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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who have taken the time today to come and help us in our committee work. I’ll get right to the point.

My first question is for Mr. Bernhard of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Mr. Bernhard, I would like to hear what you have to say about the exclusion of social media in Bill C-10. It seems to me to be extremely worrisome.

Is this also the case for your organization?

[Daniel Bernhard, Executive Director, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a citizen’s movement dedicated to defending our cultural identity on the airwaves and online. Since our work is funded exclusively by citizens, our only interest in this process is that of the public.

Canada is an idea, and without sovereign media, that idea won't last. In 1932, the Conservative government recognized the power of radio to reinforce Canada's political, economic and cultural independence. They also foretold how an unregulated broadcasting system would turn this power against us, imposing American ideas and American ideals onto Canadian culture and politics.

We have taken care to protect our cultural institutions, but the omnipresence of the GAFAM group continues to threaten them. Ottawa has turned a blind eye to the distribution of illegal content on many of these platforms and has allowed foreign digital broadcasters to enrich themselves on our territory without contributing to the production of local content and without paying their taxes. Thanks to these companies and the inaction of Canadian governments, our democracy is now weakened and our society is becoming increasingly divided.

Minister Guilbeault pitched Bill C-10 as a solution to at least some of these problems, and if we judged it by his comments alone, Bill C-10 would be a wild success, but upon reading the text itself, it's clear that Bill C-10 is not exactly as advertised. In fact, the bill, which should regulate digital broadcasting, could leave Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Youtube and Spotify entirely unregulated, just as they are today.

The good news is that Bill C-10 can be fixed, and we have formulated 19 precise amendments that would cause the text of the bill to more closely resemble the minister's account of it.

First, let’s address the issue of Canadian content. We subscribe to the philosophy that, by default, digital broadcasting should not require permission. However, giving the CRTC the option to regulate platforms such as Netflix is totally insufficient. The CRTC should be obliged to regulate digital broadcasters of a certain size.

Minister Guilbeault promises to address this by order in council, but that’s a temporary approach that future governments could undo without parliamentary scrutiny. You can't accept this bill on the promise of an order that you haven't seen and that may not materialize. It's important to strengthen the bill itself.

Second, on social media and algorithmic decision-making more generally, we agree that people who create and upload content to the Internet should not require a licence to do so, but we can achieve that without exempting companies like Facebook, YouTube and Pornhub from responsibility for the content they broadcast. These companies routinely broadcast illegal content that would land any other broadcaster in court. The exemption for user-generated content should apply to the users themselves, not to the platforms who make billions curating and promoting this content. The Broadcasting Act alone cannot hold the likes of Facebook fully accountable for its transgressions, but it would still help to remove Bill C-10’s blanket exemption for social media sites and revise the new concept of programming control to specifically include decisions made by algorithm.

Third, Bill C-10 removes Canadian ownership requirements, paving the way for Fox and other American interests to swallow ailing Canadian broadcasters, decimating local programming, especially local news. We need not invite the further decimation of local news in Canada.

Finally, Bill C-10 is completely silent on the CBC, which could soon be the only national media of consequence left standing. You could use this opportunity to revise CBC’s mandate to be fundamentally non-commercial and to finally end political appointments for the president and the board.

In closing, I urge you not to waste this precious opportunity. We may not get another chance like this for years, and most Canadian media won't survive that long. Just this week, Bell Media announced hundreds of layoffs, adding to the more than 3,000 media layoffs in Canada since COVID. Let’s make things right—right now—while we still can.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, folks, we are back for our second round. We're studying Bill C-10, of course, in a prestudy of Bill C-10 before it passes the House of Commons, if it does.

I'd like to make a few comments.

Again, screenshots, or taking photos of your screen, are not permitted. That's for our committee members and our guests; please do not take screenshots. Please, before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. For interpretation, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of whatever is on the floor, or you can switch to either English or French interpretation. Please, when you are not speaking, put your mike on mute.

These are all the universal Zoom rules that we've been under for the past year, or almost a year.

Of course, I want to welcome our guests. We have two participants today. We have two guests we want to hear from, and we want to thank them for joining us here on a Friday afternoon.

We have, from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Daniel Bernhard, who is the executive director, and from the Union des Artistes, we have Sophie Prégent, Pascale St-Onge and Julien Laflamme.

