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.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, if the Conservatives stop filibustering and allow a stand-up vote on Bill C-7, then next week the government expects to call the following bills: Bill C-8 on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94; Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation; and Bill C-13 on single-event sport betting.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you because December 5, two days from now, marks one year since the House elected you and placed its trust in you. You oversee House proceedings fairly, impartially and with dignity. Thank you on behalf of all members.

[Solange Drouin]

Yes, it's urgent. I hope that I will be in front of you next week to discuss Bill C-10. It's something that we've been waiting for. I've been at l'ADISQ for 28 years, so I've seen a lot. We've been waiting for this bill to be a reality since, I would say, 1999, since the bad decision from the CRTC to exempt the new media order, as it was called at the time. It's an urgent matter because finally we'll get some money from the online services that use our music, and it is essential that they promote it and contribute to the financing of this. It's very important. It's the same with the Copyright Act; it's very important that we deal with that very urgently, just after the Broadcasting Act.

[Solange Drouin, Vice-President and Executive Director, Public Affairs, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for inviting us to appear before you today.

Before getting to the heart of the matter and talking about the pandemic, I'd like to take a few minutes to describe the world of music to you.

Globally, this environment is very largely dominated by three big multinational companies: Sony, Universal and Warner. Those three enterprises are present in Canada. Here, they distribute the musical content from international artists and they also develop the careers of Canadian artists they feel can be of international scope, such as Drake or The Weeknd, whom you know.

These three large corporations have virtually nothing to do with the production of Canadian francophone content or that of Quebec artists who speak other languages. Those Canadian francophone artists are almost all allied with independent enterprises that develop their careers here or internationally, in some cases. It goes without saying that the size of these independent businesses cannot compare to that of the three global enterprises.

It will be important to keep that in mind when you analyze the effects of the pandemic on our sector.

All businesses have suffered from the pandemic, of course. On the other hand, independent businesses do not have the same resources as multinationals to cope with it.

To understand our industry, the other thing to take into account is that income for the entire chain of music stakeholders comes primarily from three sources: revenues from the sale of recorded music, from the sale of concert tickets, and finally, funds and contributions from the use of music on the radio and in public places, for example.

With respect to recorded music sales, as you know, since 2005, these revenues have shrunk considerably in favour of streaming, without generating equivalent revenues, far from it. The pandemic has further accelerated this irreversible phenomenon.

The pandemic has also had a catastrophic effect on ticket sales due to the closure of venues. Under normal circumstances, revenues from this activity represent nearly 50% of total business revenues. However, the industry has been totally deprived of this for several months. This loss has had a devastating effect on the entire chain, since more than 75% of expenditures in this sector go to labour, including artists, back-up singers or choristers, musicians, technicians and designers, among others.

Finally, other revenues from music use have also suffered huge declines and will continue to do so. For example, in radio, royalties paid are calculated as a percentage of advertising revenues. As advertising revenues are declining, so are the resulting royalties for authors, performers and producers.

The portrait I'm painting for you is quite dark, I agree. However, the response of our community to the pandemic has been surprising, and even inspiring. Instead of giving up in the face of the enormity of the challenges, the music community has continued to work tirelessly to keep the link between artists and audiences alive.

Since the lockdown, in Quebec alone, several hundred albums have been released. All kinds of activities and shows have been created, such as virtual shows, shows on balconies and in drive-in theatres, and the production of music videos has continued. In short, the independent Canadian companies that accompany the artists have remained open and active.

All of this was made possible thanks to additional funding from the federal and Quebec governments. We have said it several times and we say it again today: thank you for this essential support.

These emergency payments provided our community with some predictability until March 31, 2021. Beyond that date, as it were tomorrow morning, the outlook for the future becomes blurred and uncertain. In fact, a broad consultation with our members revealed a great fear that 2021 will be worse than 2020. This is a fear to which is obviously added the exhaustion of the teams and the accumulation of losses.

Our independent companies have always been dynamic but fragile. The pandemic has made them even more fragile, and their capacity to produce, market and distribute music and shows for local artists has been reached.

