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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Hello, everybody. Thanks for joining us. Sorry for the technical difficulties at the beginning.

Now that we have everybody, I'm going to start by saying that we are now doing our prestudy on the subject matter of Bill C-10, which is currently in the House of Commons where second reading debate has begun. We are going to consider all themes and elements from Bill C-10 throughout this study. This is our first day of the study.

Before we start, I want to say that there have been some issues with simultaneous interpretation noted in other committees last week. Should any of you encounter a problem, please flag it immediately by raising your hand or saying something to the effect that you cannot get the interpretation. Please do not yell into your microphone if you're not getting interpretation; just repeat the words “excuse me” or whatever. We need to be sensitive to our interpreters. As you can well imagine, they have large earphones and, of course, it can be very loud when you shout into your microphone.

There is only one other stipulation about interpretation. If you do not have a headset with a microphone.... Let's say that you're using the Apple headset, where there's a cord with a microphone on it. Please place the microphone close to your mouth. That way, interpretation is able to hear you. We really appreciate this.

We're a little bit behind, so let's get started.

On the subject matter of Bill C-10, we have, to start, three groups with us in the first hour.

From the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, we have Hélène Messier, president and chief executive officer. From the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, we have Martin Théberge, president; and Marie-Christine Morin, executive director. Finally, from the Quebec English-language Production Council, we have Darius Bossé, a lawyer with Power Law; Kenneth Hirsch, co-chair; and Eva Ludvig, member of the board of directors of the Quebec Community Groups Network.

Thank you, one and all.

We're going to start with Madame Messier.

Ms. Messier, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I would agree with you there, “acknowledged and recognized”.

Yet, I do see the bottom lines of Postmedia, Torstar and such, and they would not share in the excitement. They see their product exclusively on Facebook and they're not getting their due share of revenue from it.

Going forward—and it doesn't have anything to do with Bill C-10, the Broadcasting Act—there is a media component here that the minister said we'll bring forward in the coming months. Newspapers are dropping like flies in this country. This is one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue, right now in that industry. They're getting nothing from you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

The other issue that I take a bit of offence to as well is that when my colleague from the Conservatives asked about your relationship with Facebook—or the department's relationship with Facebook—and the consultation being done with Facebook, you compared the consultation with Facebook to meeting with the NCCM. I find that very problematic.

When we see the vast amount of hatred towards the Muslim community on Facebook, to compare those two is massively problematic, I think. One of my questions is about, for example, the Proud Boys, which was recently labelled by this Parliament as a terrorist entity. We know that Facebook has allowed the Proud Boys to organize and share their content on its platform, as well as to promote their posts to their users.

Knowing this, why do you think that it is acceptable for you or your officials to have meetings with Facebook about legislation such as Bill C-10 and presumably the legislation that will be seen on hate speech?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll keep it brief.

Mr. Minister, you were talking about Bill C-10, and I see that it doesn't appear on the projected order of parliamentary business. According to your government, this bill is close to your heart and needs to be passed quickly, but I don't see it on the projected order business for the next two weeks.

Knowing that the preliminary study won't be proof of anything, when will we be able to vote on this bill?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, we have crossed a year, at this point, since the pandemic hit Canada. Over the pandemic we have seen our public service rise to the challenge when we have talked about emergency funding and making sure that we deliver to and support Canadians through this pandemic. In addition to dealing with the emergency, we have also seen work being done and continuing on such legislation as Bill C-10 and the truth and reconciliation day. A lot of work has been happening alongside it. It has been really quite impressive, considering we've been working under these conditions.

I would note, on the motion that we're here about today, that with this motion the member from the New Democratic Party has chosen to actually challenge the credibility and the professionalism of our public service. Given everything we've seen in the States and in other countries, how do you feel about that chipping away at the credibility of our institutions, at the fundamental trust in Canada's public service, and at the institutions that support the very important work that is being done in our country?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Minister, and department heads.

I just wanted to pick up on the conversation here of Mr. Kevin Chan and his email to Owen Ripley, a high-up official in the minister's office.

Minister, with all due respect, your introduction today talked about what you're going to do with BillC-10, hate speech and media. Directly, when you look at it, Facebook is involved in this. There are major potential implementations to Facebook in the work of your department.

That's why I think we brought it up today—we just flagged it for you and I have the conflict of interest framework in front of me—and that's all we're asking. The values and ethics code applies to all staff, regardless of level, and most of the provisions, as you know, are based on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

We're not questioning anybody civil service-wise. We're trying to, in this case...“report in writing to their deputy head any conflict of interest resulting from firm offers of employment and other activities related to their duties”. It's in here.