We have five minutes each for your remarks. I unfortunately have to be a bit strict on that. I'll let you clew up your thoughts, but you have not much beyond five minutes, if we get there.

We're going to start with Mr. Bernhard from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, please, for five minutes.

[Joel Fortune, Legal Adviser, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network]

Thanks, Monika. I will do it very quickly.

We work very carefully with the structure of the act and what the department proposed for Bill C-10 and how the various powers of the CRTC work. We really focused in on what we thought were the absolutely essential powers that the commission could have in relation to programming services as opposed to Canadian programs.

We proposed changes to the proposed subsection 9.1, which is on the CRTC's ability to make orders that affect online services. We are suggesting that the ability to make programs available should also extend to programming services, to make them available and discoverable. Similarly, there is an issue regarding the current requirement that distribution undertakings make certain programming services available. If you look at the act, a distribution undertaking by definition excludes an online service, so that's just crazy. If you have one type of distribution undertaking using one technology, you can make the service available under certain terms and conditions, but for a service using an Internet technology, you can't do that. That's just crazy, so we're suggesting that section should be changed.

Similarly, the commission's regulatory powers are very important. The underpinning for the whole system is its ability to make regulations, so we have suggested that certain regulatory powers that right now are limited to distribution undertakings specifically excluding online services should have the ability to relate to broadcasting undertakings, which would then include online services.

Those are a couple of little definitional questions, but they are very important.

We have also addressed the way the act works. Right now, you have two major sections. You have policy and you have powers, and you have to have both sections. You have to have a policy that relates to a power and a power that relates to a policy. It's great to have highfalutin policies, but unless there are specific powers that the commission can use, they really don't mean anything and vice versa. We have suggested a specific policy section that would relate to online services when they are distributing other services. It's essentially that they treat other services fairly and make Canadian services visible.

These are just some basic objectives for online distribution of Canadian programming services. Right now the act is completely silent on that point. That's a major flaw.

Finally we suggest a modification of the existing language that deals with Canadian ownership in the system. Essentially, we're suggesting that the act shouldn't just remove it; doing that seems excessive. We should certainly recognize that there's tremendous value in protecting Canadian ownership in our own broadcasting world. I can't believe the act wouldn't have that. In addition, we think it's important to recognize the diversity of voices, and especially of independent voices, in that section.

All of those pieces work together to fill the hole that Monika identified.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses. This has been very interesting. I have had the opportunity to speak to many of you outside of committee, so I have the perspectives you have been able to give me. I'm interested in hearing your responses to some of the questions as we go forward.

I'm going to start with Ms. Ille from the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. You talked about the hole that is in the bill in terms of support for the APTN, and about how you have some proposals you're putting forward for Bill C-10. Could you very quickly walk us through the changes you're proposing and how you feel those changes would fix the hole you identified?

[Solange Drouin]

Thank you for your question. Thank you also for allowing me to continue on this subject.

I have been with the ADISQ for 30 years. That’s probably as long as Mr. Geist has been at the University of Ottawa. I have been reading Mr. Geist’s writing for 30 years and I have been disagreeing with him for 30 years. That’s okay. It’s common knowledge.

I would like to bring to everyone’s attention the fact that, in our economy or in the world, there is no universe where we are faced with an infinite choice. When we go grocery shopping, we don’t have every single kind of pea on offer. There is no such thing. When we buy a car, we don’t have access to all the cars available on the market. Choices are made that condition the offer in all sectors of the economy.

When it comes to culture, I think there must be a bias in favour of our own culture, which would be quite normal. Contrary to what Mr. Geist says, it is not true that there are no rules or technical means that allow us to achieve the same result in the digital world. The reasons may not be the same. It is true that frequencies are no longer scarce, as they were at the time. However, even if this scarcity no longer exists, this does not mean that there are not other good reasons to do so. You have to stop quibbling about whether or not there is a scarcity. Okay, there is no longer a scarcity, but are there still good reasons to regulate and enhance our national content? The answer is yes, and I would argue that there are even more, because our content is getting more and more drowned out. So why not promote our French-language and Canadian contents on our own territory?

