, I want her to be presented with a list of local artists and even, why not, someone from my home region of Mauricie.

What we are proposing will allow her not only to take advantage of an international offering, but also to discover Canadian content, which could be funded by contributions from these same digital platforms.

We know how important it is to see ourselves represented in all our complexity, either on screen or in productions. With the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, our francophone, anglophone and indigenous creators, our creators with disabilities, our creators from visible minorities and the LGBTQ+ community will have the means of telling their own stories and, more importantly, of making sure they are seen and heard.

It will be beneficial for both broadcasters and the public to produce stories that resonate with us, that speak to us and that look like us as Canadians and Quebecers.

This bill is part of a larger process. Our government is committed to ensuring greater equity among all Canadians.

The web giants are raking in billions of dollars from our content and our economy. Some of these companies are the most powerful in the world, and they operate outside any regulatory framework.

Time is up. There are no more free rides. It is about fairness. It is about everyone doing their fair share.

We are, in fact, starting to see this across the world. The European Union has adopted new rules on streamers resulting in increased investment, jobs, choice of content and ability to assert one's own cultural sovereignty. The United States has launched legal proceedings against Google for abusing its dominant market position. Australia is tackling a threat that journalism is facing, through a mandatory code of conduct targeted at Facebook and Google. As well, several other countries, including Canada, are concerned about misinformation, online hate and web giants' blatant inability to self-regulate. Voluntary self-regulation does not work.

I will remind the House that most, if not all, of these initiatives have garnered support across the political spectrum around the world. There should not be a left-right divide on these issues. Divisions only benefit large multi-billion dollar companies, not our constituents. That is why I am urging all members of the House to work together constructively and ensure that this important bill passes through second reading hastily, so that the committee can start doing its important work to amend, improve and move forward.

Let us show the world that Canada is united and standing up for itself.

Today, by proposing that we modernize the Broadcasting Act, we are standing up for our culture and forging ahead with essential reforms. We are standing up for Canadian companies and creators by saying that everyone who profits from the system must contribute to the system. We are also standing up for Canadians and Quebecers. We are standing up for indigenous peoples, who have been under-represented for far too long. We are standing up for artists, musicians, directors and producers across the country who want to create their art in French.

These same Canadians, Quebecers and indigenous people want, and expect, to see themselves in the programs they choose to listen to and watch. They expect their stories to be told in their own language and to reflect Canada’s diversity and the rich culture of indigenous peoples.

The Broadcasting Act enacted in 1991 served our society well, but it came into force before the digital era and is ill adapted to today’s reality, a fact we can no longer ignore.

Our regulatory agency, the CRTC, also has few tools in its kit to ensure that the broadcasting ecosystem continues to serve Canadians. It is dealing with a media landscape that has changed considerably in the past 30 years. By introducing this bill, our government is meeting a pressing need, namely to adapt Canada’s legislative framework to today’s digital reality.

In the mandate letter the Prime Minister gave me, modernizing the Broadcasting Act is my primary responsibility. In fact, the Prime Minister asked me to examine “how best to support Canadian [stories] in English and French”. He asked me to “introduce legislation by the end of 2020 that will take appropriate measures to ensure that all content providers, including internet giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian [stories] in their catalogues, contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both Official Languages, promote [Canadian stories] and make [them] easily accessible on their platforms”, while also considering “additional cultural and linguistic communities.”

The bill our government tabled in the House on November 3 is a direct response to this mandate. It aims to update this important act to ensure the sustainability and vitality of our Canadian series, films and music, as well as of the people who make them and broadcast them.

I hope that the members of the House now understand that, on the one hand, we have Canadian companies that play by the rules and invest in Canadian culture, while, on the other hand, we have online broadcasters that take advantage of the system without any obligation to contribute to it. Having one regime for conventional broadcasters and another for online broadcasters does not work.

That is why we are proposing amendments to the act to support Canadian creators and independent Canadian producers: to ensure the viability of Canadian broadcasting and to protect Canada's cultural sovereignty.

The purpose of the bill is to level the playing field and ensure funding for Canadian stories and Canadian talent. It would allow us to give a higher profile to what is produced in Canada in English, French and indigenous languages, and encourage better representation of racialized Canadians, women and equity-seeking groups at all levels of production.

This bill would truly empower Canadian creators and producers. It reflects the diversity of Canadian perspectives. A modernized act would affirm and strengthen our francophone, anglophone, indigenous and Black identities, as well as all of our country's diversity by helping us to tell stories that speak to our experiences and values.

Bear in mind that we are imposing a number of guardrails. As I said earlier, user-generated content, news content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation could be imposed. This keeps the nature of the Internet as it is. It simply asks companies that generate large revenues in Canada to contribute in a fair manner.

What we are proposing will not impact consumers' choices. It will not limit what any of those streamers can showcase in Canada and it will not impose a price increase. Foreign platforms will benefit from proposing local content that resonates with their subscribers.

These will be stories presented from their perspective and in their own language, or stories that will introduce them to the experiences of their fellow Canadians. This initiative will bring people together and promote social cohesion.

In these increasingly polarized times, having varied content that reflects our different experiences and perspectives across the country, through our shared stories, helps us to understand one another and to listen. Whether the perspective is from an indigenous person, a Black person, a person with a disability or a woman, we all have something to learn from each other.

Through their creative work, artists truly have a way to make us reflect, understand and feel what others feel. Global platforms will invest in local content and, by the same token, will allow our local content a greater reach globally.

This legislation will also generate investment in Canada and create jobs: two important drivers for reopening creative industries and ensuring their sustainability. This is no small feat when we consider that the broadcasting, audio-visual, music and interactive media sectors contribute $20.4 billion to Canada’s GDP and represent more than 160,000 jobs.

I would like to conclude by saying that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, is the result of a collective effort. It is the result of a considerable amount of work by my colleagues, the public service, a vast array of stakeholders and the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.

I would like to thank the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry for establishing the review panel, and for putting forward the notion that every participant in the Canadian broadcasting system has to contribute to the creation, production and promotion of Canadian stories.

I would also like to thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for making this bill a legislative priority for our government.

Last, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this important file.

With this bill, we are taking a step in the right direction. Our government has opted for a step-by-step, targeted approach to modernize the Canadian broadcasting system quickly and appropriately. We recognize that the work is not over. Other measures will come, particularly regarding the important role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the various funding mechanisms for the audio-visual production sector.

This is a bill about jobs, investing in Canada, equity and what it means, at the very core, to be Canadian. If members do not agree with all of the bill, or if members do not believe in our cultural sovereignty and that we as Canadians, as francophones, as first nations, as Métis and as Inuit are different, they can still support the bill for the jobs it will create.

However, let me reiterate that resistance is not futile. If jobs and investment in the cultural sector are not what members believe in for the future of our country, they should support this bill for its much-needed equity and fairness. We need to re-establish the fact that everyone, including web giants, must contribute to our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.

There is a broad consensus that we must take action and that the status quo is no longer acceptable, especially after the release of the Yale report.

In his speech, the minister spoke a great deal about fairness, but unfortunately, it seems like Bill C-10 gives web giants a free pass. We cannot see how the bill will deal with all of Facebook's revenue from Canadian news sources and from advertising, for example, or with the credits granted to these web giants by the Government of Canada.

Why is the minister ultimately giving a free pass to the web giants, and Facebook in particular?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for his question.

As I said several times, this bill is a first step in this venture of implementing a regulatory framework on the web giants' various operations. I am the first to admit that there is still work to be done. Bill C-10 goes after web giants in the field of broadcasting and streaming music. I committed to introducing another bill that will specifically target the web giants that my colleague just mentioned.

We are working with the governments of Australia and France, which are also in the process of putting these types of regulations in place.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the heritage minister for this bill, the first bill he has introduced as a minister. Bill C-10 was eagerly awaited. Overhauling the Broadcasting Act after nearly 30 years is no small matter.

As I have already mentioned several times in our discussions, I was expecting something more consistent. However, I would like to ask the minister about paragraph 3(1)(a) of the act, which states that any Canadian broadcasting system must be effectively owned by Canadians. This provision of the act is nowhere to be found in Bill C-10.

I would like to know what the minister intends to do to protect Canada's broadcasting market from invasion by foreign giants.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

We cannot say that we have to make sure that the legislation and regulations apply to web giants if we do not allow this legislation and these regulations to apply to them. Paragraph 3(1)(a) is precisely what will allow us to ensure that Canadian laws and Canadian regulations apply to web giants.

Paragraph 3(1)(a) is not what ensures that Canadian companies have to be owned by Canadians. That was a CRTC decision in 1997. We are not changing anything with respect to ownership of Canadian companies.

What is more, Canadian companies in the field of broadcasting will still have to obtain licences from the CRTC. Beyond the current bill, there are other safeguards against foreign acquisition of Canadian companies that my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and I have to consider. There are other safeguards for that.

This paragraph allows us to apply our laws and regulations to web giants. How else could we do this?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and for introducing the bill.

I have a question that may seem a bit technical. In the wake of the Yale report, the goal is to have all stakeholders participate in the ecosystem of Quebec and Canadian cultural production.

If I access cultural content through a cable that is plugged into my TV, the provider must contribute to regional, local, Quebec and Canadian production. However, if I access the content over Wi-Fi, the Internet service provider is not required to participate.

Could someone explain that logic to me?

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

Madam Speaker, I have the Yale report right here. Members will recall that the Yale report said that service providers are in the business of infrastructure, so they should invest in infrastructure, and content providers are in the business of content, so they should invest in content. That is the gist of what the Yale report said.

I want to remind the House that for the first time in this country's history, Canada's broadcasting laws and regulations will apply to web giants. That has never been done before.

Earlier I said that this will generate nearly $1 billion a year in investments from these companies, but it is actually more than $1 billion, because if nothing is done by 2023, Canadian productions and Canadian artists will miss out on $1 billion.

On top of reversing the trend, this bill will generate more than $1 billion in investments for our artists and musicians.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for bringing forward this legislation. As somebody who has worked in the broadcast industry for years, with first nations producers, television producers and others who have been marginalized by the mainstream media historically, I think it is really important that the bill comes forward.

I am wondering about the CBC. We have heard from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that it is disappointed the CBC was not included in the bill. I am wondering if there are plans to amend how the government works with the CBC or if there will be budget changes. Is anything coming up that will improve the situation for our national broadcaster?

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

Madam Speaker, the CBC/Radio-Canada is a very important institution to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The member may recall that it was our government that made a record level of investments in the CBC in our previous mandate.

After 10 years of cutbacks by the Harper government, we have every intention to implement other reforms in the coming months. We could not do this as part of the bill, but we strongly believe on this side of the House in the importance of the CBC and the role it plays in Canada. We will continue to be there for it.

[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, I thank the minister not only for this outstanding legislation, but for his high sense of commitment to Canada's arts and culture community. This is reflected in the bill. He actually met with a group from one of my favourite festivals in Winnipeg, Folklorama, which spends so much energy on arts and festivals and so forth.

Could the minister provide his thoughts in regard to how the bill will not only protect our culture going forward, but provide the needed jobs in an industry that is so critical to our nation?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a very important sector. It is contributing $20 billion to Canada's GDP and 160,000 jobs across the country.

What we are doing by introducing the bill is protecting Canadian cultural sovereignty and these jobs. Of course, some American companies are coming to Canada to film series and movies, service productions. This is great, but unless we intervene, we will lose our ability to tell our own stories.

I watch series from all around the world and I really love them, but first and foremost I like to watch Canadian series and movies and listen to Canadian music. Unless something is done, Canada will become nothing more than a production service outlet for the United States of America. This government does not want that. The bill prevents that from happening and gives us back our cultural sovereignty.

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

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Infrastructure.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the minister for introducing this bill today. I am very pleased to respond on behalf of our party and to take part in the debates that will be held today, tomorrow and in the coming days.

Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, is quite important. The entire community has been waiting a long time for this bill and for the act to be amended, given the advent of the Internet and the digital players we are all familiar with. I think it is important to remember that the Broadcasting Act has not been amended in 28 years.

This bill is a response to the Yale report. Its main purpose is to subject online undertakings to the Broadcasting Act and to update Canada's broadcasting policy. I think all parties and stakeholders agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be modernized. There is also a broad consensus among many stakeholders and, I believe, the other opposition parties, about how the bill should have included web giants and social media along with a number of other elements.

We have been waiting for this bill for a long time. I think many of us expected the government to come up with something a little more robust that included all the things I just mentioned. I would also consider print media, which say they are in a state of emergency and are having a hard time surviving at the moment because of how advertising revenue is being divided up.

The minister explained that the Liberal Party's strategy was to split the issues up into several parts and put some of them off until later. We think that is the wrong approach and that things should have been done differently, given the urgency of the situation and the existence of some degree of consensus around moving forward in the right direction.

In principle, this bill should have addressed some of the inequities between the so-called traditional broadcasting undertakings and those that are also online. As I said, there are serious flaws. I would like to point out what is missing from this bill that should have been in it, in our view.

First of all, there is nothing in the bill to force social media companies like Facebook and Google to pay their fair share. Furthermore, this bill does not address royalty sharing by these companies for content that is delivered via their digital platforms. The bill also does not explain how digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify, Crave and others will be treated fairly compared to conventional players.

On top of that, this bill grants the CRTC all the powers to enforce the act and the rules, and we think this is short-sighted. We believe that the legislative responsibilities of MPs and Parliament are being shifted away from us and handed over to the CRTC. The minister will no doubt argue that it is difficult to amend legislation quickly and that when adjustments need to be made in the next few years, it will be much easier to have the CRTC take care of it. However, as we have seen, it is not always easy with the CRTC, and the sector does not necessarily agree with this course of action.

There are no details about guidelines for the production of Canadian content and contributions to the Canada Media Fund. That, too, is placed in the hands of the CRTC, and months will pass before it is all implemented, months in which there will be no investment in Canadian content.

There are also no particulars about a legally required percentage of French-language content. Later, I will list several organizations that are complaining about that. There is also nothing about modernizing the Copyright Act, even though many parties asked for it.

This bill will lead to additional costs for the CRTC because naturally there will be more regulations, more paperwork for businesses and more monitoring. We do not know how much all this will cost. Lastly, in the different reports, we were also expecting that the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada would be updated. There is not one word about the corporation in the bill.

This bill is being introduced because we have a duty to modernize a 28-year-old law that has not kept pace with an evolving sector and the arrival of the Internet and social media on the market. The major online platforms such as Facebook, Google, Netflix, Crave, Spotify and others are not subject to the same rules as conventional players. Thus, the Broadcasting Act was supposed to be revised to include all of them in the system, which has not been done.

This was supposed to be done with a view to systematically reiterating the will to modernize the act and to find a solution that is fair to all Canadian producers and broadcasters.

The costs associated with Bill C-10 are hard to estimate at this time because the scope of the additional powers that will be given to the CRTC is unclear. For those who are interested, the CRTC's projected budget for 2020-21 is about $71.9 million, which will mainly come from the licensing fees it collects. Naturally, this budget will have to be increased considerably to take into account the new oversight powers that the CRTC will be given. As we know, it is always the same people who pay in the end.

Bill C-10 gives the CRTC extremely broad discretion to define what is meant by an online undertaking and to require such undertakings to spend money to produce and broadcast Canadian content. For conventional broadcasters, this will take the form of a percentage of Canadian content to produce, which is about 25% to 40%, based on the information we have, and an obligation to contribute about 5% of their gross revenues to the Canada Media Fund, which subsidizes Canadian productions.

Broadcasters' contributions to the fund totalled $193 million in 2019-20. That makes it hard to understand how the minister could have come up with the $830-million or $1-billion figure he talked about in various interviews.

Neither Bill C-10 nor the minister's statements about it indicate whether online undertakings will have to make that 5% contribution, nor do they specify the Canadian content percentage they will have to comply with. Even so, the minister announced that online undertakings' additional investments in Canadian content under the act would add up to $830 million as of 2023. We have even heard amounts of up to $1 billion or thereabouts.

However, the minister has not yet responded to our request for information about how that amount was calculated. That said, I want to acknowledge that the request was made at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and that we were told the committee would get that information from the minister and his officials. I would have liked to receive it today before the debate because I think it would have been relevant, but we do not have it yet. We are still waiting for that information, and I am confident we will get it.

Based on the information they do have, affected stakeholders like Netflix are uncertain whether they will be able to abide by the new regulations. Conventional broadcasters can easily meet the content targets with sports and news programming. However, companies like Netflix are telling us that it will be hard for them, since they produce only fictional programs and documentaries and do not have that option.

That said, Netflix also told us about a problem it has that is not addressed in the bill. Netflix is still not able to fund or produce Canadian content. Allow me to explain.

Netflix's library includes the Quebec feature film The Decline, which many here are familiar with. It was filmed in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, was viewed 21 million times in the first four weeks following its released, and generated $5.3 million in investments in Quebec alone. It met six key creative requirements of the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office. However, the film could not be certified as Canadian content because it was financed and produced exclusively by Netflix.

I think this aspect is important. It employed Canadian actors, Canadian crew members and Canadian camera operators, but it was not considered Canadian content because it was all funded by Netflix. Bill C-10 offers no solution to this conundrum.

With this bill, the Prime Minister's government is granting the CRTC vast powers without including clear guidelines on things like the percentage of Canadian content required, contribution fees and expenses, French-language content requirements, and so on.

The bill even limits the oversight powers of parliamentary committees in relation to guidelines and regulations adopted by the CRTC and broadcasters' ability to appeal a decision. The message this bill sends is this: “Trust us, and you will see later.” Understandably, for us, the opposition, that is not good enough. It will take several months for the CRTC to take action, at which point parliamentarians will have only very limited oversight powers.

The bill does nothing to remedy the inequity between digital and conventional media. The regulation of social media, such as Facebook, and the sharing of the advertising revenue requested by traditional media are urgent because the longer we wait, the less there will be, which will be dangerous for our democracy.

Given its minority situation, it would have been more appropriate for the government to introduce a clear bill that set out its approach on all of these issues in concrete terms, rather than just giving the CRTC more discretion and telling us to wait and see what happens next.

I would like to talk about the matter of French in Quebec and in francophone communities. That is also important. We have seen the statements made by several organizations. The only measure to strengthen the place of French involves replacing paragraph 3(1)(k), which currently states, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as resources become available” with “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians”.

I am getting to the matter of French. I even made a few comments to the minister, and my opposition colleagues who were with me during the various briefings asked questions about quotas and benchmarks. The government tried to put us in a tight corner by saying that quotas were not a good idea, that it was unreasonable to ask for such a thing and that we should trust the CRTC.

They also said that imposing a quota was like setting a limit. That is like saying that judges lose their discretionary power when parliamentarians legislate minimum and maximum sentences. I do not believe that. Market forces always work things out. If the need is really there, people will go well beyond any minimums that might be set in order to provide protection.

Naturally, the minister did his job. He published his information on social media, mentioning only those who were happy with the bill from then on. Some organizations said it was a very good bill, a historic bill and so on, but I would like to name some others.

One of them is the Union des producteurs et productrices de cinéma du Québec, the UPPCQ, which would like to see one-third of all production and content on Netflix and other platforms be in French. The UPPCQ is worried about the future of Quebec culture as people's media habits become anglicized under the influence of online giants such as Netflix and Disney.

We know how topical the issue of French is. The Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada publicly denounced Bill 101 and whatnot, then deleted tweets and apologized. Plus, we heard the comments made by the member for Saint-Laurent. There was the whole WE Charity scandal involving a unilingual anglophone organization during the pandemic. Then there was the English-only labels during the pandemic. On top of that, the Minister of Official Languages and the Prime Minister refuse to respond to a clear request from Quebec and all opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives are calling on the government to allow Quebec to subject federally regulated businesses to Bill 101, because urgent protections are needed for French.

The people I mentioned earlier are worried about culture and identity. It is one of our greatest assets, and our country is proud to have two official languages. It gives us access to a market of 300 million francophones around the world, to share our culture, our economic expertise, and so on. I think it is normal for us on this side of the House to find it worrisome that the Liberals want to rely solely on the CRTC to protect French.

It is not just the opposition MPs saying so. Some organizations have unambiguously denounced it. Here is the title of an article for you, “Web giants still have the last laugh”. It was not an opposition MP who said that. It was political analysts. The article says:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage chose the day of the U.S. election to introduce his baby. If he was so proud, the minister surely would have chosen another time. In politics, the timing of this sort of announcement is never left to chance.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting says that the bill introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage leaves Canadian broadcasters at the mercy of foreign competition. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting believes that the legislation needs to be more precise and more exact, as we have been calling for by the way, with requirements on the percentage of local content to be broadcast. They maintain that the change enshrines the rights of the web giants into law and neglects our cultural and journalistic sovereignty. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting also condemn the prerogative given to the CRTC to deal with the web giants. Netflix and company will be able to send their lobbyists to Ottawa to negotiate secret agreements with the CRTC, which could sanction them or compel them to comply with the legislation at their discretion.

Once again, it is not opposition MPs who are saying this, but the organizations that are directly impacted.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has also pointed out that this bill does not update the CBC's mandate. Bill C-10 makes no substantial changes to the CBC's mandate or governance structure. It does not put an end to political appointments to its board; it does not put an end to the political appointment of its president; it does not specify that its programming must be ad-free; and it does not clarify its obligation to produce local information and news.

The National Assembly of Quebec and Quebec are the beating heart of the French language in North America. The National Assembly asked Quebec to demand that the Government of Canada set fair and equitable quotas for original Quebec and French-language content and that they be included in the Broadcasting Act.

Clearly we are not the only ones disappointed by what is in this bill. We expected something more robust. We were expecting, and everyone agreed on this, new legislation that would modernize the Broadcasting Act, that would ensure that all stakeholders contributed equally, that would protect Canadian, Quebec and francophone content. It was expected that everyone would be contributing equally. That is not what is in the bill, though.

As the minister often points out in his speeches, there are other issues, such as hate speech on social networks and discrimination, that need to be regulated. We were surprised that these topics were not even touched on. That will come in an upcoming bill. I spoke about copyright and certain organizations. There are some urgent problems that could have been solved easily. These organizations are starving, and they were expecting these problems to be solved. Artists, writers and performers were expecting something more satisfying, but they too will have to go hungry.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage made an appearance on Tout le monde en parle to talk about his bill. Naturally, the discussion got off topic a bit. Obviously, it was not a very tough interview with Guy A. Lepage, but the minister talked about hate speech and freedom of speech.

One of the political analysts, Mathieu Bock-Côté, was one of the few who pointed out something that the minister said that was a bit disturbing. When speaking about freedom of speech, the minister said, “Our rights end where another's pain begins”.

I am mentioning this because these issues should have been worked on in conjunction with the whole issue of web giants and social media, which will come in a next step. However, there is a quite a debate going on about freedom of speech. Radio-Canada pulled an episode of La p'tite vie because it was worried certain people would be hurt. In the end, after some pressure was exerted, the episode was reinstated, and it is very funny.

We then hear the minister make this comment about freedom of expression. Where does it end, if that is what our Minister of Canadian Heritage is saying, the one who comes up with the rules and the legislation on such fundamental issues? This means that the moment another citizen is offended, everything we say has to be regulated. Does this mean that we will withdraw all comments and we can no longer allow people to express themselves freely, under the pretext that it could hurt someone? In my view, we are witnessing a shift that could undermine this freedom that we hold so dear in this country.

Let me come back to my analysis of Bill C-10, introduced in the House.

Many issues remain, such as the fact that the CRTC has vast powers, powers that should be in the hands of legislators so they can make important decisions. There is also the issue of Canadian content, which we believe should be safeguarded to ensure its presence among the players in the digital world. I would also add that French is once again being sidelined by the Liberal Party of Canada.

We will continue to examine the bill. I hope the minister will accept the various amendments that will be brought forward by all opposition parties.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say.

I would first like to point out that the party my hon. colleague represents had 10 years to tackle most of these issues while it was in power, but it did nothing. It actually reversed progress on a number of these issues.

My colleague seems to be saying that we are doing too much but that it is not enough and will cost too much, so I am a little confused. I have already answered the question about Facebook and Google, but I would like to read an excerpt from the Yale report, which the member mentioned and the former opposition leader said should be tossed in the trash the day it was released.

Here is what the Yale report says on page 146, in the recommendations section: “The actual percentage that might apply and the conditions relating to it would be a matter for the CRTC to determine after public hearings.” Those are the very same points my colleague raised.

Far from perpetuating inequity, this bill will level the playing field between traditional Canadian broadcasters and online broadcasters.

Speaking of the French language, I want to mention that I was honoured to receive the Impératif français award in 2017. I am one of the few members of Parliament to have earned this honour. French is very important to me, and this bill does even more to protect the French language. In the directive we will give the CRTC, we will ask for even more requirements relating to the French language.

If I understand correctly, my hon. colleague is accusing us of not doing enough for CBC/Radio-Canada. Does this mean that the leader of the official opposition has abandoned the promise he made during the Conservative Party leadership race to defund CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the minister on the award he received. I think that is fantastic, and I say that from the heart. I think that he should go and sit next to the member for Saint-Laurent to show her the importance of such an award and of defending French everywhere. It would surely do us some good on this side of the House to see someone fiercely defending French.

That being said, I want to point out that I am not questioning his willingness to defend the French language and to ensure that his agreement includes French- and English-language Canadian content. However, I think that it could have been more robust and that it could have been included in the act. There could have been guidelines.

I would like to reiterate that it is not the member for Richmond—Arthabaska or the other members here who are saying this. It is the organizations that I mentioned and that are directly affected by this bill. I am not making anything up. I did not give my opinion. I just talked about the people who will be affected by this act.

I hope that the minister will listen to the concerns of these stakeholders and the recommendations that will be made by the opposition parties, including the Conservative Party. I hope that will make it possible for us to come up with a stronger and more substantial bill, rather than trying to avoid these topics and passing the buck to the CRTC in nine months, knowing full well that this bill fails to address a number of issues.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to show good faith.

We are pleased that there has been some movement here. This is a first step.

However, the most logical and simplest first step in my mind would be to require these companies to collect taxes. We are able to do so in Quebec. How is the federal government unable to do that?

I do not understand it. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he think that the government is once again shirking its responsibilities by delegating virtually all of the decisions to the CRTC?

Is this not just an excuse for the Liberals to come back in a year or two and say it is not their fault that our industry took a nosedive?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, which is a really beautiful region that I am very familiar with. Is it more beautiful than Richmond—Arthabaska? That could be the subject of another debate.

My colleague has asked a very pertinent question. I will refer again to the program Tout le monde en parle because I watched it. I do not watch a lot of television, but I did on that occasion because it was important and I knew that we would be debating Bill C-10 today.

I spoke earlier about hate speech, freedom and so on. The minister mentioned that he was collaborating with the Minister of Public Safety and with other departments. He skirted the issue of taxation by saying that it was in the hands of the Minister of Finance and he was not the finance minister.

It is very nice that they work with their colleagues when they see fit to do so. They form the government and they can talk amongst themselves in cabinet about how important it is.

The issue of tax inequity has been clearly stated. There are different avenues, including ensuring that everyone pays equally. We could offer to remove the GST for all digital players to make it fair. That is another way of looking at things, but at the very least we have to ensure that it is fair for everyone.

Again, this is an urgent file on which everyone agrees. Even the minister says that this might come up in the next budget. We have to keep trusting them and wait for later. By then there might be an election.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He addressed a number of very interesting points and just between him and I, as far as his interventions on CBC/Radio-Canada are concerned, I am not sure where his party stands on the public broadcaster.

I would like to ask him about something very specific. In the previous legislation, there was a direction to use Quebec and Canadian talent and resources as much as possible when there was a production of Canadian content. The request to use as many employees and resources from here at home as possible has disappeared in the current bill. That is a concern for the NDP.

I would like to know what my colleague's thoughts are on this.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

When we discussed this—as MPs we meet with representatives of various organizations—I was really surprised. I think I even saw the Speaker nod when I talked about the Netflix situation. I was told about cases where only Quebeckers or Canadians were hired, but the production was still not considered Canadian content.

We say that we want to go further, but why would we want to do so if we are not even able to recognize all these investments that were made?

When we speak to the stakeholders, we realize that they are ready to do their part. They do not oppose this. They tell us that they want to pay their share, that they want it to be fair. In return, they are asking for the bill to be fair, equitable and clear, that it not be arbitrary or dependent upon certain people in a regulatory body who can only be reached by certain lobbyists. We know that those who like lobbyists could meet with them.

I am concerned about the disappearance of that provision. Now it will be part of our job to talk more about that and propose amendments. We will see how the government behaves and whether it acknowledges that the bill is not perfect.

I want to reiterate to the House that everyone agrees this act needed to be reviewed. Nobody was against that, but some of us are disappointed with what the government came up with. Even so, we will give the minister a chance to show that he genuinely wants to make necessary changes when the time is right.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question is about the lack of regulation on content that is going onto YouTube and Facebook. We know that a lot of misinformation has been put onto these platforms. There has been racist content and a lot of misogynist content. Would the hon. member like to see regulation on these platforms?

They are not really platforms; they are publishers. Would he like to see them treated as publishers and the content that they publish come under this act?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is very simple. The answer is yes.

That is not covered in this bill though. There is nothing in it that would regulate social media or platforms like YouTube.

We would have liked to talk about it. As the minister rightly said, we need to find a way to avoid hate speech, conspiracies that may exist in some cases and the dissemination of misinformation. Unfortunately, we will not even be able to propose amendments to improve the bill on that score because that aspect is just not addressed.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-10, the first of the long-awaited bills from our heritage minister.

The Liberal government has been working on this bill for five years. We have gone through five years, three ministers, a media crisis, a cultural industry in jeopardy, a Yale report and, just to take things to another level, a pandemic that has finished off many players in this industry that we all enjoy.

When the Yale report was released, the minister said that he would not wait for a bill to intervene and that he was going to make changes via regulation. We are here today to talk about a bill that will change the CRTC's regulatory powers.

Members will understand my lukewarm reaction to this bill. All that for this? Even some important industry players, a few of whom my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska spoke about earlier, reacted enthusiastically at first but then tempered their views a few days later and recognized that there were still a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up before this bill passes muster.

When someone takes that long to bake a cake, people expect it to be covered in icing and nicely decorated.

Here is a little history lesson. In 1929, the government of Louis-Alexandre Taschereau enacted a broadcasting act for Quebec, the first of its kind in Canada. Three years later, on May 26, 1932, the Bennett government here in Ottawa passed the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, the first of its kind. The act created a broadcasting regulatory body, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, which was to regulate and control all Canadian broadcasting and establish a national service.

At the time, speaking right here in the House, Prime Minister Bennett stressed the idea of complete Canadian control over broadcasting as well as the benefits of public versus private ownership. The act also stated that the airwaves were a public asset and that the government had a duty and a role to play in monitoring their use. From the very beginning, it was understood that broadcasting, the people's primary means of communication, should be under Canadian control. Quebec had realized that three years earlier, but that happens a lot. We can come back to that later.

This year, we had reason to expect a major overhaul of the act because, as we have heard repeatedly, it has not been altered substantially since 1991.

Here is another little reminder to provide some context. Back in 1991, we were recording our music on little cassette tapes and programming our VCRs to record L'Or du temps, Entre chien et loup or Les Filles de Caleb, at least in Quebec. The current House Leader of the Official Opposition was a journalist at TQS in Quebec at the time, and the winner of album of the year at the ADISQ gala was Gerry Boulet's Rendez-vous doux.

That provides some perspective and serves to remind us how long this act has been in need of reform. I agree that an overhaul was urgently needed.

I think that Bill C-10 provides a very interesting foundation on which something solid and lasting could be built to respond to today's broadcasting reality. However, urgent action is needed. This is according to the Yale report, and Ms. Yale herself, not me.

This bill needs far too much work for it to be fast-tracked. While this may be urgent, we will not rush the work, and we will not cut corners. The world of broadcasting is extremely complex and has transformed radically over the past 30 years.

I have another little story to share. In the early 2000s, a senior CRTC executive said that it would be pointless to pass legislation for online broadcasting because no one would ever watch TV on their phone. Today, who does not have a mobile device they use to watch videos, news clips and sometimes entire shows?

That was 20 years ago. Just imagine the challenges we will face in the next 10, 20 or 30 years in the broadcasting industry. Today, it is important to demonstrate vision, but also prudence, when making decisions about Bill C-10, because we may have to live with the consequences for a long time.

I think that everyone basically agrees that many elements are missing from this bill. We expected something more substantial.

I will not repeat everything that my colleagues have already said, but I will list some of the missing elements that I am particularly concerned about, especially when it comes to the issue of hate speech and the dissemination of fake news. The purpose of a bill is not necessarily to tell the CRTC how to do things, but to clearly state the government's intent. When the CRTC enforces the regulations, it will have to keep in mind the intent of the legislation it is using and have a clear understanding of it.

I think it would have been a good idea to incorporate into the legislation an obligation for online broadcasters to put safeguards in place against hate speech and against the ever-popular fake news. Right now, content sharing platforms are subject to the law, but when these platforms allow users to upload content, those users can continue to spread material that we would do well to regulate.

Members will not be surprised to hear that I think that the way the issue of French is addressed in this bill is pathetic. For example, it could have included slightly more rigorous, more sincere protections. Take, for example, clause 9.1, which states that the CRTC may impose conditions regarding the proportion of Canadian content and the discoverability of Canadian programs. I have no problem with that, but how hard would it have been to say the same thing about a fair proportion of French-language content? As Cicero said, “Quid enim Bonum est, Bonum canem felem”, which is Latin for “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”. Well, it may actually have been the centurion Crismus Bonus who said that in Asterix the Gaul, but never mind.

Another element that is missing from the bill is thresholds for investment in Canadian and French-language content. If the government does not give the CRTC parameters for specific expectations regarding contributions to content production, the CRTC will end up having to negotiate with companies or groups of companies. Given the weight that giants like Netflix can bring to bear on such negotiations, we can expect to see agreements that benefit some companies disproportionately at the expense of Canadian companies like Bell, Videotron and the rest, which currently have to invest 30% of their revenue in Canadian production.

Are they likely to tell the CRTC they want Netflix to pay more? Quite the opposite: they will lobby for equal treatment, which is perfectly reasonable. However, they too will demand the most advantageous treatment possible, which may be problematic because we want the system to benefit content creators, artists, and the francophone and Canadian cultural industry.

That section is important, because the future of the entire industry could be jeopardized if this protection is not put into law. I also agree that there is not a word about the CBC's mandate. The Yale report suggested a review of the Broadcasting Act as well as the mandate of our public broadcaster. Bill C-10 contains nothing on that.

A number of measures could have been taken. For example, the funding could have been reviewed, and funding parameters could have been set to avoid relying on advertising revenue, especially for educational programming. Funding over five years could have been introduced, with a renewal at the end of year four, to ensure greater predictability. The CBC licence renewal hearings will be held in just a few weeks or months from now. This would have been an excellent opportunity, which the government is passing up, much like leaving a $100 bill lying on the sidewalk because they are too tired to pick it up. I do not think it would have taken much effort.

Our regional news media are also complaining. In August, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, sounded the alarm when it released data from a study indicating that, if nothing was done, 737 private radio stations could shut down in the next few months. In the next 18 months, up to 150 stations could close their doors. Private radio stations account for more than 2,000 jobs across the country. As the CAB clearly stated in its report, the broadcasting industry needs the government's help and regulations to ensure a more equitable and sustainable future. I do not know if the government got the message, but the answer is nowhere to be found in Bill C-10.

One of the most important measures that protects Canada's broadcasting market is paragraph 3(1)(a) of the act, which states that businesses must be effectively owned and controlled by Canadian interests. This requirement would be removed from the act on the grounds that it cannot apply to online broadcasters.

Since a legislative overhaul is justified by the growing presence of these online broadcasters in our market, it is reasonable to want to loosen the provision, but getting rid of it entirely is a leap I am not willing to take. Instead of making an exception for online businesses by taking into account the fact that they are often foreign businesses, the government has decided to eliminate nearly 90 years of Canadian ownership from the legislation.

In the Yale report, recommendation 53 states that the landscape of Canadian broadcasting should “consist of Canadian-owned and -controlled companies alongside foreign companies”. The wording was there. It was a good recommendation and it could have been used in Bill C-10. Opening the door to foreign acquisition of broadcasting companies is handing over the keys of our culture to someone who does not care one iota about it.

The absence of clear protection of francophone and Quebec culture has me deeply concerned. Quebec's cultural industry developed thanks to the protection measures put in place to preserve the place that the French language has in our anglophone ocean. It did not settle for the place it was given, but took advantage of the importance it was given to develop, diversify and shine around the world.

Francophone artists and artisans been able to learn a living from their art, but on top of that, our industry has been so strong that artists from all around the world, both francophones and anglophones, have chosen to settle in Quebec. That is a direct result of the hard work of our organizations and representatives from the music, entertainment, theatre, arts, film and television industries.

Shows that were created in Quebec have found audiences around the world. Take, for example, shows like Un gars, une fille, Les beaux malaises or 30 Vies, and then you have directors like Denis Villeneuve, Jean-Marc Vallée and Xavier Dolan. There are too many to name.

We need to protect the French language, especially now, because with the influx of money from digital platforms, producers will be tempted to create English content, since that market is much more lucrative. That is also a major argument in support of the Bloc Québécois's request to enshrine in law the requirement that 40% of money spent on Canadian productions be used to create French-language content.

Believing that the CRTC will protect French-language content on online distribution platforms is like believing in unicorns. The CRTC is already under enormous pressure from various lobbies. I cannot imagine what will happen when billionaire multinationals deploy their weapons of mass seduction to make their case before them. Our domestic cultural organizations will never be able to hold their own, and we will lose out.

The Broadcasting Act must set much clearer and more precise parameters for the CRTC without necessarily taking away its flexibility within those parameters. That is the distinction to make. We are not talking about interfering; we are simply talking about expressing expectations clearly so they are easy to understand. The government needs to take this all too rare opportunity to review the act much more seriously than it is doing now.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Drummond for his speech. I have some questions for him.

He said that francophone producers and artists across Quebec and Canada had thrived because of the protections we put in place. Here is one of my questions for him: Where are these measures in the current act? I do not see any.

All of the measures he is alluding to came from the CRTC. The government gave directives to the CRTC which led to protections for francophone culture in Quebec and across the country. That is what was reported in the Yale report, which the member supported at the time, saying it was good work. However, the Yale report, which he quoted earlier, says that it is up to the CRTC to determine these things and that it is not in the act.

The member said that some groups had been very enthusiastic in the beginning but then changed their minds. I will not name them all, but here are a few: the Association québécoise de la production médiatique; the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, or ADISQ; the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française; the Canadian Independent Music Association, or CIMA; the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, or ACTRA; Unifor; the Fonds de solidarité FTQ; and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN.

I have here a press release issued yesterday by independent producers titled “Broadcasting bill: the AQPM refutes the Bloc Québécois's allegations”—

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

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the minister and I should go out for a drink together. We clearly need to set the record straight.

I admire and commend his passion because I know that this file is extremely important to him. I am well aware of everything he had to navigate to get to Bill C-10. I would like to come back to something I was saying about the first question he asked.

He talked about measures that were put in place. I would like to elaborate on that point by talking about the tireless battle that Quebec's cultural industry has fought to preserve the French fact and Quebec culture in the vast North American anglophone ocean.

It is thanks to the countless representations of organizations before the CRTC—when radios and other agencies tried to relax the rules on music quotas, for example—it is thanks to their constant fight and the fact that they never gave up that we managed to develop a rather vibrant cultural economy and industry that, beyond Quebec culture, attracts artists from all over and now shines abroad.

To answer the minister's question, the game changer has been the arrival of digital content providers. It is not in the current Broadcasting Act because it was not needed before. However, the arrival of digital content providers has changed the entire market. It is altogether different. That is why we need clear measures that must be clearly articulated so the CRTC knows where the government wants to go with this.

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

Madam Speaker, along the same lines, I would nevertheless like to congratulate my colleague from Drummond, who reminded us that it was a Conservative prime minister who first thought of legislating broadcasting in Canada.

However, as part of the discussion, he clearly stated in his speech that there is a fundamental link between language and culture. What he deplores about Bill C-10 is that it does not address the importance of preserving Quebec and French-Canadian culture in this new environment.

Is that not a fundamental flaw of the bill? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for that question. I relish the opportunity to elaborate.

I do think there is a flaw and I do think there is a case for this being enshrined in legislation. Anyone following the news may have noticed that the riding of Saint-Laurent has had a rough go of it this week, but I am not trying to pile on. This would be a good opportunity to show that the French language and Quebec culture are important and to put measures in the bill that acknowledge the distinction and acknowledge the value. The bill should ensure that the language and the culture are preserved and protected so they can continue to flourish.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his very interesting speech.

The NDP is concerned about the definition of online undertakings. The purpose of Bill C-10 is to place the web and Internet under the CRTC's authority, but we have some doubts about subsection 31.1(2), because some undertakings and some tools, such as Chromecast or the Roku interface, might not have a licence or might have an exemption and would not be included.

Does my colleague not agree that the government should clarify the definition of “online undertaking” to be sure that it covers all existing technologies as well as future technologies?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

I think there are a lot of surprises and new things that we will have to deal with with the arrival and invasion of digital technologies. As I mentioned in my speech, I think we need to proceed with caution and be very careful about the decisions that we make today because they will most likely have an impact on the next 10 to 20 years.

When we talk about ownership and the permission this will give to online undertakings to come and set up shop on our territory, we need to find ways to regulate that, to ensure that the regulations apply to all of these undertakings, not just the ones that generate a certain amount of revenue. Every undertaking that broadcasts in Canada, whatever the content may be, must be subject to the same regulations as the others.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

I would like to come back to a point he made in his speech. Given our history in media, we have that in common. He talked about how important it is to ensure the survival of some private radio stations, particularly for the sake of regional information and because of the fact that if we do not properly regulate digital giants and put enough guidelines in place, there will always be a threat hanging over regional media, which is essential to our democracy. Back home we have an exceptional radio co-op.

I would like my colleague to say more on this.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I thank my colleague from Shefford for asking it.

During our meetings with industry representatives in recent months, we heard over and over that this was the most urgent issue. The regional media and local news media were most concerned, as they face more uncertainty over their future.

Because this is so urgent, we expected to see something much more specific to help this segment of the media. At the very least, we would have expected a GAFA tax. The idea is to tax GAFA and charge royalties on the content they use for free while they rake in billions of dollars. I feel like things are not being done in the right order.

Do we urgently need to take care of our regional media outlets? Do we urgently need to make the web giants pay their fair share? To ask that question is to answer it. That the government has yet to move on this defies logic.

[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, the minister did such a passionate job explaining what this bill is about. It is something that is long overdue. Many, including myself, would suggest it is somewhat historic.

Just to be perfectly clear with the member of the Bloc Party, does he see the Bloc supporting the legislation? Does the member have some specific amendments that the Bloc is considering?

In his opening remarks, the minister talked about his willingness to listen for the possibility of good amendments.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

Of course we are open to discussion. The minister himself seems very open to making sure this bill meets our expectations and can be implemented as quickly as possible.

Will the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of this bill? Given the minister's openness, the industry's support and the importance of implementing this bill quickly, we are feeling optimistic about it at the moment. That said, there will be lots of work to do in committee.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate with my colleagues in the House this evening.

We heard some very interesting comments. First, I would like to remind members of just how critical I think this bill is. We are talking about artists, artisans, technicians and people who work in the film, television and music industries. However, above and beyond economic development and jobs, which are very important, we are also talking about who we are and our identity as Quebeckers and Canadians. This is an important subject, and this is not just any industry. Our cultural industries define us, tell our stories, take us out into the world, and that is part of Quebec's and Canada's great national narrative.

It is with that in mind that I want to address this subject. It is not just important for sustainable and fair development and ensuring a level playing field for everyone in the ecosystem; it is about more than that, because it gives us more soul and defines us collectively.

I thought it was important to point that out from the beginning. This evening's speeches are not just administrative or technical. They are about who we are and how we should be seen and how we want to be seen by our fellow citizens and the rest of the world.

This is an interesting debate. It was decided years ago that the Hertzian waves were public property. If we lose sight of that, we are on the wrong track for understanding exactly why and how to legislate and regulate this sector.

It was decided that waves that move through the air, whether for television or radio, do not belong to any one company or individual, but rather are a collective good, a public property, whose use must be subject to rules. The CRTC was created to manage this public property, the airwaves, and to grant licences, or permits, to companies to use these airwaves to broadcast television programs, films, or music in the case of radio stations.

This system worked well for a while. Unfortunately, the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since 1991, which is around the time I was finishing high school.

Things have changed since then. Back then, no one wanted to intervene too much to regulate the new baby that had just arrived on the market, by which I mean the World Wide Web. They thought that this new medium was a new way to distribute content and that they would give this poor little thing a chance. They would not regulate or control it too much, but instead give it breathing room so that it could grow and thrive.

Over the years, the poor little thing has grown into a juggernaut that is crushing everyone in its path. It is part of life, and that is okay, but our legislative and regulatory framework was completely out of step with the significant role that Internet and web broadcasting came to play.

Then came the Yale report and its 97 recommendations. It includes many very serious elements and gave rise to an almost unanimous observation, namely that the success of a cultural, film, television or radio production sector depends on universal participation.

Right now, there are some stakeholders that do contribute and that are required to invest part of their revenue in the system to help our creators and producers of original Quebec and Canadian content. However, there are other stakeholders that do not. That point was raised by the Yale report, which stated that this situation cannot go on. For that reason, today we have Bill C-10, which tries to make the legislative changes that will get us there.

The intent is noble, and we agree with it. It is required. This bill should have been introduced 10 or 15 years ago. It is a little bit late.

That said, the bill has many flaws, and I will get to them. I believe that we have a duty as parliamentarians and members of opposition parties. Some of my Conservative and Bloc colleagues have demonstrated that they want to enhance and improve the bill by minimizing the flaws while retaining a certain flexibility and openness for the future.

This bill will not be reviewed every two or three years. It has not been reviewed in 30 years, and I hope we will not wait another 30 years. That said, I do not want to box us in or handcuff us.

How come, once again, some stakeholders are not contributing? This was not in the Yale report, but I bring it up because I do not understand this disconnect. When Vidéotron, my service provider, plugs a cable into my TV, it has to pay a 5% royalty to the Canada Media Fund to support the production of Quebec and Canadian cultural content. That is great. However, Vidéotron does not have to contribute a thing for the Wi-Fi device I have in my home. A cable is a cable. Whether it is transmitting cable TV or the Internet, everyone should have to contribute to helping our producers and creators deliver original Quebec and Canadian content. I still do not understand this.

This bill should have been much more ambitious, but I get the impression that the government was looking for the lowest common denominator. In the end, we did not end up with much. The NDP is worried that this bill does not really include everyone. Internet service providers are not included. Another quirk is that ad revenue earned by web giants like Facebook and Google is excluded. All of Facebook's and Google's revenue comes from advertising. Why did the Liberals choose to exclude Facebook's and Google's ad revenue from the bill? Would it have anything to do with the hundreds of meetings that assorted Liberal ministers have had with the web giants? That may be the case, although I hope not. This was a strange thing to leave out, and it will have an impact on help for the media and for journalism, which were also completely left out of this bill. I will come back to this later. We had hoped to see concrete measures to help newsrooms, journalists and people who are doing important journalistic work. We were close to getting something, but that all disappeared at the last minute. We have a lot of questions about this for the Liberal government and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Another thing that is missing is YouTube. We can talk about television and film production, but we must not forget that the broadcasting bill also affects musicians. That is very important. For now, Bill C-10 appears to cover Spotify, but not YouTube, even though it is an indispensable platform for many artists, be they well established or up and coming. It is an absolutely fantastic way for artists to share their work and their creations. I use it, and so do my children and my friends. It is not covered, though.

I realize we need to draw a distinction with someone who takes a video of their cat in their basement and puts it on YouTube because they think it is cute. I get that Bill C-10 does not cover that. However, for artists like Pierre Lapointe and Ariane Moffatt, we can make that distinction and include YouTube so that it too contributes resources for the creation of more original Quebec and Canadian content.

The major things that are missing are social media, YouTube, Facebook's and Google's ad revenue, and Internet service providers. There are a lot of things missing. I am very much looking forward to the committee studying this bill and fixing all those problems.

What is more, the government has been telling us for months that it will make sure that Netflix collects GST. Other members spoke about that. That was supposed to happen without any problem, but it still has not been done. The Minister of Canadian Heritage will say that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, but could he not sit down with her to work on a plan and give us a clear indication of when the web giants and Netflixes of the world will have to collect GST like every other business in Quebec and Canada? For now, it is still just an empty promise.

Moreover, why are the GAFAM, the web giants, not paying taxes in Quebec and Canada when they are making a fortune? They are not paying a cent in taxes, nor are they helping to fund our health care and education systems or infrastructure in Quebec and Canada.

I want to share a statistic that I find very interesting that was recently released by Oxfam Canada. With the pandemic, some companies have made huge profits. Amazon is one of them. Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, does not pay taxes in Canada. Amazon does not pay taxes in Canada. However, as we all know, online shopping has increased dramatically.