In the coming months, a recovery plan must be implemented over as long a period of time as necessary, so that the Canadian and francophone music community can continue to make quality music in all its diversity accessible to Canadian audiences everywhere. To achieve this, financial investments will be necessary, of course.

In addition, the pandemic has exacerbated the urgency of revising two framework laws for our sector.

First of all, I'm talking about the revision of the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-10, currently before Parliament, establishes a framework for online businesses, often foreign, and will ultimately subject them to regulation that will enhance our content and financial contributions. This legislative review must be completed before the next election. We cannot flub this historic event.

The revision of the Copyright Act is another tool you can give the cultural community to ensure its sustainability. For example, the private copying regime, which has been successful for many years, must be reinstated.

Thank you for your attention. I'll be pleased to take your questions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that question was really well put, probably the best question today.

This afternoon, we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-12 on net-zero emissions. This evening, the committee of the whole will study the votes under Department of Health. Tomorrow and Monday, we will be debating Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying.

We hope to complete third reading of Bill C-7 on Monday to give the Senate enough time to pass the bill before the court-imposed deadline of December 18.

On Monday afternoon, at 4 p.m., the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will deliver the fall economic statement in the House of Commons.

Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation.

Lastly, next Friday we will resume debate on Bill C-10, concerning the Broadcasting Act, and Bill C-11, concerning personal information protection.

Status of the French Language in Montreal

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

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

A strong culture attracts supporters. New members of that culture become allies, and allies create partnerships together.

Not far away, we have an example of a culture that has an enormous power of attraction, that of the United States, whose cultural works, in the broadest sense of the term, such as arts, sports, entertainment, and even video games, attract audiences from all over the world. These audiences readily expose themselves to the symbols and values of American society.

However, I would like to focus more on the power of attraction of the French language, which needs to be strengthened. I would like to share my wife's story. She is originally from Alberta.

She might not like that I am talking about her in the House, but she deserves the attention because of all she does to help me have this political career. Everyone in the House understands what I mean.

My wife's mother is an American who married a Canadian and made a life in Canada, in western Canada. Once in Canada, she was taken with Pierre Trudeau's vision, by the idea of French Power in Ottawa, the Official Languages Act and Canadian biculturalism. This woman who originally had no connection to French chose to enrol her four children in French immersion in Calgary.

That experience had a profound impact on my wife, who later went to university to become a social sciences teacher in French immersion. In other words, she studied so she could promote the French language. Her love of French is what brought her to Quebec, where she even worked one summer as a young guide at the National Assembly, showing Quebeckers the splendour of their legislature.

In Calgary, not only did my wife learn French, but she also got a taste of Quebec culture. I will never forget when I suggested that we go see Luc de Larochellière at the Francofolies. To my great surprise, she already knew his music, as well as the music of Michel Rivard and Richard Séguin. Her teachers in Calgary were Quebec francophones. They shared their culture with their students. I say all this to provide an example of the power of attraction of the French language and Quebec culture.

French grows stronger and flourishes through its ability to attract supporters, including among newcomers. Any minority culture has to deal with the soft power of nearby majority cultures, such as the American culture that has the technological and economic clout to spread its influence.

The federal government has a role to play in supporting the French fact in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. It has the means and the duty to work to boost the appeal of French. It has regulatory power through the CRTC and under the Broadcasting Act, both of which are covered by Bill C-10, which the Minister of Canadian Heritage just introduced. The government has Radio-Canada, which deserves to get the funding it needs to continue to be one of the main bastions of French language and culture in Quebec and Canada. The government has substantial budgets for funding French-language content that reflects francophone culture with the help of the web giants that will now be required to contribute under Bill C-10. The government also has the Official Languages Act.

The vitality of a people depends on its culture. Culture is how it sustains itself, thrives and reaches out to others.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention.

I have two questions about the criticisms of Bill C-10 on broadcasting. On the issue of percentages in the bill, the Association québécoise de la production médiatique said, “The AQPM believes that it would be hard to include percentages in the legislation and that it is better to go before the CRTC to debate better conditions to impose on online broadcasters and undertakings.” That is what independent producers are saying and that is what ADISQ, the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo says. By the way, ADISQ says it is grateful to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his team for being so receptive.