That's what we were just talking about. You're dealing with Facebook more than anybody in the government and we're concerned when we see a personal email from Kevin Chan to one of your employees in the department. This is too cozy.

As opposition members we're concerned with this. I would like you to comment on that. I know you've only been a minister for a year or so, but this does not look good. If you don't mind me saying, it smells when Facebook, which you will have a major implementation with in the coming months, is sending personal emails to your staff.

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

Thank you for your question.

Our approach to the web giants consists of three pieces, if I can put it that way. We've already introduced the first piece, Bill C-10, which concerns the cultural component. Shortly, in the spring, we'll introduce a second bill, which will deal with online hate speech, and then a third bill, which will deal with the media issue.

You asked us what's holding us back. As you know, as legislators, we can't copy and paste a model that works in one country and import it to Canada. Every country has its own laws, regulations, institutions and practices, whether cultural or legal. Models really need to be adapted to reflect these differences. For example, we have a free-trade agreement with the United States, but not every country in the world does. It's important to realize that there are countries that, in the space of just one year, have decided to regulate the web giants with respect to culture, online hate and media. I know of only one that hasn't, and that's Canada.

Other countries are doing different things. For instance, just before the holidays, Britain passed its online hate speech law. Canada isn't the first, but it is certainly among the first in the world to address these issues, and to do so on these three fronts at the same time.

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

The purpose of the bill is to establish a new regulatory framework in Canada, one social media platforms will have to abide by.

A regulator will be created to enforce the new regulations and monitor the efforts made by platforms to combat hate speech in relation to the five categories I mentioned earlier. The broadcasting legislation, Bill C-10, will provide more clarity, including the various tools at the regulator's disposal to impose fines for non-compliance.

You're right. It is an issue of concern to a growing number of Canadians. As you probably know, the results of an Abacus-led survey commissioned by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation came out earlier this week. The findings show that the vast majority of Canadians have witnessed or directly experienced violence on social media. Women and racialized groups are much more likely to be targeted than other segments of the population. A very large percentage of Canadians want the government to do something.

There is no doubt. We are going to do something. We are introducing a bill soon, and we would be pleased to return to discuss the legislation in support of the committee's work.

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

Before I get to my questions, I would like to thank the minister, as well as the senior officials with him today, for making time to meet with the committee for its study—a study on the possible ties between Facebook and their department, a study that must be completed quickly. We found out that an email was sent. It has raised questions, so your being here will help us get clarity on the situation, I have no doubt.

I want to take this opportunity, Minister, to discuss the last time you appeared before the committee. On November 5, I asked you a fairly simple question. I wanted to know how your department had arrived at the calculation that an additional $830 million would be invested in Canadian content, both televised and digital, by 2023. You were here with your senior officials then, as well, and you seemed to say that it was fairly simple information to provide us with. You even shared it publicly on Tout le monde en parle, in front of a large audience.

It would appear, then, that the information is known. At any rate, calculations were done to arrive at the figure, and yet, in my various meetings with major players in the digital and TV world, I realized that no one seemed to understand the math behind the figure.

On December 7, we still hadn't heard back from you or your department. The committee, including your fellow Liberals, adopted a unanimous resolution, calling on you again to make the information available to us. As you know, we are starting a prestudy on Monday. There was agreement across the board, despite the fact that the debate on Bill C-10 is still under way in the House. As I see it, the information is pretty important, if only to ensure transparency. We want to be sure we have all the information available pertaining to the bill—a bill that is giving rise to quite a few questions as we speak.

Next week will mark three months since you told us you would provide us with the information, information you shared publicly without providing details.

Here's my question. Is it possible for us to have the information now?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much. My apologies for the lateness of my arrival. It seems that events are conspiring against my participation in this committee meeting. We had a fire alarm where I am right now, so we had to exit the building.

That being said, we actually explored the possibility of my joining by phone outside. That was technologically complicated, it seems.

I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and Haudenosaunee peoples.

I want to start by acknowledging that, four years ago today, a gunman took the lives of six people at the Quebec City mosque and seriously injured 19 others. They were Muslim fathers, husbands, loved ones and friends. Their sudden and tragic deaths were heartbreaking not just for their families, but also for Muslim communities around the world and all Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I am very happy to be appearing before you again today.

With me is the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, Hélène Laurendeau; as well as Jean-Stéphen Piché, senior assistant deputy minister.