According to Oxfam-Québec, Amazon has 876,000 employees worldwide, and Jeff Bezos could write each and every one of them a cheque for $100,000 and still be as rich as he was before the pandemic. However, people like him are not paying taxes here. It is absolutely appalling. I would like the Liberals to show some backbone and promise to force these web giants to pay taxes in Quebec and Canada.

Furthermore, I am disappointed that there is no mention of CBC/Radio-Canada in the broadcasting bill. This is a bit worrisome, since CBC/Radio-Canada is a major player in content production, as well as journalism. It is as if it no longer exists. I would like to believe that the Minister of Canadian Heritage cares about the future of CBC/Radio-Canada, but there is no indication of any clear intentions in Bill C-10 at this time. We see this as a flaw that could be fixed and worked on in committee.

I am not the first to talk about this, but I want to emphasize that the NDP is not necessarily in favour of legislating quotas for French-language content. We think legislation is not necessarily the best place to put these objectives, because it is a bit constraining, and we want to provide some flexibility.

However, the legislation must provide clear direction and objectives. That is currently missing from the bill, and we very much doubt that the direction given to the Governor in Council or the CRTC on original French-language content will be very clear. We believe it is absolutely essential that the content be original, not purchased from abroad and dubbed by Canadian or Quebec actors. We want original content created in French.

We think there is a way to strengthen the wording of the legislation to ensure that it is extremely clear and essential that additional resources be provided for indigenous and Inuit productions, but also to ensure fair and equitable treatment for producers of French-language content, whether in television or film.

With regard to Canadian ownership of licensed undertakings, we share the same concerns about section 3 that have already been mentioned here. We want a system that allows us to preserve and protect the ownership rights of producers of Quebec and Canadian cultural content. We do not want them to be bought up by foreign companies. That is a major concern for us right now. It is the type of thing that we all need to work on together, to ensure that we end up with the best possible system.

On a more technical note, there is some uncertainty because we are moving from a licensing system to an order system.

With the licensing system, licences were renewed every five or seven years, and industry stakeholders and members of the public could participate and intervene in CRTC hearings.

Under the new system of orders and conditions of service, there does not seem to be a renewal process that offers an opportunity to challenge, add or change certain conditions. The NDP feels it is very important to put that on the agenda.

Furthermore, a process for petitioning the Governor in Council would allow industry stakeholders, creators, and artists to report violations of the spirit of the act, the directives or the orders. The option of filing a complaint seems to have disappeared in Bill C-10, and we would like the appeal process to be reinstated.

In closing, one of the elements missing from the bill is assistance for newsrooms and for the production of news content. Many web giants are stealing journalists' work and posting it on their websites. While these giants profit from this free content, newsrooms are suffering and journalists are losing their jobs. This is extremely important for our democratic life and social life. We were expecting that there would be something in this bill. It is very disappointing that there is no support for newsrooms.

I would like to share some figures. Between 2008 and 2018, 189 community newspapers and 36 daily newspapers were closed in Canada. In Quebec, 57 weekly or biweekly newspapers, 12 monthly and bimonthly newspapers, six online newspapers and one regional daily newspaper closed between 2011 and 2018. The sector has been devastated.

If we want to live in a democratic society with healthy, rational debates based on verifiable facts, we must force the web giants to financially compensate news organizations and journalists, which are doing very important work. Their work is not free. It must be compensated and rewarded.

We hope that the Liberal government will make adjustments and choose to help local and regional media.

The House resumed from November 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-10, which is an initiative that has been a work-in-progress for a number of months, possibly even years. The government has recognized the importance of the growth of the Internet, which has been applauded universally. There is no doubt about that, but it has a number of different issues that governments around the world have had to deal with. That is the primary reason we have Bill C-10 before us today.

There are many multinational or large corporations that play a very important role in terms of broadcasting. This is something Bill C-10 attempts to deal with. I have had the opportunity to listen to the minister's comments in regard to the bill, and I would encourage members to review what the minister said because there is a great deal of substance, not to mention passion, in the words that were spoken.

There are three parts to what the minister said that I want to take the opportunity to highlight, along with providing some further comments in terms of how important culture and arts are to our nation.

First, we would probably find the minister wants to talk about the need for equity. There is a real need for equity when it comes to our broadcasting industries. We have Canadian companies that fall under the CRTC. There are regulations in place, and those regulations do a number of things. They have ultimately served Canadians well over the years.

However, we then have, for a lack of better words, foreign web giants. We know what many of those web companies are. We are talking about companies like Google and Facebook. It is really important that we recognize that expecting industries such as Google to voluntarily comply with regulations in Canada is the wrong direction for us to be going.

Bill C-10 would ensure that the regulatory framework applies not only to Canadian companies, but also to those foreign web giants. That will go a long way in ensuring that Canadian interests are in fact being protected.

Then we look at the issue of Canadian content as a whole and how this legislation will benefit it. In terms of dollar value, it has been suggested by the minister and others that we are talking about hundreds of millions additional new dollars going to the support of Canadian content. That injection of new dollars will help the industry substantially.

This is the type of thing that I believe is going to have a very positive impact on such an important industry to our country. Again, it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion, which equates to hundreds of millions of dollars. That is a very strong positive.

When young people go onto different types of platforms, whether it is Netflix, Amazon, Spotify or other platforms, it can be a challenge to identify Canadian content. Within Bill C-10 we find, particularly for young people, that it will be easier to discover Canadian content. The issue of discoverability is something that is really important and has been identified in this legislation.

I look at Bill C-10 as a win-win-win. I look to the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois to get on board and support the legislation.

In listening to the minister responsible for the legislation, I thought he was very open to ideas for amendments and was looking to opposition parties, if they have a good idea, to not hesitate to make the minister aware of it. I would encourage my opposition colleagues, if they have some thoughts on the bill, even during second reading, to develop those ideas and possible amendments and bring them forward to the minister's office, even before it gets to the standing committee level, because in the minister's comments he was inviting members to do so. It was quite encouraging when at the very beginning of the minister's remarks he extended that invitation and a sense of wanting to work with all members of this House to ensure that this legislation, which is somewhat historic in the sense of outreach to the World Wide Web, protects the Canadian interest. Therefore, I look forward to having Bill C-10 advance to the committee stage.

There is a good reason, and I have had the opportunity in the past to talk about the importance of culture and heritage. Yesterday, in one of my questions, I made reference to an organization that I have mentioned in the past to the House. It embodies a lot of things that would assist the industry.

We often overlook the economic impact that culture and arts groups throughout our country have, and how they contribute. There is the most obvious, and we have had some fantastic programs. In fact, one of the programs, Schitt's Creek, is something that I, unfortunately, did not even know existed until not that long ago. I know that surprises a number of people in the chamber. When it received all those awards, it was being talked about more and I thought that maybe it was time that I investigated this show. I must admit that periodically I do a bit of Netflix bingeing. I have taken the time to watch every episode of it over a three-week period.

For those who have not seen the program, I would encourage people who are following the debate on Bill C-10 to watch it because it embodies why it is so critically important that we advance bills like Bill C-10 and recognize the industry. Schitt's Creek really does reflect many of the values that Canadians have today in a very wide spectrum of people. I suspect it is one of the reasons why we did so well with that particular program and that it has now been recognized worldwide.

It is not alone. Another show that comes to my mind is Corner Gas out of Saskatchewan, and that should appeal to a lot of my western colleagues, in particular those in Saskatchewan, as we take pride in now. I do not know if I have watched every episode, but the attempt has been there.

It is nice when we get this reference to the wonderful province of Saskatchewan and the fine work that it does. Another program that I have had the opportunity to watch at least a few episodes of is Kim's Convenience, a program that takes place in Toronto. Again, we see different types of reflection. Canada over the years has been recognized as having some phenomenal comedians and many different actors and actresses. One of my favourites has always been Star Trek and good old Captain Kirk. He is Canadian-born, and I think he might be from Saskatchewan. I am not 100% sure of that.

The point is that we have so many actors and actresses and individuals with so much potential, many of whom are yet to be discovered. Bill C-10 would go a long way in supporting those new discoveries and ensuring that an industry that is so critically important to all of us is better served.

We talk about those who get the light shone on them as a result of being an actor or actress, but that is only a part of it. I really enjoy it when I see these large numbers of vans and semis pulling up into our communities, because they often are there for productions. I remember over the summer I wanted to get a large van for rental purposes, and I could not. I asked when I could get one, and the agency said that it would not be for a while because they had them rented out to a movie production. To me, that is one of those spin-off benefits that are really important for us to recognize.

I suspect that if I were to check with people in all the different areas of our country, I would find at times, in different regions, that I would see multiple sets being established in public buildings like, for example, the Manitoba legislative building, or our streets and communities, and I would see production crews. There is a high level of expertise. As the industry continues to grow, that level of expertise will grow, and when we see that, not only does it increase the skill sets of thousands of Canadians, it provides jobs.

When a movie set goes into a community, those individuals who are operating that movie set are getting paid. They are more often than not local employees or people from Canada with Canadian expertise moving into these communities and getting a salary. They are also buying lunches and snacks, they are occupying hotels for extended and short periods of time, and contributing to the local economy.

Suffice to say, when we take a look at a production that comes in, it creates interest. I am very much interested, for example, when I see a facility that is being used for a movie production and then I see it in the movie. Whenever I hear the city of Winnipeg being sighted in a movie or a TV production, there is that sense of of pride. These are the types of things showing why it is so important that members on all sides of the House recognize the real value of Bill C-10.

On the surface, it does not take too much to read through. We can appreciate what the bill is hoping to accomplish, with hundreds of millions of dollars, ensuring that we have more new money and more Canadian content, it is a good thing. The bill talks about discoverability, where young people would have easier means to locate that Canadian content, and that, too, is a good thing. We talk about having those multinational companies, those large platforms, being put on a more level playing field by incorporating them into the regulatory system, and that is a good thing.

The CRTC has done exceptionally well for Canadians over the years. It is hard to imagine what the industry would look like today if we did not have the CRTC, and if we did not have a government that valued Canadian content in the creation and distribution, and supporting the industry as a whole. This is legislation that would ensure the longevity of that.

Like everything else, the coronavirus has had an impact on the industry today, and at different levels. That is why I made reference yesterday, when I was with the minister, to the organization of Folklorama. There are many talents that ultimately go on to become productions here in Canada and abroad that come out of other organizations and smaller cultural events, and I should not use the word “smaller”.

I often make reference to Folklorama, which is an organization in Winnipeg that has been in place for over 50 years now. It has literally thousands of volunteers. Every year, during the summer, for a solid two weeks, there are all forms of entertainment and heritage promotion. Fifty-plus pavilions often participate in it. I have seen presentations that have gone from a pavilion into actual television production or have been a starting point for many artists who have originated in Winnipeg. The benefits by government continue, whether directly or indirectly.

I was so pleased when the current Minister of Heritage had a virtual meeting, and so did the Prime Minister, with Folklorama and the Folk Arts Council, because we were concerned about how they were being impacted by the coronavirus. It is the type of organization that, as a country, we cannot afford to lose. Whether it was from the Minister of Heritage or the Prime Minister, it was so nice to hear that, through things such as the wage subsidy program, these organizations were able to continue on during this very difficult time. As a result, I know that we will have Folklorama for another 50 years.

Our cultural and heritage industry as a whole needs organizations like Folklorama, because that is where many of the future actors, actresses and production people will be coming from. That is why it is so absolutely critical that when people look at Bill C-10 they recognize its true value to Canadian society.

I encourage all members of the House to follow the advice of the minister. If they have ideas or amendments, they should bring them forward. We are open to ensuring that we have the best possible legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here listening to the member opposite. I always appreciate his interventions in this place.

My dog ran away and it did take three days.

I had been reading the minister's mandate letter, which talks about creating new regulations for social media platforms. Does the bill clarify whether social media platforms are publishers, or are they just curators?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is really encouraging is that the Prime Minister has made mandate letters public. As a result, the member can read the mandate letters of all the different ministers.

What members will find is that Bill C-10 incorporates a good part of the mandate letter that has been given to the Minister of Heritage. A part of his mandate was to look at the web giants, such as Facebook and Google, and how the government will ensure that we are taking proactive actions to support Canadian society.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech to justify Bill C-10, which is currently before us.

I have to admit that I was rather disappointed. The Liberals are saying that this is a great bill with extraordinary content, but the bill surrenders our culture to foreign businesses and leaves us with no control over anything. What is more, it does not provide any guarantees regarding French-language content.

Since the beginning of this week, we have been talking about the importance of preserving the French language. The member for Saint-Laurent denied the decline of French and the president of the Liberal Party said that Bill 101 is oppressive. On top of all that, the Liberal government is not imposing any obligations for French-language content on the media's future cultural productions. I cannot understand that at all.

Wilfrid Laurier described Confederation as the tomb of the French race and the ruin of Lower Canada. The Conservatives are denying climate change and the Liberals are denying the fact that the French language is in jeopardy.

I would like to know whether the member opposite, as a living representative of francophones who are losing their language, is ashamed to be part of Canada. Does he not understand that, in a way, his government's measures justify Quebeckers' desire to have their own country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be kind, but at the end of the day the Bloc is trying to give a false impression.

The Prime Minister, the government House leader and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have been so clear, and not just during this debate or in the last week. I remember the Prime Minister sitting as leader of the third party. I believe the Prime Minister of Canada is one of the strongest, most able-minded advocates for French language not only in the province of Quebec, but across Canada.

Members of the Bloc would do the province of Quebec well by recognizing that the French language is a beautiful language that needs to continue to be promoted and encouraged throughout our nation. The opportunity for this is there, and I hope the Bloc will recognize the true value of the French language and make sure that we do whatever we can throughout Canada to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend's description of Corner Gas and Captain Kirk. He thinks this is going to somehow create a vision for dealing with Facebook and Google, even though we know that the government has been deeply embedded with the web giants. The Prime Minister deals with Amazon; Leslie Church, a top Google executive, became head of the department that is overseeing whether Google comes under regulations; and the Prime Minister has close involvement with Facebook.

The idea that the CRTC is going to regulate the digital platforms may be the best idea of 1994, but it certainly does not recognize the real issues we need to deal with regarding the web giants today. For example, as a simple issue, they are not paying taxes, and with the bill they would still not be paying taxes.

The idea is that the government is going to handle the web giants by giving this over to the CRTC while they have a huge advantage in not paying taxes. Cable companies have to pay taxes, newspapers have to pay taxes and artists have to pay taxes, yet Google and Facebook, which are so deeply embedded with the government, do not. It is ridiculous.

I do not know if there was an episode of Corner Gas that talked about this or—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there and move on to get in other questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is mocking me and is saying he does not like Corner Gas, that is fine. There are a lot of Canadian productions out there that I hope the member likes. However, that is not necessarily the issue we are debating today. I was trying to highlight the importance of the industry by using some examples, and I think most Canadians would agree with the examples I was using.

What the NDP seems to think is that we can just click our heels and hundreds and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars will magically flood into the country. They are trying give the impression that the bill does not have an impact, but close to $1 billion of new money will be going into the industry as a result of the bill. That is the reality.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, William Shatner is, in fact, from the wonderful city of Montreal.

One of the interesting aspects of the bill, one could argue, is that for the first time ever, it puts an emphasis on indigenous production, whether it be with regard to music, TV or the big screen. I am wondering if my hon. colleague could help us understand how this would help reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, incorporating this into the legislation continues the idea of reconciliation. It complements other things the government has done, such as recognizing the importance of indigenous languages by establishing a fund and legislation to support ongoing education and promotion of indigenous languages that were being lost.

Introducing legislation to ensure that we recognize the true value of indigenous heritage, making sure that dollars ultimately flow for the creation of programs and supporting languages are all important to this government and the idea of reconciliation.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to celebrate Canadian content as well and highlight Trickster, which is a new series that is really great.

There have been comments about making Netflix finance Canadian programming. It appears as though the government has passed the buck back to the CRTC. The bill says that the CRTC should regulate similar types of broadcasters in an equitable way, but it also leaves the CRTC the option to not regulate Netflix and the foreign streamers at all. This would be entirely up to the CRTC.

Given its history of inaction on this front, is there reason to be concerned that nothing will change?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate what the member is saying. I do not believe that is the case. I believe the CRTC has done a fantastic job overall in protecting the interests of Canadians.

The legislation is fairly clear in what it is doing, and the CRTC is most capable of doing what is necessary to generate the type of Canadian content we all expect and want to see from web giants.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the bill before us today, Bill C-10.

Canada's cultural sector, communications and broadcasting companies and the media in general have been eagerly awaiting this bill.

The thing is, everyone was expecting a bill that would be in step with changes in the communications sector since the Broadcasting Act was first enacted decades ago.

I have a great deal fo respect for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who made a passionate case for Bill C-10 this week. Here is how he began his speech:

From 2011 to 2019, the number of Canadians with Netflix subscriptions has grown from one in 10 to nearly six in 10. The number of Canadians using Spotify to listen to music online has jumped from 2% in 2014 to nearly 30% in 2019. We welcome these innovations that bring so much richness to our lives and so much diverse content. However, prolonging the status quo will only further undermine our ability to tell our own Canadian stories.

Unfortunately, it did not take long for the minister, who signed on to the Liberal Party of Canada shortly before the 2019 general election, to pick up the Prime Minister's and the Liberal government's bad habits.

Bill C-10 is full of fine words and intentions, but provides few measures and, more importantly, few answers to the many questions Canadian consumers, companies and media are rightfully asking. The media industry was expecting, and calling for, more.

I will tell you about the developments in the media industry as I experienced them myself over the years. I started my career in radio, in 1984, at a tiny station in Asbestos, now called Val-des-Sources. That radio station was CJAN. I was a casual employee and hosted a weekend show. I was also a news host when the need arose.

At the time, the radio station and the local newspaper were the only sources of local information in the Or-Blanc RCM, as it used to be called. Two hosts and a reporter worked full time, and then there was a casual employee and the management staff. There were a lot of hours of local production.

Then I went to Thetford Mines, a bigger city, and worked in an AM radio station. Some of the people who were elected in the last election probably do not even know what AM radio is. CKLD had about 30 advertising employees, reporters and hosts. Production was 100% local.

These two stations were part of what was called the Appalaches network, an independent association covering the Eastern Townships, Chaudière-Appalaches and part of Centre-du-Québec. At the time, I wrote my stories using a typewriter and carbon paper so I could keep a copy. That is how it was.

Then we began to see technological developments and I was given a typewriter that miraculously kept one line of text at a time in memory, which meant that I no longer needed correction fluid to fix my mistakes.

Then FM radio, computers and cell phones came along. All of this turned broadcasting on its head. When I started at the station in 1985, there were between 25 and 30 employees. Seven years later, I had to leave. There were only four full-time news hosts left. This was before the Internet.

I took a break from radio for a few months and became editor-in-chief of the Thetford Mines Courrier Frontenac. At the time, we were publishing the Courrier Frontenac, the Wednesday edition and a monthly for another sector of the RCM, and there was also another specialized newspaper. We had a team of five reporters, as well as collaborators. In short, it was a prime example of a local communication undertaking.

To put things in perspective, at that time we had to have our camera film developed, layouts were done almost entirely by hand, and we had to deliver the finished pages to the printer ourselves for printing and distribution. That is how it was. Thetford Mines even had a second weekly.

There were enough journalists in Thetford Mines at the time to form a softball team. We called ourselves “Les Chevaliers du Crayon”, the knights of the pencil. There was enough local coverage and enough journalists in our community to have a softball team. That says it all.

When I left in 1998 to go into politics, there was only one weekly paper left and a dwindling number of journalists. Competition was still fierce, but it was still local. Then came the electronic bulletin boards that people could connect to through their modems and get access to free content. Cellphones became increasingly portable, and then there was the Internet, data compression protocols, high speed, Yahoo, YouTube, Facebook and all the social media.

Back home in Thetford Mines these days, we still have one radio station and one weekly paper. I can count on two hands the number of people who work at those two places, and I need only two fingers to count the number of full-time journalists left in Thetford Mines.

Yesterday was rather serendipitous. The Courrier Frontenac published an article in its weekly edition under the byline of News Media Canada. I will read a quote from it:

From the very inception of newspapers in Canada, the best journalism in Canada has been supported and sustained by advertising revenues. Yet virtually all our digital media outlets now face an existential threat because of the anti-competitive practices of web giants Facebook and Google. These two global giants control 80% of all advertising revenues.

Now let's talk about radio. Last August, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, released the results of an economic study on the crisis in their field and the future of local broadcasting. The numbers that were released are terrifying. According to the forecasts in the report, 50 radio stations could well close their doors in the next four to six months, another 150 radio stations could do the same in the next 18 months and at least 40 of the 94 private local television stations in Canada could close down in the next 12 to 36 months.

These numbers have me worried. Lenore Gibson, chair of CAB's executive council, said the following in the press release accompanying this report:

Without immediate action, Canada will see a wave of local television and radio closures over the next three years. This will deny many communities a daily local media voice, and significantly reduce the diversity of news choices and voices in almost every community in Canada.

This is worrisome. Carmela Laurignano, vice-president and radio group manager of Evanov Radio Group, rightly stated, “If we allow local news to die, the health of Canadian society will be seriously undermined.”

Let us get get back to Bill C-10. How does it help radio stations and newspapers in my region and other Quebec regions? It does absolutely nothing for them. This was, however, a unique opportunity for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to take concrete action to help local production. When I say local, I really mean local, and that is 100% francophone back home.

Members will understand that I expected the amendments to the Broadcasting Act to be in step with the changes in the media industry in recent years. I am extremely disappointed. This bill will not hold Internet giants like Google and Facebook to the same competition rules as Canadian undertakings.

In its report entitled “Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy”, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which Canada is a member, made several recommendations concerning the collection of information in the digital economy and companies without a physical address.

The other members of the G20 and the European Union, Australia—which has been much talked about—South Africa, Japan and South Korea have all modernized their laws to adapt to the new realities of e-commerce, but not Canada.

In recent weeks, and since 2015, we have often heard say that Canada comes last among the G7 and G20 countries. There is one exception, namely that the Liberal government has made Canada the first country in the G7, the G20 and the world to approve an agreement with Netflix for a one-off investment, but with no guarantee from the Internet giant with respect to French-language content.

We do not know the details, but one thing is certain: Netflix, Disney, Apple, Amazon and Spotify are not taxed in Canada. They do not contribute to the Canada Media Fund, and they are in no way obliged to broadcast Canadian content. We are helping these companies that generate billions of dollars by allowing them to play by rules different from the ones imposed on local undertakings, which are obliged to pay taxes in Canada.

The result of all this is unfair competition that leads to significant job losses in the cultural and journalism industries and that erodes the quality of our national product. The problem is not a lack of creativity. We are well aware of Canada’s vast wealth of creativity. However, to create, we need resources and if we do not have the necessary resources because profits are leaving the country, we will lose hundreds of millions of tax dollars that could have been used to improve creation in Canada and Quebec.

When we started hearing about reforming the Broadcasting Act, we were all expecting taxation to figure into the reform. After all, this was one of the main recommendations in the Yale report, entitled “Canada's communications future: Time to act”, which was the basis for Bill C-10. I quote:

The application of GST/HST to foreign online services is a different matter. Consistent with actions taken by some provinces and many other countries, we recommend that sales tax be applied equitably to media communications services provided by foreign online providers. This would eliminate the disadvantage to competing Canadian providers.

Businesses are either taxed or they are not. During the Conservative Party leadership campaign, the member for Durham and Leader of the Opposition quite rightly proposed that the GST be removed for subscriptions to Canadian digital platforms, which would promote online cultural content broadcast by Canadian cultural businesses, such as Club illico and ICI Tou.tv. That would level the playing field with foreign digital platforms, such as Netflix, Crave or Disney+.

Historically, every substantive reform of the Broadcasting Act has brought clear definitions for new technologies and how they compare to conventional players. In 1929, it was radio; in 1968, cable television; and in 1986, satellite television and pay TV. Then, there was a review in 1991. Now, almost 30 years later, there has been an unprecedented number of major technological breakthroughs, all occurring in a very short period of time. However, the bill introduced by the Liberal government does not explain how or on what terms the digital platforms and conventional players will compete with each other in the same market.

Furthermore, the definitions are vague and at times absent. What is the definition of “social media”, as mentioned in the exclusions list under the “carrying on broadcasting undertaking” category? Subclause 1(3) of the bill amends the Broadcasting Act by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) 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.

Does this include Facebook or YouTube? Does this include YouTube's pay channels, which have 2.5 billion views?

Another point that absolutely needs to be addressed is the fact that Bill C-10 will give the CRTC broad discretionary powers to define what is an online undertaking and to require such undertakings to spend money on producing and distributing Canadian content. Furthermore, the requirement for undertakings to contribute up to 5% of their gross revenues to the Canada Media Fund, which subsidizes Canadian productions, is not explicitly stated in the bill, nor is the calculation used to estimate the $830 million in contributions that the minister referred to. It could also be $1 billion, because the minister sometimes gives that figure as well.

Broadcaster contributions to the Canada Media Fund for 2019-20 totalled $193 million. The minister says that Bill C-10 will increase that to $1 billion. I would like to know what math he used to come up with that estimate.

The government chose, in the end, to hand over its responsibility to the CRTC rather than stick its neck out. First, we know the CRTC's position on this issue. In a 2018 interview with La Presse, CRTC chairman Ian Scott explained that there was no need to impose conditions on Netflix or other undertakings regarding French-language content. I quote:

It works very well because the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met: there is a healthy industry that is successful in both official languages. We see that the system is not broken, even though it is under severe pressure.

This is the CRTC chairman saying that.

Second, there are decisions such as the exemption order for digital media, which is continually renewed. We know that the CRTC is going to take at least nine months to make a decision. With Bill C-10, the Liberal government is rolling out a broad delegation of powers to the CRTC, without including clear guidelines on the percentage of Canadian content, contribution fees and expenses, French content requirements, and so on.

In fact, the bill even chooses to limit the oversight powers of parliamentary committees with respect to CRTC directives and regulations and the ability of a broadcaster to appeal a CRTC decision.

The message that the government is sending to the CRTC, ultimately, is that we need to just trust them and that we will see later. It will therefore wait several months for the CRTC to act, and Parliament will have a very limited oversight powers.

Not everyone shares the minister's optimistic opinion about the benefits of Bill C-10 for Canadian production. Here is what Michael Geist, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa and the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, had to say.

In the short term, this bill creates considerable uncertainty that could lead to reduced investment in Canadian film and television production and less consumer choice as potential new streaming entrants avoid the Canadian market until there is greater clarity on the cost of doing business. Canada is set to become a highly regulated market for Internet streaming services and the uncertainty regarding those costs are sure to have an impact. The regulatory process will take years to unfold with a call for public comment, a lengthy hearing, the initial decision, applications to review and vary the decision, judicial reviews, and potential judicial appeals. If any of the appeals are successful, the CRTC would be required to re-examine its decision and the process starts anew.

It is someone who studies laws and everything that is happening in the area of commerce and digital distribution who said that. I want to once again quote the Minister of Canadian Heritage. He said:

We will also go a step further and will instruct the CRTC on how to use these new tools. This will happen once the bill receives royal assent, as the bill makes amendments that allow for this essential policy directive.

What does “once the bill receives royal assent” mean? What will these instructions be? Why did the minister not include the instructions for the CRTC in a schedule to the bill? What is there in those instructions that the minister does not want Canadians to see? Are the instructions in question a way of saying that the government did not do the work, that it promised to do something but was not sure how to go about it and that it certainly does not want to be seen as the bad guy who hurt the social networks? Are they a way of saying that the government is going to make the CRTC do the dirty work and give it the responsibility for making all the decisions?

That is the problem with Bill C-10 and the Liberals. They are all about appearances instead of action.

In short, the bill is vague, and fails to address a number of important aspects. It does not guarantee that Internet giants such as Google and Facebook will have to compete with other companies and play by the same rules as Canadian companies. It does not explain how digital platforms and the traditional media will compete under similar conditions. It does not address the issue of exclusive content shared on digital platforms. It does not set out guidelines for the production of Canadian content and contributions to the Canada Media Fund.

We will propose amendments in committee. It is time to reform the Broadcasting Act. It has allowed too many local radio stations across the country to go under. It is allowing newspapers and traditional media to disappear, and is doing nothing to halt the propagation of hate speech.

The minister is asking that we help improve his bill. We will work with him, but we must agree that the current version is far from acceptable. We will need content, clarity and clarifications. The ball is in the minister's court. We will see whether the minister is prepared to listen to the opposition parties' recommendations and proposals.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his passionate testimonial about local media.

I myself delivered La Tuque's L'Écho when I was a boy. I also wrote for several local media outlets. However, there appears to be some confusion. Bill C-10 is about broadcasting, not the media. I publicly announced my intention to table another bill on the media and the use by Internet giants like Facebook and Google of Canadian content without appropriate compensation.

My hon. colleague is talking about the Yale report on which our bill is indeed based. It is somewhat ironic, since the former leader of my hon. colleague's party, on the day the report was published, proposed that we scrap it, so I am not sure I understand.

If the local media is so important, and I believe my hon. colleague in that regard, why is it that the Conservative Party has opposed our every effort to help Canadian media?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to help local media, local radio and Canadian media would be to make their market free and fair. Unfortunately, the government's approach is to throw money at the problem over and over again, without actually dealing with the issues that put the media in this situation to begin with.

Focusing on cash-intensive band-aid solutions will not fix things for Canadian media. That is what we are against, the fact that the government is breaking out the band-aids and making itself look good, but does not want to tackle the real issue. That is what is so sad about what the Liberal government is doing now.

Plenty of articles have reported that the much-touted assistance the media is expecting from the government has not gone out the door yet. Many media organizations are still waiting for that promised assistance. Once again, the government is all talk and no action.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting, especially the personal and professional aspects. It was nice to hear him talk about his past.

We all agree that this bill is a weak response to the Yale report. However, this legislation was long overdue. It is important to remember that 16,000 journalists have lost their jobs since 2016. In Quebec and Canada, 250 media outlets have been forced to shut down, and there has been endless restructuring everywhere, including at La Presse, CTV and TVA.

I would like my colleague to give a clear answer to the following question: Will the Conservatives be voting against the bill, or will they propose a series of amendments?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind comments.

I am glad to have had a career in local and regional media and to be able to share my experience with my colleagues. I worked in radio for a long time and had to live with the CRTC rules for years, so I know how CRTC decisions can impact different sectors.

The current version of Bill C-10 is imperfect, incomplete and insufficiently transparent. It is therefore very difficult for me to agree to support it in its current form. However, as the time has come to overhaul the Broadcasting Act, I hope that the committee will be able to make it more acceptable and ensure that the much-touted directives to the CRTC are made public. I hope that they will be included in the bill so that when we vote on the final version of Bill C-10, we will know what we are voting on.

At present, the government has good intentions, but Bill C-10 has so few tangible applications that it is hard for us to support the bill as drafted.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague for sharing his thoughts on the bill and for sharing his own experience, which is highly relevant to our debate today.

My colleagues have already highlighted the NDP's concerns about this bill, especially about whether the CRTC will be able to take real action and whether it will have the authority needed to protect Canadian content and Canadian artists. Does my colleague share these concerns?

Also, is my colleague concerned about the fact that the Liberals have already shown they are siding with the web giants? This is a problem for this bill, but also for Canadian media in general.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I share some of her concerns about how the current Liberal government is cozying up to the web giants.

The CRTC is being given a huge new mandate and is being asked to do the government's job for it. We have yet to see how the CRTC is supposed to discharge these obligations. It already has a lot on its plate, what with expanding Internet access in rural areas and taking care of its other responsibilities. Now, with Bill C-10, the government thinks it can snap its fingers and call on the CRTC to fix the problems that the government has not been able to fix since it came to power.

I am also very concerned about whether the CRTC will be able to quickly carry out the mandate that the government is assigning it through Bill C-10.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He obviously has a lot of experience in this field.

Many francophones in my riding in Alberta enjoy French-language media content and would like to get even more. They are pleased with the work that our party is doing to protect the French language. This is important not just in Quebec, but also in the west and for francophones in every region of Canada.

The minister says that other topics will be addressed in a future bill. I think it is rather ridiculous that a clear plan was not presented in the bill. It is hard to assess a future bill that we have not seen.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on this process.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I quite liked my colleague's question.

During the last Parliament, I had the opportunity to visit a francophone radio station in Alberta. I can say that the people there were very passionate about their work and their mission, which is to inform francophone Canadians living in Alberta about local and national news and to be at the heart of their community. We must not forget that important aspect.

As for the minister's comments about another bill being introduced, we will judge that other bill when the time comes. Today we have to study the bill before us. As I was saying, we expected Bill C-10 to be in step with the changes that have occurred in the communications sector in the past few years.

Unfortunately, it is full of grey areas and uncertainty. There are no guidelines. The government is asking the CRTC to do our job. Then it criticizes us for asking questions about what is missing from the bill, when the minister himself says there is nothing in this bill because there will be another one that will have something in it. It is a bit hard to follow.

I completely agree with my colleague. He asked a very good question.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to debate Bill C-10 and the measures it contains to support francophone creators and French-language content.

Our government is the first since 1991 to modernize the Broadcasting Act in response to technological change. I want to remind the House why this legislation is so important and crucial for our artists and creators.

TV and radio have been with us all of our lives. I remember TV shows such as Bobino et Bobinette and Passe-partout and films that have marked our history such as The Decline of the American Empire and Crazy. Each of us fondly remembers the programs that shaped our lives.

TV and radio are sources of entertainment, discovery, culture, and information. They move us, inspire us, fill us with wonder, and give us a window to the world. Television and radio help forge our identity, especially our francophone identity. They also help us to get to know and to understand one another in all of our diversity.

Historically, under the Canadian broadcasting system, traditional broadcasting services, such as radio, TV, and cable, were required to fund Canadian content, our stories, and our songs. However, online broadcasting services, such as Netflix, Crave, Spotify, and QUB Musique, are not subject to the same types of regulatory requirements as traditional services.

This situation has resulted in a regulatory imbalance and jeopardizes the future of Canadian content funding. Our bill seeks to ensure that traditional and online broadcasting services contribute to the creative sector. To achieve this, we need to change the definition of what constitutes a broadcasting undertaking to include online undertakings, which did not exist in 1991.

Amending this definition in the Broadcasting Act will require online undertakings to contribute financially to Canadian and Quebec cultural production. Of course, these contributions will need to support a wide range of Canadian creators and consumers, as well as francophones across the country.

We know that French Canadians and Quebeckers enjoy their TV productions and musical artists. French-language programming in the francophone market and francophone musical artists are very successful and enjoy good ratings.

For Quebec and all francophone minority communities, French-language TV and radio play a vital role in encouraging children to learn and use French and creating a sense of belonging among communities that are often isolated.

Television and radio play a very important role in forging our identity, and even more so in the case of francophones, who are a minority in North America. The arrival of online broadcasters has disrupted the Canadian broadcasting sector, and the French-language market was not spared.

Online broadcasters pose tremendous challenges to the availability and promotion of French-language content, especially content produced by our minority francophone communities and content produced in Quebec.

Statistics show that 47% of francophones watch mostly English content on Netflix, whereas French-language services capture 92% of the audience in the French-language market on traditional television. This shows that francophones look for content in their language.

We must also point out that the average budget for English-language film and video productions has been increasing for several years unlike the average budget for French-language productions, which has decreased and for which foreign funding remains relatively low.

With respect to music and digital platforms, in 2017, only six French Canadian artists were among the top 1,000 music artists with the most popular streams in Canada. Clearly, we must stop twiddling our thumbs. We must take action.

The creation of content in both official languages is a vital cultural objective, no matter the technological or other advances in the broadcasting sector.

That is why our bill gives the CRTC the tools it needs to ensure that the funding and regulations support Canadian content in both official languages and, more importantly, that they take into account the particular needs of francophones. The survival of French-language content and the protection of our cultural sovereignty depend on it.

For many years, the CRTC has been overseeing the implementation of a strict regulatory framework for traditional services to support and promote French-language content. Thanks to its efforts, in the past 10 years, the volume of French-language television production has been stable, accounting for 25% of the total volume of Canadian television production. The CRTC has also succeeded in promoting French-language music. French-language radio stations must devote at least 65% of their weekly popular music programming to French-language music.

We can be sure that the CRTC will establish a regulatory framework for online broadcasters that is just as strict. It will ensure that online broadcasters fairly and equitably support Canadian content in both official languages and that they take into account the particular needs of francophone creators across Canada, especially in Quebec.

I am pleased that the modernization of the Broadcasting Act will give the CRTC a regulatory framework for expenditures, to ensure that a portion of revenues is reinvested in Canadian productions.

In short, this bill acknowledges the importance of investing in the creation of diversified content that reflects all francophones and all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It demonstrates our commitment to fostering the creation of stories and songs in both official languages in the digital era.

We are committed to strengthening the Official Languages Act, taking into account the particular reality of francophones in North America. I know that my colleague is preparing to present this shortly. The ultimate goal of this bill is to preserve an enduring broadcasting ecosystem that continues to support Canadian stories and songs. This legislative and regulatory framework will provide Canadian broadcasters, producers and creators with unqualified support.

Since the creation of the first Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting in 1928, the Government of Canada has continually worked to develop policies in step with technological developments. I am proud that our government is continuing that tradition by modernizing the Broadcasting Act for the new digital era. I am convinced that every member in the House is keen to preserve our cultural sovereignty and encourage the all-important cultural sector.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, good morning on a cold snowy Edmonton day.

Does anything in Bill C-10 suggest that CRTC would change its mandate or limit its role as an effect of the bill?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are studying today aims to give the CRTC the regulatory powers it needs to better invest in Canadian creators. That is what is in the bill before us today.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said some things that really made my ears perk up.

She said that the bill aims to maintain an ecosystem and that we need to protect our culture.

All that takes money. In the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois repeatedly reminded members that the web giants pay no taxes here, despite being billionaires. They use Canadian culture and news but do not produce any at all.

Would my colleague not agree that this bill has more holes in it than Swiss cheese?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for her question.

I would like to remind her that our government is the first in 30 years to have invested so much in culture in Canada, particularly in Quebec.

We doubled the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts. We reinvested in the CBC to protect our public broadcaster.

I would like to remind my colleague that people from the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, the ADISQ, and the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, the AQPM, are very pleased that we are giving the CRTC the obligation and power to regulate web giants so that we can reinvest in our culture and creators.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said something very important. She said that we have to act. The problem is that, in the midst of this public crisis, our cultural sector workers have been fearing job losses in the face of unfair competition from the web giants. They were expecting concrete action. While the Liberals seem to want to fix this disaster, such as they did with Netflix in 2017, using some band-aid solution, time is running out for the industry and its workers.

With Bill C-10, the minister is punting the problem to the CRTC, which means it could take almost a year before we see any real changes, if anything at all. Does the member not feel this is just a little irresponsible?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would like to remind him that we have an agency, the CRTC, that has been enforcing regulations to protect the creative sector and other local sectors since 1928. It is the best tool we have right now to ensure that, in the future, the web giants will contribute to local productions.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how will the bill ensure that online producers of content produce content in both official languages?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Once again, I think that it is important to give the CRTC the powers it needs to regulate what the web giants are doing so that we can reinvest in our creators and productions.

The most important thing for the future is to increase investment revenue in local production. That is the only way we can be internationally competitive.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has time to ask a brief question.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our broadcasting rules are pretty clear. Content must be 55% Canadian, and 50% of that must be in French, if memory serves, although that was over 25 years ago.

In addition to collecting tax dollars, would it not also be a good idea to think about increasing those quotas, specifically to protect and promote our artists?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important question. I would like to share with her some comments made by the ADISQ and the AQPM:

...it would be hard to include percentages in the legislation and...it would be better to debate the best conditions to impose on broadcasters and online businesses before the CRTC.

We have an institution, the CRTC, so let's trust it. This institution has been defending quotas and the French language for many years now. I think we can trust the CRTC.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute privilege for me to stand in the House today on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak in support of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. I am truly grateful for the leadership of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the work that he, his parliamentary secretary, his department and his team have done with respect to the bill.

As I have mentioned a number of times in the chamber, my riding of Davenport in Toronto's west end is home to more artists, creators and those in the culture industry than probably most ridings across this country. They include film producers, writers, directors and musicians, and also art galleries and museums. Anything that impacts the arts and culture sector is of great interest to my riding.

The Canadian broadcasting, film, television and interactive media sectors are also a huge part of the Canadian economy. They contribute about $19.7 billion to Canada's GDP and account for nearly 160,000 jobs. A lot of people do not know this, but the arts, culture and heritage sector is a $47.8 billion contribution to the Canadian economy. It employs over 650,000 Canadians in this country. It is a huge and very important sector, so this type of legislation is particularly important.

We have been promising to update the Broadcasting Act to level the playing field for a number of years now, so I am really happy that Bill C-10 is now before the House.

We mentioned in our 2019 platform that within our first year we wanted to move forward with legislation that would take appropriate measures to ensure that all content providers, including Internet giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian content in their catalogues, contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both official languages, promote this content and make it easily accessible on their platforms.

We also know that in January 2020, the broadcasting and telecommunications panel released its report entitled “Canada's Communications Future: Time to Act”. It included a number of recommendations and proposals on how to improve our broadcasting system here in Canada, which we now see encompassed in Bill C-10.

What is being proposed in Bill C-10?

The first is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, which has not been updated since before the digital age. My understanding, as my colleague just said, is that the last major reform to the Broadcasting Act was almost 30 years ago, in 1991.

Canada has a long history of supporting the creation of and access to Canadian film, music, television and digital media programming, while at the same time facilitating the access of Canadians to foreign content. Historically, we have had what we call a closed broadcasting system, which has been oriented around Canadian ownership and control of businesses showing Canadian content. However, today, with the increase in programming being consumed over the Internet, the legislative and regulatory framework for broadcasting needs to be modernized. That is the first thing that Bill C-10 does. It clarifies that online broadcasting is within the scope of the act. It is crazy that it took us so long to do this.

As we know, Canadians have more and more access to music and television through online services like Netflix, Spotify, Crave and CBC Gem. We know these online video services have grown their revenues by approximately 90% per year over the last two years, while traditional broadcasters have seen a steady decline of almost 2% per year over the last five years. The shifting market dominance illustrated by Netflix, which is now present in most Canadian households, including my own, generated over a billion dollars in revenue in Canada in 2019.

We also know that online broadcasting services are not subject to the same rules as traditional broadcasting services like over-the-air television, cable and radio. Under Canadian broadcasting laws, online broadcasters are not required to support Canadian music and storytelling, and other important broadcasting objectives. What is the result? We see the revenues of online broadcasters growing, yet they are not required to contribute to Canadian music and storytelling. At the same time, the revenues of traditional broadcasters are stagnating and declining, which means we have an overall negative impact on funding Canadian content and Canadian creators moving forward. Therefore, support for Canadian content is at risk and this bill is hoping to address that issue.

Furthermore, it would also address a regulatory imbalance that puts traditional Canadian broadcasters at a competitive disadvantage compared with online broadcasters. Bill C-10 would update broadcasting and regulatory policy to ensure a fair and equitable treatment of online and traditional broadcasters, so we do not have one set of rules for Canadian broadcasters and another one for foreign broadcasters.

The amendments proposed by Bill C-10 would empower the CRTC to implement a modernized broadcasting regulatory framework that would ensure both traditional and online broadcasting undertakings contribute in an appropriate manner to the Canadian broadcasting system.

It is important to note that while we know this is an important first step, we also know we are going to have to engage in further reforms in order to more fully modernize the broadcasting system and ensure Canada will continue to support the creation and production of audiovisual content in the digital age.

What else would Bill C-10 do? It would also update broadcasting regulatory policy so the CRTC would be enabled to showcase more diverse creative voices in the broadcasting sector, most notably with respect to indigenous peoples, racialized communities and persons with disabilities.

This is a huge ask from those artists and creators in my riding of Davenport, where 40% of them were born outside of the country. For them, it is really important to hear the creative voices from our diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions and ages. It is a huge ask from my community, so I want to thank them for their continued advocacy. I am delighted this would be enabled by Bill C-10.

The bill would also amend the act to take greater account of indigenous cultures and languages. To me, this is extraordinarily important because it is part of our ongoing effort to build a new nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's aboriginal people. A way for us to better understand and learn about each other is through our stories.

I am also pleased to say that an updated Broadcasting Act, one that treats online and traditional broadcasters equally, would increase the funding available to Canadian artists and creators. Indeed, it is estimated these changes would result in an increase in contributions to Canadian music and stories of as much as $830 million per year once the new system is put into place.

We should note that how artists and creators receive income has changed. A world that has become increasingly digital has exacerbated the overall issue of how Canadian artists earn their income. Providing some changes to the Broadcasting Act to start addressing this issue is really important for us to do.

I also want to note that we are going through an unprecedented pandemic right now, and arts and culture are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. These types of legislation would help make some of the structural changes and help us create a more healthy and economically viable sector moving forward.

I should mention that what is not included in Bill C-10 is user-generated content, so video games and news media would not be affected by our proposed changes. It is important to note that.

I know my time is coming to an end, so I am going to conclude by saying I am absolutely delighted by the efforts of our hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage to modernize the Broadcasting Act and level the playing field so all our creators have more funding for Canadian stories. I very much favour this bill. It provides us with an opportunity to have a more inclusive broadcasting sector for all Canadians, whether francophone, anglophone or from racialized communities: Canadians of all diversities and statuses.

The bill would ensure the circumstances and aspirations of all Canadians are reflected in the Broadcasting Act. It would result in a more equitable broadcasting system, requiring online broadcasters to contribute their fair share. These amendments would absolutely modernize the Broadcasting Act for the digital age for many years to come.

I would like to end by saying I want to echo the Minister of Canadian Heritage's words yesterday, urging all of my hon. colleagues to support this bill. The sooner we get this bill passed, the sooner we will be able to put a fairer system in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I find interesting about the Liberals is that whenever they are doing something it usually involves new taxation, and this bill is no exception to that. It looks like we are headed for new taxation here.

What I am a little frustrated with is that there is no clarity in this bill around whether our online content creators and the online social media platforms would be deemed as publishers or as just platforms. That is an ongoing debate happening around the world. I thought the government was headed in the direction of clarifying that, so I am disappointed.

I am just wondering if the hon. member opposite thinks we should be classifying the social media platforms as content curators or platforms.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would do nothing to increase anyone's taxes.

The objective of the bill is truly just to modernize the Broadcasting Act in order to ensure that online broadcasting is within the scope of the act. It also provides some updates around the broadcasting and regulatory policy so that it better reflects the enormous, wonderful diversity we have in this country. It also has a renewed approach to regulations so that we have fair and equitable treatment between Canadian broadcasters, who are sort of traditional broadcasters, and those who are online broadcasters. It would modernize the enforcement powers of the CRTC and provide some additional oversight and information-sharing provisions. However, there is absolutely nothing in here that says we would increase taxes in any way.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am quite worried every time I hear that we need to trust the CRTC. There is no requirement in the bill to broadcast or fund French-language content. That is left up to the CRTC.

In another life, I was a spokesperson for Mouvement Montréal français, and we made a complaint to the CRTC because some privately owned radio stations in Quebec were getting around their French-language music quotas, which I believe were set at 65% at the time. During peak listening hours, they would skip the end of French songs and segue into up to 10 consecutive English songs.

This meant that the 15 minutes of English music counted for one song under the quotas. It also meant that those stations were respecting the quotas, but there were 15 minutes of English music during peak listening hours instead of having French music. That is a problem. We also know that they would get around CRTC regulations by playing French music at night, when no one was listening.

Therefore, we cannot trust the CRTC. If we are not able to give it clear broadcasting guidelines, the CRTC will not do it out of its own accord. Private radio stations will do everything they can to get around the rules.

It seems, then, that the government should impose certain limits on the CRTC in its bill. Why has it not done so?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for those who do not know, the CRTC is the regulatory agency that is responsible for the broadcasting sector. It governs the regulatory framework that supports creators and producers of Canadian content in Canada.

I very much appreciate the hon. member's question. I know that there are those in my community of Davenport who tried to bring issues before the CRTC, and they found it very difficult to actually bring their issues forward. They found that there were some regulations that need more clarity, as the hon. member mentioned, and I agree with him. I think that we also have to do a much better job of encouraging the CRTC to make sure that where there is not clarity around regulations that they be made clear, and when there are some legitimate concerns, it is made much easier for Canadians to bring them forward to the CRTC.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Broadcasting Act of 1991 was brought in to safeguard the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada, but we saw, from 2008 to 2018, 189 community newspapers go under and 36 daily newspapers close down. Now, with the pandemic, many of them are struggling.

We learned from the Yale report that Google and Facebook receive nearly 75% of the advertising revenue in Canada. In comparison, the websites of conventional television stations and local newspapers account for only 8.5%. We know that the government has been meeting a lot of secret lobbyists, and we know that it wants to fix its disastrous Netflix deal of 2017 with band-aids with the bill, but time is running out for this industry and for its workers.

Is it not irresponsible that, in Bill C-10, the minister is moving this problem by punting it down the road to the CRTC? It could take almost a year before we see any change.