Will the Conservative Party vote in favour of Bill C-10?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Chair, I am proud to address you in French this evening as an MP from the Quebec nation and the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Language issues have always been very important to me. I am a member of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and I also have an international responsibility. I have the privilege of chairing the Parliamentary Affairs Committee, which represents more than 88 parliaments that use and promote French.

Let's get right to the point. The decline in the language of Molière in the beautiful province of Quebec, particularly in the Montreal region, is real, and I am extremely concerned. The same sort of thing is happening in francophone communities outside Quebec and, as parliamentarians, we need to protect the language. Statistics show beyond a shadow of a doubt that there has been a decline in the use of spoken French at work and at home in Quebec.

An article published by Le Devoir in 2019 indicated that the number of people who speak French most often at home is dropping by 1%. That may not seem like much, but if we lose 1% every year, then we will lose a lot and francophones will no longer be heard by their communities.

This decline may seem minor, but it will translate to much bigger losses in the next 20 years. We need to act now.

Quebeckers are concerned. According to a Leger Marketing survey, nearly six in 10 Quebeckers feel that the situation has gotten worse in the past decade. The same proportion of people feel that the use of French will continue to decline over the next decade. Sixty-three per cent of respondents said that they were concerned about the situation of French. I repeat: I am very concerned for our future generations.

However, what I find most embarrassing is the Liberal government's inaction. Seriously, I ask myself this question a lot: Where have the Liberal members from Quebec been for the past five years? Back in 2015, this government campaigned on promises about official languages.

I must say that over the past year and in recent days, the Quebec Liberal caucus has shown that it has no respect for or credibility when it comes to the French language. First of all, in the WE Charity scandal, the Liberal government awarded an untendered contract to an organization with no ties to Quebec and no way of communicating with francophone Canadians.

In recent weeks, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, a Quebecker, introduced Bill C-10 to modernize the Broadcasting Act. There is no provision to ensure that French is protected.

As if that were not enough, the member for Saint-Laurent expressed doubts about the decline of French in Montreal, and the Quebec president of the Liberal Party agreed. Without mincing words, and said that Bill 101 is quite simply oppressive.

We might have thought it was a lapse in judgment or a misinterpretation of what the member for Saint-Laurent said. However, a few minutes after she quit the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the member for Saint-Laurent was at it again. She “liked” a tweet that said that the crisis around the decline of French was exaggerated. Seriously, it is unacceptable. Was she expressing what the Liberal MPs from Quebec are thinking? Maybe.

When we add it all up, we can say that we know the current government's real opinion on the decline of French, despite the fine words from the Minister of Official Languages and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. The Minister of Official Languages often likes to say in this chamber that our political party has no lessons to give her party. I would just like to take this opportunity to remind her that it was the Conservative Party of Canada, led by the the Hon. Brian Mulroney, that repealed the Official Languages Act in 1988. The Liberals can brag outside the House and say that they were the ones who brought in this legislation in 1969, but again, history shows that it was the Conservatives that had to improve policies brought in by the Liberal Party.

That statement is not unfounded. According to Linda Cardinal, a political scientist and research chair in Canadian francophonie and public policy at the University of Ottawa, “The 1969 legislation had no real might. It conferred primarily political rights, whereas the 1988 legislation had more to do with human rights.”

The Conservative Party has always made it a priority to defend the interests of people across the country, and amendments to that act certainly made things better for all francophones across the country. However, the act is in dire need of an overhaul because it is 2020 and the act has not been modernized in over 30 years.

In 2017, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages asked parliamentarians to modernize the act, but the government never did more than talk, like the lyrics from that famous song that goes, “Words, words, words”. I do not sing as well as the member for Shefford. I do not have that talent.

I would add that the government has nothing but words to offer Canadians. When it is time to put plans into action, this government simply cannot.

In June 2018, Mark Power and Darius Bossé, lawyers working in the area of language rights, wrote in an op-ed that the survival of French in Canada requires a thorough revision of the federal Official Languages Act. I could mention several other experts who have publicly criticized the current situation. In spite of everything, it is obvious that there is no linguistic sensitivity on the part of this government. To this day, the member for Ahuntsic-Cartierville and Minister of Official Languages cannot tell us when she will introduce her legislation to modernize the act.