The pandemic continues to weigh heavily on Canada's heritage, arts, culture and sport communities. We are all committed to helping them get through the crisis and supporting them in their recovery.

I want to thank the committee for pursuing it's important work despite the difficult circumstances. Your study on the challenges faced by the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors caused by COVID-19 will be a valuable asset in these efforts. Canadian Heritage was pleased to participate.

I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work you have done on Bill C-5, which seeks to establish the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation as a statutory holiday.

When we met for the main and supplementary budget estimates review, I had just tabled Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. It will be referred to your committee shortly, and we will welcome your input on this legislation as well.

As I indicated before the holidays, I look forward to better understanding your perspectives and how the bill could be improved.

Like many Canadians, our government is concerned about the current imbalance that favours the web giants at the expense of Canadian businesses. The economic and social stakes resulting from this situation are too important for us to stand idly by.

That is why the Speech from the Throne mentioned that things must change to ensure more equitable sharing of revenues with our Canadian creators and media.

Mr. Chair, our government is committed to regulating digital platforms and putting them to work for Canadians. One of the objectives of Bill C-10 is to require those platforms to invest in our creators, our music and our stories, which could lead to more than $800 million of additional money being invested here in Canada every year.

This bill has been positively received by the community and stakeholders. I must share the credit for this success with the employees of Canadian Heritage, as it would not have been possible without their supporting work. I would like to salute their expertise and professionalism. As you know, it is up to elected officials to lead the development of public policy, and our government has been very clear on how we want to tackle social media platforms and web giants. The Canadian Heritage team is providing excellent evidence-based support in this regard.

Our government will also complement these efforts by levelling the playing field on the tax front, as we proposed in the 2020 fall economic statement. Digital businesses will now be required to collect and remit the GST. We will also ensure that digital corporations pay their fair share of taxes in respect of their activities in Canada.

I must also note that we are currently studying a made-in-Canada formula to ensure fair remuneration of news publishers by online platforms, similar to what you might have seen move ahead in certain other countries.

We have seen during the pandemic that digital platforms are more than ever at the heart of communications between Canadians, and are keeping us connected. Unfortunately, some Internet users are also exploiting these platforms maliciously to spread hate, racism and child pornography. There is currently illegal content being uploaded and shared online, to the detriment of Canadians and our society. This is simply unacceptable.

My apologies, Mr. Chair, but I'm having some technical problems.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech of 2021, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all my parliamentary colleagues a happy new year.

In these trying times of health and economic crisis, we are treading an ever more challenging path littered with stumbling blocks. Before getting into public life, I paid close attention to political affairs. My father and I spent many hours a week keeping abreast of what politicians and the official parties, both governing and opposition, were up to. At times, I would think to myself that, if I were in their shoes, I would say this or propose that and really try to make the people the focus of my thoughts and actions.

Now I am here, actively participating in a process brought on by the pandemic. We all know politics has never seen anything like this. I am proud to contribute to the process, and I am bringing the heart and soul of an artist and a businesswoman to the table. People all around me are working to help individuals grappling with all kinds of problems, and I am right there with them. We are, by nature, hard-working people, and that shows in our efforts to help others.

In politics, and in the context of the pandemic, as career politicians or newly elected members, we have to adapt to new variables and roll with the punches. We have to strengthen our resolve and even reconsider how we do things. It is essential that every elected member of this House set aside certain electioneering tendencies, redirect their attention away from their electoral plans and campaign photo-ops, and focus on all these social issues that are also calls for help.

Helping people in times of crisis is our role. It is a matter of prioritizing public safety and our social safety net. Leading anthropologists and sociologists will say that there are three types of social security: physical, psychological and financial. Citizens put their trust in us and hope that we can stay focused on what is essential and avoid the worst for now and the future.

What is the worst? Simply put it is insecurity and uncertainty. Under the guise of an emergency and without any clear direction, the CERB, wage subsidies and business loans were handed out haphazardly by the government, and the concept of emergency grew ever broader to justify the failure to act responsibly. Clear direction and better targeted assistance would have allowed us to adapt the various programs.

What seems obvious, unfortunately, is that the government is trying to provoke an election before this all backfires. The current situation points to a very worrisome future that will have to be meticulously planned and rigorously managed through an economic recovery guided by very clear priorities. Between $70 billion and $100 billion has been announced to that end. This investment must not serve only to further increase the deficit and make the rich richer. Consistency and political courage are needed to avoid dipping again and again into the pockets of honest taxpayers in order to avoid disaster.