In this time of pandemic, we see how important it is to have our own resources. We see that with respect to the vaccine. When you’re dependent on what’s going on in the world, you may be missing opportunities and you’re not self-sufficient. Here, the tools that transmit culture must first be at the service of our culture. Bill C-10 is beginning to move in that direction, and that is why we welcome it with such interest. This bill must do the same for all French-language arts. As others have said before you, Canadian legislation should be amended to give greater prominence to the protection, promotion and development of French-language content in sections 3, 5 and 9. We will commit all of our proposals to paper, and you can read them quietly. This is essential, and I think that nothing in the Internet universe prohibits this.

Mr. Champoux, I see that you want to ask further questions.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Drouin.

Mr. Geist, there was a laundry list of things that you told us that you didn't like about the bill, about Bill C-10, including how Canadians would be impacted and the level of secrecy, and all of these different things.

I'm wondering if there's anything you do agree with.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you so much for that, Ms. Ille.

Ms. Drouin, I want to go to you now. You say that in Bill C-10 there is a lot that you agree with, but that it is not perfect yet. Those were your words. Can you tell us maybe one or two ways to make it more robust, in your opinion?

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ille, I'd love to start with you if I might. You said there is a big hole in Bill C-10. As a trail-blazing broadcaster, could you tell us specifically, if you can, how APTN would be impacted by the hole that you described?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the three groups that have come in front of us today at the Canadian heritage committee.

Dr. Geist, I've looked through your 20-part series. You've been the most controversial person, if you don't mind my saying so, in the country towards the broadcasting Bill C-10. You've talked about it for five minutes. We can probably hear from you for an hour.

You spent a month dissecting this bill. You feel it is deeply flawed. You gave us some reasons why, but it's going to have a major impact if it is passed through the House of Commons, and I'd like you to comment on that.

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

Good afternoon.

Before I read my text to you, I would like to point out that Mr. Geist was speaking on his own behalf, while I represent an association, a large group of companies and individuals. In addition, I am co-chair of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which also represents at least 200,000 artists and thousands of businesses. But we all feel that, although the bill needs to be improved, it meets many of the expectations we have had for a long time. We must therefore put all of this into perspective. I took a minute to say that, but I thought it was important.

I will now put on my hat as a representative of the music community. What is the ADISQ? Who are we? The Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo has been in existence for over 40 years. Our companies are independent businesses that are mainly based in Quebec, but that support the national and international development of the careers of song and music artists, most of whom are French-speaking.

Our mission is to support this cultural and economic sector, let’s not forget, by setting up a legislative, regulatory and financial business context favourable to its development. In a little over 40 years of history, our music and songs have been able to take off, firstly thanks to the talent of our artists and the entrepreneurship of our businesses, but also thanks to a set of important cultural policies, including those mentioned by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN.

Let’s go back 40 years, long before the digital reality surrounded us. The music industry was dominated by a few foreign multinationals. The music offered to Canadians by these companies consisted in distributing music from elsewhere and, with a few exceptions, presenting French-language versions of English-language songs.

Even today, these companies are still part of our landscape. They are represented here by Music Canada, which you invite from time to time. They play the same role they used to play, but they have become a little more involved, in terms of production, in Canadian culture—almost exclusively English-speaking. These companies are totally absent from the production of French-language content. Our national production of French-language content is carried out almost entirely by independent Canadian companies, including those I am representing here before you.

The sizes of these two business segments are not comparable. We are small companies and they are large multinationals. Despite this disparity in resources, Canadian artists, particularly Francophone artists, have been able to achieve great success. However, none of this would have been possible without the implementation of cultural policies and government measures.

Let’s use radio as an example. About 50 years ago, the Canadian government required minimum standards for the presentation of Canadian and French-language content. By ensuring that Canadians could discover their artists on the radio, the government allowed them to be appreciated; then the public would choose to buy their records or tickets to shows. Without this valuable showcase put in place more than 50 years ago, this virtuous circle of development would have been impossible.

Even today, this privileged access of artists to the Canadian public through radio plays an enormous role in the careers of Canadian artists. Other forms of consumption have emerged over the past 15 years, such as Spotify and YouTube. It is therefore urgent that the government act in such an innovative and bold way with respect to digital platforms, and that is what Bill C-10 seeks to do. This is why the entire cultural community is very enthusiastic about the historic nature of the approach taken by this bill.

Admittedly, this bill is not perfect. You have the duty and the power to improve it. It must be strengthened in order to maintain the Canadian character of the system, restore the obligation to make maximum use of Canadian creative resources, more adequately protect the production of original French-language content, and give the CRTC the power to act on all elements of the system, including social networks. We must not miss this historic meeting and make it a missed opportunity.