When I was preparing this speech, I was surprised to learn that the current Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry in this government voted against the Conservative motion moved in 2006 recognizing the Quebec nation and, by extension, the importance of French in Quebec. Worse still, 15 Liberal members voted against that motion. That is not counting those who did not show up for the vote. Fifteen Liberals voted against that motion, and several others were absent. We can therefore conclude that the member for Saint-Laurent is not the only one in the Liberal Party of Canada caucus who does not really care about the decline of French.

There is a genuine consensus on our side of the House. Our leader publicly announced it a few months ago. He did not play politics like the members opposite. He was clear about the issue and our caucus has been too. We will always respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and work with Quebec's elected officials as real partners.

We agree with the Legault government that Bill 101 should be applied to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Quebeckers deserve to be represented by members who will stand up for them, who will defend the French language and who are able to say loud and clear without any ambiguity that French is declining in Quebec and Montreal.

I would like to close with a famous quote by Albert Camus, which represents the essence of my political commitment and which should inspire the member for Saint-Laurent and the other members of the Liberal Party. He said, “Democracy is not the law of the majority but the protection of the minority”.

Liberal members from Quebec did not do their duty and the Minister of Official Languages is not doing anything to resolve the situation, but we will continue to protect and defend our two official languages in Montreal, Quebec and all across Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, I have heard a great list of Quebec artists this evening. I am hearing beautiful demonstrations of love for the French language, but the numbers prove that French is in decline in Montreal. What I am hearing tonight is talk, talk, talk. When will there be concrete action? For instance, Bill C-10 could include a percentage of francophone music, or the House could pass the Bloc Québécois bill that would make federally regulated companies subject to the Charter of the French Language.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

Aside from being a means of communication, language is also an expression of our culture. It tells our stories and accompanies our dreams. Language gives us the ability to understand and help each other, and it helps us move forward.

Our sense of belonging to a community is built around a common language. Language and culture are passed on in various ways, through literature, visual arts, music, science, history, philosophy or dance. Among the main instruments of cultural transmission are television and radio. A long time ago other legislators in the House realized that and started demanding that television and radio contribute to the production of Canadian stories. Their decision was greatly beneficial to our cultural landscape.

However, the definition of television and radio has changed a lot since the last time the Broadcasting Act was updated, 30 years ago. In those days, we did not have touch screens or voice-activated devices. We were lucky if we could get the remote control to work on the first try. Nevertheless our laws remained unchanged since that distant past.

That is why I introduced Bill C-10 a few days ago. Its objective is simple: to extend the scope of the Broadcasting Act to online broadcasting services, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify, and ensure that they too contribute to the production of Canadian stories, including francophone stories. It is a matter of fairness. The web giants can no longer ignore Canada's francophones and their culture. This is particularly important because francophones and their language and culture are a minority in North America.

In order to preserve French under such circumstances, we need more than just good intentions. That is why robust legislation is so important. Bill C-10 is a way of telling francophone artists that there is no us without them. Our reform recognizes the specific challenges they are facing and addresses them directly. Their work deserves to be more well known and better funded and broadcast.

Finally, I want to talk about Montreal, a francophone city that is rich in culture and heritage. It has been my adopted home for over 30 years. From the early days of radio and television, creators have looked for ways to represent and reflect all aspects of life in Montreal in their productions.

It has been captured in such songs as Je reviendrai à Montréal by Robert Charlebois and Montréal by Ariane Moffat. On screen, the city and its inhabitants have been immortalized in documentaries such as the recent Chef en pandémie, series such as District 31 and La vie, la vie, the children's show Passe-Partout, and Montreal's distinct alleyways.

There are also those who make us laugh in French: Catherine Éthier, Eddy King, Rosalie Vaillancourt and Adib Alkhalidey. The Couscous Comedy Show stage in Montreal has launched quite a few acts now appearing on television and Apple Music.