While huge organizations are avoiding paying billions of dollars in taxes—I am talking about the web giants—I have to wonder whether there is anyone at the controls. This country, which is part of the G7 and G20 and brags about being a model in certain areas, is depriving its economy and its citizens of such huge amounts of money. Quebec, meanwhile, has had the courage to tax the virtual economy, so yes, Quebec is the real model.

How do we begin to address the security of people and businesses in a society such as ours? To ensure physical security, we must close the border and prohibit non-essential travel. We must also look after public health and the health of the most vulnerable by providing the maximum amount required to fund health care through transfers to the provinces and Quebec with no conditions, improving seniors' financial situation, increasing purchasing power strategically and investing in pharmaceutical independence. Psychological security and financial security pretty much go hand in hand. People cannot live serenely or maintain the mental health required to get through a crisis such as this if they do not have financial security, even if it is minimal.

It will be extremely important to ensure that the government directs its assistance to Canadians and its support for businesses in the same way, that is by channelling financial assistance to those most impacted by this crisis, even if it means increasing taxes for those who were able to profit from the pandemic.

In speaking of the most impacted, I do not hesitate to say that, after considering the sad plight of seniors, who were especially hard hit by the virus, the arts and culture sector was the first to be brought to its knees and will be the last to emerge from this crisis. What did the culture sector receive? The CERB and emergency programs evaporated like the rain from a storm. Hundreds of artists, creators, self-employed individuals and sole proprietors fell through the cracks of programs and received no money for lack of funds or because the eligibility criteria did not mesh with these people's reality.

Now we are getting promises that other announcements will be made soon. That is the thrust of my speech. This promise holds the very future of our culture in its hands and, by extension, a large part of the mental health of Quebeckers and Canadians. These people will be desperately craving forms of entertainment, looking for magical places to come together, places filled with extraordinary creators, visionaries who weave the stories of our collective imagination.

Where will these places be? What will have happened to the artists? Will they still exist? These storytellers, production designers, directors, some world-renowned and others on their way there: Will they be able to continue creating without a decent income? Will our technicians be able to continue innovating and bringing our creators' imaginations to life?

Will our culture, our national pride, endure? Where will we find the stages featuring our up-and-coming architects of joy, our purveyors of the future and champions of our values? Where will we find consciousness-raisers and the people embracing free expression with ships of gold? Where will we be able to nurture our Leclercs, our budding Vigneaults or our future Beau Dommages? Where will we find our Cormiers, our Michauds, our Cowboys Fringants, our Charlotte Cardins, our Geneviève Jodoins or our Vent du Nords?

We must also think of our wonderful artists, the dancers, the circus performers, our favourite authors. Will our entrepreneurs and cultural organizations still be there to provide events and stages for all those beloved artists? How many of our museums, art galleries, festivals, theatres, cinemas, all those event spaces that drive, promote and disseminate our culture, will still be there? What about our wonderful media outlets that surround our artists, that promote and critique them, will they be forever changed? Will the individual financial assistance and programs we are asking for to support culture have been sufficient and properly distributed? Will the major legislative reforms that are necessary for the survival of the creative industy, such as Bill C-10, have been sufficiently robust and comprehensive?

Will our legislators have been courageous enough and determined enough to conduct a thorough review of the laws governing creation, creative content, its areas of application, and the obligations of users and aggregators?

To date, over 100,000 cultural workers have changed fields. It breaks my heart. We have already lost so much expertise, talent and resources that are vital to the evolution and development of our signature culture. I am asking the government and all of Parliament to recognize the value of culture and treat it accordingly. Culture is a service that is essential to society's mental, physical and financial health. It is a profitable essential service because the creative industry makes a vital contribution to Canada's and Quebec's GDP and serves as an important tool in promoting the vitality of parent economies, such as tourism. We have heard that some sectors of the economy will have practically disappeared by the end of this crisis, while others will shift to a more virtual economy. However, culture is not suited to a virtual experience, no matter how lifelike. Let us be realistic. Not everything is suited to the virtual world, particularly not culture. Arts and culture are living, breathing human things. They are about emotion and they are at the heart of every individual's socialization. Culture is vital.

Circumstances conducive to getting cultural activities back up and running may not be in place until 2022, maybe even 2023. Culture is going to need help. We all want life to get back to normal, but the only way that can happen is if we make sure artists get the support they need to stay in the business. Culture cannot and must not be the pandemic's next casualty. It is our duty to protect our society's cultural health because all forms of art immunize us against bitterness and distress. Culture is the most effective treatment for post-traumatic stress humanity has ever devised.

Broadcasting Act

[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.

[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, 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.

[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?