Today, we hope to see Bill C-10 finally pass second reading in the House of Commons.

I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back at this committee.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law and I am a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. I appear here in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

As you may know, I have been quite critical of Bill C-10; however, please understand that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for film and television production. Support through all levels of government is essential. Rather, the question is whether Bill C-10 is the best way to provide that support.

Having carefully studied the bill, I argue that it's not. I'd like to get started by pointing to four broad concerns.

First, there is no free lunch. What appears to be free, as in new free money for the sector, comes at an enormous cost, and not just to consumers in the form of higher bills at a particularly difficult economic time.

I recently was engaged in a debate with Janet Yale of the Yale report in which she acknowledged that broadcasting policy restricts consumer choice. We know, then, that there will be a cost to consumers. Less understood is the cost to creators from the bill: the loss of fundamental principles, such as Canadian ownership and control of the broadcast system, the loss of the predominance of Canadian talent, a risk to Canadian intellectual property, and in the short to medium term, less production because of an uncertain regulatory environment.

Second, the bill punts many of the most important details, leaving it to lengthy processes at the CRTC or secretive cabinet decisions. The level of uncertainty and what's not in the bill is astonishing. Legislation is supposed to remove uncertainty, and this does the opposite.

The minister has said he plans to issue a policy direction that could cover everything from exclusion of video games to an IP policy to revisiting the definition of Canadian programs. Respectfully, that simply isn't good enough to meet the kind of transparency standards the government has long set for itself. Indeed, there is so much unanswered that it will take years to sort out, and creators will have to wait at least until the latter half of this decade for the promised benefits.

Third, this isn't about levelling the playing field. I've written extensively about the advantages enjoyed by conventional broadcasters, whether simultaneous substitution, market protections, must-carry rules or copyright retransmission benefits. There is no “like for like” here.

Fourth, with all due respect, some of the claims about the bill simply don't stand up to scrutiny. The minister has told the House of Commons that the bill contains economic thresholds, when it doesn't; that it excludes news, when it doesn't; that it won't affect Canadian ownership requirements, when it will; that the entire process will somehow be completed by this year, which it quite clearly won't be; and that it is similar in approach to what has been implemented in Europe, when it isn't.

These aren't inconsequential issues. As you may know, I've written a 20-part series about the bill that I'd be happy to table with the committee. With more time, I would delve into the many issues that are raised in that series. They include concerns about the approach of regulating all Internet streaming services anywhere in the world with some Canadian subscribers and then working backwards by saying that some might be exempted in a process that will take years to unfold.

That simply doesn't work. The registration and data disclosure requirements would still apply to all, and the inevitable result would be less choice for consumers and less revenue for creators as services block the Canadian market or simply license their content into Canada.

Moreover, the risks to Canadian intellectual property are enormous, potentially making Netflix and Amazon the kingmakers of Canadian content and leaving Canadian broadcasters with leftover scraps.

In my last minute, let me ask how we can fix this. I'll make three points.

First, thresholds in the legislation are essential so that rules only apply to the largest companies that have a real and substantial connection to the Canadian market.

Second, a transparent approach on critical policies is needed before the legislation is passed, not after. No bill should create more questions than it answers.

Third, there is a solution that would put money into the hands or creators this year, not in five years. I think we all want large Internet companies to make an appropriate contribution in Canada, and we have a system for that. It's called taxation.

Tax revenues can be used in whatever way we want, including in direct support for film and television production. The government could say that 30% of these new revenues go directly to the sector. That doesn't require changing the core policies of the Broadcasting Act. It doesn't require a secretive policy direction or years of litigation at the CRTC. It doesn't lessen competition, increase consumer costs during the pandemic or decrease choice. It also doesn't create huge uncertainty in the market for the foreseeable future.

The Broadcasting Act is an essential piece of legislation, not only for the film and television sector but for all Canadians. We all deserve better.

I welcome your questions.

[Monika Ille, Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network]

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee.

[Witness spoke in Abenaki and provided the following text:]

Kwaï! Nd’aliwizi Monika Ille. Aln8ba sqwa nia odzi Odanak m8wkaw8gan.

[English]

My name is Monika Ille. I'm an Abenaki from the community of Odanak.

I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking with you from Tiohtiá:ke or Montreal, the unceded territories of the Kanienkehaka, and traditionally a land of exchange and gathering of many nations.