In essence, Montreal inspires and sets the tone. It is a place where people can connect, where francophone productions around the world can collaborate. Montreal's stories, francophone stories, are there. They need to be seen and heard. Our children and grandchildren deserve to see themselves in those characters. They deserve a chance to write those stories themselves someday.

In 2016, I was honoured to be awarded the Impératif français prize for my contribution to the vitality of the language. It is not, however, my mother tongue. I learned to speak English before I learned to speak French. Switching from an English school to a French one was not without its challenges, but my mother felt that I ought to learn this beautiful language, and I have cultivated it throughout my life.

Winning the prize did not strike me as an end in itself. It was just a sign that I had to keep doing that work. Today, that commitment has brought me to my work as Minister of Canadian Heritage. Those who work to ensure the vitality of our language and our culture and to pass it on to others can count on our government to support, recognize and applaud their efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the question.

I think that in the heart and soul of Quebeckers, the concepts of culture and language go hand in hand. That has been the case for decades, and I do not see that changing anytime soon. I invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage to be open to possible amendments to his Bill C-10, to further clarify the fact that we need original French-language content made in French in Quebec and Canada. I think that for the next 20 or 30 years, that would be crucial.

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

Madam Chair, I rise this evening to speak about issues that I think are important.

I will begin by talking a little about Quebec culture. We recently talked about the program La petite vie. We are going to talk about it a little more. In one of the most popular episodes, Ti-Mé has a watch that vibrates when he tells a lie. If it were the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, his arm would have fallen off a few minutes ago. Saying that applying the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses was the NDP's idea is just one of the countless foolish things that those members have said.

However, I have good thoughts and good words for the leader of the official opposition. I understand that the official opposition will support this bill. I believe that his affection for the French language is sincere. The leader of the opposition's fluency in French has improved dramatically since he took up his current position.

I respectfully submit to his attention, however, that Quebeckers are not asking federalist parties to protect French. They are asking federalist parties to respect Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction and the absolute legitimacy of Quebeckers when it comes to protecting their national language. This belongs to Quebeckers only.

If the Official Languages Act is to play a role for all francophones outside Quebec and for our Acadian friends, we will be very happy to be their voice here, in Parliament.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois put forward a bill to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. The Bloc Québécois also introduced a bill which would mandate a minimal knowledge of French for any person wishing to become a Canadian citizen while living in Quebec. I again count on the support of the Conservatives, given their respect for the French language in Quebec.

Recently, the Liberal Party of Canada swept under the rug, a very thick rug given the amount of dust piling up, the comments of Liberal figures, taken from a whole anthology which was alluded to. The same party, instead of taking its responsibilities regarding French and the official languages, wants to have a white paper. That is an excellent name because its pages will probably be completely white also. It will be an utterly empty document.

Lastly, there is Bill C-10 on broadcasting. The minister bragged about the fact that the industry did not ask for a minimal percentage of French content. What a feat! Welcome to the Liberal Party, where people are thrilled to see there is no obligation regarding French content.

The Liberal Party is a bit stuck. Given the attention that this subject is attracting, the Liberals could very well lose a lot of ground in Quebec by going that route.

Why would the issue of French be dealt with differently this time? After all, this issue has been raised many times. The Quebec National Assembly has frequently spoken out about it. The federal government has attacked French many times. Those attacks have been accumulating.

A few months ago, the Liberal Party, mainly through its NDP butlers, started sending the message that the Bloc Québécois is a bunch of racists. The same thing was being said about the Government of Quebec and, by extension, all Quebeckers since they support the Quebec government's policies. Quebeckers got fed up and said that they supported the state secularism law and Quebec values on freedom of expression.

Once again, there were attacks and a denigration of the French language condoned by the highest power in this country. Of course the jurisdictions and expertise of this government are highly questionable. We will not get into the issue of vaccines again. We will come back to that another time.

The issue of language has come up again at a time when there is friction. Quebeckers are fed up, not just of being told what to do, but even worse, of being told that they do not have the right to be. For a long time, Quebec society has been seen as a bunch of hippies with flowers in their hair and with very left-wing values. Perhaps that is not too far off the mark. A lot of work went into giving Quebeckers a bad reputation, even though Quebec is a progressive, welcoming and generous society. At a certain point, people get fed up.