I am hoping the member can acknowledge the seriousness of this issue, given the pandemic and the plight of local newspapers, especially in my riding, which are struggling right now. They are reaching out and calling on Parliament to take action on the unfair, plain advantage of Netflix and these huge web giants.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House that those in my riding have almost exactly the same concerns as those that the hon. member has mentioned. I am just going to clarify.

We hope the changes we are proposing to the Broadcasting Act will help to unleash as much as $830 million that could help Canadian content creators, both online and from traditional sources, in Canada. I will acknowledge with my colleague that we absolutely have to provide a level playing field and ensure there is a fair contribution made by platforms like Netflix and Yahoo, that all the money that comes from them goes directly into local media and into any way to support independent information sharing across the country, and also that it goes directly back to supporting our Canadian creators and artists across the country. I would say it is absolutely vital for us to do so.

I will also say that I am extraordinarily concerned by the loss of our local media. Mine might be the only riding in the whole country that actually has a local newspaper, the West End Phoenix, that has been created in the last five years. It has been a very successful local publication, but it is one of too few. We need to find solutions, urgently and immediately, to support local journalism across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, the broadcasting bill introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The Broadcasting Act clearly needs modernizing. The last time it was dusted off and updated was over 28 years ago. At the time, the Internet did not exist. Social media did not exist. There was no such thing as web giants, and we were not permanently attached to our tablets and constantly using apps. The context has most certainly changed. If there is one thing all members of the House can agree on, it is that urgent action is needed. Implementing these measures is important.

Back in 2015, the government promised it would modernize the act. Expectations were high. The government conducted extensive consultations. It made lots of promises. It envisioned a very good scenario in which everyone would have to pay and contribute. Things were going well in that regard. Now, three ministers and over five years later, a bill has been introduced.

Earlier I heard a member from Quebec use a cheese analogy, saying that the bill reminded her of Swiss cheese, because it has so many holes in it. We are looking for the cheese, but all we see are the holes. This metaphor is also apt because we are talking about cheese and the Liberals have delivered a mouse. This is actually a very serious subject, since we are talking about an incredible industry. It is part of our Canadian identity, which includes language, culture and Canadian content.

Unfortunately, the bill does not really do much. Basically, it off-loads all responsibility onto the CRTC, which ultimately will have to take action. There are many things this bill does not do.

We are told the bill makes changes to ensure that online broadcasting falls within the scope of the act. What does that mean? It means that the legislation governing the CRTC will apply to online broadcasters. We know that. My Liberal colleague mentioned how the CRTC can sometimes be a rather cumbersome administrative straitjacket. Things are not easy for our traditional media in Canada.

The minister is telling us that he is going to off-load the responsibility to the CRTC and that a year from now, as another colleague mentioned, slightly stricter rules will be applied to online broadcasting. That is not what the Yale report called for, and it is certainly a far cry from what the industry is asking for.

Web giants like Google and Facebook are not affected by this bill, and yet we know that they are generating major revenues from our society and competing with our Canadian companies.

Bill C-10 also fails to explain how digital platforms and conventional players can compete under these conditions. In a way, the playing field is not level for everyone. The bill also fails to say how exclusive content will be shared on digital platforms. There are no details about guidelines for the production of Canadian content and the famous contribution to the Canada Media Fund. Some companies, therefore, have to make a contribution based on established parameters. Finally, we can see that the parameters here are very flexible. There does not seem to be any apparent fairness in the bill.

As we have seen this week, culture is also a factor. Canadian culture comprises the English language, the French language and Quebec culture. This bill seems to ignore that reality, and as some of my colleagues in the Bloc have pointed out, what's in it for Quebec culture? That is not clear at all.

With respect to copyright, Quebec artists have complained about seeing their works circulated on digital platforms without fair compensation for their own investment. This bill does nothing to address that issue, however.

Ultimately, the bill would essentially subject online broadcasters to the CRTC. The government is off-loading this issue onto the CRTC and waiting to see what happens.

I do appreciate that the bill mentions indigenous culture, persons with disabilities and Canadian diversity. However, it would also be important to mention Quebec and French-Canadian culture, as well as the concept of our country's linguistic and cultural duality.

We need a level playing field here, and we think that policies should account for changing markets. All this bill does, however, is put off to tomorrow what should have been done a long time ago. We would also have liked the minister to find a way to reinject tens of millions of dollars, or even hundreds of millions of dollars, in our system.

For those who are watching at home, section 19 of the Income Tax Act applies to the Canada Revenue Agency and would allow for the full deduction of any money spent on advertising with foreign digital media distributors. That means that, in its attempts to restore balance, the Canadian government is contributing to the imbalance.

The agency has not changed its interpretation of the act since 1996, an interpretation that is based on jurisdictions established prior to that time and that date back even as far as 1935. There was a small loophole, because computers did not exist at that time. The definitions of newspaper and broadcasting do not reflect what is known as the technological neutrality of the Broadcasting Act, which was modernized in 1991, nor do they reflect the tremendous revolution that has occurred since 1996. This small loophole has become a giant vortex.

As a result, foreign companies like Facebook and Google, which represent up to 80% of Canada's online advertising revenues, are competing with our advertisers and our traditional broadcasting and print media while receiving a bit of a leg-up from the government. This situation has been criticized. We cannot encourage foreign companies to compete with our Canadian companies, but the government is complicit in that.

My colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable said that the government's problem is that it is always looking for superficial solutions instead of trying to fix systemic problems. The government needs to fix this problem with Canada's tax system and create a level playing field for Canadian and foreign players by restoring market conditions that do not give web giants an edge.

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications urged the government to take a close look at the loophole in section 19 of the Income Tax Act, which is contributing to the media's decline. The committee also asked the government to look at ways to make things better for all Canadian companies. The committee's report was tabled a year and a half ago and has just been gathering dust since then.

We heard that message over and over from witnesses representing various segments of Canada's media industry. They told the committee that eliminating the tax deduction for ads on foreign websites could give Canada's industry a much-needed boost.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is also strongly advocating for the elimination of this tax deduction. This organization produced a very detailed document on the situation. It argues that closing the loophole would enable the Canadian government to collect more taxes, because companies would not stop advertising in foreign media, but they would have an incentive to choose Canadian media. Companies would not be encouraged to do business with foreign companies. Instead, there would be neutral conditions that would allow them to choose.

The Public Policy Forum shares this view. It says that simply fixing section 19 could produce a revenue stream of $300 million to $400 million a year for the media industry.

The government has presented band-aid solutions even though real solutions do exist. They do not need to look for them, they simply have to stop subsidizing web giants.

The time has come to conduct an in-depth review of section 19 of the Income Tax Act. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Heritage because it goes to the crux of the matter, namely the money that the cultural sector, in this case the media and print media, is losing to web giants.

Companies like Google and Facebook are free to operate in a business-friendly environment like ours, but they are not contributing anything. In this bill, there is a blatant inequality between traditional media and web giants, which, I will repeat, are not covered. That is one of the bill's flaws.

Another flaw is that the bill does not address the issue of disclosure. The bill refers the matter to the CRTC, but there must be some facility for disclosure. How much revenue do the web giants earn? What is the breakdown of their revenue and expenses? We need to know this so that we can make sure they are treated the same as other Canadian businesses. That is something that is also not in the bill.

One journalist said that the web giants burst out laughing when they saw the minister's bill. The Liberal government introduced a highly anticipated bill the day after the U.S. election. I think all members would agree that that is a good time to introduce a bill under the radar.

The web giants burst out laughing because this bill has some huge flaws, some gaping holes. The idea is good: The government wants to regulate the web giants, which are sucking the life out of our media. In reality, however, the bill gives them free rein. That is a problem because, again, web giants like Google and Facebook are in no way required to pay royalties to news media for the content they share.

People use social media to access information, and this information often comes from Canadian media. When people get it off Facebook, Canadian media outlets come away empty-handed. They do not earn anything. The bill does not address this issue that is very important for our media, especially in a pandemic.

The same goes for taxing ad revenue generated by these platforms in Canada. They do not even collect taxes per se, whereas Canadian businesses do. This too is unfair, yet the bill does not address it. Billions of dollars in revenue are at stake for the government, and Canadian businesses are being unfairly treated.

All in all, I would say that the bill unfortunately misses the mark. The most worrisome aspect is that even as the government introduced the bill, we learned that Facebook was already trying to hire the CRTC officials who draft legislation. I can see why the web giants are taking notice, because 70% to 80% of ad revenue in Canada comes from digital and media platforms.

Why is this cozy relationship between the CRTC and Facebook being permitted, when we know that the CRTC will be responsible for enforcing the act? Is this not like letting the fox into the henhouse? That is what troubles me.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and others have criticized this situation. As I mentioned, they pointed out that the Broadcasting Act was modernized in 1991 but that there is still some flexibility. The bill seeks to include digital media in the act, but the CRTC already has the regulatory capacity to do that. All the minister has to do is tell the CRTC to apply the provisions of the 1991 legislation rather than undertaking a process that will take another year.

We know that these web giants are continuing to rake in huge profits with each passing week and month, while our Canadian media are in a very precarious situation. The Conservatives are not the ones saying that. It is the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that are saying that the bill does not definitively eliminate all of the ambiguity surrounding digital distribution.

Ultimately, the bill does not clarify this important issue, which creates a double standard. As I said earlier, the government is taking an approach that addresses issues in an piecemeal fashion.

As a result, new digital media will benefit from a flexible approach while traditional media will be caught in a regulatory straitjacket. The government is not trying to restore balance by loosening the regulatory straitjacket on traditional media but is instead trying to impose it on new players.

The Yale report makes some interesting points. One thing in the report that we agree with is that there is an urgent need to act. Unfortunately, the government is not taking action. It is off-loading those powers to the CRTC, a year in the future, when it could have been quite possible to exercise those powers through regulatory means.

At the same time, they say that the ecosystem needs to be opened up so that the conventional players have room to breathe and are able to compete with the new ones. In this regard, the minister does not seem to be willing to create this breathing room for our Canadian undertakings, which are being smothered under a straitjacket, while there are no rules for the new players. Now they are saying that they are going to start trying to impose things on them. That said, this only applies to digital broadcasters. I would point out that this does not apply to the web giants. That is a major flaw in this bill.

Our friends at the CBC are critical of the fact that the bill is vague about Canadian content. This is fundamental. We see the web giants investing in the production of Canadian content, but we do not know how to define that. It is not at all clear.

The Yale report mentioned the review of CBC/Radio-Canada’s mandate. That is another major flaw in the bill. The report made recommendations in that regard, but again, there is nothing on that.

That is what we are left with in theory. It is not much.

What is even more troubling, given the last few days and weeks, is the minister looking to have an open media landscape where both Canadian and foreign media would be allowed to freely disseminate information.

This brings us to a statement by the minister, who appeared this week on Radio-Canada. He spoke about freedom of speech, and we found his statement somewhat disturbing and quite surprising. He said that the right to express oneself ends where another’s pain begins.

A Quebec commentator, journalist and intellectual asked whether the minister wanted to make information channels subject to the tyranny of sensitivity. For example, if you do not like someone saying something about a community or a religion, can you say that this person needs to be silenced?

Freedom of expression is a fundamental part of our democracy. It is the reason we can express ourselves. As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said, freedom of expression does not apply only when we like what we are hearing. There are some things we do not like hearing. That is exactly what freedom of expression is, and we already have laws governing it. Hate speech and statements that incite hatred or violence are not allowed.

If the minister has a hidden agenda, that would be good to know. This is not the first time he has said something fishy. At one point, he wanted to make news media companies get licences, so it is not clear.

In conclusion, this is a major issue for Canada. This week, we saw just how problematic the status of French in Montreal is. Our culture itself is at stake. The question we are asking ourselves is whether there truly is a will to preserve Quebec's cultural ecosystem and recognize it. Just recognizing it would be good, but there is nothing in the bill to suggest that is the case.

Unfortunately, what we saw this week was the president of the Liberal Party saying that legislation to protect the very foundation of Quebec's ecosystem, its language, is oppressive.

Does the government have reservations, some reluctance preventing it from protecting the foundation of Quebec's cultural ecosystem? The bill is silent on that subject.

Other colleagues have stressed this, including our Bloc Québécois colleagues—

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to say a few words about the importance of Quebec culture.

Does he believe it is being protected by the bill? Does the bill promote it? I did not see anything in the bill to suggest that to be true.

Does my colleague believe that the bill as currently worded will improve or deteriorate the situation?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

Let me give an example that comes to mind because the holiday season is approaching. There is an old tradition of making a cake and baking a coin into in. The person who gets the coin wins something. I am not sure what the prize is, but the person wins something. The entire cake is good, but it is the coin that counts.

The coin in this legislation is Canadian ownership without any obligation to French. This legislation essentially tells producers that they can do whatever they want. They can buy Canadian companies and turn them into content producers for Netflix. They can even pay a little less, which is music to their ears. No Canadian ownership and no protection of French, that is the coin.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what the leader of the Bloc Québécois thinks of the concerns we raised about the CRTC's capacity to do what the government is asking it to do.

I would like to know if he shares concerns about the close relationship between the Liberals and the web giants, media giants who are neither Quebeckers nor Canadians and about the repercussions of this close relationship on the ability to protect the work of Quebec and Canadian artists.

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

Madam Speaker, on the topic of the close relationship between Internet giants and the government, there are days where I expect to see Facebook lobbyists in the seats of the members opposite.

They do have a close relationship. For a while, when he was dealing with these issues, it was as if there were a line at the Prime Minister's door. They are a bit more discreet nowadays, but at one point, a few years ago, it was common knowledge. That led to the Netflix debacle, which we should actually be bringing up more often as an example, not that the people at Netflix are not fine people. They do business. We tell them to come do business with us, that we will give them ideal terms and that they are required to spend x amount of money in Canada. Quebec really missed out, because of the language issue and because they essentially wanted American content, preferably with lasers.

They are way too close. There needs to be a buffer. This lobby must be regulated, and this is true in many areas. We could even talk about judges, but I digress.

The other fundamental issue is the protection of arts and culture, which is a passion of mine because I am familiar with that community. That responsibility falls to the CRTC.

I think the CRTC acts in good faith but that it adopts the legislator's intention. Right now, the legislator, which is never neutral, is saying to forget about the protection of Canadian ownership and forget about the percentage of French content. That is extremely serious and I invite associations of artists and artisans in the industry to remain open. We began talking to them because, together, we may be able to correct this legislation.

I am not talking about stalling for time, getting things done quickly or trying to get a cheque but about correcting this legislation so that it really serves the soul of Quebeckers.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech given by my colleague, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the member for Beloeil—Chambly.

In the context of Bill C-10, where we clearly see that that the Liberals neglected or even ignored or snubbed francophone culture and the importance of protecting it, I would like to know whether we can draw a parallel with what we saw this week, including the fact that the member for Saint-Laurent said that French is not in jeopardy and the fact that the government announced that it is going to vote against our bill to make knowledge of French mandatory for citizenship.

I would like to know whether parallels can be drawn between all of these things the government has done.

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

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has time for a very short answer.

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

Madam Speaker, French is the best language in the world for expressing love, and it is a language that is easy to love. Loving French means loving its expressions and all its forms. If not for the allure of my French, my wife would never have married me.

When we are like that, we are sincere in—

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

I am going to stop the hon. member there, but he will have the opportunity to continue.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who is the member for Beloeil—Chambly and a friend.

I am at a bit of a loss. I am a little intimidated by my colleague's eloquence. It is not easy to speak after such a political legend.

I will speak about my personal experience. Arts and culture is a vast field. It includes all forms of creations and inspirations. We could talk about painters, dancers, film, screenwriters, authors. I am not going to be invited to testify at any of the committees because I am an MP, so I will share my personal experience with the House.

I am an artist by vocation. I also work in the hospitality industry at my parents' hotel. I was born to it, as the saying goes. When I was young, my influencers, to borrow the popular term, were the visitors who came to our little hotel at the end of the island, and who enjoyed seeing one another in this intimate setting and would arrange to meet at our place. Sixty years later, nothing has changed. I grew up in a world where Michel Brault and Pierre Perreault would have a chat and later Gilles Pelletier and Françoise Graton would show up with their big dog. These people would sit around the fireplace and talk with my father and mother. I was a child at the time, so I became accustomed at very young age to these profound discussions with these famous Quebeckers, who left a mark on Quebec's history through their art.

People may be familiar with Pierre Perreault's films, such as La Trilogie de l'Île-aux-Coudres and Pour la suite du monde, which earned accolades throughout the francophone world. That experience sparked my desire to write songs. That is my art form. I inherited my mother's big, warm voice and my father's love of words, which means I am comfortable expressing myself in French and in poetry.

After participating in the Festival international de la chanson de Granby, a festival that has launched quite a few Quebec artists and where I got to the semi-finals, I wanted to write my own songs. I had signed up as a singer who covered other people's songs, and all of a sudden, I wanted to write my own songs and share my own messages. I realized that I could make my mark on Quebec's cultural landscape and join the ranks of those who have stopped time for the length of a song, to create something that did not exist before.

I immediately saw the effect this had on people. It was a joyful, beneficial, stimulating effect. Depending on the message we send as creators, when we sit down and put our message to paper, yes, we do influence society. We influence the people we work with, the people we publish with, the people we rub shoulders with. All of a sudden, when a creator hears their song on stage, sees their film in theatres or sees their painting hanging in a gallery, the message gets through, the message is delivered.

We want to deliver our messages in our mother tongue, for that is the language we grew up with, the language we were socialized in, the language that taught us how to say what we want to say to others, if only to pack up and take our songs on the road. Although I am not very famous, I have been lucky enough to travel to Switzerland, France and even the United States to sing in my own language.

Even though people in the U.S. did not always understand what I was singing, they appreciated the energy and passion I put into delivering my message. People bought my CDs, and some told me that they had gotten a dictionary so they could understand French and try to translate my lyrics. These people saw how passionate I was about my message.

That kind of passion really comes out in its mother tongue. That is why I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 and say that we must not stray too far when we make legislation. We need to stick to the basics.

The basics in this case means the content created by artists, artisans, journalists, singers, writers, film producers and many others.

To put this in terms I am familiar with as an islander, the high tide of the online world has surged into our community. This is a good thing in some respects. Not everything is black and white. However, we need to build levees to protect ourselves against the rising tide, or else it will quickly flood the land we have spent years tending to, planting beautiful flowers and all kinds of things. This is nothing new to the people of Isle-aux-Coudres. This is a common occurrence with the arrival of the autumn tides. They do not ask for permission.

If there is no levee to contain the flood tide of the online world, we will lose the essence of who we are, our cultural territory. That is what concerns me about the bill that was introduced by our colleague opposite, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I get the impression that the government is straying from the basics and drifting off course, to use another maritime term. It is not attached to the very essence of the subject it is dealing with.

That is what I want to bring to the House, an attachment to the subject we are dealing with, namely our entertainment and our culture, which basically describes who we are. Our culture describes our dances, our stories, our songs, our dreams, our ambitions and our values, and it influences who we will be in the future. In order for that to happen, we need to support our creators and find ways to help them keep creating.

The situation was desperate before, but it has become downright alarming since COVID-19. We now see many top-notch artists taking other paths. They are investing their energy in something other than what they did best. Right now, it is very dangerous to rush things and to set aside what is most important because of the urgent nature of the situation.

I urge my colleagues to think about that. Without our content creators, there will be nothing left of our culture. At this moment in time, protecting the French language and the market share held by cultural content producers and companies is essential, as is making sure the House understands the importance of staying on course. The Bloc Québécois will do its utmost to make sure of that. That is what we are here for.

I would also remind the House that Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a recommendation that the government include a percentage in the act so as to protect the francophone character of our culture.

I thank all my colleagues for listening to me. I hope my remarks will put everyone here back on course.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's heartfelt speech. Her strong attachment to her culture and her language came through loud and clear. She herself is a very talented artist.

In her speech, she talked about protecting content creators. This morning, I talked about protecting copyright. I would like her to explain to me what that means to artists financially, for, as they say, money makes the world go round.

Is there some way that this bill could address that, because it is extremely important to the survival of Quebec culture?

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

I thank my colleague. It is true that we have had some chats in the lobbies and we have had an opportunity to convey the affection we both share for culture.

Indeed, this bill amends the Broadcasting Act and does not deal with copyright. The government and the heritage minister have informed us that there will be another bill on copyright and neighbouring rights, and we eagerly await that legislation.

At the time, before more than 50% of our rights and royalties were gobbled up by the tide of the web, it was easier to control and measure what we earned from our creative endeavours. If there was a problem, someone like Luc Plamondon would get up at the ADISQ gala and make a statement, and things would suddenly begin to move. Corrective measures could be taken if necessary, because we had tools to take tangible measurements.

However, we have given up a lot of ground since then. I am really looking forward to what the government has to say on this topic, and I hope it will come very soon.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for her passionate speech. It was very interesting.

We, in the NDP, feel it is very important that we protect the French language and culture. I am hoping that we can have an open dialogue when we go to committee to improve and enhance this bill.

I also wondering if the member will work with us to make that happen, not only to protect the French language, but also the cultures of indigenous and racialized communities, from the overwhelming dumping of American culture on our screens. Are Bloc members willing to do that?

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

I thank my colleague for his question.

We are naturally open to all forms of collaboration and discussion. Our disagreement with what is being proposed does not mean that we cannot discuss and improve it. We will work with our colleagues from different parties to that end.

We must naturally protect other languages besides French. I had the opportunity to share the stage with my friend Florent Vollant, who sings in his mother tongue. I enjoy that a lot. I even have a song about this language that I love so much, and I tell myself every day that I will learn it, except that I do not have the time to do so.

We will certainly look at this issue and work with our colleagues on both sides of the House to improve this bill so that it becomes a useful tool for us. We have been waiting 30 years, which is a long time. Therefore, we are going to take the time to work on it and polish it with much conviction and passion.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech today.

I remind her that an order in council requires licence holders to be controlled by Canadian interests, and this order will not be affected by the bill. My question for her is the following. Would my colleague prefer that online companies not be subject to the provisions of section 3 of the act?

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

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, this issue is really important. Facebook has $19 billion in global revenues, and it does not pay any tax.

What concerns me, however, is that our previous heritage minister was supposed to regulate and bring taxes in, but her chief of staff was a top Google executive brought in by the Prime Minister's Office, Leslie Church. The Prime Minister's close connections to Google and Facebook raise really serious questions.

When I look at this bill, I see the fact that Facebook and Google, which have 64% of all the Internet advertising dollars in Canada, are not going to be paying any tax on that advertising, still. This is one of the biggest outstanding issues, and the government is ignoring it.

How can we have a level playing field when all advertisers, artists and cable companies pay advertising and taxes, yet under this bill Facebook and Google still will not be paying tax?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question the hon. member is asking. In fact, in our 2017 House of Commons heritage report, we pointed out that level playing field with regard to GST and HST being levelled against Canadian media and Canadian content, and not being levelled against the Internet giants.

This bill will be going to committee, and there will be an opportunity for people to talk about levelling the playing field. However, when we brought it forward at the committee, it was very clear that the Conservative Party was spreading the rumour that we were taxing people.

We are talking about levelling the playing field. It could mean removing taxes Canadian media has to pay. We could talk about increasing the taxes on international media. I do not know, but I agree with the member about taxation. I think it is an important piece that we have to look at, because it gives the international giants a 15% advantage over Canadian media.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

This bill is obviously very important for us Quebeckers. It could become something that helps to protect the French language, even though it does not right now.

Does the member agree with her hon. colleague from Saint-Laurent and the Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada, who think that the decline of the French language is a myth and that Bill 101 is oppressive?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know how our Prime Minister feels about Bill 101, and I am not here to talk about that right now.

In our Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said very clearly that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to ensure the French language inside and outside of Quebec is promoted, and it is assured we are going to tell the stories outside and inside Quebec. This is something that we—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canada did not happen by accident. Canada is a conscious act of will to create a distinct political, economic and cultural space in the upper reaches of the North American continent. Today we are focusing on our cultural space.

Ensuring the continued vitality of Canadian cultural content is what this bill is all about. In so many ways, Quebec is the model and inspiration for Canada's broader cultural affirmation. It is proof that it is possible to preserve and fortify one's cultural voice against unrelenting pressure, and that it is possible, and indeed a duty to oneself and one's fellow citizens, to build and sustain a cultural realm that reflects, supports and strengthens our collective identity.

Culture is a reservoir of ideas, values, symbols, ways of doing things, and individual stories woven together into shared stories. We need to keep replenishing that reservoir if we want it to remain full and deep. If we do not, it will evaporate over time or be refilled by other sources that no longer reflect who we are or offer up nothing but faded outlines.

Quebec has taken care to sustain its cultural reservoir, and so has the rest of Canada, often inspired by Quebec.

This affirmation of the value of one's culture as an alternative lens through which to view the world accounts in part, I believe, for the long overdue attention now being given to supporting Canada's indigenous languages and cultures, including, incidentally, through the provisions of the bill we are debating today.

As Canadians, it is vitally important that we be able to see ourselves in books, plays, TV shows and films, and hear ourselves in music. When we see ourselves reflected through these media, we see ourselves in motion doing, accomplishing, overcoming challenges and sorting out contradictions and complexities moving forward. We are also witnessing our potential. What could be more invigorating and motivating than that, on both an individual and collective basis?

For well over a century, we in Canada have proved there is no such thing as cultural determinism. There are no foregone conclusions about a culture's ability to survive and thrive, even in the face of powerful outside cultural forces. The strength of a culture, its staying power, is a function of people's determination and ability to craft effective cultural strategies that are continuously adapted to a changing environment.

Whether our culture survives and thrives depends on us, on our desire to keep creating content and to ensure we have the means to share that content. Everything depends on us tuning in and paying attention to the sometimes rapid changes and technological and economic challenges that keep coming our way.

The creation of the CBC was an act of political will. It was a conscious collective response to the challenge of a new medium: radio. Cancon on radio was an act of political will that spawned a homegrown music industry that, 30 years later, conquered global markets in the genres of country, jazz and rock.

The list of studies, analyses and policy initiatives we have undertaken over decades with the aim of shoring up Canadian culture in the face of technological and economic challenges is too long to describe in the time I have, but here is a sample.

In 1929, the Royal Commission on Radio, called the Aird commission, recommended that Canada establish a single national, publicly owned broadcasting system. Not long after, in 1932, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was passed.

In 1936, a parliamentary committee called for a corporation resembling the BBC. Thus the CBC was created and, in 1937, it opened a French-language radio station in Montreal that became the beacon Radio-Canada is today for francophone culture in Quebec, for francophones outside of Quebec and, it should be added, for francophiles across the country, whose numbers increased following the adoption of the Official Languages Act by the government of Pierre Trudeau.

When I think of our cultural infrastructure, which Canada cannot do without, one of the things I think of is CBC/Radio-Canada. We cannot underestimate the crucial importance of Radio-Canada in particular. It disappoints me to hear the Conservatives talk about privatizing CBC/Radio-Canada. In many ways, the Crown corporation is the spring that keeps Canada's francophone cultural reservoir full.

To continue, the Massey commission was created in 1949 and tasked with examining radio and television broadcasting in Canada. In 1958, the Broadcasting Act was passed. In 1959, quotas for Canadian content on TV were instituted.

In 1969, the CRTC noted that cable technology had become a major factor in the Canadian broadcasting system, and it set out rules for the services cable systems were required to carry, which we refer to today as “must-carry” rules.

In 1971, the Canadian content regulations came into force for AM radio music and the CRTC allowed simultaneous substitution, whereby a local TV channel was substituted for a U.S. one on cable if both stations were carrying the same program. This was designed to help local stations keep their local audiences and the advertising dollars that go with those audiences.

In 1983, the broadcast program development fund was created to ensure the production of high-quality Canadian television in the under-represented categories of drama, variety, children and documentary.

In 1984, the Federal-Provincial Committee on the Future of French-language Television was created to examine challenges facing French-language television.

In 1992, the CRTC issued its policy on gender portrayal.

In 1996, the minister of Canadian heritage, Sheila Copps, announced the creation of the Canada television and cable production fund, combining the cable production fund and telefilms broadcast fund.

In 2002, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, published “Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting.”

Jumping to 2018, our government created a six-member panel to review Canada's Broadcasting Act, Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunication Act. The Yale report, entitled “Canada's Communications Future: Time to Act”, is the basis of today's bill.

There was a time not long ago when conventional wisdom held that we could not interfere in any way with the Internet, and that resistance to the all-encompassing juggernaut of the worldwide web was, plainly, naive and futile. Partly in keeping with this view, in 1999 the CRTC exempted Internet retransmitters from the requirement to be licensed or regulated under the Broadcasting Act. The decision was reviewed and upheld in 2009.

In 2001, Bill C-48 attempted to bring Internet retransmitters under the umbrella of Canada's copyright regime. However, the bill was amended in favour of a continued prohibition on retransmitters using proprietary content.

In a sense, Bill C-10 is taking care of unfinished business. Bill C-10 will bring online streaming services within the scope of the Broadcasting Act. Internet-based platforms such as Crave, Netflix, Amazon Prime and Spotify will be required to contribute a percentage of their gross revenues to the creation of Canadian programming, as is required of traditional broadcasters.

Furthermore, cabinet will have the power to order the CRTC to ensure that adequate funding is dedicated to French-language programming. In the modern world of mass communications, cultural transmission has become extremely high tech, whether we are talking about radio, television, film, recorded music or online content. This bill will strengthen our modern cultural infrastructure. In order for a culture to thrive, it takes a collective will, as well as resources, meaning money. This bill aims to ensure that the necessary resources are made available to ensure that our beautiful, magnificent culture survives and thrives.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite that I would appreciate his feedback on. Any time the CRTC seems to get involved in making decisions on regulations and different things like that, the one person who ends up always paying more and, in the end, losing, is the end user or the consumer.

I am wondering what the government would do to protect the end user, or the consumer, from being the one who ends up losing in this situation.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree that the end user ends up losing. The end user in Canada has access to an array of programming but also to homegrown programming through private broadcasters, and especially through CBC/Radio-Canada. Yes, we pay fees for cable and so on, but we do not pay a fee when we buy a television. That used to be the case, but the CRTC removed that fee many decades ago, so I do not agree with the premise of the member's question.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my colleague across the aisle in support of Bill C-10.

I must say that I personally am very disappointed with Bill C-10. The web giants are still not paying taxes. Now web giants might be required to produce Canadian content, but not French-language content. Of course, Canadian content is not French content.

These are still foreign-controlled and foreign-owned companies. The government's refusal to require the production of French-language content is perfectly consistent with the comments made by the member for Saint-Laurent, who said that French does not need to be protected. It is perfectly consistent with the comments of the president of the Liberal Party of Canada, who said that Bill 101 is an oppressive law. It is perfectly consistent with the government's opposition to requiring knowledge of French for people to immigrate to Quebec.

Rather than shedding crocodile tears, can the member opposite be honest and admit that the Liberals do not care about French in Quebec?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to some estimates, this bill will allow us to collect approximately $1 billion that could go towards Canadian programming, which obviously includes Quebec programming.

One of the government's priorities is to ensure that we have enough French-language programming to allow Quebeckers and all French-speaking Canadians to express their views, values and culture.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question to the government member is with respect to the concern that we have raised about the documented close and collaborative relationship that this government has been proven to have with web giants, and the extent to which that relationship is coming ahead of good policy on behalf of Canadians, whether it is affordable service or Canadian content, including French content from Quebec. We are very concerned about the role that web giants have had with respect to this government. We also believe that they should be taxed, and that is something we have not seen leadership from the federal government on.

Does the Liberal government believe that web giants like Netflix, Amazon and others should be taxed like everybody else?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is going to raise almost $1 billion from the web giants that was not being raised before. I am not sure what relationship the hon. member is talking about between the government and web giants, but that relationship is going to result in almost $1 billion more for Canadian programming.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth, and I would ask that she go first.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the bill and I will be sharing my time with the member for Milton.

The bill is about building sustainability back into the Canadian broadcasting system and putting Canadian broadcasters on equal footing with their online competitors. The objective of the bill is to ensure that online broadcasting services that operate in Canada contribute to the creation of Canadian content and support the Canadian audio and audiovisual creative ecosystems, just as licensed Canadian radio and television broadcasters have been doing for decades.

Up until the web giants came along, the broadcasting system was managed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, as a Canadian regulated sector. To operate a broadcasting service in Canada's protected market, one had to get a licence from the CRTC. As a condition of that licence, these broadcasters had to contribute to the overall broadcasting system. They had to support the creation and promotion of Canadian stories and music. This was the framework of the Canadian regulatory bargain.

This regime worked well for decades as our broadcasting system grew and matured. Over time, Canadians went from receiving two or three TV channels, I actually remember having that clicker on my TV for those, to the hundreds that are available now. As a result of the globalized ecosystem, the CRTC established new rules and regulations to allow some foreign channels such CNN to be distributed on cable and satellite systems in Canada, while ensuring that Canadian operators would remain competitive.

Even as it expanded, the closed licence broadcasting system was maintained. TV stations, radio stations and cable and satellite distributors were largely profitable and film and video creators and musicians benefited from sustained and stable support from the broadcasting system. However, the emergence of multinational web giants has changed the game. Early on, the CRTC chose to exempt those services from licensing in order to encourage the development of innovative technologies and business models. As a result of this, foreign online broadcasters are now able to sell their services to Canadians while avoiding the regulatory obligations placed on traditional broadcasters, including the requirement to support Canadian creators.

However, these online broadcasters do not get a free ride any longer. The revenues of online video services have grown some 90% each year over the last two years, while the situation for Canadian traditional broadcasters has worsened. They have seen a steady decline in revenues of 1.8% per year over the last five years. Not to put too fine of a point on it, the legislation as it stands has been putting our own Canadian companies at a disadvantage. We need to help the home team. For too long, we have been helping the away team.

Traditional Canadian broadcasters are forced to compete against online platforms that are playing by different rules. This needs to change. Bill C-10 would restore competitive balance to the system. It would provide the CRTC with the tools it needs to establish a modern regulatory framework for broadcasting that is appropriate for the digital, online and on-demand era that we live in today.

Importantly, this new regulatory regime would encompass both traditional broadcasters as well as online services. Our approach is a balanced one, which includes strong guardrails. We would be excluding user-generated content, news content and video games from any regulation.

Additionally, while these amendments would apply to online broadcasters, obligations would only be imposed on those that have a material impact on Canada. In practice, this means it would only impact common household name streamers. The very first broadcasting policy objective that would appear in the amended Broadcasting Act would state that all broadcasting undertakings shall contribute in a manner that furthers the implementation of the broadcasting policy for Canada. This would help level the playing field and restore equity and fairness to the system. Online broadcasting services would be required to support the creation and promotion of Canadian stories and music. This would help stabilize funding for Canadian film, video and music creators and establish sustainable support for a new generation of Canadian artists.

Canadians have benefited from the flexibility and choice that online platforms have to offer. Canadian creators, stories and music have achieved international success and reached new audiences through global streaming platforms. When I think about it, I think of people like Alessia Cara or programs like Anne with an E, the TV show that many people have loved.

However, I need to emphasize for hon. members that the intent of this bill is not to restrict the ability of Canadians to access online broadcasting services or to subject foreign online platforms to rules that do not also apply to Canadian broadcasters. The intent is equally not to subject Canadian online broadcasting services to rules that do not apply to foreign ones.

The CRTC, as the expert regulator, would be expected to put in place a regime that does not discriminate and treats similar services in a similar manner. No online broadcaster, Canadian or foreign, would require a licence from the CRTC. The message is that they are welcome to come in and join the game, but must play by the same rules as the other players on the field.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has indicated that the bill before us is just the first step in a broader approach that the government plans to implement to position Canadian broadcasting for the on-demand online environment. He has indicated that he intends to direct the CRTC to act quickly to ensure that online broadcasters contribute appropriately to the Canadian broadcasting system. The CRTC would be asked to address existing regulatory asymmetries. Regulatory requirements should be flexible, yet predictable, recognizing the amazing diversity of creators Canada has to offer, as well as business models and technologies in the Canadian broadcasting system today.

We need to restore a measure of fairness in the broadcasting system. A lot has changed from the time I mentioned when we had TV sets with a turn dial, and we had maybe six channels. This bill maps a way forward toward a more equitable regulatory framework that would allow traditional broadcasters to compete on a more level playing field. It would have direct impact toward increasing stable and sustained income to Canadian creators.

Bill C-10 would put the online broadcasters on fair footing with traditional Canadian broadcasters, and it is up to us, as members of this House, to pass this bill quickly in order to restore competitive balance to the broadcasting system and give our Canadian broadcasters a fair shot at getting back into the game.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, DAZN is a streaming service that allows for people to watch the NFL and Major League Baseball, as well as soccer leagues, content that is not available by any other source online. Yet, this member is saying, as the Liberals are, that somehow the CRTC is going to be able to require these services to have Canadian content.

I would like to ask the member a question, because she said that if a broadcaster wants to get in the game, it has to play by these rules. How, precisely, will the National Football League get Canadian content sufficient enough to be able to pass this legislation? Will DAZN simply say that Canada was a great run and that it is no longer offered? What will the Liberals and this member say to their constituents when they cannot receive this content via streaming?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill is actually so that we can continue to build out the system that has been coming into play. It is actually taking into account the fact that the world has changed and that new streaming services are available that we did not have many years ago when these rules were put into place. It is simply not fair to be able to have certain services, and that all of the name-brand kinds of services that people talk about, like Netflix and Spotify, should be able to profit from being here in Canada without also paying to the creation of Canadian content. When I say this, it also includes being able to support important jobs that all of our communities rely upon.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hear my colleague say that there needs to be a sense of urgency, but what she is talking about doing is fast-tracking a bill and sending it to the CRTC, which could take up to a year for it to come back with solutions. We knew from the Yale report that Google and Facebook had taken over 75% of the market share for advertising compared to 8.5% for local newspapers like the Comox Valley Record in my riding, the Parksville Qualicum Beach News, the Alberni Valley News, the Westerly News or the Ha-Shilth-Sa, all important newspapers in my riding telling really important stories, covering really important issues.

We need the government to amend this bill, protect those newspapers and important media and make sure that these web giants are paying their fair share. They are still not paying their fair share and it is very important that the member and her government take immediate action instead of punting this down the road and expecting the CRTC to do something on this, especially with the vulnerability of these publications during COVID right now.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy my friend across the way raised media, because it is absolutely important to all of our communities. I was happy that Jerry Dias of Unifor, who represents many people who work in the media industry, said that this is a good bill, but what it deals with is broadcasting reform. It would create a framework by which there would be further investments in Canadian culture and content.

However, the news media piece is also something the Minister of Canadian Heritage is working on. He has been speaking with his counterparts in Australia and France to talk about their different models so that we can take action on the very issue that was raised, and we will.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 has some very good pieces of progress in it. I am certainly looking forward to studying it in committee and proposing amendments.

I want to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary whether she believes we need to improve the act to do more to define Canadian culture and creative activity. I take the point from my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that we do not just want Canadian cities used as backdrops for filming stories that are taking place in Chicago or New York. I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary has any comments.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way and I have had some interesting conversations about this very topic.

The point of this bill is to increase investments in Canadian culture and to level the playing field. The CRTC will ultimately be the body, as it has been all along under our existing system, to determine the set rules as far as domestic content, but—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I would first begin by acknowledging that, while the House sits on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe, I join the House from my community office here in Milton, the traditional territory of many first nations, including the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabek, the Attawandaron and, more recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

Major changes to the Broadcasting Act occurred in 1991 and since then, we have seen the rise of the Internet and online broadcasting services, which has completely changed the ways that Canadians listen to music and watch television. The Broadcasting Act has not kept pace with these changes and as a result, online broadcasters have been left unregulated.

Bill C-10 would modernize the Broadcasting Act for the digital age. It would provide the CRTC with the tools it needs to be regulated online and to ensure that they contribute to the creation of Canadian stories and music, just as traditional broadcasters have done for decades. This will mean more funding for Canadian producers, directors, screenwriters, actors and musicians to create high-quality audio and audiovisual content. It would generate more opportunities for them to make their stories and music available to Canadians. It would mean a more fair and flexible regulatory system where comparable services are subject to similar regulatory requirements, regardless of whether they operate online or over the air.

Our approach also includes strong guardrails, where we exclude user-generated content, news content and video games from any regulation. Additionally, while these amendments apply to online broadcasters, obligations would only be imposed on those that have a material impact in Canada. In practice, this means that it would only impact common household names.

This means that Canadian music and stories will be more widely available through various broadcasting services. However, technology is not the only thing that has changed since 1991. Canadian society has also changed.

That is why, today, I want to highlight the important changes that the bill would make to the Broadcasting Act to support greater diversity for women; indigenous peoples; racialized communities; anglophones and francophones, including those who belong to official language minority communities; the LGBTQ2S community; and persons with a disability.

The bill makes it clear that we need to encourage individuals from all of these groups to express themselves and share their stories and music. It also makes it clear that these voices and stories are important and a defining part of Canadian culture.

Broadcasting plays a critical role in sharing cultures, experiences and perspectives. That is why it is so important for creators from more marginalized communities to participate in the broadcasting system.

Broadcasting is an essential medium for sharing our lived experiences with one another. By presenting content that is representative of different cultures, communities and languages, it can help build a welcoming, empathetic, compassionate and inclusive society. Broadcasting can help us celebrate our differences while strengthening the common bonds that unite our society.

Lately it has become very clear that this has become more important than ever. Recent events have shone a bright light on the fractures and inequities that still exist in this country.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls both highlighted the persistent colonial, patriarchal and racist policies that resulted in generations of trauma, marginalization and abuse for indigenous peoples. The #MeToo movement made us re-examine how we support victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment, and it underscored how important it is for us to work harder to address elements in our culture that perpetrate gender inequity and inequality.

We have more work to do to ensure that all gender identities and gender expressions are recognized and respected. We need to continue to strive for equality and acceptance for all two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual people. The Black Lives Matter movement has drawn attention to systemic racism that continues to result in discrimination, aggression, oppression and violence against the Black community—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member, as it is two o'clock. The hon. member will have five minutes and 22 seconds remaining when we return from question period and take up this topic again.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I also applaud the minister's plan to instruct the CRTC to ensure that contributions from online broadcasting services flow to French-language and indigenous creators. I agree with his suggestion that the CRTC consider using incentive-based tools to encourage greater support for creators from equity seeking groups.

The bill would amend the Broadcasting Act to assert that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse racialized backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages, and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality, the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society, and the special place of indigenous peoples within that society

This type of language sends a clear message. It underscores that diversity and inclusion are fundamental for our society and that this must be reflected in our broadcasting system.

This message is also filled with hopes and dreams that commit us to working together to strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada. This work cannot wait. That is why I am pleased to see that the bill also emphasizes that programming that reflects the indigenous cultures of Canada, programming that is accessible without barriers to people with disabilities and a range of broadcasting services in English and in French must be made available to Canadians regardless of resource availability.

Before wrapping up, I want to go back to my initial remarks and my recognition of the indigenous peoples who were here long before us. In my opinion, this bill is particularly important for indigenous peoples.

As highlighted in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and in the calls for justice issued by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, broadcasting can play a key role in promoting and protecting indigenous languages, arts, cultures, traditions and perspectives.

The bill would support indigenous creators so that they can tell their own stories in their own words. It emphasizes the need for indigenous-run broadcasting services. The bill would contribute to fulfilling the commitments Canada made in committing to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am hopeful it will move us further along the path toward reconciliation. We have much to learn and discover from deep, vast and rich indigenous cultures and voices. Hearing them, allowing us to live the stories they tell, will not only have us in awe. It will contribute to reconciliation and mutual understanding.

Broadcasting has the ability to remind us where we came from, to hold a mirror up to our current selves, showing us the good parts and the bad. It also has the ability to point the way to a better future for everyone. This bill points a way toward a Canada that embraces diversity and promotes inclusion. That is the reason I urge all hon. members in the House to support the bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the general application of the bill. I am from the Okanagan. The Okanagan Nation Alliance includes many indigenous first nation bands in my area, the Similkameen area and the Colville band in the United States. Much of their culture predates Canada and the United States.

How would this law then apply if a Colville band member or Okanagan band member were to film stories that predate Canada or the United States in Washington state on Colville tribal grounds? Would that count as Canadian content even though first nations see themselves as part of the Okanagan Nation Alliance? I would like some clarity from the member.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question. I assume that type of conversation will arise at committee when we talk about the bill in further detail.

I agree that indigenous history is not limited to the land that is currently Canada. Certainly indigenous nations and various different indigenous peoples walked across borders that did not exist then. It is really important that we recognize that. I am so grateful that we have so many incredible indigenous content creators across our country on new technologies, like Instagram. I follow so many and I learn so much. Earlier this month, my friend from Sydney—Victoria sent me a video so that I could learn a little more about treaty rights in Canada.

I am constantly learning, as we all are. This is certainly one of those things that we need to take into consideration. Canadian history, as we call it, includes the last 160 years or so, but the land that we are so fortunate to be on, to gather on and thank indigenous people for allowing us to share with them, its history is far greater than that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I collaborated on a cross-partisan video talking about the need for Canadians, all of us, to come together to follow public health guidelines. I want to thank the member for his leadership on that.

We are in a public health crisis. Right now cultural workers and local media workers are scared about job losses, because of unfair competition from web giants. They were expecting the government to take concrete action.

The Liberals must ensure that web giants like Netflix are contributing enough in the creation of French-language content, that they contribute as much as local broadcasters and that these funds are administered independently and transparently. However, the secret deal with Netflix and the federal government's refusal to subject Netflix to the same tax rules as our local companies show that the Liberals are still too close to the web giants.

Could the member comment on his party's close relationships with these web giants?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I always appreciate the opportunity to collaborate in a multipartisan and non-partisan way with members like my colleague from Victoria.

This is a good question. For the first time, the bill actually recognizes the French fact and the importance of investing in francophone stories and music. I hope that encourages people, including those who are learning French, like me and my colleague from Victoria, but also ensures that a portion of this funding is devoted to the creation, availability and discovery of francophone programming.

Broadcasting is absolutely an essential medium for sharing our experiences with each other, but at the same time this is about competition and the competitive nature of the media landscape around the world. As much as we need to work with producers and the platforms, we need to make sure they are paying their share. After looking at the bill, I am really confident that we are going to make sure the web giants pay their share and contribute in a real way, not just a performative way but a real way, to the viability and competitiveness of Canadian media from producers here in Canada.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here in the chamber this afternoon. I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

It is an honour to rise to debate Bill C-10. I want to take this opportunity to discuss an important issue that was raised by several members, namely, the best way to support our creators, including francophone creators.

I want to first remind the House why the legislation is so important. Historically, under the Canadian broadcasting system, traditional broadcasting services, such as radio, TV and cable, were required to fund Canadian content, our stories and our songs. However, the emergence of online broadcasting services, such as Netflix, Crave, Spotify and QUB Musique, which are not subject to the same types of regulatory requirements as traditional services, has resulted in a regulatory imbalance that jeopardizes the future of Canadian content funding.

The bill seeks to ensure that traditional and online broadcasting services are appropriate for Canada's creative sector. Of course these contributions must benefit a wide range of Canadian creators and consumers, including francophones across the country, as I heard from my colleagues in the opposition.

I now want to speak about the issue of support for francophone creators and French-language content produced by francophone minority communities.

First, it is important to recognize that this is a key issue and that the concerns expressed by stakeholders are entirely legitimate. We must not forget about the minority status of francophones in North America, which is dominated by the English world.

Online broadcasting giants like Netflix and Spotify will not necessarily consider the needs of francophones in Canada, whether they live in Quebec or in a minority community in Canada. However, we know that television and radio are vitally important to language, culture and the identity of the francophone minority in North America.

It goes without saying that measures are needed to support and promote francophone history and music. We agree on that, especially now that online broadcasters have turned Canada's broadcasting sector upside down, and the French-language market is no exception.

Online broadcasters present unique challenges regarding the availability and promotion of online content in French, and especially content produced by our francophone minority communities. I want to point out that 47% of francophones watch primarily English content on Netflix. That is a departure from traditional television, where 92% of the francophone market tunes in to French-language programming.

Similarly, the appetite for English-language films and audiovisual productions has been increasing for years, as has funding from foreign investors, but the average budget of French-language productions has decreased, and these productions receive little funding from foreign investors.

On the music and digital platforms front, in 2017 there were just six French Canadians in the top 1,000 most popular streaming artists in Canada.

Obviously we must act, but how? Some have proposed to include quotas or mandatory investment thresholds for French-language content in the Broadcasting Act.

At first glance, this may seem like the best way to remedy the problem, but what is it really? The fact of including a mandatory investment threshold in the act fixes it permanently and, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage rightly pointed out, the minimum is likely to become the maximum.

There is no reason to cut funding for French-language content in this way. A better way to do this is to give instructions to the CRTC, telling it to ensure that an appropriate portion of the funding is devoted to the creation of French-language programming and to take into account the difficulties inherent in the creation and broadcasting of French-language programming, particularly in minority communities.

This is how our government suggests we proceed. Regulation is a flexible tool that allows action to be taken that is in tune with technological advances, the development of industry and the values of Canadian society. It should be noted that the CRTC has long overseen the application of a rigorous regulatory framework of traditional services to support and promote French-language content. The CRTC's record is unambiguous. It has demonstrated a firm commitment to the imposition of regulations that ensure support for francophone creators.