I'm the chief executive officer of APTN. I'm joined by Joel Fortune, our legal counsel.

Launched in 1999, APTN is the world's first indigenous broadcaster. APTN is available to all Canadians as part of the basic service on most cable and satellite services. We broadcast hundreds of hours of indigenous programs each year, including national newscasts. We broadcast in English, in French and in up to 15 different indigenous languages.

Our programming showcases the creativity of Aboriginal peoples and provides a unique opportunity to share our perspectives with all Canadians.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has recognized the role of the APTN in building bridges and understanding between Canadians and Aboriginal peoples.

We are very proud of the influence we have had on Aboriginal expression. At the launch of the network, there were very few independent Aboriginal producers. Today, we work regularly with about 100 of them, not counting the creators and the support teams that back them up.

If the CRTC had not used its powers, APTN would not exist and Aboriginal peoples would still be invisible on Canadian screens. APTN is a perfect example of what can be accomplished by a policy born of the Broadcasting Act, implemented through hard work and goodwill and supported by the regulatory tools available to the CRTC.

We support the steps taken in Bill C-10 to recognize the place of indigenous peoples and indigenous languages in the broadcasting system, but—and this is a large but—there is a hole in Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 would remove the CRTC's ability to oversee and support the distribution of Canadian programming services such as APTN in an online environment. The CRTC powers that made APTN possible in the first place will, if Bill C-10 stays as it is, have no place in an online world. In the case of the proposed amendments to paragraph 3(1)(o), Bill C-10 is suggesting that indigenous people should be supported when they carry on traditional broadcasting, but not online broadcasting. This is not acceptable.

Today we're tabling amendments that will fill the hole in the bill. We have worked with the Independent Broadcast Group, a coalition of 12 different independent broadcast companies that includes ethnic broadcasters, local TV services, music channels, Canada's LGBTQ channel, minority language groups and others. Without the changes we're proposing, or something similar, the CRTC will not be able to ensure the fair treatment and visibility of Canadian services and apps, including APTN, in an online environment.

Right now, the Broadcasting Act is technologically neutral, so the CRTC does have the power to oversee online distribution, although it has exercised this power lightly.

To be honest, we don't understand why this authority would be taken away. You're well aware of the impact web giants have on newspapers and how difficult it is to bring the giants into the fold. Why, then, would we take them out of the Broadcasting Act when it comes to online distribution of Canadian programming services and apps?

In conclusion, there is much that we support in Bill C-10. The bill strives to better reflect indigenous people in broadcasting and the importance of indigenous languages and it acknowledges that we should operate our own broadcasting service. We fully support that aim. For services such as APTN and other indigenous and Canadian services, however, Bill C-10 as it stands does not see us playing a role in the future, and I'm concerned that it is actually excluding us from the online world.

Kchi wliwni. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's duly noted, Ms. Dabrusin. Thank you very much.

However, I want to warn people that we're drifting outside the scope of this particular motion. I don't want to go too far away, because it is on the floor and we have to dispose of it. I'm just looking for any further comments on this issue.

Seeing none, I can proceed to the vote.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay, let's jump right in to the business at hand, unless I see something else.

We are back to Bill C-10 and our prestudy continues. We have three groups representing in the first hour. Be forewarned—we're about 16 minutes in—that I may stretch this particular meeting to a level that I think is appropriate. I hope you don't mind.

Let's start out with the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. We have Monika Ille, chief executive officer, and Joel Fortune, who is a legal adviser for APTN. We also have Dr. Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa; and from the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, we have Solange Drouin, vice-president for public affairs and director general.

Folks, we have five minutes. I'm afraid I'm going to have to be very strict on those five minutes, given that we're short of time.

We start with the APTN.

Madam, please proceed.

Broadcasting Act

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This has to be one of the most enjoyable debates I have had the opportunity to participate in this chamber. With such a vast and diverse country like ours, it is interesting to see the different local content from the far corners of our country.

This is near and dear to my heart, not just because of the content on the screen but because of the experiences of the persons who are involved in creating the content. That includes the background extras.

I had the very good fortune of being a background extra in several productions in my hometown in Regina, in the surrounding area. It all came about by chance, but it really did open my eyes to the so-called gig economy that has been in the news much more lately during the pandemic.