That is the context in which the issue of language has come up again. The argument that this is discrimination against anglophones, a historic minority, comes up again and again. I always say that Quebec would not be what it is today without that valuable contribution. This is a source of some confusion, but the historic anglophone minority in western Quebec, which now extends well beyond Montreal, has rights and privileges. Of all the rights and privileges enjoyed by the anglophone community, the right to integrate immigrants who choose Quebec into the English-speaking community is not one of them. There is no such thing. The national and common language in Quebec, the only official language in Quebec, is French. In exchange for the generous welcome offered by Quebeckers, those who choose Quebec, who are most welcome of course, are legitimately expected to have a minimum knowledge of this language. This seems to be a value, a request, a healthy and legitimate expectation.

I would go even further and say that the generous welcome offered to immigrants comes with obligations. When I talk about the integration of immigrants, more often than not, I am talking about economic integration rather than cultural and linguistic integration. Indeed, the main thing these individuals want when they choose Quebec is to rebuild their lives there with a minimum chance of prosperity. This brings us back to language. Language proficiency is the first and most important tool for harmonious economic, social and cultural integration in Quebec.

Quebec would not be doing its job if it did not ensure that all people who live on the inalienable territory of Quebec have at least a minimum knowledge of French. It is our duty, economically as well as linguistically and culturally, and for the survival of the nation and the culture that we represent.

For all these reasons, the issue must indeed come up again. The first tool for many things is a common language, and the common language in Quebec, no matter what some Liberals might say, will not be English. Let us be very clear, that language is French. That is what Quebeckers want. Good old-fashioned guilt trips will not work on Quebeckers anymore.

I will conclude by saying this: People can go ahead, keep on provoking Quebeckers, but they should watch out. Once Quebec stands up, it will not stop.

Citizenship Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in the House with so many friends to address this important debate, and to follow my friend, the member for Markham—Unionville, who gave an excellent speech. He said he came to Canada in 1974. I came to Canada in 1987, actually, so he has been here longer than I have.

I want to first set off my debate by talking a bit about the content of the bill. I also want to talk a bit about some of the context around the government's agenda and proposals with respect to indigenous issues.

The bill would amend the citizenship oath to read as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The reference to first nations, Inuit and Métis people, and the references to aboriginal and treat rights, would be new references the bill proposes to add to the legislation.

The genesis for this discussion of amending the citizenship oath is a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically call to action number 94. As members have observed, the bill seems to have support from all parties and will pass second reading and go to committee. However, there is an issue we will need to hear about more at committee, which is important to note. We will need to hear from witnesses about the difference between the formulation of the oath in the legislation and the proposal that was in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation 94.

The proposed oath, which I looked up before speaking, from the commission report was as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The formula is slightly different between the proposal in recommendation number 94 and the proposal in the bill. The bill references first nations, Inuit and Métis, and is a bit longer. Regardless, it is important to ensure that as we proceed down this road in the spirit of reconciliation, we hear from indigenous leaders along the way. Again, it will be important to elucidate at committee whether the relevant stakeholders and communities that are particularly invested in this have been consulted with respect to the difference in wording between the TRC recommendation and the bill. That will be an important point for us to follow up on.

Before I reflect on some of the specifics regarding changing the oath, I want to say that the Conservatives support the bill moving forward. We think the aspirations behind it and the substance of it are reasonable and valuable, and we look forward to further discussion and debate.

Right now we have before Parliament, at various stages, three pieces of legislation that in some sense deal with or touch directly on the relationship between the government and indigenous peoples in Canada. We have Bill C-5, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. We are discussing Bill C-8, which amends the citizenship oath. We have Bill C-10, which is a larger, broader bill with many issues in it that would make changes to the Broadcasting Act, some of which put into the Broadcasting Act the expectation that broadcasters have diverse content reflecting different communities, including indigenous communities. Then we have Bill C-5, which deals with a statutory holiday for recognizing and remembering what happened in the context of indigenous residential schools.