Thanks to the CRTC's efforts, for the past 10 years the volume of French-language television production has been stable and represents 25% of the total volume of Canadian television production. The efforts of the CRTC have also served to promote French-language music. French-language radio stations must devote at least 65% of their weekly programming to this purpose, from popular music to French-language music. The CRTC can be expected to put in place an equally stringent regulatory framework for online broadcasters. It will ensure that it provides fair and equitable support for Canadian content in both official languages and that it takes into account the specific needs of francophone creators across Canada.

We all agree that action must be taken to support francophone creators and French-language content across Canada, its primordial, and also all creators and content creators in Canada. Our bill and the instructions it gives will give the CRTC all the tools it needs to ensure that funding and regulations support Canadian content in both official languages, but also indigenous, multicultural, real Canadian content and just a window into Hollywood.

This is the best approach to ensure that Canada's creators can continue to create audio and audiovisual works that reflect who we are as a country. The creation of content in both official languages is an essential cultural objective. Regardless of technological or other advances in the broadcasting sector, this modern and equitable legislative and regulatory framework will provide unequivocal support to broadcasters, producers and creators across Canada.

I encourage all members of this honourable House to hastily send the bill to committee to be improved and to deliver real changes to the broadcasting sector, which it has been requesting for so long.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to pay all my respects to my colleague. I have a lot of fun with him and a lot of respect when we work together in the parliamentary committee. I also want to pay all my respect for the quality of his French. The member is working very hard on the quality of his French, like some of my colleagues from B.C. I deeply appreciate it when each and every member of Parliament tries the best to speak his or her second language. French is the second language for an anglophone and English is my second language because I am a francophone.

My question has to do with the two official languages and the bill being debated today. The member talked about a number of aspects of this bill, but there was one that he left out. The Liberals often boast about how there will be a lot of new online productions, but the bill does not contain any requirements relating to Canada's two official languages.

Why?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for those very kind comments. I encourage all members of the House to have a vigorous debate at this stage of the legislative process. Let us get the bill to committee, where the committee members can put forward their amendments and ideas and the full committee can rigorously debate those. Let us always try to improve all legislation that comes forth from this honourable House.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec culture is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's mission.

Broadcasting is no doubt the most effective tool to disseminate culture and help define the national identity. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, given the astounding evolution of information and communication technologies.

However, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is concerned. According to the CAB, 50 radio stations could shut down in the next four to six months and 150 others could follow suit in the next 18 months.

What does the government plan to do about those losses?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a vibrant Canadian cultural sector in both official languages is very important to me. I am excited and proud to say that my children are enrolled in French immersion and are learning French.

With respect to the hon. member's questions and comments, we of course want a vigorous debate on how we can strengthen and maintain all our services in both official languages and truly be the bilingual country we are and strive to be on a daily basis.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a person who represents a very rural and remote riding, one thing that concerns me greatly is how important our local Canadian content is. We know the Yale report outlined clearly that Google and Facebook were receiving nearly 75% of online advertising revenue in Canada, which really leaves local television and newspapers receiving only 8.5% of that Internet advertising.

When I think about the local papers in my riding and how important they are, I want to ensure they get the support they need. Could the member talk about why the government continues to push this further down the line when what we really need is for these web giants to pay their fair share so our local content can be saved?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all need to support our local newspapers.

When I was a young individual, I delivered the Prince Rupert Daily News door to door. That was great content for households in the hometown in which I grew up.

Today we need to modernize many aspects of our legislative framework in telecommunications and broadcasting. Bill C-10 is one part of that.

Let us get the bill to committee stage where there can be a vigorous debate. We know that with the world evolving as it is and with technological change, it is very important our legislative frameworks and structures correspond to that and that we continue to update them.

Canadian content is very important for me, for our government and for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary comment on why this is so important now? According to some statistics I have, 32% of streamers are between the ages of 25 and 35, and 22% are between the ages of 35 and 45. It seems that the older we get the less likely we are to listen to online content, but the younger generations in particular do.

Why is it so important to implement this now, given that it is the younger generations that are using online content for those experiences?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we see the trends for content consumption and the platforms that are utilized. Currently, online undertakings that deliver audio and audiovisual content are exempt from licensing. We want to ensure the regulatory requirements that the traditional broadcasters and platforms have are extended to those online undertakings. We need to ensure a vigorous framework for broadcasters, which is what we are doing with Bill C-10.

I again encourage all my hon. colleagues to get the bill to committee stage so the learned committee members can have a vigorous debate and put forth even more ideas that could potentially improve the bill, and have the process to continue.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for sharing his time and for his willingness to work with other members of Parliament across the nation.

I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. It is sad that in the digital age in which we are living, the law is rarely able to keep up with technological advancements. This digital revolution, referred to as the fourth industrial revolution, is characterized by a pace of breakthroughs that we have never seen before. Every industry in every country around the world is being disrupted. As a result, it is impacting production, management and governance.

A 2016 paper from the World Economic Forum on the fourth industrial revolution makes one point very clear. The only way for governance and regulation to work in such a complicated environment is to operate with a clear foundation of values rather than playing regulatory catch-up. This is the essence of the bill.

With audio and audiovisual content being offered for mass consumption online over the past two decades, Canada has been exposed when it comes to fostering Canadian content, as has been done for decades through the CRTC. Supporting the telling of Canadian stories, giving a platform to Canadian voices and sharing Canadian perspectives for our population from coast to coast to coast has always been a challenging issue with Canada being located next to the largest producer of content in the world; that being the United States.

The CRTC is unique in that it is not only a regulatory agency but, rather, a key component of our Canadian cultural landscape. It serves as the primary actor in facilitating Canadian content production to the broadcasting sector. It is our path toward preserving local culture as well as our national identity.

Since the Broadcasting Act was last updated in 1991, Canadians' consumption of content has changed dramatically. Millions of Canadians have cut the cable, so to speak, and are receiving their news and entertainment through online platforms. As an example, as of 2019, Netflix is present in 62% of Canadian households, with other streaming services continuing to grow year after year.

To give some context on how large digital content consumption has become in Canada, it is estimated that revenues for Canada's digital media market will hit over $4.7 billion in 2020. This number is skyrocketing when compared to other forms of media consumption, such as television and radio. In other words, updating our Broadcasting Act is long overdue.

The streaming that we now consume in the comfort of our homes carries stories from across the globe as consumers have never had more choices and access to such a diversity of content. However, that also means that Canada's history of promoting and supporting Canadian content must be extended into the realm that so many of us rely upon daily.

We are lawmakers, and we have an obligation to not unduly disadvantage Canadian content creators in the digital era. We have an obligation to do everything in our power to ensure the diverse voices that make up our country, including indigenous peoples, racialized communities and persons with disabilities, have the same ability to share their stories as the international content producers that are so readily available to us now.

This is where the intent of the Broadcasting Act becomes so apparent. As mentioned, our lives are filled with receiving and consuming online content. We might wake up in the morning and check the news headlines on our phones or other digital devices, which of course was a role filled in the past by news publications: independent media.

We might now stream music on our commute to work, as opposed to traditional radio that might have filled our vehicles or headphones. In the evening when we get home from work, we might then search through our favourite streaming service to find a show or movie we can relax to. This is just a very general snapshot of the types of activities and choices of content in 2020.

Of course, this is particularly heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic, where social interaction is now regularly replaced by consumption of this content.

Ultimately, Bill C-10 is defined by the principles of equality, inclusivity and, most importantly, by Canadian content creators and sustainability. While this legislation would modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers and update the oversight and information-sharing provisions it has available, ultimately it is about creating opportunity through collaboration. It is about mandating the streaming services that want access to the Canadian marketplace to meet certain broadcasting obligations that provide financial support to allow for more Canadian content to be produced and consumed.

While members across the House might attempt to characterize this bill as an example of over-regulation or limiting free speech, the reality is far different. Simply put, this is an update to our Broadcasting Act that would allow Canadian stories to be produced. It would allow Canadian consumers to have ample access to such stories and, most importantly, it would allow our unique cultural identities to have ongoing security and opportunity in the rapidly evolving digital world.

In conclusion, I hope this bill is widely supported by all parties in the House as it is an update that goes beyond politics or ideology. For the most part, technology moves far faster than we do as legislators. This legislation is a tool that would ensure we are always ahead of the curve in preserving our diverse voices in the age of digitization. This is about ensuring Canadian content can thrive for generations to come, and ultimately, there should be no party or member in the House who can argue with this fundamental principle.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation today.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite. He is from British Columbia, and I certainly understand many of his positions, but I do not agree with them, and I will say why.

First of all, many members today have said that they specifically support this because they want to see diversity, they want to hear indigenous voices, and they want to hear young people and have their voices magnified. However, Irene Berkowitz and her colleagues put out the “Watchtime Canada” report last year, which said that there are 160,000 Canadian YouTube creators who produce content, and 40,000 of them are monetizing: that is, they are actually drawing funds from YouTube's model, and they employ 28,000 Canadians.

The problem we have here is that the member and many in his caucus believe that Google, the owner of YouTube, is a broadcaster in the traditional sense. If this government forces this legislation onto the CRTC, then those YouTube creators, who actually create the content, may be forced to adhere to these rules. They may then elect to actually have their Canadian-drawn content pushed out to other parts of the world, and would not advertise, would not show up here in Canada, because they would not qualify under the rules.

Does the member understand that, by changing this, it is a misperception that YouTube would somehow respond by forcing all of these small ma-and-pa content creators to change their business model? I think the member is mistaken.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for having his own opinions, and he is welcome to have them.

Certainly, when it comes to this regulation, the broadcasting bill that we brought forward is long overdue to make sure that we are able to protect our Canadian identity, that we are able to protect our Canadian culture, that we are able to protect indigenous voices and racialized voices, and this will—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the importance of local radio.

Local broadcasting is essential because local information cannot be covered in national news reports. Local radio stations are needed to cover municipal and school news. They also mean local journalists, local artists who can send in their productions, and local jobs.

These radio stations could be decimated over the next few months if we do not take action. In my riding, there are two radio stations that I love to listen to. They are Radio Acton and Boom FM. What will I tell those stations about targeted support and the more flexible regulations that they need in this time of crisis?

Why is there nothing about that in Bill C-10?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, i n fact, on the issue the member raised, I met with a local media outlet just last week that produces the local paper, and it had a similar concern that the hon. member raised. Earlier, an NDP member from British Columbia raised the same issue.

I fully support the member's thought process, and this bill is a positive step moving forward. When it comes to local papers and local radio, I am fully supportive of that. Certainly, in the coming months we will have legislation, if we all work together, to help those local papers and radio stations in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on the fact that the Liberals are promising to rebalance the market between the traditional TV platforms and the new digital platforms, but they are kicking those decisions off to the CRTC.

How can they live up to those promises?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my speech, once this bill has gone through the House, the government is alloting more money and more resources to make sure that we are able to take care of those issues that the hon. member has mentioned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-10. It is an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Updating this Broadcasting Act is crucially important. The statutes in the act provide the guidelines for everything in our media industry, from how our Canadian broadcasters operate to how we support Canadian content and production.

Updating it right now is particularly important because, as we know, the Broadcasting Act has not really been updated at all since 1991, a long time before Internet companies and online streaming services were competing with Canadian broadcasters.

It is deeply disappointing that the government’s proposals are so incredibly lacking. I am going to focus in on four points today. First, the legislation does nothing to address social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, and their various properties, such as YouTube, to pay its fair share. Second, it does not bring digital platforms, such as Netflix and Spotify, into a system in which they are on a level playing field with the conventional Canadian broadcasters.

Third, it does not provide any details on Canadian content production and media fund contributions by digital broadcasters. Finally, it gives all of the power to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, commonly known as the CRTC, which is a body that is not only ineffective at regulating in its area, but that also often struggles to even enforce its own regulations.

Before I dive into the details of this bill, I want to give some background. A lot of people in the House know that prior to my election, I spent over 40 years as a radio and television broadcaster here in the province of Saskatchewan.

During my broadcasting career, I experienced first-hand the dramatic evolution of those industries and how Canadians interact with their media. When I first entered the industry back in the 1970s, radio and television were the dominant forces of entertainment here in this country.

Over time, as television became more and more accessible and mainstream, demand for radio really declined. More recently, we can look at music streaming services such as Spotify, Google Play Music and Apple Music, which have attracted many Canadians away from radio. This has resulted in many stations across the country being forced to either greatly downsize or shut down entirely. We have seen that here in Saskatchewan.

I will give some details on the radio industry. Right now, a lot of stations in Saskatchewan run for only 12 hours. They will come on at six in the morning and broadcast until six at night. They will then have repeat programming for the next 12 hours. This is disturbing. It is hard to find a live disk jockey or newscast at night because these stations only run 12 out of 24 hours.

It is disturbing because, as a young broadcaster back in the 1970s, that was how one learned the business, by working nights and late nights. That has been taken away from people in this province. It is hard to find a live announcer after 7 p.m. on any Saskatchewan radio station.

Major conglomerates have gobbled up some of the radio industries in Saskatchewan. Stations in places such as Prince Albert, North Battleford, and even the satellite feeder in Meadow Lake, are now part of the Pattison Group.

We have seen a sort of renaissance in the province with smaller radio stations trying to make it on the FM dial, such as Humboldt and recently Assiniboia. This past January, Nipawin got its licence for the first time in the north-east area of Saskatchewan. There was an intervention by one of the big players in the country, but today Nipawin has its own FM radio station. It got approval from the CRTC in January.

I would be remiss to not mention MBC radio, of the Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation. It is Saskatchewan's only indigenous radio station, and it is located in La Ronge. For some 10 hours a week, it broadcasts in Dene, and for another 10 hours a week, it broadcasts in Cree.

With this bill, Bill C-10, this is where I would really like the CRTC to concentrate. We have seen that this station uses Cree along with Dene up in northern Saskatchewan. It is needed. In fact, during the election I caught a 30-second advertising spot by a candidate done in Dene, telling the people up there to vote for him or her. It was kind of interesting. It was really good.

I also had the fortunate opportunity to go to Nunavut just two years ago. I went to eight communities up there. They speak a lot of English. Inuit and Inuktitut are spoken as well. I went up there and saw the people up in Nunavut, including Chesterfield Inlet, Arviat, and so on. That is their way of communicating.

This is my concern today with the CRTC. How is it going to look after this whole Bill C-10, and the Broadcasting Act? It is big. We have a big country. I have just pointed out the needs in Nunavut and northern Saskatchewan. There are many other places in this country. This is a very, very big bill.

Similarly, streaming services such as Netflix, YouTube, and even Disney+, are increasingly becoming the default source of entertainment for many across the country. Many television studios are struggling and beginning to downsize and cut costs. We saw that today with the announcement from Rogers.

Much like their radio counterparts, television stations here in Saskatchewan have been forced to make cuts. Many local stations have either been shut down or have really reduced staff. I can tell the House that, as a former broadcaster in that province, I remember when Swift Current had its own television station.

Yorkton and Prince Albert are repeater stations now. Prince Albert rebroadcasts Saskatoon, and Yorkton rebroadcasts Regina. I remember at one time that CKBI, Prince Albert television, had over 80 staff. We do not have that any more, so we can see that the industry is coming down. Swift Current no longer has a TV station. Yorkton basically has two or three people, and the same thing at CKBI Prince Albert.

For a long time, I think that sports was considered the bedrock of television. While television series could always be recorded, watching sports live had a particular importance. No one wanted to miss that big game or have the results spoiled.

However, today even sports, a sector that has long thrived based on live television, is moving away from the traditional broadcasts. Services such as NHL GameCenter, Dazn, Sportsnet NOW, and TSN Direct allow sports fans to watch their favourite teams from wherever they would like. They can flip between games and even watch multiple games at once.

I will make this point. I remember the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. The president of Bell Media was in line for the gold medal game, the women's hockey gold medal game. There was a big crowd in Vancouver. No one could get into the game on time, but at that time the game was streamed.

The president of Bell Canada went on his phone and watched the game. He turned to his assistant while he was in line and said that this was the future of broadcasting, and that Bell Canada had to buy it. That was in 2010. Lo and behold, a short time after, Bell reacquired the CTV television network.

The reality today is that the way most of us here in the House of Commons consumed entertainment growing up is no longer the norm. Many growing up today would consider it simply out of date or even obsolete.

Certainly, even though many of these changes have been revolutionary and have benefited consumers, they have created many problems for the Canadian broadcasting sector. Our laws and regulations need to be updated to match the changes of the last 30 years. That raises this question: What exactly needs to be fixed in a modernized broadcasting act?

The Internet giants such as Netflix and Spotify are simply not paying their fair share. These companies do not pay taxes. They are not required to pay into the Canada Media Fund, as conventional broadcasters are today. They are not required to meet the Canadian content requirements that conventional broadcasters are bound by.

As more and more attention is paid to major streaming giants, and they are taking up more and more of the market share, conventional Canadian broadcasters, both at the local and the national level, are being pinched out, and they know that.

The current circumstances not only create an uneven playing field, they also put Canadian broadcasters at a significant disadvantage in having to allocate their resources, when Internet giants simply do not have to do that. The Broadcasting Act clearly needs to be updated for the world that is dominated today by the Internet.

Unfortunately, the legislation that the government has put forward to us today is wholly inadequate in addressing the issues that I just laid out. Let us begin taking a look at what the government's main solution seems to be in Bill C-10. I think they are passing the buck solely to the CRTC. It is unfortunate the government is simply passing off the responsibility to the unelected body that has historically had many issues fulfilling its own mandate, particularly on this issue.

At the beginning of this year, the Canadian Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review panel tabled its report, known as the “Yale report”. In fact, I attended that news conference in Ottawa in January when the panel released its 94 recommendations. That news conference lasted almost two hours. There were plenty of questions directed at the panel, and it was directed by conventional broadcasters.

Many of them expressed concerns about some of the 94 recommendations that were made that day. The objective of the panel was to review the current broadcasting and telecommunications framework and present possible paths forward for Canadian broadcasting.

While I have my own issues with some of the recommendations in this report, one thing that has been raised as a major concern in my meetings with industry stakeholders is that the Yale report makes it clear that the CRTC already has the power to regulate Internet giants like Netflix. That surprised a lot of people.

If the CRTC can already regulate Netflix and its online counterparts, why has it not done so? Let us be clear here. The CRTC, the Canadian broadcasters and the government have all known for years what the impact of the unregulated online market is. It is crushing Canadian broadcasters. The CRTC done absolutely nothing with the power that it has to regulate, despite having had years to act.

One cannot help but wonder if the Canadian media today would be in a much better state if it were not for the CRTC's lack of desire to actually take some action. This bill would not change that. It simply reiterates it. It restates a power that the CRTC already has and has opted not to use, so why would it use it now? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the CRTC is going to change now, when there is no compulsion to do so.

Even if the CRTC decided to finally take the steps that it has had the power to do for years and regulate the web giants, I am highly skeptical that they would bother to enforce them. Sure, the government claims that this legislation before us today would modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers to ensure compliance with hypothetical regulations that the CRTC is not bound to actually make, but we already know that the CRTC does not necessarily use the powers that it is given.

On the specific issue of enforcement, I remember during my time as a broadcaster that when the licence renewal would come up every five years, everyone would be on their best behaviour in the station. Station management would make sure that everything was perfect for its hearings with the CRTC. Once it gave us the licence renewal, we would not hear from the CRTC again until five years later. The CRTC did not follow up to make sure we were abiding by the terms of our licence at all.

I also think about a more recent example of the CRTC simply failing Canadians. Earlier this year, at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CBC decided to pull Compass, its 30-minute local news program in Prince Edward Island. It is the only local news for P.E.I., and CBC took it off the air.

At a time when islanders needed their local news the most, the CBC abandoned them. What did the CRTC do? Absolutely nothing. It was only through the outrage of viewers in that area that the CBC brought Compass and the newscasts back to the people of Prince Edward Island.

If the CRTC is not going to act when Canadians need it the most, how can we expect it to actually act in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to Internet giants?

I remember an instance when Global doing something similar here in the city. In Saskatoon we had a newscast that actually came out of Toronto. The CRTC was unaware of that, but it has since been rectified in the city.

I think everyone here can understand my skepticism today of putting all of our eggs into one basket by dumping this onto the CRTC. However, for the sake of argument, let us pretend it is not an issue. Let us pretend that the regulator has absolutely no issues with fulfilling its mandate. Are there are any other problems with the bill?

Let us start with social media. The legislation does nothing to ensure that online platforms, such as Facebook and Google, that have built their businesses by sharing other people's content are paying their fair share. In fact, the bill absolves those companies from responsibility for content posted on their platforms.

Then we need to consider what measures are being proposed to make sure that conventional broadcasters are on a level playing field with digital platforms. The reality is there is nothing. It gives no guidance or explanation of how the regulations or guidelines should be created or drawn.

Finally, this legislation provides no guidelines at all as to whether or not digital platforms will be forced to meet the same Canadian content production rules or be required to make payments into the Canada Media Fund. All of our conventional broadcasters must still meet these requirements. This sounds nothing like levelling the playing field.

However, we should not worry if this does not go well, because the government is here to save the day. It can settle issues with an order in council afterwards. Instead of being clear with broadcasters and Canadians, the government is going to wait a little longer and potentially implement policy later. That is simply not a plan. Broadcasters cannot prepare for the future while these discussions and regulations are created behind closed doors.

Who could blame Canadians if they begin to wonder what the government is planning to implement that it is not willing to put in today's legislation. What is it hiding? The government has not told us.

Let us review. There is no guarantee that the CRTC will actually fulfill its obligations and produce regulations. It could have before, and it did not. If it does, will it enforce them?

What about the rules for platforms and conventional broadcasters? What are they going to look like? The bill does not tell us. We do not know what the rules around the Canada Media Fund or even Canadian content will be. There is nothing new for dealing with social media platforms.

What do we know? Well, not a lot, actually. What we do have is a lot of uncertainty.

The government is leaving the whole process up in the air with regard to the CRTC. Industry cannot be sure what the government is going to do to regulate in this area because it has totally neglected this in the past. Even if it does, it is going to take months for Canadians to hear anything from the CRTC, and that means months of more uncertainty at a time when our media industry is already greatly struggling.

I want to reiterate my serious concern about the legislation before us today. Canadian broadcasters and creators are struggling mightily. We know that. The government needs to do something to remedy the situation.

The power to regulate companies like Netflix already exists under the CRTC, but it has chosen not to act and this legislation does not compel it to. What reason do Canadians have to believe that the CRTC will bring in new regulations or that they will be enforced?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague clearly knows a lot about the industry regarding how it has developed over the years, the challenges it has gone through, the challenges it is dealing with now and where he thinks things need to go.

He pointed out a total of four problematic areas that he saw with regard to the bill. I realize from his comments that he sees a genuine concern and need to make adjustments as we go forward.

I have a simple question for him. Will he support the bill at this stage so that it can go to committee and he can contribute the extremely meaningful input that will produce a better bill at the committee stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough bill to support. I just gave a 20-minute speech about the reasons why I am hesitant to support it.

We all know that Canadian broadcasters are suffering, and the bill does little. It is disappointing because from 1991 to today, nearly 30 years, we have not touched this issue. In seeing the bill come out now, 28 years later, I ask the member this: What would a bill look like today if we went 28 years further, to 2048?

I am a little disappointed, and today I cannot not support the bill going forward in the House.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, which we are currently discussing, purports to institute a degree of governance.

In other words, web and video giants, including streaming services like Disney+, Amazon Prime and Netflix, would be subject to the Broadcasting Act. One might say it is about time.

Does my colleague think it is okay that digital giants have been calling the shots in this country for so long?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the bill has been 28 years in the making. Industry is changing fast right now, with the Internet and the technology changes. I wanted to see more about the Internet giants in the bill. We did not get that. The way Netflix, Spotify and others are going, this should have been considered first and foremost.

I am a little disappointed in the Minister of Canadian Heritage for not pointing that out in the bill. I have heard many people say today that it can go to committee and we will work on it. Why did the Liberals not work on it here? They have known the problems with the CRTC not regulating the industry, which is why we have a meltdown right now with Canadian broadcasters, but they have not dealt with it.

I am a little skeptical, going forward, to trust the CRTC because it has not dealt with this, even though we know about the carnage taking place in the broadcasting industry each and every day.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I share a number of concerns that the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood raised, particularly about web giants being required to pay their fair share and about supporting Canadian content and Canadian content producers. I certainly share his skepticism with regard to the efficacy of the government when it comes to making good on the commitments that it makes.

I recall hearing some of the member's Conservative colleagues speak against Canadian content requirements, saying they just create market distortions. I have watched as Conservative governments of the past made deep cuts to the CBC. I have watched as Conservative governments of the past criticized others, like the NDP, for raising the idea of taxing web giants. They called it a Netflix tax at the time.

The member had criticisms for the government, and we heard a lot of them in his speech, which is fair enough. However, I would like to know what the Conservative Party is proposing as a way forward to ensure not only that web giants pay their fair share, but also that we are able to support Canadian content and Canadian content creators. What are some constructive ideas that the Conservatives can put on the table? So far I am not aware of any, and I did not pick up on any in the member's 20-minute speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think foreign Internet broadcasters should be contributing to Canadian content. It is extremely tough for Canadian broadcasters to make 30% of their programming Canadian only and put it on during prime time, from 7:00 to 9:00 or 7:00 to 10:00 at night. The CFL and NHL are considered Canadian programming, but as we have seen with Corner Gas, Murdoch Mysteries and Schitt's Creek, we need a device to get more Canadian programming produced in this country so that we have avenues on CTV, Global, CBC and so on to put it on during prime time. We have seen the success of the three shows I mentioned.

As for the CBC, I think it needs to be modernized. Our leader, the member for Durham, mentioned this during the leadership race. He is exactly right that it does need to be modernized.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some of the stories and anecdotes the member shared were familiar to me, as I am somebody who has worked in radio and television.

I agree that the CRTC should be regulating Internet giants and we should be getting them to pay their fair share of taxes in this country. This is Disney, Amazon, Netflix and so on. What the member missed is DZAN, which is taking all of the sports broadcasting revenue that really helps with CanCon in this country. Sports programming is a cash cow for broadcasters and this has all been soaked up by DZAN. It is another company that needs to be taxed properly.

Would the hon. member agree that YouTube and Facebook are indeed publishers rather than platforms and that the information published on their websites by users should be regulated in terms of its content? A lot of misogyny, racism and misinformation is put on these sites. Would the hon. member agree that we should be treating these companies as publishers rather than platforms?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to stakeholders and industry people about this, and YouTube is completely unregulated in Bill C-10. It has been 28 years since we last updated the Broadcasting Act. Where do members think YouTube is going to be in the next 28 years? Should we be regulating YouTube? Sure we should be regulating it. That is my personal opinion. It is one thing we have talked to industry and stakeholders about. They are concerned that YouTube is not involved in this.

Only two provinces in Canada have a tax on Netflix. One is Saskatchewan and the other is Quebec. It is being taxed in only two jurisdictions, and I would say that it is getting away with murder in the rest of the provinces and territories.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood touched on something that is dear to my heart and that I know is to his. We should understand Corner Gas and where it comes from. Small communities in Saskatchewan and all over Canada are dealing with trying to make certain they are able to get the information they need.

When we talk about those communities, we can talk about Dog River and Wullerton. These types of communities are all over the place, and they understand the lack of access they have, particularly community newspapers, which are trying to level the playing field by getting federal legislation requiring Facebook and Google to pay for the news content they use from local and national publications.

I am wondering if the member sees any similarities between that comment and the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, with the replays of Corner Gas, set in Rouleau, Saskatchewan, it is more popular today worldwide, because it is going worldwide, than it was when it was first produced. Just this week, two old vehicles from Corner Gas were auctioned off and $1,800 was paid for a truck and $800 for the other vehicle. Rouleau has been put on the map worldwide because of Corner Gas. The main star of the program is Brent Butt, who is from Tisdale, Saskatchewan. The bill really needs to do some tinkering with regard to rural Saskatchewan and rural Canada.

We have heard of the production houses in Winnipeg, Toronto and Vancouver, but at the end of the day, some of the best programming has come from rural Canada. The member is correct that we should look into this. What are the stories that can be told in northern Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories?

Part of the bill deals with indigenous issues and others, and this is a great opportunity for Canadians. There is APTN, out of Winnipeg. When it was launched, everyone said it would not be successful, but I think today it is the voice of indigenous peoples in this country. It has done a fabulous job since it has been put on the board here in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I feel like the hon. member's producer down here, with this lifelong career radio personality. I am doing my best to manage his interventions this afternoon.

Before resuming debate, I wish to inform the House that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, the maximum time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I understand that broadcasting identified me as the member for Edmonton Manning. I am actually the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House administration apologizes. That has occurred from time to time in broadcasts, but we will make sure it is corrected. Of course the Journals, the Debates, will reflect the proper riding name of the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging this House sits on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

Canadians are enthusiastic early adopters of technology. Time and time again they have readily embraced the wide variety of broadcasting services available to them, foreign and domestic. These broadcasting services empower consumers with the ability to watch what they want whenever they want it and however they want it. The same goes for listening to music and hearing the news. Bill C-10 will not limit the ability of Canadians to access the programming platforms of their preference; rather, it will ensure the Canadian broadcasting system continues to meet the needs of Canadian consumers.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is the independent regulator of Canada's broadcasting systems. It requires television and radio stations and cable and satellite distributors to support the creation and display of Canadian stories and Canadian music. These are requirements that have been in place for decades and have resulted in greater investment and promotion of Canadian content and talent, including high-quality journalism, groundbreaking musical artists and compelling and acclaimed programming.

However, in the current regulatory framework, online broadcasters are exempt from most broadcasting regulations. In other words, they are not required to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system as is required of the traditional broadcasters. This is because the last time major changes were made to our Broadcasting Act was in 1991, before we experienced the new digital age and its challenges. We are well into the digital age now and it is time for our legislation to join us. It is time for online broadcasters to be treated the same as traditional broadcasters.

Bill C-10 would create a level playing field where all broadcasters have a fair chance to compete by ensuring that online broadcasters are subject to the same regulatory framework. Most importantly, it ensures that both traditional and online broadcasters contribute to a healthy and vibrant Canadian broadcasting system. For Canadian artists, this means securing sustainable funding that will allow them to continue telling stories and making music from a uniquely Canadian perspective. For most consumers this means the ability to access more content that will allow Canadians to see themselves, their communities and their stories reflected through different points of view. For Canada it means a stronger cultural unity, a shared national identity and a more inclusive society.

By presenting the content that is representative of different cultures, communities and languages from across Canada, broadcasting provides a window into the diverse experiences of Canadians. Made in Canada content is considered personally important to 78% of Canadians. It is clear that Canadians see value in seeing their stories on the screen and in hearing Canadian artists on the radio.

I am proud to say that the interest in Canadian content exists far beyond our borders. The hit show Schitt's Creek recently brought home nine Emmys, the film Indian Horse won an award at the 2018 San Diego International Film Festival and Quebec native Céline Dion is one of the best worldwide selling artists of all time. The list goes on. Including online broadcasters in the broadcasting regulatory framework could result in online broadcasters being requested to invest more than $800 million in our creators, music and stories by 2023. It could result in more Canadian successes being enjoyed and recognized abroad.

Whether getting traffic and weather updates or learning about the day's events from prime-time broadcasts, the broadcasting system is an important source of news for Canadians. Traditional broadcasters have long supported journalism and the delivery of local, regional and national news. By including a new policy objective that promotes the provision of news, including that produced by Canadians and reflecting Canadian perspectives from a variety of sources, we are strengthening the role of news in the broadcasting system.

Recognizing that a free and independent press is the cornerstone of our democracy, the bill would not contemplate the licensing of news organizations. However, the bill does create an equitable framework for broadcasting that will help safeguard news production. This way, traditional broadcasters who are important sources of news, and particularly local news, would be better able to compete with online broadcasting services.

The bill was also crafted to keep both online and traditional broadcasting services affordable for Canadians. We understand that, every day, Canadians are making difficult choices on how to spend their hard-earned dollars. This is especially true during these trying times.

Bill C-10 provides the CRTC with the ability to tailor regulatory requirements to specific business models. For example, the CRTC could impose mandatory Canadian programming expenditures on services that are already in the business of commissioning and producing content. Requiring services, such as Netflix and Crave, to spend a certain amount of money each year on Canadian content will help us move the needle on directing investments toward programming that is created and produced by Canadians, for Canadians. This will help the CRTC avoid imposing undue regulatory burdens on a particular service that would then result in raised prices for consumers.

These are just some of the ways that Bill C-10 would benefit Canadian consumers, creators and artists. The exemption for digital services was originally put in place to allow for the innovation and development of new online media services. In 2020, when Canadians mostly access programming online, these exemptions no longer make sense.

The inclusion of online broadcasters in the Canadian broadcasting system with regulatory clarity would promote the entrance of new players into the Canadian market. It supports a vibrant and healthy competition in the sector, creating additional pressures to keep costs down. For Canadian consumers, it leads to a wider variety of high-quality content, with a greater diversity of views in which Canadians proudly see themselves and their stories. After nearly 30 years, it is time to modernize our broadcasting system and to safeguard it for the future.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, workers in the broadcasting industry and our Canadian cultural workers are struggling. For many, time is running out.

Why does the bill punt the problem to the CRTC, which means it could take almost a year before we see any real change. The government has a tendency of making promises and then kicking the can down the road. It has done this with some of the most pressing issues of our time. Today, the government tabled a climate accountability bill that does not have any real accountability measures for the next 10 years. It says it supports pharmacare, but when?

It is so important that we support our cultural workers and workers in the broadcasting industry. If the Liberals truly want to fix their disastrous Netflix deal, why not do it now?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not agree with the terminology of kicking the can down the road. The CRTC is an organization that was established to focus on the industry and to do what is important for the industry in the interests of Canadians. Having the bill directed toward the CRTC and having these corrections in the hands of the CRTC is the appropriate place for them to be. I would liken it to going to see a surgeon when surgery is required, as opposed to going to a general practitioner. We are relying on an organization that has the strength, intelligence and experience to deal with the bill.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, and yet the government is not moving from words to action. What is the federal government waiting for? We still have questions, and I think they are worth asking.

We have been talking about medical assistance in dying since the beginning of this parliamentary session. Quebec is ahead on that front. Then there was the issue of conversion therapy. There again, Quebec is ahead. Since January 2018, web giants have been charging the QST, the Quebec sales tax. The federal government is watching the train leave the station. Meanwhile, the Liberals are able to build pipelines. Since January 2019, Amazon has had to charge QST, and even Facebook followed suit.

There is nothing in this wishy-washy bill to make the web giants collect taxes and make their contribution. There is nothing to ensure that there is Canadian content either. We know that culture is not very important to the Liberal Party.

Can my colleague tell us when the Liberals are going to require the web giants to charge tax?

Are they waiting for another pipeline or another train to go by?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is trying to move this bill forward. There is an opportunity, when this bill goes to committee, to listen to the suggestions that we have here. I am all for collaboration. I would like to see us have the benefit of the member's perspective, but let us do that in committee and let us implement that as we move the bill forward. We want to go ahead. All we need is to have the vote to take it to committee and start getting to work on this. Let us work together on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague from Newmarket—Aurora's speech and I am very interested in Bill C-10 and seeing it get to committee.

The member made the point that this treats the live-streaming digital giants in the same way that we would treat other parts of our economy. I want to ask him if we do not need an amendment to direct that, in the case of outfits like Twitter and Facebook that are actually gutting our Canadian journalism, they be treated as publishers and not this fiction that they are platforms. Then, all the rules of libel and slander, etc. would apply to them.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised some really good points. That is why it is important for us to get into committee, to hear that type of input so that we can build a better bill. The minister has said that he would welcome the other perspectives, we would welcome amendments and we would welcome collaboration so that we can move forward into the 20th century.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fredericton, Official Languages; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Marine Transportation.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here today to talk about Bill C-10, and more importantly, talk about the reality that we need to continue to protect Canadian content in our broadcasting systems, in all of our media. The other part of this conversation is about fairness and acknowledging web giants in this country have been getting off very easy. As they have been getting off very easy with very little content taxes, our people who fight for local Canadian content have been left behind.

I represent the beautiful riding of North Island—Powell River. It is the third-largest riding in British Columbia and it is part of Vancouver Island and is also on the Mainland. I am incredibly proud to represent these voices.

Recently, there was a huge storm in our riding. It was a mix of wind, thunder, lightning and snow, of all things. Snow is very rare in our part of the world. During that time, there were huge power outages and people were not sure what was going on. It was our local newspapers and radio stations that let people know what was happening, and if it was not for them, folks would have been isolated and alone. I can promise the House that none of the big web giants were concerned about what was happening in our riding.

I want to give a special shout-out to the local Port McNeill IGA. When people went without power for a long period of time, it had a beautiful BBQ to feed people. It said that if people had any money to give to please give and it would donate it, but if people could not, to just go there and they could get fed. Those are the people I am so incredibly proud to represent and those are the stories we as Canadians need to hear.

There are local papers in my riding: the Campbell River Mirror, the Comox Valley Record, the Powell River Peak and the North Island Gazette. They are always making sure we know what is happening in our riding. I respect them immensely. They are very small, and they get out there and make sure we record what is happening and let other people within our communities and region know what is happening locally in our community. They remember all of those communities, the little ones like Sointula, Woss, Whaletown, Van Anda, Alert Bay and many more.

Something particularly unique and special about Canada is that we have a huge land base and a small population, and people are living all over the place living important lives. These papers connect us. They work hard to keep us informed on what is going on nationally, internationally, and most importantly, locally. They tell us what is happening.

I think about Remembrance Day this year. It was very different than the Remembrance Day we are used to. Usually people are out together across all the communities. This time, people were waiting for the newspapers to share their recordings on social media. They were waiting to see the pictures. These are important roles, and if they were not there watching, it would not be happening.

The reality is they are facing a huge challenge. They are having to fight every day for their survival. Their huge competition are significantly bigger corporations like Facebook and Google. They are fighting them and trying to survive. All of those local papers use Facebook, which is an important tool. However, more and more people are using things like Facebook and Google to advertise, which means they are not getting the same amount of money that really helped them build their businesses.

I want to say it again, Facebook is not dedicated to our region. It does not show up at all the local events and it does not make sure to keep the history of our community. If people want to know what happened in their community in the past, where do they go? They look at old newspapers. That is where we learn about what happened and get those pictures of our ancestors who did things in the communities. That is an important part of carrying on our history.

We know when COVID came the challenges for our local newspapers only increased. In the middle of a pandemic, our local culture and media folks were worried about keeping their jobs. According to the Yale report, Google and Facebook have received nearly 75% of online advertising revenue in Canada. That leaves our local TV and newspapers only gaining 8.5% of all Internet advertising.

The CBC did a compilation that showed that in 2018-19, Ottawa spent $52 million advertising on web giants. That was five times more than the local Canadian platforms. That is devastating, and it tells us something very important, that we are seeing a decrease of support for local content.

I said earlier that I represent a rural and remote riding, with lots of communities that really need these meaningful jobs. When we see that unfair competition, we see that they are not getting to keep those jobs. This is another thing that we have to start addressing in this country, that rural and remote communities are challenged. We need to have a better strategy so that those economies can grow and blossom. The more we centralize, the less those communities flourish. We have to take some leadership on that. I am waiting to see the government do that.

This bill really punts it down the line. I know the last member who spoke disagrees with that, but we are giving it to the CRTC and saying, “Figure something out.” It has happened in other places. For example, in France, the cultural minister actually stood up and said that if they were going to go there and create content, they would have to pay taxes so that there could be local content.

If all of these web giants are going to be making money, they are going to have to pay their fair share so that our Canadian folks do not lose their jobs and we do not lose the history of our precious country.

Here we are again, discussing, and I did this in the last Parliament, the Liberal promise to make sure that web giants pay their fair share. However, again, this legislation has nothing around fair tax rules. That is what we need. Most people would remember when the Liberals made a big announcement that we were going to get money from Netflix, it would be great, it would be taxed a bit more. What did we all see across the country? Canadian rates for Netflix were raised to cover that cost.

We are talking about actually taking these guys on and making sure that they pay their fair share so that Canadians can remember their own content. We need to protect Canada's unique voice.

In my riding, I am so impressed with the Vancouver Island North Film Commission. Its leadership has been immense and has brought opportunities into our riding. It has really worked hard. I just want to say how much I respect the commission and how important that is. In fact, it locally connected with the North Island College not too long ago. It began training people.

What we are seeing is local people being trained in our local communities, and then working in the film industry in our region. This is so important.

In this country, we need to take leadership and say, “We have this immense country. We have rural and remote communities, and their economies are based largely on the resources. We do not want that to end, but we want to diversify so there is more stability.”

This is a place where resources could go from these big web giants, and make sure that these folks get the support they need to build important content that is Canadian, but also to maintain a diversity of employment, of good-paying jobs, in our regions.

When we talk about addressing these big web giants and their paying their fair share, we know that organizations like Amazon, Apple and Netflix can pay. While the reality in this country is that they are not paying, and are in fact undercutting our local content providers, we are not doing the right thing.

When we work on this bill, and I see some good things and I hear from the government that we should get into committee and make it work, I wish the government would be a little more ambitious. I wish the government would not wait for the opposition parties to tell them what to do.

When we get down to it, we have to protect local content. We have to look at our systems and make sure there is a diversity, so that when we look at our economy, we see that diversification happening across the board so that everybody benefits from it.

In closing I will simply say this, I come from a riding that has built this country. That is what rural and remote communities do. They have their economies that are largely resource-based, and they have built Canada. I want to thank them. We want to see some accountability in this House to make sure that those communities stop suffering and start having a more diverse and stable economy. It is simply time. It is definitely time to make sure those web giants pay their fair share.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as a professional artist myself for 40 years, I am also a member of the Canadian actors' union, ACTRA, and colleagues like Ferne Downey, Theresa Tova and David Sparrow have been lobbying governments for the modernization of Canada's Broadcasting Act, which is now Bill C-10, for years. They say that these proposed changes will help strengthen the industry and lead to increased investment in Canadian content production and, by extension, increased work opportunities for Canadian performers.

My question for the member, therefore, is this. Will she and the NDP be supporting this important legislation? It is a first step in doing the right thing for Canadian performers.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on committee with the member, and I enjoy our time together there.

I will simply say I think it is absolutely imperative that we take that next step and support this sector. We have seen the challenges it has faced and we need to see that support happen. What I am saying about this bill specifically is that I see some things that are strong in it, but what concerns me is the actual ability of the government to get out of the web giants' pockets and start holding them accountable, so that we can see that prosperity across the board.

Our sectors here have waited and waited for this, and we need to support them now. That needs to be our priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I was somewhat entertained by the previous question, and I am curious if my hon. colleague could speak to this legislation being important. As it is written right now, it seems like it is written for the sake of writing something on paper. It is going to need an awful lot more work, I would think, for it to actually be useful, important and viable.

I am curious if the member could comment on how much more work it actually needs.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my biggest concern is the urgency that this sector, the cultural sector, requires. Especially with COVID, we have seen already-struggling areas struggle more. This has been a particularly vulnerable sector where even getting COVID resources has been a huge challenge.

When I look at this piece of legislation, my concern is that it is getting kicked down the way and it is getting downloaded onto someone else. I understand the role of the CRTC. What I am asking is for us to take some leadership in the House. We are asking the government to take some leadership and make sure these big web giants pay their fair share. We are not asking anything unreasonable. We are asking them to pay their fair share, so that we can see the people in this sector actually begin to flourish more profoundly in this country.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would agree that francophones in Quebec and across the country may not be getting their fair share of air time on the networks.

If new taxes were to be imposed on Amazon and its ilk, would my colleague agree that 40% of the royalties collected should be go towards the production of French-language content? This is one of the demands of the Bloc Québécois.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very good-sized francophone community in my riding. I have spent time with them. They are very patient with me as I stumble along in my very poor French, and I want to thank them for that.

I think that it is absolutely imperative that we see a lot of francophone content in this country. This is a country that is built on two languages. This is so important. I also think it is important to see more investment happen in indigenous platforms as well. I know, for example, in my riding we have a radio station, The Raven, that is indigenous-led and is working toward having more language content on the radio station, as well. I think we need to see investments in that, just so that we remember the amazing diversity we have in our country.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House today from my riding in Toronto on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-10 is a crucial initiative that will bring the radio, television and telecommunications sector into the 21st century.

As we have previously heard in the speeches from many of my colleagues, the last major reform of the Broadcasting Act occurred in 1991. All of us have witnessed an incredible shift in the radio, television and telecommunications sector since that time. Back then the Internet was not even in its infancy: It was the purview exclusively of the U.S. military. I did not even obtain my first email address until about 1994, if memory serves correctly, when I was in my last year at McGill. It is incredible to think that an act drafted around basic radio and television technology, circa 1991, is still regulating the sector today.

Today, as parliamentarians, we are taking an important step forward in modernizing broadcasting regulation in Canada. Nowadays, we know that this sector has remarkably flourished and represents a unique opportunity to access culture. Many platforms have emerged, including Netflix, Disney+, YouTube and Spotify. These provide opportunities to share Canadian culture and content all around the world, also while consuming cultural content here at home that comes from several different countries.

However, online broadcasting services are currently not subjected to the same regulations as traditional broadcasting services. This bill would fix that basic inequality. Canadians greatly benefit from accessing foreign productions, but it is also essential to support our Canadian producers and creators, especially now during a pandemic, when showcasing Canadian content and telling Canadian stories is so critical to the well-being of all of us. This is something that we as a government have always sought to do since coming to power in 2015, by funding our national broadcaster the CBC, and by increasing funding to the Canada Council for the Arts as well as to Telefilm Canada.

However, one issue has remained a stubborn obstacle. How do we support Canadian content in an era when the methods for broadcasting are shifting massively, from radio and TV to online? Bill C-10 would fill this void by providing the CRTC with modern regulatory tools.

Canadians are increasingly using online platforms to access cultural content. For instance, it is estimated that 62% of Canadian households currently use Netflix. This dramatic shift has resulted in an increase of approximately 90% in online video revenues per year for the past two years. Meanwhile, conventional broadcasters have experienced a steady revenue loss of 1.8% per year for the past five years. These alarming statistics clearly demonstrate that the CRTC's regulatory framework needs to be adapted immediately to better support Canadian content producers in order to level the playing field.

Implementing the changes in Bill C-10 would quickly produce clear and concrete impacts. Let me give an example. By creating a new category of broadcasting under the online broadcasting category, Bill C-10 could lead to increasing contributions to Canadian music and stories by as much as $830 million by 2023. This is excellent news for our Canadian cultural sector.

Let me speak about diversity. In addition to levelling the playing field between the traditional broadcasting services and the web giants, by ensuring that web giants contribute to the creation, production and distribution of Canadian stories and music, this bill would also reflect where Canadian society is in 2020. The new regulatory framework outlined in Bill C-10 is focused on building a more inclusive cultural sector as part of the larger goal of building a more inclusive Canada.

Supporting diversity and inclusion is essential, and that it is exactly what Bill C-10 would do. Anglophones, francophones, racialized Canadians and Canadians of diverse ethnicities, socio-economic statuses, abilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions all deserve to be represented in our cultural sector. I cannot stop myself from thinking about all the kids out there, including my own brown-skinned South Asian children, who are watching shows and dreaming of their future. They have to know that their dreams can come true and they can achieve everything that they want. Seeing people who look like them in the shows that they watch is undoubtedly important. I know this as a parent. I know this as a racialized parliamentarian.

We know that representation is a key step to reaching better inclusion of marginalized groups. The logic that applied when we decided to put Viola Desmond on the $10 bill to ensure that all Canadians, including Black Canadians, could see themselves represented in our institutions, also applies here in the cultural sector. The more Canadians who can see themselves reflected in our cultural sector, be they religious or racial minorities or others, the better we are as a nation.

I want to also highlight the importance of improved support for indigenous cultures in our broadcasting sector. During the last Parliament, I was privileged to be asked by the Prime Minister to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of heritage. In that role at that time, I had the chance to work on co-developing with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders Canada's first ever Indigenous Languages Act. The work I did on Bill C-91 in the last Parliament deeply shaped my own understanding of the need to protect indigenous cultures and languages in order to empower first nations, Inuit and Métis people on Turtle Island.

By including concrete measures in this bill to better reflect indigenous cultures in Canada, Bill C-10 will contribute to that work of the revitalization of indigenous languages by ensuring that indigenous children have access to cultural content in their languages. Let me emphasize that Bill C-10 would have a real impact on the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages and cultures, which is fundamental to reconciliation.

I am also pleased to see that the broadcasting system will be adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities. There is a lot of work ahead of us in order to build a more inclusive Canada for people living with disabilities. Ensuring that programming on TV, radio and online is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities is a step in the right direction.

When I speak about my riding of Parkdale—High Park, I know that promoting arts and culture is a very important issue not only for my riding, but indeed for all Canadians. I want to highlight, for example, that just last week Warren P. Sonoda was elected president of the Director's Guild of Canada. I had the opportunity to work with Warren on important roles when I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage. I am thrilled to see what he will accomplish while holding that position. I want to credit the work by outgoing former DGC president, Tim Southam.