I was walking through the mall one day in Regina and I saw a guy, who has since become a good friend of mine, sitting at a table and a sign that said, “Sign up here to be in TV shows”. I asked him what it was all about. He was the casting director for a local company called Partners in Motion, which makes movies and TV shows in Regina and in southern Saskatchewan. He told me that I looked like a police officer and he had a spot for me in the documentary series called Crime Stories. They needed background extras to re-enact these crimes and they could cast me in the role of a police officer to arrest some criminal for the documentary series. It sounded like fun and a good way to make minimum wage on the side, so that is what I did. It really opened my eyes to how many people in my community had hobbies or gig jobs being background extras in TV shows.

Over the course of the following months and years, I arrested many different people in that crime series. I got to be a soldier in war. In a particularly memorable experience, I got to be a background extra in Corner Gas: The Movie. People tend to talk about Corner Gas, the TV show, but there was a major motion picture a few years ago, based on all the characters in Dog River, Corner Gas. It was certainly very memorable to walk up and down Main Street in Rouleau, Saskatchewan. I played towns person number seven in that movie. Much to my dismay, I was not nominated for an Oscar that year, but in the sequel perhaps my name will come up.

I have not seen anything in the bill to address the gig economy and people who work in the industry on a casual basis. I strongly suspect that this is something not specific to Regina, Saskatchewan, but specific to people who work in the industry all across our great country.

I think we could do Canadians a lot of good by withdrawing this bill and rewriting it from scratch to ensure that everyone is included in it and to ensure we have the best legislation we can for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That'"and substituting the following: “Bill C-10, An act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.”

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise virtually today to speak to Bill C-10.

Like many of my colleagues, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this bill. I am an Acadian, and this bill will have a profound effect on the survival of our wonderful Acadian culture and community, which is very important to me. It deserves being promoted and protected.

Digital media is bigger than ever, and the 28-year-old Broadcasting Act is in urgent need of modernization to address the evolution of the Internet and the overwhelming emergence of social networks and online services like Facebook, Google, Netflix, Crave and Spotify, among others.

Modernizing the act does not necessarily mean erasing the past, forgetting how it has shaped our history to this day or failing to take it into account in the future. We need to ensure the continuity of our past and our Acadian culture and preserve them for always.

In its brief to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission during the CBC/Radio-Canada licence renewal process, the Société nationale de l'Acadie, the SNA, noted that it has had to intervene repeatedly to get Radio-Canada to support Acadian culture and to remind the broadcaster about the obligations in its mandate.

As a proud Acadian, and on behalf of all Acadians, I want to point out that all Acadians, just like all Canadians, help fund CBC/Radio-Canada. That funding, together with the broadcaster's mandate, are all that guarantee these services, which must be not only preserved at all costs but also respected. To make that happen, we need effective enforcement measures to be very clearly indicated in Bill C-10, which is not the case.

The SNA is the official representative of all Acadian people. It promotes the rights and interests of Atlantic Acadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the SNA for its hard work and its efforts to preserve our magnificent Acadian culture.

The bill seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act in several ways, such as by adding websites that broadcast or rebroadcast programs as a separate category of broadcasting undertaking. It also seeks to update Canada's broadcasting policy set out in section 3 to, for example, provide indigenous-language programming for indigenous people that reflects their culture.

I believe that Bill C-10 needs to go even further to ensure the presence and preservation of certain cultures, such as Acadian culture. I absolutely agree that the act needs to be modernized, just as the Official Languages Act needs to be modernized. On this side of the House, we want to be able to vote on a bill that will be fair for Canadian producers and broadcasters.

For several years now, Canadians have been expressing concerns about how unfair it is that Netflix does not pay any taxes in Canada. The goal is to find a balance between conventional media and digital media, as well as with content.

I completely agree with that goal. The francophone population of Nova Scotia, which listens to the Radio-Canada station out of Halifax, is upset about the fact that they hear more updates on traffic jams in Montreal and on the Samuel de Champlain Bridge than they do content from Nova Scotia artists.

It is important to point out that the case of the Atlantic provinces is unique. There is only one television production centre, supported by three radio production centres, to serve the four provinces. We want more local content to reflect the unique nature of Acadia and to promote and protect Acadian culture.

Unfortunately, when the CBC does not keep its commitments, even when complaints are filed with the CRTC, it is generally not penalized because it is not subject to the same rules as other Canadian broadcasters.