All three of these bills contain important elements. The Conservatives have supported Bill C-5 and Bill C-8. We have some concerns about Bill C-10, although they are not related to the objectives, but are related to other aspects of the bill, as it is a broader bill. Regardless, in the context of the legislative agenda of the government right now, we have these three different bills.

If the Liberals are deciding what kinds of bills they are going to put forward with respect to indigenous issues, members might say they have a few different options in front of them. In considering those options, we can divide the bills they are putting forward into two broad categories. There would be bills that represent acts of recognition and then there would be bills that represent actions that target quality of life improvements.

This is an important distinction to make. Acts of recognition are things like putting in place a statutory holiday, changing wording, changing language, the legislature making statements, expressing its acknowledgement of certain facts and its will for reconciliation. These kinds of acts of recognition are things we do often as a legislature. They are important and have a place, which is why we are supporting this bill.

Other examples of acts of recognition this legislature has taken include motions where we express our appreciation for a certain community or the work done. In the last Parliament, we passed many bills that create heritage months, for example. Heritage months are a way of collectively commemorating and recognizing the contribution of certain communities. These acts of recognition and pieces of legislation that call for wider community recognition are important.

Why are they important? They create opportunities for us to call to mind, recognize and appreciate the valuable contributions made by certain communities. We are shaped by our history. As a legislature, we have a role in encouraging a recognition and awareness of that history. That is important and valuable. We can do those things and there is a legitimate place for us to do those things.

Another category of legislation we have are actions that specifically target quality of life improvements, which seek to make changes to practical circumstances in order to make peoples' lives concretely better.

These actions of recognition, whether changing an oath, commemorative day, representation in broadcasting or heritage month, are important. However, legislation that touches peoples' direct quality of life and deals with their ability to access justice with the recognition of their rights, the delivery of concrete services, whether it is health care or other supports, that deals with economic development, I would think are on balance more important.

To me, it is striking when I look at all the recommendations that have been made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I look at all of the options in front of the government in terms of prioritizing its response. We see more or less exclusively acts of recognition, as opposed to actions that are aimed at concrete quality of life improvements.

If we saw a mix of both, that would be fine. However, we need to start to be critical and ask that question when we are seeing a focus exclusively on the acts of recognition, as opposed to on those kinds of quality of life improvements I talked about earlier.

What are the areas we are missing? Where has the government failed when it comes to making quality of life improvements? There are many areas we need to look at in terms of concrete quality of life improvements. We can talk about justice and health, and many other things.

I want to start by talking about economic development. Talking to indigenous Canadians in my area and across the country, I know there is a real desire for economic development and for people to have jobs and opportunities in their own communities.

There is also a recognition that when there is economic development in different communities, it gives those communities control and ability to invest in programs that reflect the priorities of those communities. We hear calls from communities for funding from the government for programs around health, around language, around infrastructure and these sorts of things, but to the extent that communities are able to have economic development themselves, they are also able to prioritize, and invest in those priority areas without needing to come and ask the government for funding in that specific area. It is not an either-or. It is not as if communities have to choose between accessing government funding and economic development, but when communities are developing economically it gives them a greater degree of autonomy and control and it gives them the opportunity to invest in those priorities right away.

Many indigenous communities have been benefiting from being part of the energy economy, developing natural resources and pursuing other opportunities. In the course of this debate, the parliamentary secretary responded to my question about concrete actions by talking about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. It is important to address this directly. If we want to give indigenous communities the opportunity to develop economically, they have to be able to do so in a framework that involves reasonable consultation, but ultimately gives them the opportunity to move forward. If they have, for example, an energy development project where the indigenous communities in an area are actually the proponents of that project and there is a minority that is opposing those projects, in a case where there is overwhelming support within local indigenous communities, there has to be a consultation framework that allows that project to move forward.

This is where Conservatives have parted company with other parties, especially around issues like Bill C-262, because if they put in place a framework that effectively means that one community could have a veto over the desire for the economic development of all surrounding communities, that is a problem. There needs to be a meaningful consultation process in which communities are listened to, but there also has to be an opportunity for communities to develop their own resources and the standard for consultation has to stop somewhere short of unanimity. One cannot expect that every person has to agree before we see any kind of economic development.