My riding of Parkdale—High Park is known for many people like Warren and Tim. It is known for great artists, wonderful creators and important film and TV producers. I am speaking for example of Dave Forget, currently on the national executive team for the Director's Guild, having previously worked for 14 years at Telefilm. He has spent most of his life working in the film industry, and I am proud to call him a constituent.

Additionally, professor Chris Romeike in my riding did the cinematography on the recent movie The Inconvenient Indian, which was based on Thomas King's bestseller. It explores the cultural colonization of indigenous peoples in North America and was deemed by the producers of TIFF as the one must-see film at TIFF this year.

I want to congratulate so many people: Paul Barkin, Mary Young Leckie, John Turner, David Makin, Alain Zweig, Jasmin Mozaffari and Ali Kazimi, for all of their important and award-winning work and contributions to the film and TV sectors. Ferne Downey, who was mentioned in the context of the previous speech, is my constituent. She was previously the head of ACTRA and is now the head of the International Federation of Actors.

I could keep going much longer, but I will mention one last person: Jeff Churchill, of Jitterbug Boy, an original footwear company in my riding whose shoes are being made for a variety of shows such as the upcoming Batman film. What is important about that last reference is that when we support the Canadian cultural centre, we are also supporting all of the derivative economic benefits that come from supporting film, TV and our content creators. That is what Bill C-10 will enable us to do by better funding the sector and levelling that playing field. This is a critical piece of legislation.

We know that financial support for Canadian content will decline as the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters continue to decrease. Bill C-10 is the first step in aiming to fully modernize the broadcasting system in Canada to ensure that both traditional and online broadcasting contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system. Our Canadian producers deserve to be operating in a fair situation where the rules are equal for everyone. Allowing the CRTC more powers to modernize the regulatory framework is important, by imposing more regulations on online broadcasters, as is simultaneously ensuring the regulatory independence of the CRTC.

In conclusion, as I have outlined, Bill C-10 is about ensuring fair and equitable treatment between traditional and online broadcasters. It is about better representation of Canadian society in our cultural sector. I am incredibly proud of our Canadian cultural sector, and in particular the role it is playing in buoying Canadian spirits and easing Canadian anxieties during the COVID-19 pandemic. I know that with the right tools, our Canadian creators will continue to keep producing terrific Canadian content for years to come. Bill C-10 is one of the tools we need to maintain our support for Canadian creators. The work of passing it should not be a partisan issue, nor should it be delayed. We cannot afford to wait 30 more years before modernizing the act. The time to act is now.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what happens if companies like Netflix cannot comply with the new regulations? An organization like Netflix would have to make a decision between cutting the service or complying with the new regulations. What does the member think Netflix should do? Take the company home and stay in the United States or actually offer Canada some decent service?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one. It deals with freedom of contract and the way economic activity operates.

At this stage, when we have Netflix with as much penetration as it has in the Canadian market and we see other nation states taking the exact same actions that we are taking, we are proceeding and leading in helping to level the playing field. We will get to the point where domestic content production is protected by various nation states. The notion of Netflix retreating from Canada and going to some other haven that does not have the same sort of content requirements will be far-fetched. That is not the future I envisage.

Is it time to be more strict and enforce rules against online giants? It is. We are doing something that other nations are doing, but we are also leading other nations where we need to get to, and that is ensuring that Canadian content, which was always supported by the radio and TV sector, is also supported by the online sector.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

He clearly pointed out that Canadians and communities that are racialized or diverse, have a certain economic status or have disabilities should also be included in Bill C-10.

Why does this bill not make more reference to the linguistic minority, in this case the francophones who live all across the country, especially in Quebec, of course, but also in other parts of Canada? Does he believe that these groups should have greater prominence in this bill?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I would also like to point out that I learned a great deal of French in Trois-Rivières in 1992.

The answer is yes, of course we must promote the cultural content of any sector here in Canada, such as linguistic minorities, especially francophones outside Quebec and also those living in Quebec.

I am thinking of the great filmmaker Denys Arcand, and also the first-rate Canadian content that men like Mr. Arcand have spread across Canada and around the world. That is why I pointed out that all minority groups, such as racialized people, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and also francophones outside Quebec, must have support. This bill will give them that support.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian cultural sector is a key driver of sovereignty and the development of a strong multicultural Canadian identity. The film and television industry in British Columbia is incredibly important to the economy of Vancouver, B.C. and , in fact, all of Canada. CBC and Radio-Canada are treasured public voices that bind our nation in ways that commercial broadcasters do not.

How does my hon. colleague see Bill C-10 contributing to these institutions and industries? What is the main value of this bill in his view?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for that insight. The most direct application for a place like B.C. and a city like Vancouver or the Lower Mainland is the fact that it already serves as a large centre for film and TV production work in particular.

By creating a bill like Bill C-10, which has the potential of raising almost a billion dollars for a Canadian content production, we can help shift some of that production to localities like Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, for example. They could attract that work, not just work that is a shipped over production element from Hollywood, for example, but, rather, producing good Canadian content that is Canadian stories and Canadian productions on Canadian soil. The potential of this bill is about that.

There certainly is a lot more work to be done, but I am very appreciative of the tremendous work that has always been done out of Vancouver in the film and TV sector, and we want to promote more of that through a bill like this.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a tremendous number of speakers have spoken to this issue in the last two days. I could ditto what my colleague from Saskatoon had to say. He was fantastic. He knows the industry. There have been some great speeches and a lot of good questions.

Some people may remember when they had to turn the channel on the TV, but let us go back a little further. I can remember when there was one radio station we listened to. At Christmastime, we would gather around to listen to the Queen's message on Christmas day.

I remember radio shows where they started with somebody walking down a hallway, knocking on the door and saying “Who's there? It's the happy gang”. I go back a little ways on that one. We got to listen to the The Shadow. If we were good in school, the teacher turn on the World Series, because the games were not played at night. It was always a treat if a teacher would let us listen to the World Series on the radio.

Then, when we got our first TV, I wondered what all those numbers were around the dial. What was 1 and 13 and all those other numbers? We had one channel. When we turned the TV on, we saw a test pattern for half an hour in the afternoon before a program started. If people think they know about old-time TV, I do not think so.

Let us look at the 1950s in the sense of TV and what happened in September and October 1956 and January 1957. One of the highest rated shows in the U.S. in the 1950s was Elvis Presley on The Ed Sullivan Show. However, we saw censorship for the first time when, in that 1957 show, they were only allowed to broadcast him from the waist up. People did not want to be exposed to “Elvis the Pelvis”. The cry of people was that the world had all gone to hell, because Elvis was on public TV. That was censorship back then, and I think that might be some of the concerns we have today.

Where were people during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962? We were all watching the TV. When we went home from school, we did not know if we were coming back the next day. In 1963, Walter Cronkite and Knowlton Nash covered the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In 1966, we got the first colour television. I remember watching Bonanza for the first time in colour. In 1969, people were glued to their TVs to watch the landing on the moon.

We had an interesting show called This Hour Has Seven Days, with Laurier LaPierre and Patrick Watson, which ran from 1964 to 1966. Why did that show disappear? A lot of people out there would suggest that the establishment could not take the rapid fire from Watson and LaPierre, so that program was cut.

When the Vietnam War came along, I was on both sides of the border, getting my university degrees. When I read the media from both sides of the border, it was like a different war. Which one was right? Was it censorship or was it fake news, depending on which country one was in? I did research for a political science professor who, as a research assistant, later testified in Senate hearings about information that was not in the news. It was interesting.

These kinds of things have been around for a while. We now have a bill that has been moved. Supposedly, it is a whole different era when we talk about all these things. We are just beginning to learn about some of the things out there, such as Twitch and Reddit. I just learned about things like Facebook and Twitter, but now we have new ones like Twitch and Reddit. The younger generation knows them, but most of the people who are a little older or a little younger than me have no idea what they are.

One of the things from the Yale report, which is also in this bill, is talk about strengthening the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada. This is interesting because we have talked about rural broadband for years. The government is talking about getting something done by 2026. It has said that we will have a 50 download/10 upload. In the agricultural sector that is not quick enough. The government talks about it as at the last community, but we need it at the last farm gate.

If we want the economic fabric of Canada strengthened, we need much better than that. We have companies like Telus that are now buying up agricultural companies, which is fantastic. However, what our agriculture sector needs in downloads/uploads is much more than 50/10 if we are to strengthen the economic fabric of our country.

We need to deal with broadband. We need to see how that can be improved or we will not strengthen it, whether it is with broadcasting or not. However, it is part of the social media that needs to be developed in rural areas.

There are other things we need to do. One of the things proposed in the Yale report, and I do not see it in the bill, which is a good thing, was that anyone who sat on the CRTC board had to live in the capital region. What a divisive recommendation, that someone has to live in the capital region to be on the CRTC board. That one did not show up, which is good. A lot of things came out of that Yale report. I hope the CRTC does not pick that one up and implement it up under the regulations. It would not be good.

The Yale report also talked about news and current events being reported in the media. It talked about regional, local, national and international. What did not show up in this bill? It includes local, regional and international news, but not national news. National news and current events have been left out of the Bill C-10, which is very interesting because the Yale report included it.

In recent times, many of my constituents have said that Global TV, CTV and CBC might as well be U.S. channels because they carry more U.S. news than Canadian news. With the appointment of the Supreme Court justice in the United States, we would have thought we were in the United States, given the amount of coverage it received. My constituents have asked me why our national broadcasters do not cover more Canadian news and why they are infatuated with the U.S. It is a good point. There is a lot of local stuff out there, but they are infatuated with what goes on below the 49th parallel apparently.

We can look at the things in the bill and ask if can be strengthened, can it get to the news stuff, will people who work in Canada be taxed. I do not know whether the bill covers this. I do know something about local content. I live in a community of about 15,000 people. Three documentaries have been done on this community in the last 15 years and a proposal for the fourth one is being developed.

The documentaries 24 Days in Brooks, Brooks: The City of 100 Hellos and From Sherbrooke to Brooks have won a number of awards at film festivals. There are great local stories and great local content out there and we need to have those stories told.

As I said, many people have addressed Google and Facebook. The problem I have with this is the federal government is spending zillions of dollars on advertising on these foreign platforms. I only have weekly newspapers in my riding and they cover the real news in my communities. They cover the municipal governments, the school boards and minor hockey. They cover all the events in the communities and they talk about what is happening.

Major newspapers are not going to cover that. Where did the federal print advertising go for local weekly newspapers? It went to the international big guys. The local papers that actually produce the real stories on what goes on in communities has lost that advertising. That advertising has gone out of the country; Canadian taxpayer money has gone out of the country. That is not right. We need that print advertising to support our local papers, which produce the real stories in our communities.

I do not think amendments will fix this bill, but we can try in committee. I have been in a lot of committees where we have attempted amendments. The government, which writes the legislation, is not very friendly to amendments unless it is for itself. Therefore, it will be a challenge to amend this legislation. There are some big challenges with it. It will go to committee, but I do not think it will get fixed.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about indigenous broadcasting, but first I want to thank him for his trip down memory lane. It was very fun.

I want to correct a couple inaccuracies about broadband and the great work that the broadband minister has been doing in connecting, already, over a million people. The member mentioned 2026 being the start of the action, but actually it is close to the end. By then, 98% of Canadians will be connected.

I want to give a big shout-out to Canadian indigenous broadcasters. Northern Native Broadcasting in the Yukon does a tremendous job. I hope it gets increased funding through the local content ramifications of the bill. I know the member is a big supporter of indigenous people and I am sure he is in support of the local indigenous production of their own stories that this bill would help.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from my colleague. I am glad to hear that some of us still remember some of those things down memory lane.

Yes, there are tremendous indigenous stories in my riding. I have an indigenous constituent who has been able to acquire two white buffalo. Those are the rarest buffalo in North America. The story of how he acquired those and what he is doing with the two white buffalo is fantastic. I spent about three hours at his place listening to the stories of the white buffalo and their significance.

On broadband, I have people who have very large farming operations. It is not going to work at 50/10. It is just not enough and will not work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member drifted off topic there a bit and mentioned some of the rural newspapers, which are the lifeblood of my riding as well. I think I have 14 weekly newspapers, and I want to give a shout-out to The Valley Voice, a biweekly newspaper based in New Denver in the Slocan valley. They have talked to me many times about the lack of government support for their efforts, which are really widely read. They are an essential part of getting the news out in the rural parts of my riding.

Can the member expand on what other supports he could see the government giving those sorts of newspapers, either online or in print?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really good to hear other people talk about their weekly and rural newspapers. They are incredible sources of information. They have real facts. There is no fake news in them. There is no sense of dispute on what they are talking about because they are printing those for the people in the local communities who would know better if they did something that was not accurate. They do a great job of covering the real events. During COVID, that is where people got a lot of real information about what was happening in their community. The major dailies are not going to cover what is going on in those small communities, but the rural ones do. It is phenomenal.

They are looking for advertising dollars. They do not want a handout. They want the advertising dollars that have gone to the international companies and media platforms. That is our taxpayer money going somewhere else.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay and point out that there are lots of newspapers in my area. However, where he would only mention one, I can say the Penticton Herald, The Daily Courier, the Kelowna Capital News, the Merritt Herald, the Peachland View, and they go on. Because all politics is local, I appreciate the work they are doing every day.

To this issue, government members today continue to play this game where they say they will be investing $800 million in new Canadian content. The thing is that they seem to neglect to mention where the money is going to come from. They may pretend it is going to be the big companies who will pay for it, but at the end of the day, the big companies are not the ones who pay the subscription fees.

Could the member please electrify the House with who is actually going to be paying the bill?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I know that when they begin to change those, the companies are not going to leave, as may have been suggested earlier. Netflix is not going away. The new platforms that are out there that a lot of students were on during the last eight months, the social media, those platforms are not going away. If they are faced with increasing costs, it is going to be the subscribers who pay for it. The subscribers are going to be paying those costs. It will not be anybody else except the user at the bottom end.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this member offers a lot to the discussion today.

I have heard what he has had to say about this, but one of the concerns that I have, and I am continually hearing this from the Conservatives, is that they talk about the one or two problems they might see with the bill. This bill is at the first stage. If they are genuinely interested in seeing change, they would support the bill and send it to committee. This member said that the government members are the ones who run the amendments, but no, we are in a minority Parliament right now. All this member needs to do is get together with some other opposition members, and he can get his amendments into the bill.

Would he not at least support sending the bill to committee, so that he can bring forward his fine amendments he has been talking about so that they can be made part of the bill and make it a better piece of legislation?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the member for Kingston and the Islands. He has a fine mind for history. He understands history, respects it and comes from a community that is deep in history. I really appreciate listening to him when he talks about the history of his community. We have worked on committees together.

He may be right. One never knows. We might be surprised if this is sent to committee, and I think it will probably be sent to committee. However, I am not sure what we will get for amendments to fix a bill that has a lot of challenges in it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have a brief note. I know we are attentive to the rules that we would normally have in the House. Slogans and the pronunciation of views on controversial topics in our everyday clothing are not within our rules. I so enjoyed the last speech that I did not want to interrupt, because I agreed with what the member had to say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member for bringing up that point of order. I did not quite hear the end of it. It was cut off.

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

Madam Speaker, the rules of this place are clear. We cannot wear t-shirts that proclaim support for one view or another, nor can we wear buttons that have large declarations on controversial issues as a member of Parliament in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member very much. I would tend to think that was for the previous speaker. I would ask all members to make sure they respect the decorum of the House. Even though we are doing it virtually, it is still considered to be in the House.

I do appreciate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands's raising that. I am sorry. We just did a transition in the Chair and I did not notice that, so I thank the member very much.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to and give some thoughts on Bill C-10, which makes amendments to the Broadcasting Act with respect to changes the government is proposing.

As a parliamentarian, when I first learned of the legislation and began doing research on it, I realized it is important to give some context as to why this act requires amendments. It is 29 years old. To give some context as to what was happening in the broadcasting and entertainment industry back in the day, I was three years old. I do not remember when the original Broadcasting Act came into force in the Parliament of Canada very well. Bryan Adams was topping the charts, and the relevant music was by Paula Abdul and Boys II Men. I am not denying it was great music, just a little older. It was six prime ministers ago.

Three decades later, I think there is consensus among the parties in the House that we need to tackle this legislation and make updates to reflect the reality we are in today. The bill proposes to update a huge part of what was not there in 1991 regarding Internet and social networks. Today, if we go through the list, we have Facebook, Google, Netflix, Crave, Spotify and Apple Music. All these online platforms are new to the rules the federal government must regulate around. They are not the same as the conventional players we had when this act was enacted back in 1991. It is key that we find a balance between conventional media and the new online platforms we have around today.

Having said that, I am disappointed with the government side and not very happy with or supportive of the legislation as it stands today, not necessarily because of the direction it takes regarding some angles, but the lack of direction and answers we are getting on this.

Like many pieces of legislation, I would say there are parts I support and parts that I oppose. There are far too many I am not satisfied with, that would need serious amendments for me to support it in the end. I want to be clear when I say that. The frustration I am sharing regarding Bill C-10 is not because I do not believe we need or do not need to modernize the law; rather it is because of the many shortcomings I am hoping to address in my time here today.

I want to commend our shadow minister, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who kicked off the debate on this legislation. As a Quebecker, a Canadian and a francophone, he gave some great context about the importance of getting this legislation right.

In my time today, I want to talk about two things. One is Canadian content. Of course we all want more Canadian content. I also want to talk about the aspect of conventional broadcasters to give my constituents of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry who are watching this clip, or Canadians who may not be familiar with this legislation, the rules and background around it.

There is a rule for conventional broadcasters in this country that anywhere between 25% to 40% of their content must be Canadian. When we talk about conventional broadcasters, it is important to understand who they are. We are talking about CTV, Citytv, CBC and Global. Those companies have an easier time of meeting the requirement for Canadian content because they broadcast sports and have news programming. They also have to contribute a percentage of funds to the Canada Media Fund, which supports the production of Canadian content in this country. As parliamentarians, the challenge we face is that we need to debate and have good legislation on where these online platforms fit into that. Netflix has talked about wanting to create more Canadian content, but it is concerned, and this is where we get into a bit of red tape, that it is harder for it to meet that threshold because it does not have the sports and news programming a conventional broadcaster does.

Here is the crazy part and where the red tape is outdated and needs updating. My colleague, the shadow minister, mentionedThe Decline in his speech, a Quebec feature film that was done in partnership with Netflix, and I believe was filmed in his riding. It used Canadian actors, had a Canadian crew and was filmed in Quebec. The economic impact was that it brought over $5 million in economic growth to the province of Quebec. It checks all the boxes, except it could not be certified as Canadian content because it was financed and produced by Netflix, which is not recognized.

This speaks to where we literally have millions of dollars in economic development and a film based in Quebec with Canadian actors that cannot get recognized with some of the red tape and rules that are in place today. Netflix is trying to make an effort, but cannot get there. One would think that, when we talk about updating Bill C-10 and modernizing some of these laws, it would encompass some of those areas. Unfortunately, from what we have seen to date, without serious amendment, I do not believe it is there.

One of the concerns we have with the legislation before us is that, for a lot of these parts, it would kick the can down the road on a lot of these decisions, saying that there is the intention to do something but will let the CRTC come up with the rules, regulations and deadlines on it. However, as a Parliament, I believe it may be our role to set those benchmarks. As well, there are provisions in the bill that would take away Parliament's ability to scrutinize some of these decisions and give that ability over to the CRTC.

To my colleagues on the government side or any party that, when my constituents ask me what I did to support Canadian content and the industry in Canada, if I were to say that I supported a bill that passed it over to the CRTC to deal with, I do not think they would be very happy with that.

I apologize in advance to the interpretation team because I am still in the process of learning French.

I am an anglophone from the very anglophone Dundas County, where there is not a lot of French-language content. There is a little in the Township of North Dundas and Dundas County.

Nevertheless, I feel that French-language content is very important, and not just for people living in Quebec or for francophones, but for all Canadians. Canada needs lots of French-language content for people like me who want to study a second language, as well as for people who want to get to know French and francophone cultures.

A law like this would mean we would have to pass even more laws. I do not think this law is acceptable because it is not nearly good enough.

One thing we need to do is send Bill C-10 to committee. As we debate the bill in the coming weeks and months, likely with the Christmas recess coming up, I would encourage my colleagues on the government side and perhaps other parties that may be inclined to support the bill to make sure that we are modernizing, that we do not have a piece of legislation to say that we checked a box to make amendments to the Broadcasting Act, but rather have tangible, meaningful ways that update conventional broadcasters in the online industry.

We can all agree that we need modernization of this law. We can agree that we need to have more online platforms, get with the times and understand what is there. However, this legislation as a whole would kick the can down the road and would not address a lot of the key issues that Canadians expect with legislation such as this.

I am supportive of more francophone and French content, LGBT content and first nations content, absolutely, but it is our Parliament with the oversight that we deserve here to hold the government of today and future governments accountable to those rules. We can go back to our constituents to say that we are doing meaningful things, not passing it to another body and not reducing transparency, but making it stronger than ever.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10 today. I look forward to following the debate in the coming months and, as always, I look forward to questions from my colleagues on the legislation.

[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, I appreciate the member's approach in dealing with the legislation.

The member is right in the sense that a lot has changed and that we need to modernize the legislation. I suspect that I have a little more confidence in the CRTC than the member opposite as I see the high level of expertise that is there, but I share the concern regarding how important it is that we have Canadian content. I think we could find some common ground.

The member is right in the sense that, if by chance, the bill went to the committee stage prior to us recessing, it would provide the committee the opportunity to do a little more work potentially. Does the member have some specific amendments in mind that he may have shared with the department? I would encourage him to share, particularly with the minister, who I know would be open to changes that would improve the legislation.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Winnipeg North adding more comments, as he does on many pieces of legislation.

There is unanimous agreement that we need more Canadian content. The issue is how best to do that. We will hear more from our shadow minister. His opening speech was about 20 minutes and it gave a lot of details. It talked about the Quebec feature film, about updating the rules to say that players like Netflix have the opportunity to create more Canadian content and about some of the red tape and rules around how we can do that.

That is certainly part of what we want to do, not just our Quebec team or our francophone team. We will be coming up with a lot of suggestions and perhaps amendments.

Respectfully, we are going to need some serious changes and a commitment to serious changes at committee or before final reading, if I am to support it. I will follow this and see what happens. My commitment is always to try to be constructive and give ideas to get more Canadian content in the coming months.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest. The problem we are dealing with is that we have the best solution of 1995 for a problem of 2020. We all agree about the incredible power of the Canadian cultural industries, and that is now an issue we can expand internationally. That is the one issue.

The other is, how do we hold the tech giants accountable? To turn it over to the CRTC is ridiculous. We have a couple of key issues here. Facebook is still not paying taxes. We will not see the Liberal government tell Mark Zuckerberg to pay tax. If Facebook paid taxes, we would have a lot of resources, but the Liberal government will not do that.

The safe harbour provisions allow Pornhub to host child pornography right in Canada. The Liberal government will not take on the safe harbour provisions, because it will not stand up to Google or Facebook. It will punt it to the CRTC and tell us how great it was back when we had the King of Kensington, and we could do those days again. Those days are gone.

We need a plan to deal with the tech giants and to hold them accountable, the way other jurisdictions are. Then we need to discuss how we promote Canadian content. There are two issues, but they have been blurred into this menage that is not coherent.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find myself saying this too much when we have these debates, but I agree with the member for Timmins—James Bay. I cannot believe I am saying this, that we have some agreement on the frustrations.

I go back to the member's point about kicking the can over to the CRTC. Parliament needs to be more active in the promotion of Canadian content and in the regulation of this. I agree with him when we talks about the giant tech companies like Facebook and Google.

The frank reality is that we need to have more tough conversations about these companies and what they are doing. We can talk about MindGeek and Pornhub and what they are not doing from a perspective of revenue and contribution to our Canadian economy, but also from a public safety perspective.

I was horrified to see a story in the last few days, I think it was in The New York Times. It talked about MindGeek and the lack of protections. In the year 2020, for all the advancements we have made in online broadcasting and technology, to still have these gaps from a tax perspective, a government perspective, a privacy perspective and safety against children from being victims of sex trafficking, sex crimes perspective, whatever it may be, says a lot.

I will go back to the same thing about Bill C-10. It does very little to actually resolve the key issues that Canadians want to see addressed.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-10. To quote the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the official background documents for the legislation, it states unequivocally:

Canadians have a right to recognize themselves in the music they listen to and the television they watch. We are proposing major changes to the Broadcasting Act in order to ensure online broadcasting services that operate in Canada contribute to the creation, production and distribution of Canadian stories.

I share the minister's support of Canadian music, movies and television, or as I will call it throughout this speech, CanCon. However, the bill may do exactly the opposite of supporting CanCon. It is not about the intent of a bill but about the reality, and I believe we will all see room for some serious concerns on this issue during my talk today.

I would like to point out that notwithstanding any criticisms I make, changes need to be made to rules surrounding production and creation of CanCon. We need to revisit the content qualification rules that specify whether something is Canadian. We heard a great example in the speech just prior to mine about a production in Quebec that did not qualify as CanCon even though it was produced in Canada and told Canadian stories.

There is a real need to look at these thresholds. However, when we dig deeper into what is being proposed by the minister, his commentary about wanting to licence Canadian Internet content producers, the realities of digital content creation and the big tech corporations that dominate the media landscape today, it becomes apparent to me that the bill has serious shortcomings. The bill may lay the foundation in the future for a series of government interventions that have the potential to damage the creative and innovative Canadian media producers in the digital field.

On November 3, the day the legislation was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, several Canadian media experts spoke out publicly against Bill C-10.

An article published in The Globe and Mail, for example, entitled “Broadcasting bill targets online streaming services”, mentions digital media expert and University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist. I have enjoyed reading his daily blog posts on this issue. It is very informative. He said that the policy foundation behind Bill C-10 was very weak and that the government's claims that the Canadian film and television production industry was in crisis was not supported by evidence.

Mr. Geist said, “The truth is that the market has been working...well as Canada being an attractive place to invest in these areas.” He further stated that what was actually at risk was that some of the largest investors in film and television production would pull back until they had more certainty on their obligation and that new services would think twice before entering the Canadian market.

Perhaps more concerning for the government is that in that same news article, the well-known advocacy group, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, which specifically promote Canadian content, called the bill “a mess that fails to ensure the companies are subject to specific requirements for using Canadian production teams.”

I am personally concerned by the fact that the legislation does, as mentioned by the member prior to me in his speech, give a vastly enhanced range of abilities to the CRTC. For example, it grants it full enforcement powers, while at the same time providing no fulsome detail as to the guidelines for Canadian content production and future contributions to the Canadian media fund.

Despite asking MPs to vote in support of the legislation, it is hard to shake the fact that the lack of details creates a situation where we have to trust the government and see the details later. We should all find that problematic.

To go back to some comments made by Mr. Geist, the law professor in Ottawa, the primary concern to examine, in his view, is that the policy foundation for the bill is weak. He has stated that CanCon is not in crisis and the level playing field claims are misleading. The example of the CanCon production here is relevant. The minister has acknowledged that foreign-based streaming companies are investing directly into Canada, but the minister wishes to compel such investments to be made mandatory.

In the words of Mr. Geist, this indicates a lack of confidence in our ability to compete and in fact flies in the face of all the evidence. Just hear me out here.

The CRTC chair, Ian Scott, has already said that Netflix is probably the biggest single contributor to the Canadian production sector today. The Canadian media industry has received record amounts of investment for film and television production. Over the last decade, investment levels have nearly doubled. Certified Canadian content has grown, with two of the largest years on record for CanCon television production having taken place within the last three calendar years. Last year was the biggest year for French language production over the last decade.

When we dig down into the available provincial data, we will find further evidence of production levels setting new records. Earlier this year, the Ontario government's agency for cultural creations, called Ontario Creates, announced that it had a record-breaking year for Ontario's film and television sector, with more than $2 billion in production spending for well over 300 productions.

Professor Dwayne Winseck at Carleton University is on record. In his annual review, he finds film and television production in Canada has continuously increased for two decades, most recently driven by massive investments from streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime.

These facts and figures show that the basis for which the minister claims Bill C-10 is necessary are actually contrary to reality and once again raises the issue of the unintended consequences of interfering in the wrong way in this sphere.

The second issue noted by Mr. Geist is that as opposed to creating certainty, the bill would create enormous short-term uncertainty. For those companies that do invest, they may not know if their investments will count.

I suspect that Amazon, Netflix and these types of companies will keep investing regardless of whether the bill is passed or not. However, many smaller streaming services, BritBox, Spuul, Crunchyroll, are not household names, but are among dozens of streaming services that have emerged in recent years to serve a global audience. Unless the CRTC provides specific exemptions for these niche services, many are likely to forgo the Canadian market entirely, given all the new regulatory costs. Many multicultural markets will be especially hard hit by what will amount to, by the bill, a regulatory firewall in Canada.

Another very interesting point that has been raised by certain critics is the topic of trade threats and retaliatory tariffs. This concern should be on all of our radar screens. According to Mr. Geist, in this case, Bill C-10 violates the general standards in the USMCA. The government is relying on the cultural exemption to allow for this, yet even with the exemption, the U.S. will still be entitled to levy retaliatory tariffs.

Given the claims by the minister that this will generate billions of dollars in financial benefit for the industry, the retaliatory tariffs could be enormous and given the reworked structure of the USMCA, the tariffs the U.S. launches against Canada need not be limited to cultural tariffs. It could target any sector it likes. This is a potential concern that needs to be examined.

The legislation is likely to result in less competition and higher costs. If we generate large revenues, we will face mandated CanCon payment requirements that make no sense given the content. If we stay small, we will still have to comply with disclosure requirements that have no real incentive to grow past the threshold. That is assuming we see an actual threshold as none was listed in this legislation. This will result in less competition and less choice for the Canadian market.

I believe that the Netflixes and the Amazons will continue to invest, but as I mentioned earlier, some of the start-up companies that have specialized content, maybe multicultural content, will not know whether to invest in Canada or not because of the uncertainty around the bill. This will lead to a scenario where they will just avoid investing in Canada. We need to think about what this mean for the future of Canadian content.

My view is that the bill is not protecting Canadian sovereignty. The legislation basically surrenders it to the Internet giants. Therefore, they will keep investing here, but I do not know if it opens up the ability for some of these other start-ups to do so. They will become the dominant funders and purchasers of Canadian content. Canadian broadcasters may not be able to compete for Canadian content, given the desire of the giants to meet their CRTC obligations. This would force big decisions to Amazon and Netflix and leave Canadian broadcasters and smaller streaming services on the outside looking in.

I would ask all of us here to heed the warnings of different experts who have raised valid concerns, whether they be trade or investment related, and let us take a look at amending the bill in a way that will answer those concerns.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I am a very firm proponent for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but after hearing my colleague's comments on Bill C-10, I believe him to be of the view that there should be very limited regulation on the part of the government with respect to the information that is disseminated on the Internet through web giants, as he describes them.

I would ask him if he believes there should be some role for government to play with respect to regulating information that appears online, for example, anti-vaccine campaigns or other information that is not based on science.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians and others need to be free to raise concerns, whether on the Internet or elsewhere. Obviously things that are illegal, that inspire violence or incite criminal activity need to be regulated. When it comes to general discussions and raising concerns, we have a right to do so. I would be concerned by any member, and I am not suggesting this member was, in a parliamentary democracy such as ours suggesting that there needs to be some ethereal censorship board somewhere that decides what concerns are valid. In this country, citizens raise concerns and they elect representatives to represent them in government. We are a function of that and need to allow citizens to express their concerns.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Broadcasting Act is absolutely outdated, and we are trying to move forward so that everyone who benefits from the broadcasting ecosystem can contribute to the production of Canadian or Quebec content.

Bill C-10 is a step forward. However, it completely ignores social media that broadcast content, such as YouTube. I therefore think we need to expand the definition of broadcaster, because if it takes another 30 years to review this new legislation, which is how long it took to review the old one, it will be important to ensure that, regardless of the broadcaster, we can bring everyone who benefits from culture around the same table, so they can contribute financially to producing that culture.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has indicated another shortcoming of the bill. As I mentioned in my speech, we need to make sure that we are promoting Canadian content and not advantaging certain providers over others. There needs to be an even playing field for everybody, and I am not sure the bill does that.

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

Madam Speaker, I was surprised when the hon. member referenced the FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting, as that organization's strongest criticism of Bill C-10 was its failure to provide long-term sustainable funding and a path forward for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I was under the impression that the party to which the hon. member belongs was not in favour of expanding CBC funding or of better supporting our public broadcaster.

I would like to ask the member's opinion, and if he is in fact supporting the demands of FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting?

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my point was to identify that there are concerns related to the bill coming from various political persuasions and various parts of Canadian society. With respect to the specific contention on the CBC, I agree with my party's general contentions in that vein, but it is fair to say that on the bill a variety of concerns are coming from different areas, and I am happy to raise those.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to speak at second reading stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Let me begin by saying that we have some serious reservations about this bill. I will have the chance to talk later in greater detail about the major powers being given to the CRTC, the lack of definition on certain important issues, as well as the fact that it does not fix essential problems that directly affect the broadcast of information and the current more modern context of web giants and social media. I will also come back to the lack of consideration given to French in this new legislation, which was surprising and disappointing coming from the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

First, let's be clear. It goes without saying that we are in favour of reviewing the Broadcasting Act. The last review occurred 28 years ago. The Internet was available on some university campuses and in some spheres such as the Department of National Defence, but it was not part of our daily lives like it is now.

Twenty-eight years ago, anyone who knew a little English may have known what the word “Google” referred to, but that was about it. If, 28 years ago, we had mentioned Facebook to our children, neighbours or friends, they would have given us a weird look and asked what we were talking about. It makes sense, then, for the Broadcasting Act to be reviewed after 28 years.

However, it is disappointing to see that the government is not going deeper on important issues like the web giants and social media platforms. That is disappointing, because we are already going through the bill 28 years later, so we might as well do it right and not put off regulating certain issues, like these ones in particular.

Now, 28 years later, the Broadcasting Act is in need of updating, meaning that it needs to be reviewed and then amended. Furthermore, the Conservatives agree on the principle of fairness regarding the web giants and social media platforms. We need to ensure that people who pay for and use these online services and people who pay for and use so-called traditional services, such as cable, are treated the same way. We need to ensure this process is fair and that taxes are collected fairly.

We are guided by these two principles: The Broadcasting Act must be reviewed and we must address the new realities and respect the principle of fairness. I will now speak to the matters that concern us.

First, let us talk about the French language. Even though the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I may have serious differences of opinion on certain matters, I am in complete agreement with him on one thing: the importance of French. At our request, the House had a take-note debate on this and the minister asked us out of the love we all have for the French language, to defend it and preserve it in Canada. This applies in particular to Montreal where, by its very nature and the fact that there are seven to eight million francophones in a sea of almost 350 million anglophones in North America, it is only natural that French be deemed worthy of always being preserved.

If ever there were a vehicle to help protect the French language, goodness knows it would be broadcasting, the web and communications, and yet, French is somewhat neglected in this bill, which is disappointing. French is specifically mentioned twice in this bill. Before reading it out, however, I will put on my glasses, because no matter how much I speak, I still need to know how to read, and if I am going to read, I might as well read properly. I am 56 years old and I fully accept what that entails. I have white hair, I have wrinkles, and that also comes with glasses. I am going to stop talking nonsense and get serious again.

The one and only measure to improve the place of French can be found in the proposed amended version of paragraph 3(1)(k) of the act, which states that “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians” as resources become available. That wording is nothing more than wishful thinking, although the government boasts that it is doing everything it can to protect the French language. It can hardly be said in this case that it is written in black and white and backed by concrete actions.

We think this situation is unacceptable, and it represents a far too vague approach to protecting French.

This is no small thing, given that the debate on the importance of French is currently under way in Quebec and Canada and we are waiting for this government to finally introduce a new version of the Official Languages Act. Rather than honouring and respecting its commitments under the act, the government has decided to publish a white paper. We know what a white paper is: When we read it, there are only blank pages, because it does not propose any concrete measures on the subject at hand.

We would have liked this bill to have a little more muscle. Unfortunately, it is not what we expected. However, we acknowledge and applaud the fact that there are proactive measures regarding indigenous people, racialized individuals and members of the LGBTQ2 community. We agree with all of that.

However, we believe that French would have been entitled to the same attention that was given to indigenous communities. For the benefit of members who might not know my story, in 1984, I started my radio career at CIHW-FM 100.3, in Wendake, so I am fully aware of the importance of radio and broadcasting for indigenous communities.

Therefore, we believe that this does not solve the issue of social media and web giants. Quite frankly, we would have expected some basic guidelines, frameworks and fairness with respect to social media and web giants.

As I said at the outset, and everyone recognizes this, 28 years ago, when someone talked about “the web”, you had to know a little bit of English to know that they were referring to an actual web. The word was not commonly understood in everyday speech. So while the Broadcasting Act needs to be refreshed, the government needs to directly address the issue of social media and web giants.

In this case, we do not feel that this bill resolves the major problems this new reality created. It goes without saying that we agree on what is happening. We have to pay attention and not fool ourselves. We are in no way suggesting that this reality does not exist. We are not against it. It exists, and all we have to do is regulate things properly.

Often, the best regulations are those that create an equitable framework that allows and protects freedom of expression. The rules must apply to each and every one of us. We must not create two classes of news media where some broadcasters have certain obligations while others, like online outlets, are subject to different kinds of regulations. Fairness is important here, but unfortunately, the government came up short in that department.

Earlier, I was talking about the CRTC's inherent powers. We have very serious reservations about that because it gives the CRTC considerable discretionary authority to define what constitutes an online enterprise and to force such enterprises to spend money producing and broadcasting Canadian content.

Of course, we recognize that the CRTC has a role to play in making sure that everything is done properly, but the way the current bill is drafted, we think it has been given far too much power. We have nothing against the CRTC, but if you give the CRTC all the powers, you have to give it the means to do what it wants to do. Also, this provides a structure that means that it takes a long time before results can be implemented. As a result, the common good is not very well served in all of this.

Following this second stage of the bill, a parliamentary committee will study it and propose amendments. Our critic in this area will make proposals to move in the direction we are interested in, which is to freshen up the Broadcasting Act.

We are obviously in favour of fairness, but these two elements still need to be included in the bill. That is not quite what we are seeing right now. We hope that the improvements and amendments that we will bring forward in committee will be accepted by the government.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, not 15 minutes ago we heard a speech by a Conservative colleague who said that French content has already increased considerably over the past few years when his government was in power and that we needed to allow the market to operate without additional regulation.

Then, moments ago, we heard another speech by a Conservative member who says that we need to do more to encourage francophone content.

I would like my colleague to tell me what the Conservative Party's position is on this matter and on the provisions in this bill that introduce some very serious fines for web giants. I think he would agree that there needs to be more regulation, as our bill proposes. The proposed fines are the stiffest in the world.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments and remarks from the parliamentary secretary to the minister who introduced this bill.

It is rather odd to hear a member of the Liberal Party of Canada come to the defence of the French language when we know that, unfortunately, that party's top official in Quebec believes that Bill 101 is just fine as it is and there is no need to go any further. We, on the other hand, believe that Bill 101 should apply to federally regulated businesses. One of the member's colleagues, who I believe represents a riding neighbouring her own, expressed serious doubts about the importance of Bill 101 in Quebec. Twenty minutes after officially backtracking in parliamentary committee, the member in question expressed support for an online post that said the exact opposite of what she had just said. There is no consistency.

On top of that, those folks were elected five years ago after saying that the Official Languages Act needed to be revised and that they would do everything they could to move that forward, and now, five years later, all we have gotten is the promise of a white paper.

I would like the government side to do its job when it comes to French before passing judgment on anyone.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of modernizing the Broadcasting Act given the rapid and staggering evolution of information and communications technology.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C-10 is designed to really reflect and make room for the perspectives of indigenous peoples, Quebeckers, racialized communities and various other ethnocultural communities?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comment and I commend him on his new mandate, which he received a year and several months ago now. I really appreciated the work we do together. I would like to digress a little, if I may, because we are talking about communication after all. My colleague's father was a major player in the communications industry in the 20th century when he worked as a press photographer in Quebec and across Canada. I wanted to point that out.

The member talked about the representation of indigenous, racialized and LGBT communities. We are in favour of that principle, but we would have liked the same attention to be given to French. That is what is missing from this bill right now. Some future plans were mentioned and that is fine. We cannot be against that, but a lot is being said and very little is actually being done.

However, we agree that indigenous communities need more representation. The same is true for racialized and LGBT communities.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I do indeed think that, after 28 years, the act needed to be reviewed, because technology has advanced. However, it seems that the government did not finish the job. There are still a bunch of holes left. Some players are not at the table. The way it works is, if you benefit from the system, you have to contribute to the system.

The CRTC has totally arbitrary exemption powers. Broadcasting on social media like YouTube is not included, and Internet service providers are not included either. Cable companies are, however. In other words, if you watch your TV show on cable, the company will contribute to the system to create original content. However, if you watch your show on Videotron Wi-Fi, in that case, the company does not contribute to creating content.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a little like what we were talking about earlier. We support the fairness principle, but unfortunately, this bill does not directly address the issue of web giants, social media and fairness. We believe that the government has failed in its duty in this regard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on the modernization of this act. As my colleague, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, said earlier, it is an act that absolutely needs to be modernized.

As we have heard, this act has effectively been in place since 1991. It has not been modernized up to this point. With all of the changes that have gone on in the digital world, and I think the list is as long as the day in terms of the digital changes that have occurred, there is no question that the Broadcasting Act needs to be modernized to meet the standard of 2020. I had to laugh at the comment of my colleague from Timmins—James Bay earlier that this bill brings a 1995 solution to a 2020 problem.

There are some concerns that we have—

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

You didn't mention the King of Kensington part.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

And the King of Kensington part, too.

Madam Speaker, we have some concerns with the legislation. There are some good things, like all pieces of legislation, but there are certainly things that provide some inequity that need to be addressed. There have been numerous studies done over the years about upgrading the Broadcasting Act.

In fact, just recently there was a recommendation from the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review, which published a report in 2020. It was appointed a few years ago, and its purpose was to look at the key pieces of legislation that govern our communications sector. In that report, there were 97 recommendations based on the objectives of supporting the creation, production and discoverability of Canadian content, and improving the rights of the digital consumer, amongst other things.

In the report, it spoke specifically, and of course Bill C-10 speaks specifically, to online platforms. It speaks to financial contributions by broadcasters and online undertakings, and an update to Canada's broadcasting and regulation policy. It also gives the CRTC increasing powers.

For us, that is probably one of the most concerning parts of the bill, among some others, the fact that it can impose an administrative monetary policy for violations of certain provisions of the act, such as contraventions of regulations or orders made under the act, broadcasting when prohibited to do so and failing to submit information. There are numerous things that the CRTC will gain power on with respect to this. It also provides for oversight of the Canadian broadcasting landscape.

There are things within the bill that definitely need to be worked on. Here is one of the things that the bill does not address, and I want to spend a considerable amount of time on this. Recently I had the opportunity to meet with Metroland newspapers, which is part of the Torstar group. They were advocating on behalf of online digital content.

As members know, the inequity that is created, the disparity of online digital content is significant for those content producers. Oftentimes many of those stories will end up on Facebook or even Google, and a lot of the ad revenue that is being created does not go back to the content providers. That means there has been a significant change in the landscape of digital content in this country as a result of players like Facebook and Google. Facebook and Google profit significantly from that content that is being provided, but those content producers do not. It is causing a significant problem.

In meeting with Metroland, Shaun and Elise brought to my attention some of those concerns. My hope is, and I am writing a letter in support of their ask, that some of what they are suggesting to level the playing field is actually adopted by the government fairly soon. What the bill would not do is address the concerns of the digital content providers.

Their concern, of course, is preserving a functioning journalism industry. They said at the time that citizens around the globe are demanding high-quality journalism and investigative reporting. Nonetheless, the ability of news publishers to continue providing such critical information is under threat by the market power and preferential regulatory treatment of dominant platforms in digital information. Democratic governments are recognizing market failures in the market for news, and they are now working to implement policies to address them.

Just the other day, I was in a conference Zoom call with the new owners of Torstar, who own Metroland Media. Overwhelmingly, the consensus of the community leaders who were on that call spoke about the role of journalism, the role of truth and the role of providing balance, particularly in the case of local journalism. We had quite an interesting discussion about that because, as we see the evolution of social media platforms, there is a level of disinformation. Therefore, it comes back to a matter of trust in the content being provided by these digital producers.

France, Spain, the U.K. and Australia have already passed regulations. In fact, I am told that just today Australia passed legislation to level the playing field. Again, in the context of Bill C-10, none of this is addressed in this piece of legislation. What the Australian legislation is designed to do is to reduce the effects of the platforms' market power and to restore balance and fairness in the market for digital advertising and digital news distribution, which is exactly what I heard from Metroland representatives when I met with them.

Other countries, including the U.S., are now analyzing how the market is dominated through those digital platforms, and they are developing regulatory reforms and legislation and beginning antitrust proceedings to rectify the platforms' market dominance. The hope is to continue that discussion here in Canada and end up with either regulation or legislation that solves that inequity in the country. When many of our allies, and I do not mean that in a war context but in regard to the countries that we are aligned with digitally, are engaging in that process, we need to start doing that as a country as well.

Consumer demand for news obviously remains high, not just in the local and national content but also digital content. That speaks to the need for more credible and professional news as a result of that increased demand. There was a time when there was no social media, obviously, and as Canadians we received our news from reputable sources and reputable news people. There is an online demand for that news to continue, but in some cases it is not indicative of what is important or what is factual in a lot of cases.

Therefore, supporting that level playing field for the digital content and the producers of it becomes critical in protecting the truth, and that is what the Metroland representatives are talking about. They are, in their words, approaching market failure because of the inequity that is happening. They reminded me that market failure occurs when participants in a market do not produce an economically and socially optimal outcome because of non-market factors. Examples might be the inclusion of regulatory barriers to enter or market power.

Market failures can take several forms and several of them are applicable to the market for digital ads and news in Canada. The most pressing failure that they indicated was the result of the market power of both Google and Facebook, which I referenced earlier. Google and Facebook, they say, are in an effective duopoly over the market for digital advertising in Canada and its peer nations. Those platforms have segmented the market between search, which is Google, and Facebook for social media, which limits the direct competition between the two.

I know I have spent a lot of time on levelling the digital playing field in support of local content producers, but the concern that I have and the hope that I have is that the government will recognize this inequity and will work toward regulation or legislation that allows for these local content producers and the individuals who work for them to be paid fairly, not just from a monetary standpoint in terms of income but also from advertising as well, because that becomes important to the viability, the sustainability and the legitimacy of the news business in this country, going forward.

I would be glad to answer any questions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, a lot of what I heard from the member's speech I agree with, as there is a lot of misinformation on social media platforms. He talked about more credible news, and I believe he was referring to those online sources.

A lot of what gets spread around are conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories that are then repeated by members of this House, including the member who just spoke, who yelled out the other day an anti-Semitic trope talking about George Soros.

Could the hon. member comment on the misinformation he speaks out against and why he uses that in this House?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the context of Bill C-10, I am not even going to dignify that with an answer.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke at length about local content, but also about the media and journalism. The NDP is quite disappointed with the current bill. We hope we can improve it by amending it in committee.

Right now, many websites like Bing, MSN and Yahoo rebroadcast news content created by others, but they do not pay for the content. Unfortunately, Bill C-10 does absolutely nothing to force these web giants to pay for content created by real journalists.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very fair question. I think I addressed that at length in my speech on this bill. It goes back to precisely what I have been hearing from local digital content producers, not just from an advertising standpoint, but from an income standpoint. That inequity is existing and it is significant. It could lead to market failure from a digital content standpoint.

We must get to a point where we are able to provide that level playing field to allow the content to be shared. It will come. Other countries have done it, including Australia today. More importantly, the content producers and those who write must be paid fairly and quickly after this information is used by Facebook, Google or the other examples the member gave. Unless and until we get to that point, we are going to see a continued decline in digital content and sources in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a couple of concerning things about this bill.

Number one, it gives more power to the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which is a big flag in this country. During the pandemic last summer, the CBC in its wisdom, decided to pull the local Compass, the half-hour newscast out of Prince Edward Island, with no consultation. It is their only newscast. The CRTC should be looking at the licencing agreement of CBC and Prince Edward Island, not just to give them a slap on their hands, but to fine the CBC for pulling that show, because it is in its licence agreement.

The other thing, and I want the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil to comment on this, is that order in council is given all precedent in this bill. It is the Cabinet and the heritage minister who will end making every decision at the cabinet table, which is absolutely wrong.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the latter point by the hon. member, we have seen that a lot of the legislation introduced in this place really has had that power consolidated through the executive branch of government. I look to some of the environmental bills that we have dealt with in the past, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, for example, where the minister has the ultimate say. The power is not distributed among Parliament or even within the government, but within the executive branch. I am not surprised by that assertion, quite frankly, given the history of this government.

Secondly, the example in P.E.I. speaks to the insatiable appetite that people have for news, not just national or international news, but local news as well. It is not surprising to me when people push back as they did in P.E.I. They are seeking the truth as well.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate, which really does affect Canadian culture, how we see ourselves in the global marketplace and our identity as Canadians.