In 2021, it is unacceptable that this exemption still exists. It needs to be removed through Bill C-10. It is vital that the percentage of Canadian content is respected to the letter and that each region of Canada can enforce its local cultural content quotas.

The Conservatives want an equitable regulatory framework for digital media and conventional broadcasters. My Conservative colleagues and I will only be able to support the modernization of the Broadcasting Act if it includes additional, clear, non-negotiable francophone content requirements.

During the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's licence renewal process, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse noted in its brief presented on January 13 to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that Acadians in Nova Scotia did not get access to a French-language elementary school education until 1981. It took a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for them to finally, in 2003, get access to a French-language education in a system of homogenous secondary schools. Without that education in French, Acadians in Nova Scotia became assimilated at an alarming rate. Between 1981 and 1996, the number of French-speaking Acadians in Nova Scotia went from 80,000 to 42,000,

In the spring and fall of 2019, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse consulted extensively throughout the province on linguistic insecurity. Participants all reported experiencing language insecurity, discomfort or reluctance to express themselves in French, or even a feeling of inadequacy in French. I am quite saddened by these results. The lack of familiarity on the part of the broader Canadian public when it comes to Nova Scotia's Acadian community contributes to this linguistic insecurity.

Local content must be created so people can see themselves reflected in the media. The one and only measure to improve the place of French is to replace the reference in section 3 that weakens it further. This step backwards is completely unacceptable. It represents a much more vague and, more importantly, a much weaker approach than the act provides for indigenous content, for example.

This is another example of the Liberal government's contradictions. The government is further weakening an essential piece of legislation that is already weak, while making francophone communities across Canada believe that it will introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, which would focus on the promotion and protection of the French language for all minority francophone communities. That is nonsense.

In light of all these points, there is no way I can vote in favour of this bill without a firm commitment from the government to thoroughly review all the amendments needed to improve it in order to ensure that Acadian and francophone Canadian content has the kind of future it deserves.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Last week we received a note from the analysts, if I am not mistaken, asking us to send our proposed amendments to Bill C-10 as soon as possible. I would like to check if this is a common practice. We are still at the preliminary study stage. We have not even begun to study Bill C-10. So I think this request is premature. Also, if we refuse to send our amendments, I would not want it to be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate.

Secondly, I find it a little premature to propose amendments before we have even heard from the various witnesses who will come to talk to us about their concerns and give us their recommendations.

I would therefore like to know whether there is any particular reason why they are asking us to send them our amendments so quickly. For us, it will be impossible. We want to take the time to hear from all the stakeholders from the different organizations and then compare that with the information we got from our consultations. Then we will present our amendments to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order.

Thanks, everyone, for being here. This is meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, December 7, the committee is meeting on its study on the subject matter of Bill C-10, or, as we sometimes like to call it, the prestudy to a potential bill.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25 of this year. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee, and will be available on the House of Commons website for those who are tuning in from around the world. To our guests, our members of Parliament and our staff members, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

I'll outline a few rules before we begin. At the bottom of your screen you have the choice of either English or French interpretation, or the floor. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Of course, the platform's “raise hand” feature is on the main toolbar should you wish to alert the chair in case of a point of order or anything of that nature. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you for the sake of our people recording this and for Hansard. Also, for those MPs asking questions, I remind them to please direct their question to a person they see on the screen. That makes life a lot easier, as we know.

That being said, I do....

We have a raised hand. Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my past life before politics, I was an independent recording artist. I was inspired by the music of Dan Hill, Anne Murray, David Foster, Céline Dion and Shania Twain. I discovered them on radio and television. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of my favourite musicians are Canadian; we have a lot of talent here, but the stars whom I mentioned found their big break in the U.S. instead of Canada. I shared this story because I want to affirm the symbiosis of Canadian content creators and Canadian broadcasters in the lives of Canadians and the value of protecting these institutions to allow Canada's cultural and artistic identity to thrive.

Bill C-10 is important in spirit because it seeks to modernize a 28-year-old law that does not take into account diversified broadcasting platforms with the arrival of the digital world, including Internet, social media and streaming. It is critical to acknowledge the reality of new and growing digital platforms and the implications of a global market and of foreign players entering our system, and we must do so with consideration for the long-term sustainability of Canadian content and Canadian broadcasting platforms. This requires adapting the CRTC's mandates to maximize the success of Canadian entities in the broadcasting ecosystem for the furtherance of Canada's heritage and economic prosperity.