It has been something that maybe we have discussed less since, because COVID-19 took up all the attention in terms of discussion, but early in the year we were dealing with a situation where all of the elected community leaders wanted a particular project, the Coastal GasLink project, and a minority of hereditary chiefs were against that project going forward. That was the context, and it was debated extensively. Some members of this House behaved as if a case in which a minority within a community objected, that, in and of itself, was sufficient basis for stopping economic development from going forward. We took the view that when there is strong support within indigenous communities for a project to go forward, then that project has to be able to go forward. The consultation has to happen and if people say yes, they have to be able to develop those resources and benefit from them.

We see cases across this country where indigenous people are seeking the opportunity to pursue economic development, to develop resources. There can be debate, there can be tensions, and those debates happen within communities as well as between different communities, but the opportunity for people to pursue economic development is important.

The government members talk about the discussion we are hearing today, separate from the debate on Bill C-8 but about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. That is concerning for a lot of indigenous Canadians who want to have this opportunity to develop their own resources, to benefit from the opportunities that flow from them, and to use those resources to invest in things like language preservation, health improvement, infrastructure improvements and so forth. They want to be able to use the benefits that flow from economic development for those things.

I want to also just add, in terms of economic development, one of the exciting and interesting opportunities when it comes to the development of things like pipeline infrastructure is that the expansion of infrastructure could also bring in things like better Internet connectivity into some of these communities.

It is not just about opportunities directly in the natural resource sector, it is about the fact that, when we have benefit agreements, we have the building of infrastructure into and around different communities, which gives people the opportunity to have better connectivity, to access different resources and education, or to work in online businesses. There is so much more opportunity that flows from these kinds of developments, which we are just on the cusp of.

This country has so much potential, and a lot of that potential is around resource development. Those who are most likely to benefit to the greatest extent from that development are those who are more likely to be living proximate to those resources.

We could talk about some of the significant issues around justice, around working to ensure our justice system is fair to all people. We are identifying the reasons there may be disproportionate impacts on certain communities and working seriously to counter those impacts. That is the kind of thing that takes hard work.

The government has made statements to recognize the problems that have existed in the way indigenous people have been treated by our justice system. It is one thing to affirm there is an issue here, again, an act of recognition, and is another thing to say we are going to take concrete action and go from that active recognition and really target those quality of life improvements.

As I said earlier during questions and comments, so often when I hear from government members when we are having debates about indigenous issues, there is a tone in the their speeches as if they are still in opposition. They will say that there have been all these problems and that we need to do better and do more.

I look across the way and think that the government has been here for five years, and it is still constantly blaming Stephen Harper and constantly talking about the failures of history that have held it back. Do I think it is possible to change everything and make everything perfect within five years? No, I do not. Do I think it could be focusing on real concrete progress as part of its agenda? Yes, I do.

I hope we do not have the current government for another five years or another 10 years, but I suspect if we did, we would still hear the same speeches. We would still hear the same members saying that we have failed for too long and we need to do better. At what point does this recognition that we need to do better come back on them and lead them to say maybe not just “we” in the abstract, somebody else needs to do better sense, but “we” as in “we as a government” need to do better?

The government here does need to do much better. The Conservative caucus is supportive of Bill C-8. We are going to be supporting it through to committee. We look forward to the committee's study on it, especially delving into some of these questions I mentioned about the distinction between the version in the legislation and the TRC recommendation. However, we want to see the government take seriously the need to advance legislation and policy that concretely improves the quality of life for indigenous Canadians.

Yes, recognition is important, but if we see bill after bill on the issue of recognition but not targeting concrete quality of life improvements, it looks increasingly like the government is trying to avoid delving into these complex policy areas that would really make a difference. If it recognizes there is a need for more resources and need for economic development, when are we going to see the legislation that is going to really support economic development within indigenous communities and make it easier to grab those opportunities? When are we going to see the legislation that seeks to address those long-standing justice issues?

The government talks about doing better. It is time for it to do better so we can see some of these concrete improvements.

Broadcasting Act

[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.

[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.

[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?