The Broadcasting Act has not been renewed or reviewed for 28 years, so it is time that we get this done. The problem is that, as is so typical with the Liberal government, it has brought forward legislation that is so deeply flawed that we, as Conservatives in the House who want to get it right, just cannot support it. I am going to go through some of those flaws, because they are significant, but the reason we are even talking about reviewing the Broadcasting Act is because the whole environment in which broadcasting takes place has changed.

We have moved from an environment in which digital forms of communication were mostly unknown to an environment in which we have digital platforms that are, in fact, challenging the role of conventional broadcasters in Canada. We have to get this right, because there is a lot at stake. What is at stake is Canadian content and making sure that we, as Canadians, see ourselves in the products we see on television, on streaming services and in the movies. It is also important that we recognize that there are individuals and companies within Canada that are producing content, really good and in most cases Canadian content, that are actually not being reimbursed and compensated for that content.

I will start by highlighting that this bill, and this is one of the positives in it, will effectively add online businesses to our broadcasting regime. This is to make sure that we capture everything that is happening online of a broadcasting nature, and we include it in the regulations and the legislative regimes that we put in place. We do not want conventional broadcasters, which already operate within a set of rules, to be placed at a disadvantage when we have a whole set of other online content providers that operate either under a different set of rules or, in most cases, in the absence of rules. We want to get this right.

One of the challenges of this bill is that it does not address the monetization of content on some of the largest online content providers, the Facebooks and the Googles of the world. Recently, I met with Ken Goudswaard and Carly Ferguson from the Abbotsford News, our local newspaper. It is an excellent newspaper focused on the local issues that matter to our residents.

I met with them and the first thing they raised with me was the Broadcasting Act and the fact that they operate in an environment where the big players, such as Facebook and Google, take advantage of them. I asked how that happens, although I had an inkling of what they were going to say. They said they are producing 100% Canadian content within our community, the city of Abbotsford. They are the ones who pay the reporters, the layout people and everybody else who works in the newspaper office. They are the ones who pay for all of it. They then put that content online, and Facebook and Google get to then advertise off of that content without compensating the Abbotsford News for any of it. It is, in fact, a freebie.

These are the largest corporations in the world. They are also among the most profitable corporations in the world. They are not sharing their wealth and the income that our local content producers rightfully deserve. That is one of the failings of this legislation. It does not adequately address that challenge.

To Ken and to Carly, I say I am advocating for them. We Conservatives are advocating for them in the House. We want to make sure that those who deliver content, Canadian content, in Canada are also properly compensated for it, and that others do not get rich off their backs.

One of the other considerations is that the bill has a lack of clarity when it comes to the powers that would be granted to the CRTC. My colleague rightfully raised this challenge earlier in that much of the decision-making is vested in the Governor in Council. For Canadians who are wondering who the Governor in Council is, it is effectively the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the cabinet, who can simply, by fiat, say that this is what we are going to do and this is how much will be committed to Canadian content.

As members know, in Canada our broadcasters have to invest in Canadian content. They have no choice. We want to make sure that we, as Canadians, see ourselves in the products of online content, as well as in our broadcast media. They are committed to taking anywhere from 25% to 40% of their content and ensuring that it is Canadian. They also have to contribute 5% to the Canada Media Fund, which is a separate fund that helps Canadian content producers deliver Canadian content in a way that does not bankrupt them.

These support mechanisms are in place for Canadian broadcasters, the conventional broadcasters, but we have this whole other realm of content producers and content streaming services, the online platforms that are not part of that broadcasting regime. We want to make sure that they also play by the same set of rules that our domestic broadcasters have to play by.

Unfortunately, the powers to direct this are vested in the cabinet and the CRTC, but those powers are not clear on exactly what kind of requirements would be imposed upon our online streaming services when they deliver content to Canadians. There is no certainty, and if I were someone who was leading one of these streaming services, I would think that, until I had clarity from the Canadian authorities as to exactly how much I had to invest in Canadian content and how much it was going to cost me, I would probably hold off on any further investments, and that is not good for Canada.

To their credit, companies such as Netflix, Crave and Amazon Prime and others like them do invest in Canadian content already, but they are not subject to the same rules as our Canadian broadcasters and content providers, and that needs to change. What we are doing is levelling the playing field. Unfortunately, we do not know what the rules are for that level playing field.

Effectively, the government is saying to trust it. When have we heard that before from the Prime Minister? The irony here is that we have a Liberal government that is bringing forward Bill C-10 with changes to the Broadcasting Act that are supposed to enhance Canadian content. This is to drive home the fact that we are Canadian, we have a Canadian identity and we want to see ourselves in that content.

However, this is the same Prime Minister who publicly said that Canada has no core identity. Do members remember when he said that? We have no core identity but we want Canadian content. Members can see that there are so many flaws in this proposed legislation. Step by step, we need to deal with the Broadcasting Act in a manner that actually delivers exactly what Canadians need.

The last point I will make is that there is no reference at all to taxing the big boys. The Facebooks and Googles of this world are still not paying taxes in Canada. Are Netflix, Crave, Amazon Prime, Spotify and the others paying taxes in Canada? No, but they are driving major revenue growth from delivering their content here in Canada.

This is all about fairness. Bill C-10 does not deliver fairness, and for that reason we, as Conservatives, will be voting against the legislation.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raised this a number of times in his speech, and I agree with him that the Internet giants not paying their fair share. However, I believe Crave may be a Canadian company, but I am happy to be corrected on that.

The member briefly touched on this in terms of taxation, but what does he think the role of the federal government should be, and what should it do to ensure that the Internet giants like Facebook pay their fair share?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think if we were to ask Canadians what they expect, they would say they simply expect fairness. They are not asking us to overtax companies from other countries that are investing in a very good service for Canadians and in Canadian content. That is a good thing, but we need fairness. Fairness means a level playing field for everybody, so taxation should not only focus on Canadians, but focus on everybody who derives income from delivering content within our country.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague for his truly passionate and fascinating speech.

I fully share his indignation about the fact that web giants do not pay taxes. However, I have some reservations when I consider the past few years. It seems to me that the Conservatives were in power from 2006 to 2015, and they did not do a single thing to fix this problem.

I do not understand why, because Google, Facebook and all these web giants did not spring up in the past couple weeks. They have existed for at least 15 to 20 years. Why did the Conservatives do absolutely nothing to address this when they were in power ?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that 10 or 15 years ago, Facebook, Google and some of the streaming services were not anywhere close to as pervasive as they are today. Today Canadians know that the big boys are the ones that deliver content and that many of them are getting away with not paying the requisite taxes they should be paying in Canada. I am in favour of making sure the playing field is level and that there is fairness for everybody.

Here we are in 2020. It is not 2010 or 2006, when the former Conservative government was elected. The digital online environment is dramatically different today than it was 15 years ago.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam President, I am pleased to hear that my Conservative colleague is finally on board with our position of advocating tax fairness and requiring web giants to pay taxes in Canada.

I would like to ask him about workers. The current act states that predominant use must be made of Canadian talent, meaning Canadian or Quebec workers. Today, in this bill, there is no mention of this, which means that our workers will be used only where possible, subject to certain circumstances. We believe that this weakens the act. We are concerned for our artists, artisans and technicians. What does he think of this?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a good point, and it is another one of the major flaws in this legislation and why the Conservatives cannot support it.

I do not know if he and the NDP will be supporting it, but the reality is that when we walk through Bill C-10 step by step, we see flaw after flaw. We could have done much better. Unfortunately, the bill is fundamentally flawed, which is why the Conservatives will not support it, but it is time to review our broadcasting environment in Canada and introduce fairness onto the playing field.

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

I ask for a brief question from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to ask a brief question, because I am so deeply engaged in Canadian content and creativity.

I want to ask the hon. member if he thinks it would be better to keep the current section 3 of the Broadcasting Act. We do need modernization, but by getting rid of the language in section 3 regarding deeply embedded Canadian content, we would weaken the act.

I married into a family of actors. I am going to give a shout-out to my stepdaughter Janet Kidder, who is starring in Star Trek: Discovery. She plays Osyraa, an evil green villain, not like me, so—

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

I have to allow time for the member for Abbotsford to give a very short answer.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not really hear a question from the “evil green villain”, so I will leave it at that. She is not an evil green villain, I can assure everyone. She is a valuable colleague of ours in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, how does one follow on the comments made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands? I congratulate her relative for getting a role in Star Trek: Discovery. I am sure there are a lot of Trekkies out there who appreciate that and will watch with bated breath to see who she is portraying.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House today to join in the discussion of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

As the member for Abbotsford put on the table, there are some fundamental flaws with it, one of which relates to the Governor in Council. When we go through the bill, one thing that jumps out right away is the power the Governor in Council will have. There would be a lot of power situated in the minister's office and cabinet when it comes to making decisions regarding Canadian content and broadcasting services, and that is a fundamental flaw in the bill.

What also pops out when reading the bill is the pretty broad definition of “online business”. I think that is what people were looking for.

Another issue my constituents have brought forward to me, which we will have time to talk about more, is the issue of giving more power to the CRTC. When we talk about the availability of online services, broadcasting and the news, most Canadians would like to see less power in the Ottawa bubble and the CRTC and more power throughout the country, as people would like to have more options.

I agree, and I think many members of the House would agree, that waiting 28 years to update a bill is a substantial length of time. The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry mentioned he was three years old when this act was introduced, and he talked about some of the great music then. Times have changed, and a lot of conversations need to be had now about how we are going to do business using online services with Facebook and Netflix.

What are we going to do? How are we going to do it? The members across the way have talked about what taxes should look like for very big corporations, and the member for Abbotsford brought it up very well when he said that when businesses come to Canada they expect to be treated fairly. That is something we need to keep in mind when we are looking at this legislation.

We talked about having Canadian content and making sure there is a level playing field when it comes to news services. I think the other issue we need to talk about is how smaller online businesses and news services are competing with the bigger online services. That needs to be levelled as well.

Some smaller businesses are trying to compete against taxpayer dollars. The member for Barrie—Innisfil said, very correctly, that some of these small local publications are trying to compete with the CBC online, and the CBC has a good online paper. The member for Saskatoon—Grasswood talked about how it just updated its online presence, which is wonderful, but that online presence is now competing with smaller online papers. It is very hard for them to compete, because they do not have the resources that bigger companies like CBC, CTV or Global have. We need to take that into consideration as well when we are looking at how we will be able to ensure that smaller publications have the ability to compete. A lot of Canadians across the country want to see competition in the online broadcasting field and the ability to have more selection and options when looking at online news and broadcasting.

We also need to have a discussion about how we are going to ensure there is correct information online. That conversation is important in this day and age. Some of the members across the way have brought up fake news, or whatever they like to call it, but I think it is also incumbent upon us to make sure we hold ourselves to a higher level of decorum in the House when debating bills. Let us not bring up issues that are not related to Bill C-10, nor have personal attacks back and forth during these speeches. That is below parliamentarians and below the level that our constituents expect from us. We need a higher level of discourse in this chamber.

I expect that to continue and expect us to raise the bar of decorum in the House to ensure that when we have debates about important legislation, we stick to the facts and the debate at hand. We must leave personal and partisan feelings away from the table when we have these conversations. I will do my best to ensure that there is good decorum in this chamber whenever I am on my feet to talk about important bills.

When we have conversations on Bill C-10, possible situations could arise that are interesting. The long-awaited legislation is the result of the Yale report on the framework for communications in Canada tabled in February 2020. The 97 recommendations of the report deal with social media, copyright, taxation of web giants and advertising fees to ensure the sustainability of traditional media. Bill C-10 is limited to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, which essentially consists of introducing, as I said earlier, a very broad definition of online business, broadcasting cultural content and giving the CRTC broad discretion to regulate them where it does require a percentage of Canadian content, requires financial contributions and imposes fines to investigate compliance.

There are a lot of recommendations from the Yale report, which Bill C-10 is based on, that have not been implemented, and I think we should take some time to step back. That is why on this side we think Bill C-10 misses the mark in a few areas, especially regarding centralizing the discretion within the CRTC and within the Minister of Canadian Heritage's office, which we think is a big concern. Many of my colleagues have talked about that concern. We need to ensure there are broader consultations about where Canadians would like to see the ability to regulate and where our online business and our broadcasting ideas would come from.

We want more news available, and we want Canadian content within our broadcasting. However, the bill misses the mark on creating some fairness within the broadcasting sector and ensuring that we have space for smaller and start-up publications. There are a couple back home I can think of that would be hurt from not having a level playing field when starting up and competing with the larger companies, such as CBC, Global and CTV. They need to start with an online presence, because that helps.

I know, as do the young staff in my office, that there are not a lot of newspapers in the office anymore. We have our phones and PressReader, and we get much of our information from online sources.

I know the Regina Leader Post and The Star Phoenix have dropping publication numbers in Saskatchewan. They are working hard to make sure they have a large online presence because they realize that more and more people are getting their news from websites and through online services.

We need to allow for room in online businesses so they have the ability to compete. It is not as fair at this point as we would like to see it, and we wish there would have been the ability within Bill C-10 to create a more level playing field.

When it comes to online services, companies such as Netflix and Facebook should pay their fair share, as my colleagues across the way like to say. I think that is a good point, but they need to have certainty so that before they come to Canada, they know what the taxes or fees are going to be when they bring their businesses to Canada. Without certainty, it is very hard to attract new businesses and new tech companies to Canada if they do not know what the fees will be.

Given the uncertainty reasons and the power that is going to be situated within the CRTC and the minister's office, we have issues and concerns. That is why we will not be supporting this piece of legislation at this time.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that levelling the playing field and taxing web giants is the purview of the Minister of Finance, which is why the Minister of Finance, in the fall economic statement, said that we would be taxing web giants.

With respect to Bill C-10, which was presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I would say, perhaps echoing colleagues from the Conservative Party, that it is high time we modernize the Broadcasting Act. I wonder why this colleague is suggesting that we should delay it further by doing more consultations. We have consulted extensively with the broadcasting sector, content providers and the culture industry here in Canada.

Unlike the Conservatives, who did not modernize the Broadcasting Act when they were in power for 10 years, we are proposing to do that now. It is 2020, and it is time to move forward. Would the member opposite agree?

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

Madam Speaker, it is time to modernize the Broadcasting Act.

Would the member agree that all the power should not reside with the CRTC and with the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, regarding what the Broadcasting Act should entail?

I have a problem with that. Canadians and constituents that I represent in Regina—Lewvan say that the CRTC does not need more power. It needs less power. That is definitely one reason why. It is because of the people I support. I have listened to people within my constituency and across Saskatchewan who firmly believe that there should be less power residing in the minister's office and in the CRTC, not more power.

Those would be two very good reasons why I cannot support this bill at this time.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would make a little correction to what the parliamentary secretary said. The Liberals are not going to tax web giants next year. They are going to make the consumers who use their services pay GST. That is not at all the same thing.

I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. He said that the definition of “broadcaster” was very broad, but a lot of people are saying that it is actually not broad enough and that this law should account for technologies that do not yet exist and that will be released in the future. For example, social media platforms are not considered broadcasters, even though there is a good chance that some of them will become broadcasters in the coming months. Things are moving very quickly.

Should we not create a bill that accounts for technological changes and that is broad enough to include them in the future?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree completely with the member's statement.

One of the problems we had with this bill is that the definition was so broad, and there was not more included in it. The member is right: the modernization of this bill should include the fact that Facebook and Netflix should be seen as broadcasters. That would be a good solution.

That is probably one of the reasons why he may not be able to vote in favour of this bill, because that definition is not there.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I do agree with some of the things he said, including the fact that this bill relies too heavily on the CRTC. It is not that the people working for the CRTC are bad people, but I had some bad experiences with the CRTC a few years ago when I was the spokesperson for the Mouvement Montréal français. We had complained to the CRTC about some private radio stations in Quebec because they were not complying with quotas for French music, especially at peak listening hours. They were finding ways around the rules.

For example, they would edit English songs into one 10- to 15-minute-long track. Since the songs played consecutively without interruption, for quota purposes, that counted as a single song. Private radio stations were effectively playing a 15-minute English song at peak listening hours. It was ridiculous.

Does my colleague not think that, as legislators, we should give the CRTC much clearer rules, especially to protect French-language content?

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

Madam Speaker, that would be another issue that we have with the legislation. It does not provide any benchmarks to legislate the percentage of French-language content. I would agree with the member.

I bet he is not the only one who has had issues with the CRTC, when it comes to people who have been involved in the broadcasting services. His interaction is probably not one that is replicated across the country with the hardworking people at the CRTC. We just think there should be a more strict delineation of power within the CRTC, and people across the country would like to have more say in what broadcasting standards should be.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, before we begin discussions on regulating content on the Internet, let us recognize that Canada has 38 million regulators. They are called customers. They are the people who decide what they watch. With the click of a mouse, they can choose the content that serves their interests. For the same reason, the ability to produce unique and diverse content is greater today than ever before. The advent of the Internet, far from limiting the production of Canadian content, has vastly expanded it by dramatically reducing the cost of production and distribution.

If members really think about it, the cost of producing and distributing content today is probably 99% lower than it was just 25 years ago. There are 14-year-old kids who can produce their own movie trailers on their laptop computers and broadcast them before as many eyes as want to see them, without spending a single dollar beyond the purchase of a bit of software and a laptop on which to design them, and the quality is probably superior to what Hollywood would have been able to create just a few decades ago.

This has democratized and expanded the scope of content. It has allowed minorities, and people with particular interests not held by the majority, to reach audiences. Back in the old days, people had to compete for real estate in HMV, the local record store or the local Blockbuster, and if someone was not among the top 50, they did not get that real estate. Even if their product was interesting to 3% of the public, they could not sell it to anybody, because they had no means of getting it to the public and they could not generate the capital to produce it in the first place.

I will acknowledge that the changes to which this bill proposes to respond are actually good changes. They are democratizing changes. They spread out power and diversity, which is something we should allow and that freedom provides.

The current government seeks to extend its reach and broaden its tentacles into the Internet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Hear, hear.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

“Hear, hear,” says the Liberal member across the way. Every once in a while the veil falls, and they reveal their true selves. I say they want to extend their tentacles into the Internet, and one of the most prominent Liberal MPs says, “Hear, hear.” I thank him for his temporary and accidental honesty.

I will quote Andrew Coyne, who is far from a Conservative, who says in The Globe and Mail, which is far from a Conservative publication, “The Canadian government's Bill C-10 has opened the door to serious state regulation of the Internet.” The Prime Minister has expressed his admiration for Fidel Castro and for the basic dictatorship of communist China; has attempted to use this pandemic to extend to himself the unmitigated power to raise any tax at any time by any amount, until 2022; has used a debate commission to put Craig Kielburger, and other Liberal insiders, in control of how the leaders' debate would go; and has extended a taxpayer subsidy to the media and then put the head of Unifor, a Liberal-backed organization, in charge of how the money is given out. Whenever such a Prime Minister introduces a bill to extend the power of the state over the Internet, we should be very suspicious.

I will quote Mr. Coyne, who says:

While the government claims it would not empower the CRTC to regulate smaller services such as Britbox, social media sites such as Youtube or online news content, the bill contains no specific provisions that would prohibit it, and includes provisions that seem to allow it. For example, the bill exempts “programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking” by its users and “online undertakings whose broadcasting consist of only such programs.” It leaves the way open for the CRTC to regulate services that show both user-generated and curated content. Like Youtube.

That means we would be opening the door for the CRTC to regulate the kinds of things that everyday Canadians produce and upload onto the Internet.

We are allowing the CRTC, which is an already overly powerful bureaucracy of nameless, faceless government authorities, to potentially extend its regulation into what content people put on the Internet. It is no surprise the Prime Minister would want to limit and regulate that kind of content. Often the kind of independent material uploaded to the Internet by everyday Canadians is the only place outside of the House where he faces real criticism. He is not protected by the adoring glow of his supporters in the press gallery. Therefore, he has to contend with the scrutiny of everyday Canadians who dare criticize him or his ideological direction, or dare produce content that might contradict his world view.

The government refuses to clearly circumscribe the power of the CRTC, and it opens the door for that power to be extended. We can only assume it was designed for the very purpose of extending more control over what Canadians watch, read, hear and produce. That is further compounded by the fact that the bill allows the cabinet to have order-making power over the CRTC, and to direct how it will apply these brand new powers: powers that the member across the way is salivating over right now. Powers that he said, “Hear, hear” to, as soon as I suggested that he might have them.

We live in a free country. Everyday, ordinary Canadians should be allowed their own megaphones and the only limit on how loud and how vast their voices are should be whether people choose to listen to them. Everyday Canadians should be able to decide what they like by voting with their clicks. That is the kind of liberty we should extend to the Canadian people. In the marketplace of ideas, there is no role for state coercion and intimidation. There is no role for nameless, faceless government bureaucrats to decide who is heard and who is not. Everyday Canadian people should have the freedom to do that for themselves.

If we, on this side of the House of Commons, are the only ones to stand up for free speech, then there a lot of Canadians who will stand with us. We know that we have, in the Prime Minister, someone who does not believe in free speech. After a French newspaper was the victim of a terrorist attack, he was asked about free speech and whether that publication should have freedom of expression. He said, “Freedom of expression is not unlimited”, as if to suggest that the attack against the publication was somehow justified on the grounds that the publication had improperly exercised freedom of expression, and that the state ought to have the ability to limit that expression. He then backed down, by the way. He came to the House of Commons and reversed himself completely, swallowed himself whole and realized how much he had humiliated himself by revealing his real thoughts to the Canadian people.

Every time the Prime Minister attempts to extend control over what we see, hear, read and produce, we ought to view the proposal through the lens of a man who believes in strong state control over its citizens. We on this side of the House will stand for the ancient liberties we have inherited from our ancestors and that we hope to bequeath to those who come after us.

[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, I detect a Reform Party comeback when I listen to the member opposite. I am a bit surprised of the manner in which the member feels government does not have any role. If we listen to his comments, we would think that he wants to see the demise of the CRTC. From across the way, he gestures yes, what is wrong with that?

The vast majority of Canadians recognize the value of Canadian content, not to mention the thousands of jobs that come as a direct result. Through this legislation the government is ensuring Canadian content and good middle-class jobs. We are moving forward.

Why is the Conservative Party moving more to the Reform side? This is like going back to the Harper era in the extreme.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member wants to go back to 1984.

I will identify the member as the Liberal MP who yelled “Hear, hear!” when I said the government is attempting to extend its tentacles and take control over the Internet. He yelled out “Hear, hear!”, confirming my claim to be true.

We know the member's bias. He believes that people like him should decide what everyday Canadians are allowed to see. He thinks that Canadians are too stupid or too morally bankrupt to choose for themselves, that he, in his ivory tower with his Liberal elitist friends, should be able to regulate what Canadians choose to watch because he, of course, is made of better clay. He is a superior, a thinker, and therefore should be able to regulate the thoughts of every single Canadian.

We on this side disagree. We have faith in Canadians and believe they should have the freedom to choose for themselves.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very curious to hear what our Conservative colleagues would have to say about Bill C-10. I was actually wondering what was holding up the vote on this bill, when everyone on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the entire cultural and media sector are anxious for us to study this and move it forward.

Of course I understand my colleague's concerns about certain Internet regulations that will prevent misinformation, which they are probably a little more partial to than we are, but I do not see where freedom of expression is being infringed upon in any way in this bill. If he were to consult the players in the media and cultural sector in Quebec and Canada, my colleague would very quickly see that these are legitimate requests coming from the industry, that they are not ideological at all, and they have nothing to do with the online content that the government may or may not want to control.

I would like to know whether my colleague took the time to consult the cultural and media sector before forming his opinion on the matter.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, here is the centralist Bloc, which now wants more federal regulations. It wants an authority here in Ottawa to have more control over what Quebeckers choose to watch and consume. The Bloc Québécois is contradicting itself. It is the centralist Bloc.

We think that Quebeckers should be masters in their own house, that each of them should be able to choose for themselves what they watch on the Internet. A federal authority in Ottawa should not be deciding that for them.

He is asking me why I think that the government wants to control the Internet. I am looking at the comments of the minister, who said that people should have to get a licence from the federal government to produce online content. I would never have thought that a sovereignist party would support the idea of a federal authority in Ottawa requiring people to have a licence to express themselves.

We are the only party that will protect Quebeckers' freedom of expression.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again debate in this place, and to debate a bill that takes on a special relevance in the year that we find ourselves in. The dynamics associated with online content have expanded dramatically with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We can look at the last number of decades. I recall back in high school, people were talking about how the speed of a computer was doubling every 90 days, and the next year they would say it was doubling every 45 days. The rate at which technology is advancing is incredible, and along with that come challenges and changing dynamics that definitely need to be addressed in legislation. With the tabling of the Yale report with the 97 recommendations, this is what I would assume is part of that response, being that it addresses only a small number of those challenges.

Having stated the demands that we face and needing to make some of these changes, I would make a couple of observations about the bill.

I think of a few speeches from my colleagues preceding me, including the member for Carleton, the member for Abbotsford, the member for Regina—Lewvan, and others, who have articulated very well some of the challenges that we faced. I have some constituents who are real politicos, who do not just follow the news as it is seen on the news channels, but follow when bills are introduced and their responses were striking. When this bill was first tabled, I had a number of constituents who reached out and asked how do they know that this is not the government just trying to take more power, how do they know that this is not the government trying to regulate free thought, and how do they know that there is not a nefarious agenda at work here.

That speaks to some of the greater societal challenges that exist, especially when it comes to the way that the government members opposite conduct themselves and certainly some of the comments that the Prime Minister has made, whether regarding China or other aspects of society and even our country; or comments of the minister who is responsible for bringing forward this bill has made. There was a great deal of concern.

Certainly, my hope is that in the midst of the debate in this House the government members will articulate very clearly those concerns. I have here in front of me 14 pages; and yet, having read it, there is not a whole lot of clarity as to what is actually trying to be accomplished and that poses a problem. That is part of the reason that constituents reach out and ask what this is about. They have concerns because they do not trust the intentions that are brought forward in the preamble. Certainly, that is something that needs to be very much clarified.

There are a few points that need to be addressed, including levelling the playing field with the explosion of digital content. It is interesting that we are having this debate today when just a number of days ago there were some fairly significant conversations happening in the United States surrounding Facebook and whether it is too large and the government in the United States needs to take some antitrust actions. I would hope that the minister is following this carefully, and how it speaks to the larger issues that we face when it comes to addressing the evolving nature that is digital content.

A big part of my concern here is with what this bill would not ensure in regard to those web giants, because they are giants and they touch every part of our life. I have an Android phone and Google touches every part of my life, whether it is talking to my kids as they are tucked into bed at night and I am here in Ottawa or to do with my job as a member of Parliament, whatever the case is.

Facebook as well; what do we not see on Facebook these days? There is certainly a great deal of concern that it is not clearly articulated how some of these things would be addressed. As well, it is not made clear what the standards would be for those multinationals and the rules that domestic content suppliers and producers have here in Canada.

i want to talk about unleashing the private sector. There is a community in my constituency many in this House will know as Drumheller. It is the dinosaur capital of the world, the heart of the Canadian badlands. Not only is it known for the dinosaurs and the Royal Tyrrell Museum, and a big shout-out to everybody there and the challenges they are facing because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it has been very interesting how that community has benefited greatly in content creation.

In fact, my wife suggested we watch the Netflix series Lost in Space, and I thought to myself that those hills looked familiar. It turns out I had not been to that planet, but rather I had driven through Drumheller. It was filmed there, and of course there was some CGI and whatnot associated with it, but there is incredible work done here in Canada. It is not just solely Canadian content like we see sometimes produced by the CBC, and although there are some aspects of that content a lot of people are very proud of, there is a lot of it that quite frankly I question why tax dollars go toward paying for.

There is a lot shot in Canada, whether it be Vancouver, the Prairies or Toronto. A number of television shows supposedly based in New York are actually shot in downtown Toronto. It is absolutely incredible how much Canadian content there is and to ensure the free market is absolutely unleashed, to ensure Canada is a destination for that investment and the jobs that come along with it.

When the Leader of the Opposition was running for the leadership of the party, I was very pleased he addressed one of these things, which was to eliminate the goods and services tax on Canadian digital platforms as a mechanism to say that it is an equal playing field. It is something that bears mentioning in this place.

I will discuss a couple of other issues and then I will wrap up with a very important one. Nothing in this bill seems to address the issue of royalty sharing to media content shared on digital media. It does not explain how digital platforms would be treated versus more conventional broadcasting. It would give full enforcement powers to the CRTC, and like the member for Carleton articulated very well, I certainly have a great deal of concern when enforcement powers are given. Like the member for Abbotsford mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of hesitation when the minister has the final say on a lot of the governance aspects of how content is done.

There are a number of other concerns, but I do not think I will have time to get to them, so I will finish with simply this. All Canadians should be concerned with The New York Times editorial, and it has been discussed in this House, related to the exploitation of children on the web giants like MindGeek's Pornhub. A tremendous number of issues need to be addressed, which I do not have the time to get into today.

The New York Times exposé and some of the debate that has taken place subsequently here and around the world look to make sure there is a clear understanding of how we can ensure those most vulnerable among us are protected. I simply finish my remarks with that.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague.

Bill C-10 is a direct response from artists, musicians, independent producers and technicians in the arts and culture sector in Canada. They are saying that we are losing our cultural sovereignty. What the member said is true. A number of productions are happening in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Manitoba, but these are service productions with American stories being told. They are telling us that we losing our cultural sovereignty, and I think the Conservative Party recognizes that.

In fact, a few days ago, the Conservative MPs for Lakeland, Portage—Lisgar and Peace River—Westlock all said that government needed to intervene to regulate online platforms. However, the minute we try to do something and the first attempt we make at doing that, they say we are trying to take away free speech.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I do not think there was a question there.

I am no expert on media and production, but I have talked to many filmmakers. In fact, I am proud to have a filmmaker in my constituency who is creating a film production base. It is a ready-made set that people can use, whether international, domestic, local, indigenous, French, whatever may be the case.

It is interesting that the minister raises those issues, because the bill does not seem to address the very things he suggested it would. There is ambiguity in what the bill attempts to address. Therefore, how can a producer, how can a content—

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

The hon. member will have three minutes for questions following question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the bill, there were three minutes remaining in questions and comments for the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, what I especially like about the legislation is that it reinforces how important Canadian content is. It is one of the ways for us to ensure that many talented individuals, in what is a large industry in all regions of our country, will have many more opportunities here in Canada. We can better celebrate our heritage by ensuring we have additional Canadian content.

I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on how important it is that, as legislators, we work toward ensuring there will always be Canadian content in all forms of media.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the member opposite is similar to the question I had hoped to finish responding to.

One of the challenges I have with the bill, which has been raised by a number of my Conservative colleagues, is that it is ambiguous in what it tries to accomplish. I point out for my hon. colleague that the absence of language guidelines in the bill disadvantages francophone communities by failing to ensure that online broadcasters create content in both official languages. We have heard much in this debate regarding the importance of ensuring that the cultural significance of the French language is preserved in this country, and that is one of the challenges.

As I have just a few moments left, I will take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues a very merry Christmas. May God bless each and every one them as we head back to our constituencies and to our homes. Whatever the holidays look like across the country, it is certainly a challenging time for all Canadians.

I thank my colleagues, both within the Conservative caucus and otherwise, and all of those who make sure this place can run, including my constituency staff, whether it is in a pandemic or otherwise. There is a lot we have to be proud of in our parliamentary institution, and it is an honour to ensure that this legacy lives on no matter what the global circumstances are. I wish a merry Christmas to them and to all who are watching today.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss a bill that is close to my heart.

As I have been a professional performing artist for most of my life, I know that for these kinds of bills, the devil is in the details. I was very glad to see the union ACTRA endorse the bill. It said performing artists from coast to coast to coast will now be able to perform more, have their works seen on more screens and devices, and be paid for their work.

When I first started acting, I was 16 years old doing theatre in Nova Scotia at the Neptune Theatre in Halifax. From there, I moved on to doing theatre right across the country, including in Edmonton, where I played Marilyn Monroe in a rock opera on the life of Marilyn called Hey, Marilyn!. I was 19 at the time. From there, I went on to do my first movie at the age of 20 in Wilcox, Saskatchewan. It was called the Hounds of Notre Dame about Père Athol Murray. Anybody from out west might remember that. I then went on to play the fiancée of Colin Thatcher, a Conservative politician who ended up murdering his wife. I played his girlfriend, who helped turn him in to the police.

These were all heady days of the business. We also did live radio. I remember the Jarvis Street studio in Toronto. We did live radio plays, and sometimes we would need to be at the radio station at 6:30 a.m. to do a live one-hour or half-hour show. One of my favourites was about a politician. The amazing Gordon Pinsent played that role, and I played a cabinet minister.

I remember one day early in the morning we were waiting for the star of the show to arrive and he was not there. We were about to go on live radio. The producer was getting ready to take his part, and was pretty freaked out, when in came Gordon, in his pyjamas, at the last minute. He went on to perform brilliantly, of course, the role he was born to play.

I have lived through the times when radio was cut and cut and cut. We called it “death by a million cuts”. CBC was being cut. Radio was being cut. Dramas started to be cut down. This is the lifeblood for performers who do a lot of theatre but who also need to be seen on camera. To be honest, it is the cheapest and best way a government can invest in tourism. It brings people to a country and gets people around the world to see the beauties of our country and the stories that make us unique and different from any other country in the world.

That is why it is so important to look after people. It is so their work can be performed and seen all around the world, and now on many different devices.

Let us fast-forward to around the year 2005, when I was living in New York doing animation for PBS.

PBS wanted me to sign a contract, and I had never seen one that said work could be shown on all devices in the universe. PBS wanted me to sign away my rights for eternity throughout the universe. It was the first time I had ever seen that and the first time I had ever seen “on devices” in a contract. I had to ask somebody what that meant, and they said that pretty soon people would be watching things on their watches or their phones. I could not conceive of that concept. I thought it was crazy. However, if we fast-forward, where are people watching things now? They are watching them on watches, phones and all kinds of devices.

Currently, online undertakings that deliver audio and audio-visual content over the Internet are exempt from licensing and most other regulatory requirements. That is why Bill C-10 really aims to clarify that online undertakings are within the scope of the broadcasting regulatory system.

It would also provide the CRTC with new powers to regulate online audio and visual content. It would allow the CRTC to create conditions of service and other regulatory requirements under which those online broadcasters would operate in Canada, and update the CRTC's regulatory powers as they relate to traditional broadcasters as well. This is good.

The bill would ensure the act would not apply to users of social media services or social media services themselves for the content posted by their users. However, the bill aims to update key elements of the broadcasting policy for Canada to ensure the creation of Canadian content is reflective of Canadian society and accessible to all Canadians. This is what I am talking about. We need to get our stories told. We need to see more diverse Canadian faces and voices.

I have many friends in this industry who are Black or indigenous. We need to see them. We need to hear them. We need to hear the beautiful stories they have to tell. This is a great way to be able to open the door so that more of this content can be seen.

One of my favourite stations now is APTN, so here is a shout-out to APTN. It does some amazing work.

The bill would amend the act to take greater account of indigenous cultures and languages, and recognize that Canada's broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic status, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions, and age. Additional amendments would also serve to promote greater accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Is it not time we show more people and more different diverse stories? I think Canadians are open to that content now. The more we talk about different styles of living and cultural backgrounds, the more people will start to understand that we really need to walk a mile in people's shoes, moccasins and so forth, to understand where they are coming from, what their background is and what they have been through. At the end of the day, it is all about compassion and trying to understand where another person is coming from and putting ourselves in their place.

As a performer and professional actor for 30-odd years and now as a parliamentarian for 11 years, I have to say that being a performer was very good training for being a politician, and not for the reasons some people would think, such as that we can pretend and put on a stony face. It is because we can feel compassion for others. I think that is an important part of this job.

I am very glad the bill has been introduced and is hopefully going to be passed. The bill would also provide a flexible approach to regulation, allowing the CRTC to tailor the conditions of service and other regulatory requirements imposed on broadcasters, taking into account the act's policy and regulatory objectives, the variety of broadcasters in the system and the differences between them, and determining what is fair and equitable depending on the circumstances.

With that, I believe my time is up. I would like to express a merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and safe travels to all of my colleagues and everyone across Canada. May everyone's families be safe. Remember to love one another because, in the end, all there is is love.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that concerns me is that there are a lot of unanswered questions here. The Liberals are passing the buck to the CRTC to deal with most of the bill. They are doing nothing for fair tax rules. Right now in our country, journalism is under threat. I just met with the Parksville Qualicum Beach News and the Comox Valley Record, and they talked about the fact that 75% of online advertising is with Facebook and Google, and they are having a difficult time surviving. Those web giants are using local journalism to advance their goals.

There was a promise in the Speech from the Throne to get big tech giants to pay for local journalism content. Australia tabled legislation yesterday to do so.

Does my colleague agree the government needs to take action and table legislation soon, so that local journalism is protected and the web giants using their content will pay their fair share?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, this is also a concern of mine. I understand where the member is coming from, and I understand where journalists are coming from.

Right now, it is very difficult to make a living as a journalist. As we know, many of the newspapers are closing down. People are getting their news from Facebook or Twitter and other places. Sometimes that news is not correct, as we know. It is fake news or it is paid-for news.

This is a very good step, and it is something that my colleagues in ACTRA have been asking for, for a long time. I believe it is the right way forward, so let us see what happens after this. I still stay on this as well.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am just curious if the member would have any comments on the conversation around sexual exploitation and MindGeek and hosted content, which has been debated in the House as of late. There are some absolutely disgusting, quite frankly, abuses that are taking place, with children, victims of rape and assault, and their videos not being able to be scrubbed off the Internet.

Would the member comment on that issue and how it may relate to this conversation?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for asking this very important question.

A few years ago, I was also targeted on the Internet by some folks who started to use a picture of mine from a television show I had done. They started to flash it around and refused to take it down. I started to get notices from constituents who told me that their daughters were abused in a similar fashion by former boyfriends who had sold pictures of them to Internet providers. We discovered that most of them were not located in Canada. They were actually overseas.

I contacted the former minister of justice at that point, Peter MacKay. I also talked to the province. I was an MLA at the time. We found that it was very difficult to get those pictures down. In the end, it was Anonymous who actually contacted me and said, “We see what you are trying to do and how difficult it is.” They took it down. They took the website down.

I do not know why it is so hard for people to do it. I understand. It is a terrible thing, and we need to do something about it.

[William Amos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing all Canadians a very happy holidays, a merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a happy new year.

I would like to ask my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester the following question: What is her view of Bill C-10, in a context where we are trying to truly help the cultural community of actors and everyone in Canada's production and arts sector?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is going to help because it is going to push people to do more content, more Canadian content, and for people who are having their content shown on other devices, they will be paid.

I am, as some people know, Rogue in the X-Men. I do not get paid for any of the times that people see me on Netflix or on any of these shows, or Disney. I do not get paid for any of that stuff. It would be nice if there was a way that we could have contracts now where people will get paid for their work. Some people are making billions off of Canadian actors.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member, and I did not want to interrupt because there is not a lot of time between questions and comments, that she is not to use the name of ministers in the House by their first or last names. I just wanted to remind her of that, because she did mention the minister at one point.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker,

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
that wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.

I believe that song, co-written by a Canadian, by the way, Alan Mills, in the 1950s, describes a little of what the government is trying to do here, and I think it is going to be ultimately unsuccessful. The Internet and the changing landscape of media in Canada is creating challenges for sure, but this bill would do nothing or, worse, make it worse for Canadians.

The worst part of the changes the Liberals are proposing is making the CRTC not accountable to elected members of Parliament. It would move the reporting process to the minister or, ultimately, the Prime Minister's Office. I cannot think of a situation where that would be good for Canada. The control the Prime Minister's Office would have over our media landscape would be detrimental to our ability to tell our stories.

I have listened closely to some of the speeches today and a value I hold is that we should be sharing Canadian stories. However, the current landscape has changed and what Liberals are proposing, as the Saskatchewan saying goes, is to rush to close the barn door after the horses have all left. If we play out the different scenarios of what the bill would do, it would cost the consumer or Canadians more and reduce competition. That is something I do not think anyone would support at the end of the day.

We must look at what is happening in the media landscape. Other members have talked about Google and Facebook, and some of the news stories out of the United States about the federal government and Facebook. If there is a problem of fairness, it is that taxation is not the same in Canada versus some of the Internet players. We are talking about massive organizations that impact people's perceptions and views, and can have political ramifications.

We have a problem and we have identified it is with a lot of these large international players, but this bill would do nothing. It does not mention Google or Facebook. Maybe that was by design because some of the indirect things we could do with pressure are probably more dangerous than what we could do with direct pressure. With Google and Facebook being threatened, in essence, that they would fall under a government organization such as the CRTC and taxation, this will change the policies and procedures of those two large companies and have a detrimental effect on Canadians.

There would be a massive increase in the powers and added responsibilities of the CRTC. How will the CRTC afford to do that under the current budget? The CRTC gets most of its funding, as far as I understand it, from fees. Fees are paid by consumers. Consumers have to earn that $1, pay tax on that $1 and then, with their freedom of choice, decide where to spend it. Would the CRTC collect it indirectly through consumers or would the Liberals go back to the taxpayer and ask for more money so that the CRTC can fulfill the mandate of what the bill would enact?

I do not know what country, maybe the Government of China would be one of the few, would admire what the bill would do. We all know the Prime Minister's view of the basic dictatorship of China and its affection for all things controlled by government, and that is where I have concerns with adding more responsibilities to the CRTC.

Once again, the lofty goals of this bill are admirable, to a certain extent, but will it actually improve the landscape of media in Canada? I do not think this is going to happen.

The reason we are talking about the lady who swallowed the fly is that when we try to regulate things that cannot be regulated, such as the Internet in a free society, we will find other actors and other avenues that will pop up that will take the place of what we currently have. What is next? That is where I get to the Government of China reference: in order for this to be successful, we need to regulate everything in the world, and I just cannot see that happening.

On the example of the CRTC, we were talking about foreign companies. What if they have no assets and no footprint in Canada? How are we actually going to force foreign identities? Is the next thing we are going to be regulating what Visa or Mastercard could charge, so that consumers make a decision to support one platform over the other? The next one would be asking for credit card companies, and the next thing will be Paypal and then the next and then the next.

We are trying to fix a problem that needs to be addressed, but in the way that this bill is written, I do not think it is going to go anywhere near what we actually would need in Canada. Talking about the reduced competition, I think we would actually have fewer Canadian stories that actually have an impact on either our residents or internationally, if we go down the path of regulation to the extent that this bill would do.

I would like to also unwrap, just briefly, the changes on the CRTC reporting to Parliament versus the minister and how important it is that does not take place. If we live in the free society that I like to believe we live in, it is Parliament, not the minister and not ultimately the Prime Minister, that should have the final say on what is created for content. That flows over to an overarching concern I would have with a government having the ability to approve one thing over another, one platform over another or encouraging one story over the other. That, I believe, is not where Canada should be going. I do not believe that is the mandate of Parliament to enact such far-reaching abilities. The impact of that on a society would be a government controlling too much of people's lives.

I am against anything that encroaches on our freedoms, and if we are trying to be successful in the 21st century, I do not believe this is good for Canada. It is not good for competition, it is not good for consumers and it is not good for our creative industries. Where this might lead is where I will end our fable:

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a horse...
She's dead of course!

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was certainly a creative way to finish it.

One of the things that I have noticed in the time since I was elected is that the preamble of a bill, or the press conference to an announcement, is very different from the entire text of a bill or the action related to any announcement. It seems to me that Bill C-10 is in line with that pattern. I am wondering if my colleague has further comments on how the intent of this bill, as it is presented, is very different from what appears to actually fill the full 13 pages of it.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is true that, of late in Ottawa, press conferences announcing the new bills are filled with virtue-signalling, buzzwords and creative phrases. They seem good on their merits, but when we look at the substance of the bill before us, as I have spoken about, where the CRTC would report, and what that actually would result in does not match the preamble of the bill, which is really a smokescreen for some questionable motives of why we are taking the CRTC approval process and reporting a responsibility out of Parliament and putting it in the Prime Minister's Office, which I think is wrong.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have three questions.

First, does the member believe that CanCon regulations on radio in the 1970s amounted to government control of thought in Canada? Second, how is it that requiring Canadian content, expanding the variety of content available to Canadians, reduces competition? Third, as the member said in his speech, how would requiring more Canadian content result in less Canadian content?

Could the member please address those three questions?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I hope I have enough time to get to all three questions before I get cut off.

I wonder if the member was talking about the 1970s in Canada, Soviet Russia, Cuba or China, because there are some parallels of governments having too much control.

On the competition aspect, if we restrict people's access to different streaming services or offerings, we will have fewer options for consumers. On the Canadian content, there are sites such as BritBlocks, a small streaming service for Canadians of British descent, which would just leave Canada, and so we would not be able to access its services and consumers would be less enriched from British stories. However, in return, does the member not think that other countries would restrict our content and our platforms if this is successful? We know that CUSMA has a regulation that could potentially cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars if an appeal process is granted and exercised on the impact of Bill C-10. There is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I raised earlier, Google and Facebook have over 75% of all web-based advertising. They are using a lot of local content. Journalists are losing jobs as local newspapers are feeling the crunch. Could my colleague speak about how important it is that legislation come forward, like they are doing in Australia this week, to make sure that Google and Facebook pay their fair share?

We know that the Liberals are very close in their relationship with Facebook and Google. Maybe the member could speak about the importance of protecting local journalism.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, he is right, there are some troubling concerns on how close the Liberal government is with Google and Facebook. Maybe that is why they are not mentioned in the bill, even though that was the primary thrust in changing the CRTC regulations.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to speak today on this important update to the Canadian Broadcasting Act. It has been 29 years since there has been an update to this legislation and it is long overdue.

I graduated from the Algonquin College broadcasting program the same year that the Broadcasting Act was last updated in 1991 and I have seen many changes in the field since that time. I am a big supporter of Canadian content rules. It is important to have platforms and spaces where diverse voices and stories can be shared. I have seen first-hand how the CanCon system has benefited Canadians.

During the 1990s I worked at Video In Studios, which is now called VIVO Media Arts. It is an artist-run centre that provides access to equipment and training to video artists and media producers. I trained a lot of people in the new digital technology of that time. Many of those people did not see themselves reflected in the mainstream content being produced: indigenous people, people with diverse abilities, people of colour, street-involved youth and members of the LGBTQ++ community. Many of these people I trained went on to develop careers in the broadcasting industry and utilized CanCon rules to bring their unique stories and perspectives to Canadian audiences.

In the late 1990s, I worked with Dana Claxton, a renowned first nations artist. Her sister Kim Soo Goodtrack was a teacher who had written a children's book called The ABC’s of Our Spiritual Connection, which threads together first nations’ spiritual beliefs from across North America. Kim had an idea for a TV show, and together with Dana and their brother Don, I co-produced the pilot for Wakanheja. It was the first preschool show on a brand-new Canadian network, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN. We made 64 episodes of that series before going on to create 39 episodes of a pre-teen show for APTN called Art Zone. While these shows were targeted to an audience of children and youth, the cultural sharing and stories provided an education for people of all ages. This programming would not have been possible without CanCon rules.

Funding formulas are essential to ensure a diversity of content. If it was left solely to the market we would have nothing but Disney-style caricatures of indigenous culture and many uniquely Canadian stories would never be produced for film and television.

This bill is an effort to catch up with the new media reality that has been unfolding for the last two decades. In 2007, I uploaded my first video to YouTube. It was footage I shot of three Sûreté du Québec undercover police officers trying to provoke an attack on their own riot squad at a protest in Montebello, Quebec. We pulled the masks off their faces and when they were mock-arrested by their fellow officers we noticed that all of their boots matched those of the riot squad. The YouTube video went viral and became an international news story. YouTube has evolved into one of the most influential players in the media landscape and we have barely begun grappling with the implications of that.

One thing that Canadians really want to see is the Internet giants, Facebook, Google and Amazon, paying their fair share of taxes for the business that they do in this country. They should be paying not just the GST and HST on the advertising they sell in this market but corporate taxes on the income they generate from Canadians. One key thing that this bill does is create a new category of broadcasting under the act, the "online undertaking". This would ensure that the online streaming giants such as Amazon and Netflix are covered under the act. This would help to level the playing field. These multinational companies selling their services in Canada should be required to carry Canadian content and/or help to pay for the creation of Canadian content.

The health of our news media is another area of great concern, particularly local news outlets. Local news outlets cannot compete on a level playing field with companies like Facebook and Google. We need local media and the stories they cover in our communities. Their content is shared on social media platforms that sell advertising beside that content, but none of that revenue is shared with them. Our local media outlets are held to journalistic standards, but the social media platforms are not. This is another glaring omission.

Social media platforms are publishers who generate enormous profits from content, content which is often racist, homophobic, misogynist and misleading. Social media companies should be required to uphold the same standards as traditional broadcasters. The absence of these standards and the expectations of voluntary self-regulation has brought us to a place where social media is negatively impacting our mental health, creating deepening divisions in society and having a corrosive effect on democracy.

We must take steps to ensure the survival of local media outlets in a media landscape where the playing field will never be level. Taxing social media companies on the revenues they generate in Canada and directing a portion of those funds to support local media production would be one way of doing so.

The Broadcasting Act should not limit the definition of broadcasting, but should leave it to the CRTC to determine what should be regulated. As we have seen in the last few decades, the media landscape continues to shift and the CRTC needs to be able regulate emerging types of media dissemination. The CRTC should not just have the option to regulate Internet giants, it must be mandated to do so. The penalties for violations by these Internet giants also need to be substantial, so it is not just viewed as the cost of doing business.

There are concerns about the removal of the paragraph that reads in part, “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.” I understand the government is trying to bring the multinational Internet giants under the act, but we also need to ensure our existing broadcasting system is not opened up to foreign ownership.

As I emphasized earlier, the requirements for Canadian content are important. There are a lot of American productions shot in Canada using Canadian talent, but these are not Canadian stories.

I know we cannot expect Disney+ to create Canadian content based on Canadian stories, but it should be required to help fund Canadian content based on the amount of content it streams into the Canadian market.

Spotify does not create content, but it could be required to identify Canadian content on its streaming platforms and it should also have to contribute to CanCon based on the amount of business it does in our country.

Canadians need to be able to find Canadian content on these large streaming platforms. Companies like Netflix, Amazon and Spotify should provide the means for users to easily find Canadian content.

The Broadcasting Act must continue to protect the unique linguistic characteristics of Canada. We need to ensure that broadcasters create content in both official languages. Original French language content should not be sidelined by English language programs that have voice-over translations that are then passed off as French language content.

Bill C-10 proposes to replace the current conditions of licence with “conditions of service” to prohibit the appeal of any conditions of service to the cabinet. The public must have the right to appeal a CRTC decision that it considers unfair. While every decision of the CRTC should not necessarily be up for appeal, the process for appealing to cabinet should be retained in the act.

To summarize, this bill introduces changes to the Broadcasting Act that I am happy to see, but there are changes to the act that leave many stakeholders concerned. Some of the issues can be fixed with amendments. Some of the issues I have raised can only be addressed through regulation. Some can only be addressed through additional legislation, including proper taxation of multinational digital media giants.

I will be voting for the bill at second reading and I look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say in the committee process.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the you, Madam Speaker, the House of Commons staff, my hon. colleagues in the House of Commons, my constituents and all Canadians a happy and healthy holiday season.

[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, I appreciate many of the comments the member stated throughout his speech. I want to pick up on something I have already provided some comment on, which is how important the is legislation in looking forward and how media has actually changed over the years. There is a necessity for us to go into the area of Internet in this fashion.

Protecting Canadian content is, for many of reasons the member cited, critically important for us as a nation. Could he provide additional thoughts with respect to the impact it also has on jobs? It is a quite significant number of jobs and it also feeds hope for a lot of talented Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have worked in the broadcast industry and as an independent producer. I know that a lot of production comes into Canada from the United States, which helps to pay for the infrastructure and develops the talent of Canadians. That talent and that infrastructure are then used for Canadian content. It is really important to nurture that Canadian talent and ensure unique stories are told.

I am really happy to see, for instance, Eden Robinson create Monkey Beach into a film. Therefore, I am happy to see this development and this protection of Canadian content in the legislation.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill is 38 pages. It covers amendments to the Canada Elections Act, the Referendum Act, the Copyright Act, the Cannabis Act, the Access to Information Act, Accessible Canada Act, and the Broadcasting Act.

I have read the entire bill and I noticed that the vast majority of pages define and lay out how different offences would be prosecuted. I wonder if the member has a concern about the ground that would be covered in such a minimalist bill and the nature of how we actually put some, for lack of a better word, heft to this, so the House of Commons actually has some control in developing this new regimen, rather than being all in the hands of the CRTC.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to cover a lot of different ground with this act, because broadcasting affects all our lives. The Internet is affecting our elections. It is influencing our children. It can be an educational influence, but it can also be a detrimental influence. As I was saying, it undermines our democracy, it undermines our communities' strength. It can be divisive.

Therefore, there is a need to cover a lot of ground in this bill and more ground needs to be covered. I am looking forward to the committee process and to hear what the experts have to say.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member heard the question from my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. However, I wonder if he could comment on this idea of Canadian news content that is put onto Facebook by Canadian newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat and Facebook gets that content basically for free. The Australians are putting forward a solution for this. Is the member aware of that and could he comment on it?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we need to work on creating a more level playing field. It is going to be hard for local media to compete with these Internet giants. We should be looking at the Australian model.

As I mentioned in my speech, we need to ensure there is revenue sharing for the content that is shared through the social media platforms and has advertising right beside it. There needs to be a system of fairness. We need to protect our local media sources and the important stories they tell. They are extremely important to our communities, to our democracy and to our identity as Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a direct result of the time it took for votes, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House at this time, you might find unanimous consent to call it 6:43 p.m, which would then allow us to begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

I want to wish everyone in the House and those watching a very merry Christmas.

The bill that we are debating today is a potential gift for all Canadians, something we all hold dear, and there needs to be a timely change to the Broadcasting Act. Things have changed so much in the last few years with digital content that change is something I think we can all get behind.

Being as it is a potential gift for all Canadians, I tried to consult the expert on gifts for all Canadians at Christmastime. Who did I try to get in touch with? It was Santa Claus. I have to say that it was a little more difficult this year. I want Santa to know that I tried to get in touch. I am wearing my favourite Christmas tie that he gave me and I want to thank him very much. It reminds me of Christmas. I wanted to get Santa's opinion on this bill, because this is a potential gift for all Canadians.

As kids around Canada are watching this debate intently, I want them to know that Santa is working hard this year. He is making sure the elves in the factory are kept very safe. He is following all of the protocols. He wants people to remember the Christmas message of being kind to our neighbours, to reach out to somebody who may be in need, and that this is a time about love and community. This year has certainly been a tough year, so I think all parliamentarians can get behind that statement.

Because I could not get in touch with Santa, I have to give my own opinion on this bill we are debating today. As I said, I would love to be able to support it because it is a great gift, but I think I am going to have to give it a lump of coal, unfortunately, that might increase greenhouse gases too. Because there are so many faults in this bill, it really is very difficult for me to figure out where exactly I can start.

Maybe I will start with last night. Like many Canadians, my wife and I were at home doing things that Canadians do. We were not drinking Sortilège and eating tourtière. I think everybody would like to be doing that, but we were streaming a series that my wife likes. We were bingeing on a series called Virgin River. It is a very interesting romantic drama series, a series I would normally not want to watch, but when wives say they want to watch a romantic drama series, it is really important that their husbands pay attention to that.

I was watching the show and I suddenly realized I knew actors and actresses. It was set in northern California, but it was beautiful.

As we were sitting around binge-watching, I thought I recognized what I was seeing. I googled it and I found out this show Virgin River actually has numerous Canadian actors and actresses in it and takes place in British Columbia. I thought how appropriate it is we are actually debating this bill, because Netflix is a company that already knows the quality of Canadian actors, sets and scenery. As far as it doing business in this country, there are not a lot of rules.

I have listened to some of the debates, and some of the parliamentarians here feel that big giants like Netflix are actually the bad guys. I actually think it is a great business. If someone had asked me a few years ago how I would watch TV, this was not the way I thought we would be doing it. It is the new way. If we can attract more of its investment in this community to take Canadian scenery and Canadian actors and actresses and spread it out around the world, would it not be wonderful for Canadian culture?

In this House, I think most of us disagree with the Prime Minister when he said that Canadians have no core identity, we have no distinct culture, we want to be the first post-national state. We are proud of our culture and we want to make sure going forward in this new technology, this new digital format, we will be winning in the world and not being set behind.

For companies like Netflix, one of the reasons I cannot support this is because this bill is not clear on the rules. We know Canadian providers need to have 25% to 40% Canadian content and participate with 5% of their profits into the Media Fund, but new technologies need new rules and this legislation falls short.

I want to talk about the vagueness of this bill. It is really important to have fairness and equity put into our system, but this bill would not ensure web giants such as Google and Facebook, for example, would have to compete on the same playing field as Canadian companies. Because it does nothing to address the inequity between digital and conventional forums, it is very difficult to support this bill.

On decision-making, while other countries have an arbitration board, decisions would be made with orders in council. In other words, the Prime Minister and his cabinet would be making decisions on this bill. Right now, Canadians are a bit edgy about the government making all these decisions.

This bill would also allow the CRTC new broad powers, with no clear guidelines, which increases the uncertainty. Like I said, for Canadians to flourish in this new environment, they need certainty. Investors need certainty. When we are competing around the world, if Australia has its system figured out but Canada does not, where do we think these large international platforms are going to be doing their work?

I want to talk about fairness. In the last couple of weeks I was contacted by the local newspapers in my riding. There are two really great local newspapers in Oshawa. One is The Oshawa Express, run by sisters Kim Boatman and Sandy McDowell. It is a great entrepreneurial business run by women. The other one is Oshawa This Week, and I was contacted by Barb Yezik.

They were talking to me about this legislation and how important it is to get it right. Right now with COVID, these businesses are struggling. We need to make sure when we implement a new piece of legislation we get it right, but also that it is done in a very timely fashion. They explained to me that the primary issue is how their business model is disrupted by the web giants like Facebook and Google.

For example, Oshawa This Week and The Oshawa Express are not paid for their content. As far as the process of which they are a part, it really is not transparent on revenue sharing and advertising splits. A statistic that really concerned me when I heard it, and I think it concerns all of us in here, is that Facebook and Google pocket up to 80% of the ad revenue in Canada. Think about that. That is a huge amount of money that goes outside of this country. It is huge, and especially during this time of COVID, it is affecting them more severely.

The Oshawa Express and Oshawa This Week basically have their bricks and mortar in my community of Oshawa. They pay their local taxes, pay their national taxes and pay reporters to go out and get these stories.

It is so important that we support these small businesses, these entrepreneurs. Right now we are stuck with so much uncertainty and lack of traditional income. I am really happy we are acting on this, but again, this bill does not provide a framework or certainty as to how these businesses are going to be able to continue. We need to make sure they are viable, because it is local media that really tells the truth about our communities. They come out to our events. They support Canada and Canadians in everything we do in our communities.

I only have one minute left, but I want to mention that I think yesterday Australia passed its legislation. That has given businesses that operate in Australia clear guidelines and a way to arrange their competitiveness not only in Australia, but to get an idea of how they will be able to compete around the world, because the world is getting smaller every single year.

We wanted this bill to talk about fairness, competitiveness and how it would ensure content producers are treated fairly. Unfortunately, we do not have that.

Madam Speaker, I would love to talk a bit longer, with a bit of time to talk about Santa Claus, but with that, I wish a merry Christmas to you and all of my colleagues in the House.

I am available for questions.

[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, in the spirit of Christmas, I want to add a few thoughts of appreciation and thanks. To the individuals who protect the House of Commons, those looking underneath the clerk's table on their hands and knees, walking around making sure we are in a safe environment, to those who record our Hansard and whether they like it or not have to listen to my speeches, to those who provide us the meals, especially the one kind lady who produces that special fudge, which is the best fudge in the world, to our pages, to the clerk table officers, to those in television and in particular the people who make the hybrid system work, there are so many people who make our democracy work here in Ottawa, and I know I am missing so many, on behalf of myself and the Liberal caucus I want to express our appreciation for all the things they do to make this work.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, whenever the parliamentary secretary gets up, it is always very difficult to add to what he says, but I want to take this opportunity to add a few of my own thoughts about the Christmas season.

We know this has been a very difficult year, and I want to say thanks to all of my colleagues in the House. This has been a tough year, and I think all of us have worked together. Just like Santa is making sure the elves are safe in the factory to make sure they can get things out and everybody can have a wonderful Christmas, we have have been working together very well to make sure that Canadians have a wonderful way forward in 2021.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him if he agrees with the Bloc Québécois that the francophone portion of production should be significant, around 40%. Does my colleague agree with the Bloc's position on that?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think all my opposition colleagues believe, as I do, that Quebec culture is Canadian culture, and that it is very important to support Canadian culture.

I said in the opening of my speech that we would love to be sitting at home having some Sortilège and tourtière. That is one of my family traditions and part of my culture.

This relates to one of the flaws of the bill, and I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc for bringing it up. Quebec culture is Canadian culture, and we love our country. We love Quebec and every province in our wonderful country. We need to support that moving forward.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear the Conservative Party rally to the NDP position this week and say that web giants should have to pay tax too.

We agree that the 28-year-old Broadcasting Act needs to be changed, updated and modernized. Everyone who benefits from the system should contribute to content production.

Unfortunately, the Liberals' bill is only a partial solution and does not apply to many of the players, such as internet service providers, social media like YouTube, and future broadcasting platforms. Does my colleague think these players should also do their part and contribute to the system?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, we want to have a level playing field. I am going to say something that is a little controversial, perhaps, to the NDP and the Liberals: There are other ways of doing that.

As I mentioned in my speech, this is a new world. We have to be competitive internationally. One of the ways we could do that, as my colleague said, is maybe to increase taxes and tax everyone. However, there is another approach. Traditionally the Conservatives say that we should lower taxes and allow the playing field to develop the way it should in that regard to make Canada, all across the board, more competitive.

How do we move forward on this to level the playing field? I know we are in huge deficits right now and we may have to work together in this challenging environment to come up with a good solution. However, what is important is that everyone is treated fairly and equitably, and Canada becomes competitive. We have the talent here and have the resources to compete around the world. Would it not be great to see more Canadian talent around the world?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the government has finally brought this long-awaited modernization of the Broadcasting Act, also known as Bill C-10. Too often government regulations have fallen far behind human innovations and progress, such as those for unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, and various forms of the sharing economy, and it is definitely encouraging to see, 15 years after its founding and 10 years after YouTube reached one billion views, that the act is being updated for social media platforms. However, my initial excitement was doused with a bucket of cold water when I saw some of the half-hearted measures and the complete abdication of responsibility. We missed a great opportunity to genuinely reform the act for the 21st century, and I therefore find it challenging to cast my support for it.

Let me explain. In my research preparing for this speech, I came across Dr. Michael Geist's criticism of the faults of the proposed changes in Bill C-10. In fact, there are so many problems, he has a daily blog called “The Broadcasting Act Blunder”. Allow me to mention a few highlights from this blog.

First, Bill C-10, as a broadcast reform bill, could spell the end of Canadian ownership requirements by removing Canadian ownership and control requirements from the Broadcasting Act, yet the heritage minister says the bill would safeguard cultural sovereignty. Second, the bill in no way prevents online streaming services from operating in Canada or requires them to be licensed. It instead requires registration, which may result in nondescript additional regulations and conditions that are “virtually indistinguishable from licensing requirements”.

When the Liberals claim it ensures that online broadcasting is covered under the act, why is it covered in such indecisive terms? The bill creates uncertainty, increases consumer costs and creates a risk for tariffs and blocking content from Canada. However, the government calls the bill a matter of fairness.

Michael Geist is not one of those regular Canadians who the elitist government looks down upon. He is a Canadian academic. In fact, he is the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa and a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. He holds multiple law degrees from prestigious institutions and has taught around the world. It would be fair to take his misgivings on the bill seriously.

Let us take a closer look at fairness. The Liberals say they are updating broadcasting and regulatory policies to better reflect the diversity of Canadian society. How is it fair to virtual signal with much empty aspirations about gender equality, LGBTQ2+ people, racialized communities, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples without specifying how the changes will help them? Is it fair to arm the CRTC with new enforcement powers through an administrative monetary penalty scheme that, when translated into English, means government's overreach could potentially end in a windfall of cold hard cash?

Speaking of cash, is it fair that the government has used the pandemic to repeatedly seek more unchecked power for itself, all the while drowning Canadians in a projected $1.2 trillion in national debt? That is a credit card debt of more than $63,000 for each of Facebook Canada's alleged 19 million registered users in this country. Estimates indicate that if online broadcasters are taxed for Canadian content at a rate similar to that of traditional broadcasting, the new framework would create an $830 million government windfall in three years, by 2023.

In addition to power grabs, the government also wants a cash grab, but the obvious other side to this is increased costs. When someone is going to pays for fees that are projected to run into hundreds of millions of dollars, it is only obvious the burden will fall on Canadian consumers. None of this is fair to Canadians, and Bill C-10 follows a pattern we have become all too familiar with this year: bold intentions, little clarity, empty promises and a failure to deliver meaningful changes.

I, for one, am tired of seeing our government feeding Canadians word salad for every meal. It is past time for a meaty and substantial policy to be put forward.

Bill C-10 would hand massive new powers to the CRTC, Canada's telecommunications and broadcast regulator, to regulate online streaming services, opening the door to mandated Canadian content, also known as CanCon, payments; discoverability requirements, even though we have no issue discovering Canadian content on any capable search engine today without it; and confidential information disclosures, all backed by new fining powers.

Many of the details will be sorted out by the beefed-up CRTC bureaucracy long after the legislation is gone. The specifics will take years to unfold, meanwhile leaving Canadians in uncertainty and insecurity. Some are estimating it will take nine months alone to undertake the very first regulatory phase.

Thankfully, from where I am sitting, it appears that Canadians are not being fooled this time. They are calling for beneficial legislation that would tax multi-billion dollar foreign corporations such as Google and Facebook. They realize the bill would kick the legs out from under small content creators. They know the bill would be the surrender of any meaningful priority.

My office has been receiving notices from online campaigners asking to compel the CRTC to regulate online broadcasters, update the CBC mandate and governance structure and make sure social media companies are responsible for the illegal content they broadcast. They say, “Any updated Broadcasting Act that doesn't tackle these key issues isn't doing enough to defend Canadian broadcasting, culture and journalism.”

The bill also lacks definitions to clarify applications for social media services and user-generated content. For example, if a friend of mine sets up a subscriber-funded online broadcasting app to live-stream programs of Canadian current affairs and commentaries, unlike the author of this act seems to assume, he is doing this on his own and not relying on any of the big box social media platforms. His single-operator platform would be subjected to CRTC's mercy to allow his exercise in freedom of expression and speech, at best, or it would get buried out of business under the mounds of bureaucratic red tape, at worst. It is clear Bill C-10 does not meet the concerns of regular people.

I believe government control should be adequate and not overarching. As Andrew Coyne writes in The Globe and Mail, “But just how far the state's regulatory tentacles will now extend will depend in large part on how the CRTC interprets its new powers—and the bill's language gives plenty of room to worry.” I agree.

He is not alone in holding this view, though. Laura Tribe, executive director of OpenMedia, an Internet watchdog group, has issued an urgent warning, saying, “[The minister] has created an artificial sense of crisis around Canadian cultural content—content that is surviving and flourishing in the 21st century.” Amid all the other crises we have experienced this year, I hardly think now is the time or place to be manufacturing a new one to hive that policy.

When it comes to bills, like Bill C-10, that make claims as bold as they do, I agree with Andrew Coyne when he says, “You can lead a horse to culture, but you can't make it watch.”

On the last sitting day of the House, I wish you, Madam Speaker, and every member of the House of Commons a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and happy holidays.

[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, I tend to disagree with the member's comments about the CRTC and the importance of Canadian content. I believe the CRTC has done exceptionally well for Canadians over the years. When we look at the importance of Canadian content, we see that not only does it provide opportunities for the wonderful, talented people whom we have from coast to coast to coast, but it also creates thousands of jobs.

This is the type of legislation that will move us forward in ensuring we have Canadian content. Good, middle-class jobs will even flow out of it. There is so much good within the legislation.

I wonder if the member could indicate whether, after the bill gets to committee, where we hope to see it go, he will have some amendments that would make it better legislation, from his perspective.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps, unlike the member, I do not live in a zero-or-one world. I believe there is a balance that we have to strike. The CRTC definitely has historically been delivering value to Canadians, and we have seen that it does good work, but that does not mean that we should give all the powers to the CRTC, even overarching powers. It is interesting that the movie I enjoy most about Canadian cultural duality is actually a Hollywood movie called Bon Cop, Bad Cop, and I am still rewatching that.

I thank the member for his suggestion. I will take it to heart.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

There is one rather important aspect that is not addressed in Bill C-10.

The current crisis has been particularly hard on artists. Quebec has a fairly large dubbing industry that provides a living for artists, and I spoke with someone from that sector. She was telling me that if all the taxpayer-funded, English-language productions, like the ones produced in Toronto and Vancouver, were dubbed in Quebec, that would provide artists with work for years to come, and we would not even need American films. It is incredible.

However, that is not happening. Films and TV series that we pay for ourselves are dubbed in France. That makes absolutely no sense.

Does my colleague not think that, any time Canadian taxpayers' money is being invested, films should be dubbed in Quebec to provide work for our own people?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe Quebec is a nation that is a great part of Canada, in a united Canada, and that is why, if there is any way we can bring jobs back to Canada, I will be in full support of it. There are other provinces, I might add, that also have francophone Canadians living in them, like New Brunswick and northern Alberta, just like there are many anglophones living in Quebec as well.

I think together we are stronger in the cultural duality of Canada. I think the francophone and anglophone cultures will make us win more contracts and create more jobs in Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that my colleague did not really talk about is the monopolistic anticompetitive practices of Facebook and Google and how they are taking over the share of revenue. We know that in the bill it is not captured how we can protect the lifeline of newspapers and journalists in our country, but Australia has put forward new legislation that will require no government funding to ensure that local content is protected, and they get a share of revenue from those web giants.

Does the member agree that the web giants are not paying their fair share and they need to pay more and protect local journalism, like Australia is doing?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a worthy consideration for any Canadian government to take into consideration.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I thank my constituents for all of their support. It is a great honour to represent them in the Parliament of Canada.

I welcome this opportunity to express the concerns of my constituents regarding Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The challenge I have as a legislator is this: Do the changes to the Broadcasting Act, which was originally enacted under a previous Conservative government, outweigh the concerns of Canadians regarding the steady erosion of free speech in Canada?

When the Minister of Canadian Heritage started talking about hate speech and fake news, it pandered to the less tolerant, the alt-left crowd. Their agenda is to silence the diversity in the voices in Canada. Canadians have every reason to be concerned. The Prime Minister goes to the United Nations and says one thing, and then denies his own words when questioned about his version of the great reset he has planned for Canada. It is not in the best interests of Canadians to turn the CRTC into some kind of censor board beyond the reach of Parliament.

I proudly speak today as a member of Parliament for the Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke riding, which is rife with Canadians and their stories, together with the storytellers. Canadians are proud of our stories. The storytellers want to share their stories with the world. The government claims Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, would support the Canadian storytellers. We all know that it would not support all Canadian storytellers, just the government-approved storytellers.

What is the price to support these government-approved storytellers? According to the government, the financial price is close to $1 billion, but what about the cost to freedom of expression, regulating the Internet, demanding control over algorithms and restricting foreign programming? Is this really a price Canadians wish to pay to not watch central, committee-approved, bland television productions? If Canadians knew the real costs and consequences of the Liberal bill to regulate the Internet, what they are really were, they would reject it entirely.

There are three things that Canadians need to understand about the bill. First, it is a deception. The Liberals would change the very definition of the words in order to grab some money for their friends. Second, it is an attack on freedom of expression. Mandating speech is the same as restricting speech. Third, in proclaiming to support diversity, the government would reduce the diversity of stories that Canadians have access to, and this would have a particular set of consequences for new Canadians and refugees who speak neither of the two official languages. This is what happens when governments strip our liberties away. The least powerful pay the highest price, but we all bear a cost. That is the reason for this deception. The Liberals cannot be honest about what they are doing, because what they are doing violates the charter. It violates freedom of expression.

We have the deception, the attack on free speech and the attack on diversity. I will begin with the deception, and for that we need to go back to why we have a Broadcasting Act.

Why is there a Broadcasting Act regulating television and radio but not a newsprint act regulating newspapers? It is because newspapers use their own print and paper to express their views. Broadcasters use public airwaves to broadly cast out electromagnetic signals that televisions and radio receivers can pick up. Airwaves are a classic public good. Broadcasters cannot use the same frequency or their signals become lost. Frequencies have to be allocated by the government or else everyone would broadcast on every frequency and nobody would get a signal.

For-profit broadcasters cannot charge customers for the signal after they have already broadcasted out, but the broadcasters were introduced to advertisers, and they all made a lot of money. The government later told these broadcasters that, in return for making huge profits from public airwaves, they would be required to support Canadian storytellers, artists and musicians. Canadians were largely supportive of using Canadian airwaves to support Canadians.

Even when cable came along, the government had a role in regulating cable monopolies for the public good. This arrangement was good for the companies, good for the government–funded, committee-approved storytellers and good for the advertisers. Any Canadian with a radio, TV and some rabbit ears could watch or listen to the free entertainment. The business model was simple: Cast out the programs to the broadest audience possible and then sell the viewership to advertisers.

Canadian consumers of music and stories received quantity over quality. Then the Internet came along and changed everything. It changed everything for advertisers. Just ask the newspapers that, ironically enough, are now lobbying for a newsprint act to bail them out. It changed everything for musicians and storytellers. Just ask Justin Bieber if he would have his globe-spanning career were it not for YouTube. It changed everything for consumers. No longer did they have to sit at a specific time to watch a somewhat decent program. Now they can watch when they want but, more importantly, they can watch what they really want.

For nearly 70 years, the biggest change in broadcasting was colour TV. Then in the last 20 years, everything from production to distribution has been revolutionized. In response to this tremendous revolution in technology, entertainment and opportunities, in response to all this change, the government’s only play is to fall back on 1970s-era protectionist talking points and slap 1930s-era legislation on a 21st-century technology. It is old, it is tired and it is a deception. These companies do not use public airwaves to broadcast out a signal. It is ridiculous to call them broadcasters.

The only reason the government is doing this is to stretch the justification of regulating public airwaves into a justification for regulating private viewing. As I said in my initial remarks, it has to commit this deception to hide the truth. This is regulating expression. It is a limit on speech. Our freedom of speech and our freedom of expression are not just about the right to be heard. It is also about our right to hear, to listen, to see and to understand. It is a human right, not a Canadian privilege.

What is a privilege is to live in a time and place where we can experience stories from any human on earth. The Internet has turned all of us into both broadcasters and receivers. The government seeks to regulate that. It seeks to control it. It wants to put the toothpaste back into the tube and turn the clock back to the seventies. It wants to bring back The Beachcombers, but it is not going to happen. It is 2020 and if there has ever been a year when Canadians appreciate the ability to watch what they want when they want it, it is now.

The government has different plan. It wants to regulate what people can watch. They want to charge a tax on these streamers to even have the opportunity to offer Canadians any kind of programming.

These new taxes and regulations will cut Canadians off from a growing, rich, diverse array of new streaming services from across the world. The Liberal attack on freedom of expression is an attack on diversity. The Liberals claim that this tax will help them fund a new film school of grads with diverse backgrounds, but what about the thousands of diverse Canadians who lose out?

Does the Liberal government really believe an Indian Bollywood streaming service is going to stay in the Canadian market if it is required to produce an unprofitable amount of programming? The grandmother who recently arrived on a family reunification visa had sure better hope so. She might be in luck, due to the millions of Canadians who watch those films, but what about new Canadians from different countries? Will every foreign-language streaming service in every country be required to produce Canadian content?

[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, Bill C-210, or Bill C-10 is a good piece of legislation to amend the Broadcasting Act. We need to recognize that things have changed since many of the shows the member referenced were filmed. When we factor in the Internet and the importance of ensuring there is Canadian content, the member needs a better realization of how important it is for the Government of Canada to recognize that Canadian content matters to Canadians. The government has a role, and Bill C-10 would ensure there is an ongoing role.

I wonder if the member could be a little more transparent in what she believes. Does she believe that the CRTC and the Government of Canada have any role in ensuring Canadian content?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague does not realize we are discussing Bill C-10, not Bill C-210, and does not seem to understand either that it is a bit like apples and oranges. The government can pass a law renaming oranges as online apples, but it will not cause oranges to grow in Canada. It is not just the diversity of languages, but the diversity of genres. There are streaming services for anime, horror, documentaries and classic movies. It is going to be quite a challenge for a classic movie service to produce new Canadian content.

The Liberals might be hoping these protectionist barriers will allow Canadian-owned streaming services to start up. They think these Canadian companies will be able to afford the rights to stream all of our foreign shows. That may be for some of the big genres, but they will never have the same catalogues of shows.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech on this critical issue.

Bill C-10 has a direct impact on radio and community media. In my riding, there is a co-operative radio station, M105. News stories broadcast during the pandemic showed just how hard this station had to work to survive, but they also proved that this model can work with the help of the government. When I met with representatives from the radio station, however, they talked about how the government invested more in social media than in community media. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

Again in my riding, a journalist from La Voix de l'Est wrote an extraordinary book entitled Extinction de voix: plaidoyer pour la sauvegarde de l'information régionale, which does a great job of explaining the importance of maintaining local news coverage. It helps to preserve our democracy and ensure the survival of local businesses. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that as it relates to Bill C-10.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was the rationale behind the taxpayer-funded CBC, but CBC pulled out of all the local communities and is now broadcasting out of Toronto. Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke lost its only local broadcaster, which then went to Ottawa and became part of another conglomerate. This is a way to get local news. Many Facebook groups and start-ups produce the local news that people are interested in hearing. This broadcast act would do nothing to help local content.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the CBC and the fact that the CBC is no longer in local communities.

I wonder if the member would be supportive of contributing more funding to the CBC and doing more to protect our cherished public broadcaster so that it does not have to minimize its participation in our local communities, but also does not have to resort to tandem broadcasting on our public platforms.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I would really like to see is perhaps a CBC station back at the empty radio station that we have right now.

Insofar as wanting to fund CBC more, it is already rebroadcasting CNN and not doing anything with the money it has right now. It is just copying news from the States. We might as well be watching those other stations. CBC is not putting any original content on.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. Bill C-10 comes out of the Yale report that was filed in February of 2020. There were 97 recommendations in it, which deal with communications in Canada, social media, copyright, taxation, web giants and advertising fees to ensure the sustainability of traditional media. However, Bill C-10 is limited to one portion of that, which is the Broadcasting Act.

We have all sat through this debate and we have talked about it time and again. The last time the Broadcasting Act was amended was 28 years ago. In 28 years, a lot of things have changed. I probably had hair way back then, believe it or not. I was not a grandfather yet, but I was a father.

The Internet was just coming through and I can still remember the sound of the dial-up at that time. Did I get through? No, I am still waiting, and uploading took some time. Amazon was not available. Netflix was not available. We could not dial our phones to call for Popeyes chicken, as my office did just the other day to surprise us. There are a lot of things that have changed.

As Conservatives, we believe this act should be changed and amended to bring us into the modern age. Sadly, what we have seen is that there are a lot of flaws in this piece of legislation. It does not go far enough. Just as we have seen time and time again, we are getting the “just trust us” line. They are saying we will get the amendments through and work together.

I mentioned some of the online companies, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Google. There is nothing to force companies like Facebook and Google to pay their fair share. The bill does not address royalty sharing by these companies for content delivered via their digital platform.

Our colleague from the Bloc mentioned local content. I live in a rural area, and I remember we could turn on CBC Radio and there would be messages from one community to the next about road closures and to families about somebody being sick. Giving a heads-up is what local content is for when one lives in a rural area. That is what our national broadcaster served us in those days.

I remember fondly locally produced movies and television shows, such as The Beachcombers and The Littlest Hobo. Does anybody remember The Littlest Hobo? We are getting away from our roots, and we all believe and know there should be more Canadian content. Bill C-10 just scratches the surface as to what we should be looking at more.

The minister will no doubt argue it is difficult to amend legislation quickly, which I will agree is a tough job to do. As legislators, as the 338 members of this House, we are sent here to do a job. We are sent here to be the voices of those who do not have a voice. We are sent here to ask hard questions of the government, and we are sent here to work collaboratively with the government on issues that matter most to Canadians.

Over the last while in working on the mental health file as the special adviser on mental health and wellness to our official opposition leader, I have been looking at the CRTC closely for the last little while. One of the things Bill C-10 does in this latest iteration is that it would give the CRTC a lot of powers.

I bring members back to 2006. In 2006, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention went to the CRTC and asked for changes to the Telecommunications Act to allow Canada to have a three-digit suicide prevention hotline. I ask members to imagine all the lives we could have saved in the last 14 years. When minutes count, help should be only a simple three-digit number away.

Suicide is a non-partisan issue for me. I have spoken to it in this House a number of times, whether it is related to mental health, mental illness or mental injury. I believe that as parliamentarians, we can do more. We can leave a legacy of action. Legislatures and Parliaments from across the world are filled with shelves of books and studies that just collect dust.

I remember prior to coming to the House in 2015, my predecessor, the former MP for Cariboo—Prince George Dick Harris, told me that we never know how long we are going to be in this role, so we should make it count and leave a legacy of action. I hope people see that that is what we do every time we are here, and every time we speak. We speak with sincerity, and we speak with the passion of those who do not have a voice. We bring their voices to this House.

Now, more than ever, the mental health of Canadians is being tested. Throughout this pandemic, we have seen higher rates of anxiety, depression, domestic violence, substance abuse and alcohol abuse. We are seeing higher rates of suicide and suicidal ideation.

The suicide crisis within our first nations communities is getting close to epidemic levels. I remember my very first emergency debate in this House. It was on the Attawapiskat first nation suicide epidemic. There was a member across the way who said he had been in this House for about 10 years, and sadly, the very first emergency debate that he participated in was on the suicide epidemic in our first nations. His comment was that not much had changed in the 10 years that he had been in the House.

I believe we can leave a legacy of action. I do not believe in doing things in half measures. Bill C-10 is a half measure. The Conservatives believe that there are things we should look at and changes that need to be in place. Ten Canadians will die by suicide today alone. That number is rising. We know the statistics are likely higher. When there is an emergency, dialing 911 is instinctual. We know that. When someone is in need of help, in times of a crisis, they do not want to dial a number and be put on hold, or get a recording.

The same could be said for someone who may not want to end their lives. They may be seeking help. When they are ready to seek help, they should be able to access it immediately. Let us clear up the confusion and give Canadians a simple, easy-to-remember, three-digit number to turn to. That is real, concrete action that will save Canadian lives. Help should only be three digits away.

Now, getting back to Bill C-10, if the CRTC had said yes to the original request to have a three-digit suicide prevention hotline back in 2006, we would have been miles ahead of the United States, our counterparts. They have managed, in the crazy partisan way they have down in the U.S. with their politics, to come to an agreement in a bipartisan way to secure and launch a national suicide prevention hotline, a 988 suicide prevention hotline. However, as I stand here today, 14 years after the very first time it was presented to the CRTC in 2006, the U.S. is ahead of us. I think we can do better.

One of the issues that we have in terms in Bill C-10 is that it does nothing to get social media sites, such as Facebook and Google, to pay their fair share. There is nothing to address the issue of royalties, sharing to media content and sharing digital media. It does nothing to actually provide guidelines to how we are going to increase our French content.

It just skims the surface. As I said before, in 2015 I came here not to do things in half measures, but to do things in full measures. I also believe that we should continue to examine this bill. I hope the minister will accept the various amendments that will be brought forward by all opposition parties. Let us bring 988 to Canada, and let us do better with Bill C-10.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments after question period when we resume this debate.

It is now time for statements by members. The hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

The House resumed from December 11, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on Bill C-10. There is a Yiddish proverb that says when one sweeps the house, one finds everything. I am not sweeping this House, as I am sure it is the cleanest house in Canada right now. I am sure the staff is doing amazing work.

In reading the legislation now before the House, I had to sweep over articles of what the minister and the government believe Bill C-10 would achieve, especially as conditions have changed over the past four weeks. I hope to demonstrate to the House that the intent of the government, with Bill C-10 and what it hopes to achieve, is confounding two different issues.

There is a role for the government to play in ensuring that regulations and laws are in place to offset disinformation and attempts by foreign governments, or entities with a nefarious purpose, to spread disinformation with the objective of achieving discord or chaos in our country, or causing economic harm.

I do not think there is as much of a place for the government to deal with misinformation, because Canadians are excellent at dealing with it themselves. A headline about an interview the Minister of Canadian Heritage gave states, “Regulation of online hate speech coming soon, says minister”. This is regarding Bill C-10, the legislation that was suggested. Hate speech is already banned by the Criminal Code. There is a way for police to monitor and go after individuals who spread hate speech. Nobody on this side of the House, or any side of the House, agrees with hate speech. I do my best to make sure that when I see it online I address it, whether it is directed at ethnicities or religions, and whatever the purpose is behind it.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage also said that the government wants to block messages on the Internet and social media that might undermine Canada's social cohesion. It is a lofty goal for the government to want to do these things with legislation like Bill C-10 and the vast extension of government powers that it is allowing. I will go through some of the proposed government powers that I find questionable.

I question whether ensuring the social cohesion of a country is the right role for the government to be taking on. Our citizens, NGOs and civic organizations do the job of protecting our civic virtues already. It is not the job of the government to be proposing such legislation as I see here. What I see in Bill C-10 is the government opening the door to state regulation of the Internet. While people define the Internet in different ways, we interact with it every single day, whether by watching steaming services online or interacting with others on different platforms. This is an area that I think the government is erring by getting into.

The same minister went on to say that he wanted to prevent media platforms from sowing doubt in the population with regard to public institutions. I find the government does an excellent job of sowing doubt in public institutions itself. We were told months ago that vaccines were going to be distributed and everybody was going to be vaccinated by September 2021. Then we saw an announcement for AstraZeneca vaccines from a facility that is not even built yet. It will be finished in July, and then we are supposed to believe that in two months somehow this facility will save the day, and also that Pfizer vaccines will be available now that its facility has been upgraded.

It sows doubt among people in my riding who trusted the government at the beginning, who had faith in public institutions and public servants and believed that the government had a handle on this. They do not believe that anymore. I had a digital town hall yesterday and the majority of the questions I had to field from over 600 constituents back home, at one point, concerned the government's dribs-and-drabs approach to the travel restrictions that it has introduced, and how confusing they are. To be honest, I am just as confused as everybody else.

The government does enough of a job of undermining public trust in public institutions. When it botches the rollout of the vaccine to the provinces and introduces random restrictions, it does not need legislation like this. I will go into some of the aspects of what this legislation would do that give me concern.

First, I am concerned that the bill chooses to limit the oversight powers of parliamentary committees with respect to directives and regulations that would be adopted by the CRTC. At the end of the amendments to the Broadcasting Act, the bill states that it would go around the powers Parliament rightfully has to oversee what is being done. I get constituents asking me, all the time, to intervene in the actions and regulatory activities of the CRTC. I have concerns about this.

The Broadcasting Act says that broadcasting undertakings include distribution undertakings. The proposed legislation would add online undertakings. About a dozen people in my riding have successful YouTube channels, such as toy channels and travel channels, when travel was easy to do. YouTube is one of those platforms I think the government is targeting for regulation. YouTube is both a streaming service and a platform. It is sort of a commons area like this chamber, for people to put up videos, whether funny or serious, and share their opinions. Whether or not one likes their opinions is totally secondary.

This is an expansion of what the government is trying to do. A lot of independent media are saying they are very concerned that they are going to be regulated directly by the government. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? What I see happening, mostly from parties on the left but all over the spectrum, is that misinformation is now whatever someone does not like, or whatever opinion one does not agree with.

A lot of Liberal caucus members have opinions I disagree with, but I do not want to censor them. I want to debate them, preferably on the floor of the House. I do not want to do it over Twitter. To me, Twitter is one of the lowest of all platforms. It is where people get attacked, mobbed and treated like second-class citizens. When I talk to constituents about it, I generally refer to Twitter as a sewer with its activities. Bots are all over the place, and there are vicious attacks on both Liberal and Conservative politicians. I think all members have been victims, at some point, of nasty online commentary, either calling for violence or treating the members very poorly. We can all agree that this is something awful and unique to that particular platform.

Another part of the legislation I am worried about would amend a portion of the intention behind the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It reads, “the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide broadcasting,” which is the new amendment, “services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains”. I have a hard time believing that a lot of the material being broadcast right now by the CBC, or its online platforms, informs, enlightens or entertains, unless it is a high form of satire it is producing in its news section.

Bill C-10 does not achieve the modernization of broadcasting, which was the idea the government had months ago when the bill was tabled. Generally, many members agree with that idea. In my lifetime, with the advent of the Internet, we have seen a lot of people migrate away from cable providers. Cable used to be the “it” thing in the 1990s. I would not know, as I never had cable. My family could not afford it.

Everybody has migrated to online services. The government is catching up to regulate these, but it is going way overboard and has missed the mark. This is not the way we should go about regulating it, nor should we take away from Parliament the ability to question and oversee regulators such as the CRTC.

I consistently get complaints about the CRTC and I do not think more government power over what Canadians share online, the discussions they are having at home and online, is an area the government should be getting into. It does not have the wisdom or the ability. It will always be catching up to society and civic institutions not attached to government. The government is erring, and I will not be supporting this particular legislation.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused. The member just spoke at length about a bill that has not been tabled, which is an upcoming bill on issues of online harm, child pornography, incitement of violence—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the individual was not on the screen. I just realized now he did add himself to the camera, so I appreciate that.

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

The minister was on screen from the start here.

The hon. minister will please proceed.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I am a bit confused. The member spoke at length about a bill that has not been tabled, which is a bill that will be dealing with online harm, such as child pornography, incitement of violence and terrorism. It seems the member has not read Bill C-10, which deals with how the government wants to legislate to ensure that online platforms do their fair share when it comes to cultural investments in Canada. It has nothing to do with online harm, which is a very important subject, and in fact, many members of the opposition have asked us to—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Calgary Shepard an opportunity to answer.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, to the minister's point, on November 18, 2020, in a House of Commons speech, he was referring to this legislation and talking about tackling these issues, saying “voluntary self-regulation does not work”, and “several other countries, including Canada, are concerned about misinformation, online hate and web giants' blatant inability to self-regulate.” He went on and on.

The two issues are together. We are handing massive powers to the CRTC and taking powers away from Parliament. I look forward to seeing this other legislation that the minister proposes to table before the House.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I must admit that I am wondering whether my colleague actually read the bill, because there is nothing in there about online hate. However, I was struck by his comment about how people are able to distinguish fact from fiction on their own.

I am wondering if my colleague remembers what happened south of the border on January 6. Does he think that those events could have been the result of the dissemination of misinformation? I would like to know what he thinks about that. I would also like him to tell me what evidence leads him to believe that people can distinguish between accurate information and misinformation. That being said, this does not pertain directly to Bill C-10, which is before us today.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his question.

In my opinion, the events that occurred in January south of our border, that is in the United States, or more specifically in the capital, Washington, are the result of a misinformation campaign led by the former president of the United States for nearly two months. According to many conservative American newspapers, there is nothing to indicate that President Trump was right in saying what he did.

I believe in Canadians. They know how to distinguish between accurate information and misinformation online. Ultimately, they are able to separate fact from fiction.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a member who represents a more rural and remote riding, one of the things I know about the local content makers in my region is that they really tell us about what is happening in our communities. I also know that the larger media platforms, such as Facebook and social media, use a lot of that content without any sort of support to regional content makers.

For example, the North Island Eagle, which represents the northern part of the region that I represent on the island side, does a lot of work to bring forward those stories.

Does the member have any feedback on how we can support these folks? I do not think this is an aggressive enough bill to support those small businesses that really keep us connected to our own Canadian story.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the support should not come through the social media platforms because they are spreading good journalism and good stories. I will give the member an example. I think we can all agree that the National Observer is mostly independent media of the centre-left. I am a reader. I am a fan of its journalism and work. I would have never found it if it had not been for a social media platform.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to give an overview of some of the inadequacies of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The Liberal government has once again said one thing in its messaging and preamble about what this bill would do, in contrast with what the content of the bill actually enacts. Its message to Canadians is that the bill would ensure online broadcasting is covered under the act. It indicates that the bill updates broadcasting and regulatory policies to better reflect the diversity of Canadian society and that it modernizes and provides the CRTC with new enforcement powers through an administrative monetary penalty scheme.

Updating and modernizing the Broadcasting Act is very important, as it has been almost 30 years since any significant change has been made to Canadian broadcasting regulations. Many of my younger colleagues have commented during their speeches on this topic on how old they were when changes were last made to the Broadcasting Act, even speaking to the fact they were but a glimmer in their parents' eyes.

I cannot say I was there when Maurice Cole was the essence of radio, but I do share a birthday with CKSW, a country music radio station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, which serves southwestern Saskatchewan and first began broadcasting in 1956.

I grew up enjoying Saturday morning cartoons with the Flintstones, the Road Runner and Bugs Bunny. Saturday nights we watched Hockey Night in Canada, and on Sunday evenings we had popcorn for supper as we were entertained by Red Skelton and Carol Burnett. Movies filmed a detective as he slowly crept along an entire block, and advertisements for headache relief lasted a full 60 seconds. We do not know what we have until it is gone.

That being said, boy, do I love getting to watch what I want, when I want and as much as I want. That is where we are at today, in the blink of an eye. However, that is enough of precious memories. We will move on to the task at hand.

This act provides the guidelines for everything in our media industry. It is a crucial vehicle for determining fairness in the way the industry is regulated, while ensuring it is vibrant and growing with opportunities for Canadians. The Broadcasting Act covers everything from how our Canadian broadcasters operate to how we support Canadian content and production.

The arrival of the Internet and online streaming services has been a reality for a long time now, and they have been competing with Canadian broadcasters on an uneven playing field. Unfortunately, Bill C-10 does not meet the need to set the policies and standards required to level that playing field. The bill is vague. It does not address important aspects of issues important to industry stakeholders, such as ensuring that the web giants Google and Facebook have to compete under the same rules as Canadian companies. It does not explain how digital platforms and conventional players would compete on an even playing field.

Bill C-10 also does not require broadcasters to contribute to the creation of Canadian content or the Canada Media Fund, as is currently the case for Canadian broadcasters.

In the previous majority Liberal government, the then minister of heritage championed the decision of Netflix to support Canadian content with a $5-million commitment. However, I could not help but notice that this generous contribution was immediately followed by an increase in monthly consumer fees, which smacks of Canadians paying outright for this supposed act of generosity and appreciation for investing in Canadian content.

The issue of proprietary content that is shared on digital platforms is also not addressed. The bill does nothing to address the inequity between digital and conventional media; the regulation of social media, such as Facebook; and the sharing of advertising royalties demanded by traditional media.

As well, the absence of language guidelines in the bill disadvantages francophone communities by failing to ensure that online broadcasters create content in both official languages. There are no guidelines to regulate French content, and the specificity of Quebec culture is not mentioned.

The one and only measure to increase the place of French language is the reference in paragraph 3(1)(k) of the act, which states, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as...[means] become available”.

This is to be replaced by simply removing that last part so that it will now read, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians”.

This does not better reflect the diversity of Canadian society. It changes it, for sure. However, it is unacceptable and represents a much weaker approach than the act provides for aboriginal, racialized and LGBTQ content. It is important to note I am not saying that their content should be minimized in any way, but simply that there is not an even playing field here, even within the act, for French and English content. It is important we do this.

I have children who home-school, and they watch French-language television to increase their French capabilities, which is something I wish I had had the opportunity to do as I was growing up. It was much more difficult for this lady who shares a birthday with a radio station.

The bill also does nothing to modernize the copyright law. With Bill C-10, the government has introduced a broad delegation of powers to the CRTC, without including clear guidelines, on the percentages of Canadian content required, fees and contributions, expenses, French content and so on.

The CRTC's powers have not even been clearly defined at all. In fact, the bill even chooses to limit the oversight powers of parliamentary committees with respect to the directives and regulations adopted by the CRTC. It also limits broadcasters' ability to appeal a decision. This is not acceptable. The message the government is sending is for us to trust it, and we will see it later. The government will, therefore, wait several months for the CRTC to act, and with very limited parliamentary oversight.

This is very poor governance on behalf of Canadians. Canadians expect and deserve accountability in and oversight over their government, and any and all laws, regulations and public institutions governing their opportunities as individuals and peoples. Taking authority away from committees' capacity for oversight and from the Auditor General, and increasing state control of information and conversation is regressive, not progressive. It is a serious overreach by the Liberal government.

In a minority situation, it would have been much more appropriate to come up with a clear bill, detailing in concrete terms the government's approach to all of these issues, rather than simply giving the CRTC more discretion and telling Canadians to wait and see how it would be exercised.

Stakeholders have outlined the many shortcomings I have mentioned today, and in their defence, Bill C-10 is not supportable without significant amendments in response to those requests. I can only hope that the Liberal government has been listening to our stakeholders.

Media has changed forever, and Canadians have changed how they gather information and find entertainment. They have also come to realize that there are no limits on the opportunities to choose where they go for their content.

Apparently I am having trouble with my audio. This is something I deal with all the time, and I apologize. Saskatchewan, for connectivity, comes and goes. I am very frustrated with that. I want what I have to say to be heard.

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

I would just ask the member to verify her microphone. Please proceed.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I apologize, especially to those from our Canadian public who are listening in. I wish I had caught that earlier.

I will end by saying that Bill C-10 does not succeed in making the changes to our broadcast system that are needed to ensure that who we are, what we say and how we say it within Canada and to the world is going to be available in the way it should be going forward.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear the member's comments on the importance of French productions. The member asked a question about consultation with stakeholders. I am wondering what she has to say in response to all of the francophone witnesses who appeared at committee on Monday, as well as l'ADISQ, which said:

“Canada is finally joining the ranks of countries that have the courage to take action to protect their cultural sovereignty and support diversity. This is a great day for the funding and discoverability of our homegrown music, especially francophone music.”

What does the member have to say to those stakeholders who work in the industry, and who are francophone, who are applauding this act?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am saying that it is important that it have the same level of priority as all other languages and perspectives in Canada. My impression from what I have read and heard is that this is not the case. I am affirming the fact that this is something that needs to be a priority for our Broadcasting Act and for the way that we communicate as Canadians.

We need to ensure that these other large platforms do their part in ensuring that content is accessible for Canadians and for others who would like to have that opportunity. That applies to me as much as it does to indigenous opportunities, as well as those of other ethnic and language groups within Canada.

Private and smaller stations, radio stations and television stations in remote areas need to be protected. That is the responsibility of government. Handing things completely over to the CRTC, the way this legislation does, is not taking full responsibility for our—

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

It is time to continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments on Bill C-10.

She said herself that the act is being modernized at the expense of francophone communities. The other member who spoke just now also mused on the importance of “discoverability” for francophone culture.

What does my colleague think of the Bloc Québécois's more specific proposal to allocate 40% of the fees collected from online distributors to the creation and production of francophone content?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, first of all, what is most important is that something needs to be done. I think we need to follow in Australia's footsteps when it comes to these larger platforms, which are not being required, in many places around the world, to contribute in the countries where they have viewers.

We need to take a stand here in Canada the way that they have there. We cannot allow these platforms, which are so large that they, like many large corporations now, seem to think that they have more power than our governments. It is our governments that should be representing Canadians, whether they are francophone or English speaking.

I would love to be bilingual, and I am giving it an attempt, but it is not going as well as I would like. French content is important. That is a direction we need to go to make sure that within Canada that is always an accessible language.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the member on the veterans committee, and I am happy to hear from her today. My question for her is on the CRTC consultations. It is very important that those be very transparent. When I look again as a member who represents a more rural riding, with small newspapers and radio stations that really do a fantastic job at reflecting to our region what is happening in our communities, it is important that it be transparent, independent and take into account the particular needs of Canadian businesses and workers. I wonder if the member could speak to that.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I, too, come from a rural riding. Local content is incredibly important to us. I used to go with scenarios where there were small radio and TV stations that struggled and they should have full support. In the same way I talk about language fairness, that applies here to regional needs across the country as well.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. In short, Bill C-10 would create a regulatory mess of our streaming and broadcasting industry in Canada.

I understand that one of the main reasons the bill is being brought forward is because it has been so long since our broadcasting regulations have been updated and our current policies are extremely out of date. Therefore, we need to update the Broadcasting Act. However, Bill C-10 as it currently stands is a regulatory mess. Real harms could come from the legislation, and I will use my time today to focus on how the bill is far broader than many realize and certainly broader than the minister has claimed. This has led to a lack of understanding of the consequences of the bill as it relates to the general public.

I will start with addressing the limitations that the government claims are integrated into the bill so that it is not too overreaching.

The minister said in the House of Commons, “user-generated content, new content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation can be imposed." This claim by the minister is false, as no specific economic threshold would be established by the bill, which means that all internet streaming services carried in Canada, domestically and foreign-owned, would be subject to Canadian regulation. This means that if someone has Canadian subscribers, this law would apply, regardless of where the service provider is located.

The limitations the minister is referring to are that the bill would give the CRTC the power to exempt services from regulation. It would also leave it entirely up to the CRTC to establish thresholds and regulations once the bill is enacted. However, members should make no mistake; handing this half-baked legislation to the CRTC is not a fix or the same as claiming that the bill contains significant economic thresholds.

It is probably fair to say that the CRTC will not limit its regulatory approach to companies that generate large revenues in Canada as they will want to generate more tax revenue in order for the CRTC to determine who might be exempt. It is only likely to require that smaller foreign service providers register with the CRTC and provide it with confidential subscriber information, revenue data and whatever else the CRTC may ask for.

This policy could have unintended consequences and internet streaming services thinking about entering the Canadian marketplace could put their plans on hold until the legislation has been implemented for some time and until they have a better understanding of what they will face from the regulatory perspective. This could lead to less competition, less choice and an oligopoly market where Canadian consumers are overcharged.

Further on this economic threshold, the bill would leave the CRTC open to establish its own thresholds. Then what happens if they establish a high threshold that limits it to targeting a handful of large companies like Netflix, Prime Video, etc.? These are American companies, and the policy then would invite a trade challenge.

As I quoted earlier, the minister said that there would be exemptions for user-generated content, news content and video games and that none of those would be subject to new regulations. There is a reference to the user-generated content in the bill, but it covers the individuals, not necessarily the sites themselves.

YouTube, as an example, is only exempt if it limits itself to user-generated content. Once it moves outside that realm and has subscription services, as the site currently does, then it would be caught by this legislation. Therefore, there would not be as many sites and services that are 100% completely excluded from this legislation.

Maybe now members can see what I am getting at when I say the bill is a regulatory mess.

Continuing to the video game side, there is no reference in the legislation, just an assurance by the government that video games will be exempt. However, we have heard assurances from the Liberal government before and know its assurances do not carry much weight.

On the issue of news content, the minister said that would be excluded too, but once again that is not the case.

Online sites that offer news in video and audio format fall into this grey area, where they could be interpreted to fall under the bill. The language surrounding news content in the bill is confusing to say the least.

For example, it says that news sites that do not predominantly display text are not captured by the act. What it does not say is that those same news sites that rely on audio and video would be regulated by the act. The potential scope of news site regulation under the bill is wide-ranging as it covers everything from small local media sites to podcasts. Therefore, when the minister said that news content was excluded, that is just not true.

Whether we are talking about Rebel News, PressProgress or anything in between, it is important that online news not be affected by regulatory burdens intended to target large companies. That would be doing the exact opposite of levelling the playing field as the government claims this bill is supposed to do. Regulating Internet content in any way sets a dangerous precedent and is a threat to the freedom of expression. We must ensure the bill would not do that.

I have only a few minutes left and I have not even begun to address the massive costs associated with the implementation and enforcement of Bill C-10. I am sure some of my colleagues will go into further detail on the costs, so I will leave it with them. However, the massive cost of this program will no doubt be passed along to the consumers.

Since the legislation was introduced to the House, several of my constituents have emailed my office expressing their concerns with the legislation. Constituents fear that in attempting to level the playing field, the government would only make things worse. They say, “All [Bill] C-10 will accomplish is further entrenching the power of the legacy media companies who already benefit from today's rigid CanCon/Canada Media-Fund structure, while leaving small and indie new media Canadian creators without meaningful government support.”

I absolutely agree that it is important we level the playing field. I think most members have the same sentiment. However, how we do that is where the Conservatives differ from the Liberals. As always, the Liberals want to bring in more taxes and punish ordinary Canadians who like to unwind and watch TV and movies. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a leader who is committed to levelling the playing field, but to do so by eliminating the goods and services taxes on subscriptions to Canadian digital platforms.

The government needs to step up and make clarifications in some of the areas I have outlined. As I have said, it seems we are trying to achieve the same goal here, but have different ideological approaches on how we get there. It is important that the legislation define the term “significant economic threshold”, and stop passing the buck to the CRTC.

I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues, and hope we can work together to pass a bill that would benefit the majority of Canadians and does not have unintended consequences.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been some time since the Conservative Party campaigned to stop any Netflix tax. The first time I thought about the Netflix tax was when Stephen Harper campaigned against it. I wonder what the current Conservative Party policy is. We know it is not in Bill C-10 to have a tax. It is, as described, a different forum through the CRTC in the form of fines. What is the current Conservative Party policy is in relation to taxing digital giants?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the things we always want to talk about. We want to ensure no one is overtaxed, but we want to ensure Canadian content is treated the same as any of the big Internet providers. We do not want to be giving more benefits to Internet giants such as Netflix. We need to ensure we treat everyone equally and fairly. That is why we would like to remove the tax for our local providers.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a confusion. The broadcasting bill deals with cultural issues and has nothing to do with issues such as online harm or disinformation. The member for Yellowhead talked about the increase in cost. Netflix has increased its subscription in 20 different countries. Does the member think that increases in subscriptions in those 20 countries are a result of Bill C-10?

The previous Conservative member spoke at great length about how the Conservatives really liked the Australian model. Believe it or not, the Australian model has regulators to enforce the legislation. I have in fact spoken with those regulators. I would like the member to tell me the difference between what Australia is doing, by using regulators, and what Canada is proposing. How is that different?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we should necessarily be looking at following somebody else's examples. We need to ensure we have our own Canadian-made that fits Canada. A lot of options have to be available to us.

When we are looking at whether service providers, such as Netflix in this case, are raising their fees, it could be for a multitude of reasons. I do not want to get into whether the bill is starting to have an effect on these things, but there is potential when we look at whether the regulatory process will be followed. They possibly do know that they will have to put out more money out to do this. That could be the reason for their increases.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He seems to be arguing for as little regulation as possible.

Does he not think it is important to have certain restrictions, especially rules around francophone content percentages, as the Bloc Québécois is calling for?

I would also like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that community-based media outlets have been all but forgotten in this bill and on the importance of making sure they get at least some recognition. Those media outlets will only get funding if they are mentioned in the bill. There also has to be some element of control and revenue generation.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of my biggest concerns is how Bill C-10 treats local media. When we talk about the Francophone, we need to ensure we have culturally sensitive information. We are a bilingual country. We have to ensure it is entrenched in our communications that we have the proper amount of representation, in English and French, as they are both official languages. I would like to see this strengthened in the legislation. I do not think the bill does enough to strengthen our Francophone communities, and that is another area on which we need to improve.

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

Madam Speaker, this is one of my first times speaking over Zoom, so it is a new experience for me. I appreciate much more being able speaking physically from the House, but given the pandemic, that is not possible, so here I am speaking in the House in the Commons from northern Alberta. It is kind of a weird thing. Nonetheless, I have seen many of my friends on Zoom, who are all smiling, so I know they must be doing okay around the world.

Bill C-10, I must admit, is a tough bill to get through given that it amends a whole bunch of other pieces of legislation. It always drives me a little crazy when we are dealing with stuff like this, because there are all of these little chunks of law in the bill that amend this act and that act. It takes a long time to pull it all together and get a full picture of what we are all trying to achieve. What is clear is that it is giving the CRTC new powers and new responsibilities.

I do hear a lot of frustration about the CRTC, about its not doing what it is supposed to be doing and doing other things that people do not appreciate. This is going to be interesting one way or the other. I know that with Internet installation and whoever is bringing the Internet to certain communities, the CRTC gets involved and many times whenever that is happening, there is paperwork to be filled out, phone calls to be made and folks get frustrated with how the CRTC responds, like they do with many other government organizations, such as the CRA. Folks end up in my office saying that the government is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. I have to sort all of that out. Regardless of where this bill goes and how it ends up, there will be more folks showing up in my office complaining about the CRTC's doing something or not doing something when it is supposed to be doing something else. I know that will be a challenge going forward.

Bringing Canadian content to Canadians has been an ongoing challenge. We live next door to a media giant, the United States, which has the budget, the population and Hollywood. They are able to bring content to the world. I do not think this is a unique problem to Canada. Although we are very close to the United States and our culture is similar to theirs, I would imagine that the entire English-speaking world is dominated by American media. We often end up with American content on our local channels, because it is easy and we can get it for a relatively low price.

What is interesting about this is that we do have a national broadcaster dedicated to Canada, paid for by our taxpayer dollars. Over a billion dollars a year goes to the CBC. Canadian content sometimes is very minimal. I never watch the CBC, but I do listen to it on the radio in my pickup. Often, American politics and American stories take up the majority of the news cycle on our national broadcaster. I always find that fascinating. Nevertheless, I do listen to the CBC in my pickup. I have to admit that. I am Dutch. I know that I am paying lots of money to fund the CBC, so for as long as I can stomach it, I listen to the CBC because I think I should get something for all of that money we are paying for the CBC. The CBC comes up in this bill from time to time and I hope that it will be a part of it as well.

The bill talks about the CBC, our national broadcaster, playing a role in our Canadian content. I know that is an important piece of what the national broadcaster is there for and I hope that we start to see a culture change at the CBC so that Canadian content, Canadian topics and Canadian interests are covered and that 75% of the news cycle is not American stories. That drives me a little nuts, to be sure.

I am a unique member of Parliament in the fact that I live hundreds of kilometres from the American border. Many Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the American border and I live nearly 1,000 kilometres from the border, so I do not necessarily have as much to do with Americans every day life as maybe other Canadians do. I am not sure how much interaction the rest of Canada has with the United States, but I know that when I went to university in B.C., in the Fraser Valley, when I lived in Abbotsford, people could spit and hit the American border, as I would always says. We could see it. On the weekends, there would be a long line-up to buy milk and gas just up the road from where I lived, as it went across to the United States. For those living in the Lower Mainland of B.C., interacting with the United States was a common occurrence.

Where I live, the interactions with the United States probably come in the form of Amazon and the things we order having to come across the border. Every now and then we have to pay a little more money because something happened to the package at the border, such as agents opening the package, having a look at it and then charging $12 when we picked it up. That is more typical of the interactions we have due to our relationship with the United States.

I do see a need for local content. The billion dollars we spend on the CBC could definitely be put toward that. The CBC infrastructure where I live, in many cases, is the only radio station people can pick up. That is the repeater infrastructure across northern Alberta. I value that. People do not have cell service for stretches when driving, but they do have CBC radio. It could be that we would have more regional content.

We talk a lot about the Laurentian elite. The CBC is very good and very representative of eastern Canada. It tells the stories in the voice of a central Canadian. Even when they are telling the story of the perspective of northern Alberta or the territories, it is always in the voice of a central Canadian. I do not think it is necessarily intentional, but that is the way it is. There is a central Canadian feel about it. Ironically, I do not think central Canadians even understand what that is, in the same way I do not necessarily know what a western Canadian is or does and an eastern Canadian does not necessarily know what an eastern Canadian says or does from the other perspective. I would love to see the CBC definitely speak with a western voice.

It comes down to the way that we talk and think about things. We see that often. I do not know if it is because the journalism schools are located out east or what the deal is, but we get the general sense that even when our stories from northern Alberta, northern Canada or the territories are being told, it is told in an eastern voice, if that is even a thing. I am not sure an eastern voice is a thing, but it is a term I am going to use that I like.

I am excited to see that the government is going to try to encourage national content. I am always concerned, however, when the Liberals get involved in trying to encourage or discourage anything. That usually means taxing and subsidizing something, which is always a fascinating thing. I think there is something to the effect that if there is a successful company, it should be taxed, but when it is struggling, it should be subsidized. There is a story about that. We have watched that over and over again. The oil sector here in Alberta was doing great—

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

We have to interrupt for Statements by Members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock for his speech, in which he spoke about the importance of local content and a strong regional press.

During the pandemic, my colleague from Drummond and I have met with local media representatives and representatives from a co-operative radio station. They shared their concerns with us, including concerns about community media.

Although Bill C-10 has its flaws, we look forward to it being studied and worked on in committee. We want this to move forward because the concerns remain.

I just had a request for another meeting, along with my colleague from Drummond, because representatives from local media have some suggestions for us.

How can the GAFAM of the world pay their fair share and how can local media get adequate funding?

We all recognize that local media is essential. It is important to move forward and send Bill C-10 to committee. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that local content is a big concern all across the country. I think I addressed that well in my speech, particularly the tone and thrust of our content, as well as the perspective from which it is being brought to us.

I know that my hon. colleague shares my concern around just who is bringing this content to us and what kind of content is being produced. That is an important piece. At the ethics committee right now we are having the executives of Pornhub show up, and in the managing of that content I would like to ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected. I know that the government has introduced Bill C-11 as well for that, and I look forward to seeing how these two bills interplay to protect Canadians online.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality right now is that while we are in the middle of a public health crisis, many of our cultural sector workers fear the loss of their jobs and have to face unfair competition from web giants.

This member and I have worked together at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for many years. I think it would be important for us to seek concrete measures in this bill to support stories and content in indigenous languages and from indigenous producers. In my riding, the Raven radio station here has a lot of indigenous content.

Could the member speak to that?

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

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to get to know the member over the last few years. I know that in my riding as well there are 14 first nations communities, and many of them participate in their own local radio stations and things like that, but because of the vast distances, it does not go much beyond that.

The CBC, with its technology and its backbone of repeaters, could be broadcasting to many more communities, because its technology is powerful and useful. I would like to see that. I think it could provide, as I mentioned earlier, a western voice or an indigenous voice—

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

We have time for one more question.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I was happy to hear the member talk about the importance of having stories told from western provinces. Does he not agree that it is really important to have international web giants contributing so that we can have more content like Corner Gas, Heartland and Little Mosque on the Prairie to tell the stories of our country, rather than allowing all of those to be telling stories from other countries? Is it not important that we pass this bill quickly to make sure that we are investing in these important stories?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say it is important that those stories be shared, but I am always a bit concerned when the government gets in the middle and takes money from one and hands it to another. That sounds like what this bill is attempting to do.

I think it is important to level the playing field and ensure that the content creators are getting paid. It does not—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak today on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

While this bill has some serious technical aspects, which I will get into in a moment, I would like to begin by highlighting the fact that at the end of the day, even though we are talking about regulations and broadcasting rules, we are ultimately talking about Canadian jobs. Today we can even look at some of the job losses. This morning we heard of the additional 213,000 job losses in Canada in the month of January, which once again has increased our unemployment rate, so while we are having this discussion we have to also focus on what this is all about, which ultimately is about people working here in Canada.

I also want to look back for a moment at what we have seen here in my own riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London and highlight some of the work that was being done here prior to the pandemic.

I remember the excitement in the community of St. Thomas when it was announced that Jason Momoa—and I probably said that wrong, as I am one of the few people who has not watched Aquaman—was coming to our area and that Apple TV was going to produce a show right in our own backyard at the psychiatric hospital here in St. Thomas, or actually in central Elgin, for those who are from here.

These are really important things to our community. Sean Dyke, who is our economic development agent for the City of St. Thomas, had talked about other companies coming to our area. Most recently, the Amazon movie The Boys was being filmed here, and Guillermo del Toro did Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. Many people are choosing locations right here in our own backyard in the City of St. Thomas, and also in the community of Port Stanley. I know the village of Port Stanley has been used for sites, and I can think of Bayham in the Port Burwell area as well.

These are really important parts when we talk about productions. We have to look at what is being done in our communities and how talent is being drawn to our communities, whether through production or acting, and how that is highlighting some of the great things we have in our own communities.

I talk about this with a lot of excitement because my son, who is an actor, has been part of multiple productions for Netflix, and this is an opportunity for actors to get their foot in the door. Many other companies are now coming in and producing well-connected dramas and shows in our areas, and we are receiving economic development from them.

I am not going to speak specifically on the infrastructure of the bill and what that looks like. The reason I am not is basically because of its lack of clarity. I am finding it very difficult to understand, so I have to just look at the impacts of Bill C-10 here in Elgin—Middlesex—London and how we can move forward from this.

I know that conversations about economic growth have unfortunately been falling on the deaf ears of the government for a while, and we know that many of these productions will not be able to get back in order until there are rapid tests, vaccines and the tools needed to get people back to work so they can resume the great work that is being done.

I am not trying to advertise for any of these movies or shows, but Bill C-10 will have a tangible impact on how the content will be classified. Filming movies and TV shows in the heart of my riding, within the Canadian economy and with Canadian actors, actresses and crew members, cannot be classified as Canadian content, because all of the financing and production is handled by American companies. That is why I talk about the clarity of this bill, the idea of Canadian content and what CanCon actually looks like. I will tell members that every single cheque my son brought home in 2020 was from an American company, yet he was a Canadian actor acting in Toronto, so what is happening in our own communities has to be looked at as well.

These massive companies are also not contributing back into the Canada Media Fund and are not being taxed in the same way as Canadian corporations. This is inherently unfair for local producers, small papers and broadcasters working to highlight Canadian content and provide reliable content for Canadians.

I want clarity in this bill so that I can read it and understand the impacts of what the Liberals are putting forward. There have been barriers in the past, and this is why it is really important to have this conversation.

While it is definitely important that we modernize the Broadcasting Act and introduce some fairness to the industry, including requiring web giants and social media to pay their fair share, we have to remember that getting this wrong can directly impact Canadian jobs and that over-regulation or lack of clarity in the rules will ultimately lead companies to film elsewhere, causing Canadians to lose out on these new opportunities. The more barriers we have, the more likely it is that people will wonder if it is worth doing in Canada.

I am not saying that there should not be some fair ground here; I absolutely believe that there needs to be, but I do want to put into this debate today the fact that the clarity just is not there.

Another worry I have from Bill C-10 is that it has placed limited abilities on parliamentary committees to oversee the directives and regulations that are being adopted by the CRTC. I do not have to remind everyone of the government's dismal record on accountability. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that it seems that the government's overwhelming priority, even in the middle of this pandemic, is to avoid accountability.

Without even getting into the political reasons for its completely unnecessary prorogation, we have seen by time and time again the government running from accountability, filibustering committees, covering its tracks on things such as the WE Charity and covering for a Prime Minister who would rather hide at Rideau Cottage than face the music. The fact that there is not going to be accountability here in Parliament for these powers being given to the CRTC is an issue. We do not want to see the unintended consequences without a thorough debate.

The government has not earned the trust of Canadians when it comes to broadcasting. Let us not forget that this is the same heritage minister who seems to have no problem in demanding that news organizations be licensed. I want to talk about that because I can share my own concerns on this issue.

There was a situation that happened here in Elgin—Middlesex—London with a person I know who is a journalist in our region. His concern is whether putting online publishers under the same type of broadcast regulations lays the groundwork to regulate online news content in the same way that television and radio content is being governed by broadcast regulations.

The government says news publishers will not be affected by these changes, but the problem is that the government has a limited definition of who qualifies as news and as media. According to the legislation, paragraph (i) specifies 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.” Once again we are establishing so many unknowns, and once again we need clarity on this aspect.

Just prior to when this legislation came out, Andrew Coyne, a writer with The Globe and Mail, wrote:

If that sounds paranoid, consider the weight the government puts on its assurances that online broadcasters would not have to be “licensed”. That's true, as far as it goes. They would just be obliged to “register” with the CRTC, subject to certain “conditions of service,” enforced by “fines.”

We can talk about the fact that there will not be these limitations, but we have to look at some of the other language being used. This is very concerning, because at this time right now, it is really important that we have proper news agencies and proper news reporting and that we are ensuring that we are getting all sides of the story.

Finally, the bill does not provide any benchmarks to legislate the percentage of French content. We have heard from many of our members today, specifically from Quebec. I have been working on my French recently and I hope to one day enjoy the bounty of wonderful content filmed and produced in Quebec in French, but this bill does nothing to help French language content.

I know some serious modernizations are needed to help our Broadcasting Act here in Canada, but I do not believe that the bill exactly does this. I am very concerned with the bill, as I said, and I hope there will be much more clarity in it. I believe we do need to find a balance between our big corporations and our smaller corporations, the new players on the field and the players that have been there for years, but let us make sure that we are doing it with all players on board, because I believe we are missing out.

I am now happy to take any questions.

[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, as we listen to members, whether today or the last time the bill was brought forward, we find them reflecting on the industry and how much has changed over the many years. There is no doubt there is a need for us to update or modernize. The minister and the department have done a fantastic job in presenting the legislation.

Would the member not agree that the minister has indicated that he is open to ideas? One of the things we could do is to look at bringing some of these ideas to the committee to see if we could in improve the legislation.

Could the member give us her thoughts, recognizing that things do change? As she pointed out, this is an incredibly important industry for many different reasons. The time to do it is now.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we are saying it is not important to do this. As he indicated, the modernization is very important. I think it has been 28 years since this has been modernized.

As I indicated, I like to go back to the 1990s when I went to university and there was only person who had a computer in our residence. Look at where we are in 2021, where we have phones and tablets and all of those things.

We understand there need to be changes. However, we are looking at a lack of consultation. Everybody on the consultation list is a big player, except a few minor players. The opportunity to get into this business and industry is very complicated in the first place, and I do not know if the minister and the legislation are considering all avenues.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear our colleague emphasize the need to strike a balance between the players and the creation of a royalties system. I was pleased to hear her say that she would like a certain percentage to be francophone. From what I understand, she agrees with the Bloc Québécois proposal that 40% of the money should be allocated to francophone content.

However, I would like to hear her thoughts on community media, which have been completely overlooked in this bill. Does she think that, in committee, we could add these players to ensure that they get a piece of the pie? They are responsible for a significant portion of local and regional information.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am all about community media.

Here in our own community, we have myFM, which is one of the organizations that came here about 10 years ago. We went through the licensing process to have a community radio. The Aylmer Express and the Dorchester Signpost are two small groups of newspapers that are out there working really hard. I would show the House my Aylmer Express, because it is truly the largest newspaper in Canada. If you are looking to expand a newspaper, it is physically the largest newspaper in Canada.

I look at the importance of other local media. Ian McCallum, a local reporter, who has been with the St. Thomas Times-Journal, has done local media for many years. That is what we are seeing shrinking right now. Each and every day, we ask where our local content is. We are seeing a lot of things being pulled from our local newspapers, just from the national owners of many of these media outlets.

I would really like to see more local news carried all the time. That is something that connects our communities and during this pandemic has really been beneficial to my community here in Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the layoffs we have seen over the past few weeks.

In my riding of Victoria, we have seen Bell Media laying off staff at Bell-owned stations, like CFAX, CTV News Vancouver Island.

Bell received $122 million in pandemic relief-related subsidies and has paid out increased dividends to their shareholders, and then it turned around this week and laid off hard-working news staff. Bell received taxpayer support, paid out their shareholders and laid off staff. It seems like the government is willing to give big breaks to corporations at the expense of everyday Canadians.

Could the member speak about the need for accountability for the government, accountability for corporations, and the impact on our media and Canadians?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. That is one of the biggest things we need: accountability from both sides, including accountability from the government on how it is spending its money.

Wise spending is what we need, and the government has been lacking in that regard, especially over the last five years and specifically in this last year of the pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, in my past life before politics, I was an independent recording artist. I was inspired by the music of Dan Hill, Anne Murray, David Foster, Céline Dion and Shania Twain. I discovered them on radio and television. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of my favourite musicians are Canadian; we have a lot of talent here, but the stars whom I mentioned found their big break in the U.S. instead of Canada. I shared this story because I want to affirm the symbiosis of Canadian content creators and Canadian broadcasters in the lives of Canadians and the value of protecting these institutions to allow Canada's cultural and artistic identity to thrive.

Bill C-10 is important in spirit because it seeks to modernize a 28-year-old law that does not take into account diversified broadcasting platforms with the arrival of the digital world, including Internet, social media and streaming. It is critical to acknowledge the reality of new and growing digital platforms and the implications of a global market and of foreign players entering our system, and we must do so with consideration for the long-term sustainability of Canadian content and Canadian broadcasting platforms. This requires adapting the CRTC's mandates to maximize the success of Canadian entities in the broadcasting ecosystem for the furtherance of Canada's heritage and economic prosperity.

We cannot ignore the impact of the broadcasting, film and music sectors on the Canadian economy. Based on a November 2020 report on Canadian Heritage's website, the GDP impact of broadcasting was $9.1 billion, with $16.9 billion in revenues and 41,901 jobs; the GDP impact of film and video was $4.3 billion, with $13.39 billion in revenues and 71,027 jobs; and the GDP impact of music and sound recording was $637 million, with $577 million in revenues and 8,986 jobs.

The trend is also clear. Over the last 10 years, Canadians have increasingly moved toward Internet streaming services for programs, while moving away from paid-subscription TV. These are both viable avenues for viewers today. The implications of these trends plead for a modernized Broadcasting Act. That is the intent of Bill C-10, but I am not fully convinced that the proposed amendments would accomplish what the bill purports to do. I hope to address these issues today.

Canadian content producers and broadcasters have a vital role in the production of quality Canadian drama, reality shows and news. Property Brothers, Schitt's Creek, Kim's Convenience and Wall of Chefs are top-notch Canadian shows that have garnered global attention. We are living in an exciting time for Canadian content, but content requires funding.

Canadian content creators have expressed concern that the proposed amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Broadcasting Act reflects a weakening of the crucial position of Canadian creative resources in the act. As the act currently stands without amendments, it does so under the assumption of a closed system wherein Canadian controlled and owned broadcasters hold a monopoly. Paragraph 3(1)(f) currently reads:

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming,

Bill C-10 excludes the phrase “maximum use, and in no case less than predominant” and other conditions. The amendment reads:

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming to the extent that is appropriate for the nature of the undertaking;

Canadian content creators are concerned that this amendment would diminish the critical position of Canadian creators in the Broadcasting Act. My concern about proposed amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) is its overall lack of clarity and accountability on the role of all broadcasters, whether traditional or modern, in contributing to the creation and presentation of Canadian content. I agree with Canadian creators that the amendment would undermine the value of Canadian content in the Broadcasting Act. In a time when Canadian stories are beginning to find larger audiences and are defining our artistic identity, the amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) is a little disappointing.

I would like to add that the lack of copyright and intellectual property safeguards in the amendments in the midst of the current international environment does not reflect modernization. Writers, composers, publishers and other copyright holders depend on royalties for their livelihoods. It is already difficult for Canadians with artistic vocations to make ends meet. Many domestic talents move to the U.S., Europe or Asia to find a viable path. The lack of intellectual property protection in the growing and complex digital world and globalized markets is unacceptable in this age. The Broadcasting Act needs to include a modernized copyright law. If Canada does not work toward optimizing the environment for creators to thrive, our cultural identity suffers. Canadian content is not just a means to help Canadian works to reach audiences; Canadian content should be protected and supported to help our arts and culture sectors help establish our heritage and Canadian identity.

Bill C-10 is important in spirit because it seeks to safeguard equitable programming. Bill C-10 amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things, update the Canadian broadcasting policies set out in sections throughout the act by providing, among other things, that the Canadian broadcasting system should provide opportunities for aboriginal peoples to provide programming in aboriginal languages that reflect aboriginal cultures, and to provide programming that is accessible to persons with disabilities and free of barriers while serving the needs and the interests of Canadians, including Canadians from racialized communities and ethno culturally diverse backgrounds.

The bill amends the CRTC's mandate to require more content in aboriginal, disabled, racialized and LGBTQ2 people. However, the bill does not address any guidelines to regulate French content. There is no provision of a benchmark to legislate the percentage of French language content. Equitable programming needs to also modernize the Broadcasting Act to ensure that French and Quebec culture content are given adequate opportunities to thrive.

Broadcasters are critical to fostering Canadian identity in the role they have with Canadian content. Whether they deliver Canadian news, reality shows and drama, or contribute to the Canada Media Fund to produce Canadian content, they are critical to our cultural identity, everyday life and our economy. However, in the current Broadcasting Act there are obligations and content regulations that mean well to safeguard Canadian content creators, but inadvertently put them at risk of losing in their competition with foreign digital players who have access to Canadian consumers with little regulation at this time. If Canadian broadcasters fall down, then their support for Canadian content also falters.

The broadcasting system is a delicate realm that requires a delicate balance for all to thrive. Providing an even playing field with foreign Internet broadcasters like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney, Apple TV+ will certainly help alleviate the unfair competition. Foreign companies should also contribute to Canadian content, but with that should also come the right balance of regulations so that all players, domestic and foreign, can flourish. If they thrive, their investment in Canadian content creation and presentation will inadvertently benefit the fostering of Canada's cultural identity and economy.

In an age when many entities are competing for audiences in the digital world, Canadian news broadcasters are suffering from the added drop in ad sales caused by the economic downturn from COVID-19. A fair and modernized Broadcasting Act would benefit Canada's broadcasting sector. However, Bill C-10 is too vague and does not ensure that web giants like Google and Facebook are obligated to compete under the same rules as Canadian companies. That does not explain how digital platforms and conventional players will compete on an even playing field. It does not explain the guidelines that will be put in place for the production of Canadian content and contributions to the Canada Media Fund.

It would be incumbent on the CRTC to enforce regulations to reflect a modernized act. However, the role of the CRTC is vague. The lack of clarity raises concerns for all stakeholders as to how the CRTC will interpret its role. Will the CRTC over-regulate and stifle Canadian broadcasters among foreign digital counterparts? Will it over-regulate foreign players and shut them out of the system and thereby lessen opportunities for the relaying of Canadian content?

Based on the way the bill is written, it feels like the Liberal government is passing the buck to the CRTC for all decisions. They will then need at least nine months to undertake the first regulatory phase. In this COVID environment we need broadcasters and Canadian creators to have an assurance that they will survive and hope to thrive among international players.

I would like to refer to a conversation I had with one of my constituents, Rob, who owns Gearforce, a pro audio company that supports live concerts. He said that many of his technician friends in the entertainment industry are struggling not only because they are financially hurting because of shutdowns, but also because they are not putting their skills to work. They are afraid they will lose all of the skills they honed over their lifetime. There is a certain standard of excellence that circulates in the arts and culture sector, whether among writers, composers, artists, artisans or technical workers, who have had to work hard to get where they are in a sector where opportunities are very competitive.

A Broadcasting Act that is modernized with the right amendments is a small step forward to helping Canadian arts and culture sector workers and artists find their place in life. However, an ambiguous bill can be more damaging because of potential misinterpretations. If Bill C-10 passes second reading, I hope there will be fulsome discussions at committee to amend the bill.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I think that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and I agree on many things.

Regarding the importance of the sector in Canada, just one measure that we have announced in the context of COVID is an insurance backstop that will help to create 60,000 jobs. For every dollar the federal government is investing in that measure, the private sector will put in $10.

Would the interests of the people we are trying to serve be better served if we were having these conversations at committee to try to improve the bill, which I have said from the beginning could be improved, rather than in this context where people are just talking? We can ask a question, but we are not actually working on the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I really miss being on the minister's committee.

I agree that we see eye to eye on a lot of things, and I am not averse to the idea of the bill going to committee. My desire is to see a fulsome discussion to make sure the ambiguities that have been expressed by many members will be addressed. The bill should bring us all toward a very balanced ecosystem in this sector and not leave any glitches that will undermine the role of any one of the players.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about artists, whose activities are often covered by the local media in our respective ridings.

These artists have not received adequate support during the pandemic. While the Quebec government understood the importance of the local press and was investing in traditional and community media to get its messages across, the federal government was supporting the Facebooks, Amazons and other web giants of the world by investing in online advertising rather than investing in our traditional media.

This was confirmed by local media outlets back home in Shefford during a meeting I had during the pandemic with my colleague, the member for Drummond. What does my colleague think of the importance of leading by example and reinvesting the money intended for web giants, for example by creating a fund for local media, local press and community media?

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

Madam Speaker, I fully agree that local media is very important, especially at a time like this, for ensuring that details only local media can produce are accessible. That is part of my concern. If the bill does go to committee, there should be accountability and regulations for web giants so that we can provide the tools for our sector to flourish and not just give a free ride to web giants.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been trying to follow this debate closely and it seems there is broad agreement that amendments to our Broadcasting Act are necessary after such a long period of time and that a level playing field should be created so that web giants like Netflix are not exerting undue influence and monopolizing our media and cultural markets. It seems like there is a lack of clarity.

The member used the word “ambiguous” and noted that perhaps too much discretion is placed with the CRTC. The previous speaker felt that the current definition of “Canadian content” was overly restrictive.

I am wondering if the member could expand on what specific amendments she would like to see if the bill makes it to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, what I would like to see overall is a balance. Again, because of the ambiguity and what is presented, there could be better clauses to work with. In the big picture, I would like to see more balance and that no one is left out of how the Broadcasting Act moves forward.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise virtually today to speak to Bill C-10.

Like many of my colleagues, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this bill. I am an Acadian, and this bill will have a profound effect on the survival of our wonderful Acadian culture and community, which is very important to me. It deserves being promoted and protected.

Digital media is bigger than ever, and the 28-year-old Broadcasting Act is in urgent need of modernization to address the evolution of the Internet and the overwhelming emergence of social networks and online services like Facebook, Google, Netflix, Crave and Spotify, among others.

Modernizing the act does not necessarily mean erasing the past, forgetting how it has shaped our history to this day or failing to take it into account in the future. We need to ensure the continuity of our past and our Acadian culture and preserve them for always.

In its brief to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission during the CBC/Radio-Canada licence renewal process, the Société nationale de l'Acadie, the SNA, noted that it has had to intervene repeatedly to get Radio-Canada to support Acadian culture and to remind the broadcaster about the obligations in its mandate.

As a proud Acadian, and on behalf of all Acadians, I want to point out that all Acadians, just like all Canadians, help fund CBC/Radio-Canada. That funding, together with the broadcaster's mandate, are all that guarantee these services, which must be not only preserved at all costs but also respected. To make that happen, we need effective enforcement measures to be very clearly indicated in Bill C-10, which is not the case.

The SNA is the official representative of all Acadian people. It promotes the rights and interests of Atlantic Acadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the SNA for its hard work and its efforts to preserve our magnificent Acadian culture.

The bill seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act in several ways, such as by adding websites that broadcast or rebroadcast programs as a separate category of broadcasting undertaking. It also seeks to update Canada's broadcasting policy set out in section 3 to, for example, provide indigenous-language programming for indigenous people that reflects their culture.

I believe that Bill C-10 needs to go even further to ensure the presence and preservation of certain cultures, such as Acadian culture. I absolutely agree that the act needs to be modernized, just as the Official Languages Act needs to be modernized. On this side of the House, we want to be able to vote on a bill that will be fair for Canadian producers and broadcasters.

For several years now, Canadians have been expressing concerns about how unfair it is that Netflix does not pay any taxes in Canada. The goal is to find a balance between conventional media and digital media, as well as with content.

I completely agree with that goal. The francophone population of Nova Scotia, which listens to the Radio-Canada station out of Halifax, is upset about the fact that they hear more updates on traffic jams in Montreal and on the Samuel de Champlain Bridge than they do content from Nova Scotia artists.

It is important to point out that the case of the Atlantic provinces is unique. There is only one television production centre, supported by three radio production centres, to serve the four provinces. We want more local content to reflect the unique nature of Acadia and to promote and protect Acadian culture.

Unfortunately, when the CBC does not keep its commitments, even when complaints are filed with the CRTC, it is generally not penalized because it is not subject to the same rules as other Canadian broadcasters.

In 2021, it is unacceptable that this exemption still exists. It needs to be removed through Bill C-10. It is vital that the percentage of Canadian content is respected to the letter and that each region of Canada can enforce its local cultural content quotas.

The Conservatives want an equitable regulatory framework for digital media and conventional broadcasters. My Conservative colleagues and I will only be able to support the modernization of the Broadcasting Act if it includes additional, clear, non-negotiable francophone content requirements.

During the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's licence renewal process, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse noted in its brief presented on January 13 to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that Acadians in Nova Scotia did not get access to a French-language elementary school education until 1981. It took a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for them to finally, in 2003, get access to a French-language education in a system of homogenous secondary schools. Without that education in French, Acadians in Nova Scotia became assimilated at an alarming rate. Between 1981 and 1996, the number of French-speaking Acadians in Nova Scotia went from 80,000 to 42,000,

In the spring and fall of 2019, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse consulted extensively throughout the province on linguistic insecurity. Participants all reported experiencing language insecurity, discomfort or reluctance to express themselves in French, or even a feeling of inadequacy in French. I am quite saddened by these results. The lack of familiarity on the part of the broader Canadian public when it comes to Nova Scotia's Acadian community contributes to this linguistic insecurity.

Local content must be created so people can see themselves reflected in the media. The one and only measure to improve the place of French is to replace the reference in section 3 that weakens it further. This step backwards is completely unacceptable. It represents a much more vague and, more importantly, a much weaker approach than the act provides for indigenous content, for example.

This is another example of the Liberal government's contradictions. The government is further weakening an essential piece of legislation that is already weak, while making francophone communities across Canada believe that it will introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, which would focus on the promotion and protection of the French language for all minority francophone communities. That is nonsense.

In light of all these points, there is no way I can vote in favour of this bill without a firm commitment from the government to thoroughly review all the amendments needed to improve it in order to ensure that Acadian and francophone Canadian content has the kind of future it deserves.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been debating the bill for four days and it is very clear that most Conservatives are opposed to it. They have made that clear. However, it does not seem to be something people are fighting tooth and nail over.

I am just curious why the Conservatives will not let the bill come to a vote so we can either see it collapse or get it to committee to continue to work on the stuff that the member and other Conservatives have been talking about. Why are the Conservatives holding it up?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, quite honestly, we need an indication from the government that changes can be made to the bill. As I said in my remarks, there needs to be a representation of francophone communities outside of Quebec, especially Acadian representation. We need to have a better idea of how the CRTC will work with or charge the CBC to provide the services needed for our community. As I said, in 1981, 80,000 Acadians said they spoke French, which was down to 42,000 in 1996. It is unacceptable, and the CBC and CRTC have a lot to do with this.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, would the member explore the question of what constitutes a broadcaster? A major concern for me is what would be defined as a broadcaster, who is in, who is out, and how these regulations could be applied to relatively small operators. If people start their own YouTube channels and get a large number of subscribers, do they become subject to all kinds of regulations around, for instance, diversity and content, which may be beyond their scope to be aware of or include?

These subjective determinations are ultimately out of our hands as legislators. Does the member have concerns about that on which he would like to elaborate?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, ultimately, there has to be some clear definition on what these would constitute. When we look at the small community radio stations, and in our particular case in Nova Scotia, there are only a few Francophone radio stations beyond the CBC, they can be in direct conflict or in competition with some of these smaller groups that have no regulations at all. They can say and do anything they want. We want to ensure we keep those small community radio stations available and not have them in competition with these smaller groups.

However, what does it constitute, what does it mean? I hope the minister will clarify some of those things.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Nova for his speech.

I wonder if he could expand on the importance of French-language content, especially on platforms like Netflix. Does he have any suggestions for ways to increase it? Should quotas be imposed, or should we use a carrot rather than a stick and create financial incentives? Should the measures be more coercive or more incentive-based?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

We really want to encourage this with a positive approach. There is not much francophone or Acadian content. We really need to see Acadians, francophones and indigenous people not only on our social media, but also in our traditional media, such as CBC and others. I believe that it is possible to find ways to get these media to agree to come to the regions.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This has to be one of the most enjoyable debates I have had the opportunity to participate in this chamber. With such a vast and diverse country like ours, it is interesting to see the different local content from the far corners of our country.

This is near and dear to my heart, not just because of the content on the screen but because of the experiences of the persons who are involved in creating the content. That includes the background extras.

I had the very good fortune of being a background extra in several productions in my hometown in Regina, in the surrounding area. It all came about by chance, but it really did open my eyes to the so-called gig economy that has been in the news much more lately during the pandemic.

I was walking through the mall one day in Regina and I saw a guy, who has since become a good friend of mine, sitting at a table and a sign that said, “Sign up here to be in TV shows”. I asked him what it was all about. He was the casting director for a local company called Partners in Motion, which makes movies and TV shows in Regina and in southern Saskatchewan. He told me that I looked like a police officer and he had a spot for me in the documentary series called Crime Stories. They needed background extras to re-enact these crimes and they could cast me in the role of a police officer to arrest some criminal for the documentary series. It sounded like fun and a good way to make minimum wage on the side, so that is what I did. It really opened my eyes to how many people in my community had hobbies or gig jobs being background extras in TV shows.

Over the course of the following months and years, I arrested many different people in that crime series. I got to be a soldier in war. In a particularly memorable experience, I got to be a background extra in Corner Gas: The Movie. People tend to talk about Corner Gas, the TV show, but there was a major motion picture a few years ago, based on all the characters in Dog River, Corner Gas. It was certainly very memorable to walk up and down Main Street in Rouleau, Saskatchewan. I played towns person number seven in that movie. Much to my dismay, I was not nominated for an Oscar that year, but in the sequel perhaps my name will come up.

I have not seen anything in the bill to address the gig economy and people who work in the industry on a casual basis. I strongly suspect that this is something not specific to Regina, Saskatchewan, but specific to people who work in the industry all across our great country.

I think we could do Canadians a lot of good by withdrawing this bill and rewriting it from scratch to ensure that everyone is included in it and to ensure we have the best legislation we can for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That'"and substituting the following: “Bill C-10, An act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.”

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments.

[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, I am a little disappointed. I know the minister went to great effort to ensure there was a great deal of consultation. We are in a process of modernizing something, and it really does need to be looked at. Why would he want move an amendment of this nature, given the importance of the industry?

He even talked about the importance of the industry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with finishing the debate. Once that debate has come to an end, it goes to committee. Members would be able to present amendments if they felt it was necessary. Even the minister has indicated his willingness to receive amendments.

Why would the member not follow that course?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have particular concerns about the delegation of authority to the CRTC and the lack of accountability in not just the CRTC, but in other arm's-length government agencies.

As the hon. member may be aware, I currently serve on the transportation committee. We have been having a considerable amount of difficulty with Nav Canada with respect to the closure of air traffic control towers. Although it is an agency created by an act of Parliament, there seems to be a serious lack of accountability for this government agency. I do not want to see the same situation transpire with the CRTC, so the best thing to do is to proceed with the amendment that I tabled a minute ago.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too have a question for my colleague.

Generally speaking, when looking at the parliamentary schedule, the parties agree to the number of speakers they wish to work on a bill before it is referred to committee. I gather that these discussions took place with respect to Bill C-10 in order to advance it so that it could be studied, or not, depending on the decision made by the House. My colleague's approach intrigues me somewhat, given that parliamentarians usually agree amongst themselves on this schedule and the approach to be taken for bills.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this question.

The most important thing is to have the best bill for Canadians. As I stated a few minutes ago, I believe that we should start over with this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you deemed the amendment is fact in order, I would be prepared to speak to it. Therefore, I would rather you not call for the vote.

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

We are pursuing the debate. We are going to continue with speeches. There will be no call for votes on the amendment.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we should be clear about what is going on here.

The Conservatives are introducing this amendment, which they know will not get through, so they can reset the entire speaking roster and can continue to drag this debate on and on. We are already at day four of this. The Conservatives do not want to see this go to committee. They do not want anything to happen on this. It is very clear that the member has introduced this strictly for the purpose of dragging this on longer and longer. At least he can just stand up and admit that.

He did not answer the parliamentary secretary's question when he specifically said that if the member was so passionate about this, why would he not let it go to committee rather than try to kill it on the floor right now.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the fundamental question we have to ask ourselves is whether democracy is a good thing or a bad thing. Is it good to debate these bills so we get the best laws for Canadians or is it not?

If this particular law has not been amended for many years, then four days do not strike me as a particularly long time to debate the bill. If we are going to be living with this bill for many decades to come, then four days do not strike me as a particularly long time to debate it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been very impressed with the minister's openness to listen, his demeanour and his tone. A more partisan person than I might say that he could share that message with the member for Kingston and the Islands, but I would never say that.

I am honoured to speak on a subject I am very passionate about: the update to the Broadcasting Act. Before I get into my content, I will tell the minister directly that he seems very open, and I congratulate him on his tone. He has been great to work with. I want to put another plug in for the Capitol Theatre in Port Hope, if he could please help us out there.

My big ask, in terms of an amendment, would be protecting those smaller operators. We need tighter rules. We cannot leave this up to the CRTC. There are fabulous professionals working there doing the best they can, but we need to make sure there are solid protections.

There are some great arguments, and this act desperately needs to be updated because it has not been in 28 years. In that very long time, we have seen the evolution of the Internet, and the introduction of big players such as Facebook, Google, Netflix and Spotify. In light of this innovation, it is important that we upgrade the bill. However, as I said, I have serious concerns that the bill may inflict harm more than do good.

One of the fundamental changes in the communications sector in the last 28 years has been the democratization of access. Canadians are no longer limited to a couple of voices coming through their televisions. They can now listen and express themselves through Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and many other platforms. In many ways, these platforms are closer to going out to the public square in the 1800s and expressing oneself, and anyone who wants to listen, can.

Many of the individuals who participate through YouTube or other platforms contribute a lot to our national discourse on matters like politics, philosophy, culinary arts and health. Having this cacophony of voices that brings with it life experience and perspective not only enriches our lives, but makes our society better. Combatants enter the arena of ideas and have the opportunity to put their theories and ideas out there, and our society decides whether they are enlightened or maybe missing the point.

I am thankful for those who share their great ideas, because they make our country better. Those who lose in the battlefield of ideas can look at the Republic, and what Socrates says. He said those who lose an argument are the better for it because they walk away with knowledge, which often happens to the member for Kingston and the Islands. He should be particularly thankful.

Just like everything, there are bad actors in the world, and there are bad actors in the broadcasting sector. There are individuals who spread hate, lies and conspiracy theories. This behaviour is reprehensible, abhorrent and disgusting. The legislation has the laudable objective of curating online content to protect Canadians against hate and promote quality Canadian programming.

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

I have to inform the hon. member he will have six minutes to conclude his speech when the bill next comes up for debate.