We cannot ignore the impact of the broadcasting, film and music sectors on the Canadian economy. Based on a November 2020 report on Canadian Heritage's website, the GDP impact of broadcasting was $9.1 billion, with $16.9 billion in revenues and 41,901 jobs; the GDP impact of film and video was $4.3 billion, with $13.39 billion in revenues and 71,027 jobs; and the GDP impact of music and sound recording was $637 million, with $577 million in revenues and 8,986 jobs.

The trend is also clear. Over the last 10 years, Canadians have increasingly moved toward Internet streaming services for programs, while moving away from paid-subscription TV. These are both viable avenues for viewers today. The implications of these trends plead for a modernized Broadcasting Act. That is the intent of Bill C-10, but I am not fully convinced that the proposed amendments would accomplish what the bill purports to do. I hope to address these issues today.

Canadian content producers and broadcasters have a vital role in the production of quality Canadian drama, reality shows and news. Property Brothers, Schitt's Creek, Kim's Convenience and Wall of Chefs are top-notch Canadian shows that have garnered global attention. We are living in an exciting time for Canadian content, but content requires funding.

Canadian content creators have expressed concern that the proposed amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Broadcasting Act reflects a weakening of the crucial position of Canadian creative resources in the act. As the act currently stands without amendments, it does so under the assumption of a closed system wherein Canadian controlled and owned broadcasters hold a monopoly. Paragraph 3(1)(f) currently reads:

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming,

Bill C-10 excludes the phrase “maximum use, and in no case less than predominant” and other conditions. The amendment reads:

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming to the extent that is appropriate for the nature of the undertaking;

Canadian content creators are concerned that this amendment would diminish the critical position of Canadian creators in the Broadcasting Act. My concern about proposed amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) is its overall lack of clarity and accountability on the role of all broadcasters, whether traditional or modern, in contributing to the creation and presentation of Canadian content. I agree with Canadian creators that the amendment would undermine the value of Canadian content in the Broadcasting Act. In a time when Canadian stories are beginning to find larger audiences and are defining our artistic identity, the amendment to paragraph 3(1)(f) is a little disappointing.

I would like to add that the lack of copyright and intellectual property safeguards in the amendments in the midst of the current international environment does not reflect modernization. Writers, composers, publishers and other copyright holders depend on royalties for their livelihoods. It is already difficult for Canadians with artistic vocations to make ends meet. Many domestic talents move to the U.S., Europe or Asia to find a viable path. The lack of intellectual property protection in the growing and complex digital world and globalized markets is unacceptable in this age. The Broadcasting Act needs to include a modernized copyright law. If Canada does not work toward optimizing the environment for creators to thrive, our cultural identity suffers. Canadian content is not just a means to help Canadian works to reach audiences; Canadian content should be protected and supported to help our arts and culture sectors help establish our heritage and Canadian identity.

Bill C-10 is important in spirit because it seeks to safeguard equitable programming. Bill C-10 amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things, update the Canadian broadcasting policies set out in sections throughout the act by providing, among other things, that the Canadian broadcasting system should provide opportunities for aboriginal peoples to provide programming in aboriginal languages that reflect aboriginal cultures, and to provide programming that is accessible to persons with disabilities and free of barriers while serving the needs and the interests of Canadians, including Canadians from racialized communities and ethno culturally diverse backgrounds.

The bill amends the CRTC's mandate to require more content in aboriginal, disabled, racialized and LGBTQ2 people. However, the bill does not address any guidelines to regulate French content. There is no provision of a benchmark to legislate the percentage of French language content. Equitable programming needs to also modernize the Broadcasting Act to ensure that French and Quebec culture content are given adequate opportunities to thrive.

Broadcasters are critical to fostering Canadian identity in the role they have with Canadian content. Whether they deliver Canadian news, reality shows and drama, or contribute to the Canada Media Fund to produce Canadian content, they are critical to our cultural identity, everyday life and our economy. However, in the current Broadcasting Act there are obligations and content regulations that mean well to safeguard Canadian content creators, but inadvertently put them at risk of losing in their competition with foreign digital players who have access to Canadian consumers with little regulation at this time. If Canadian broadcasters fall down, then their support for Canadian content also falters.

The broadcasting system is a delicate realm that requires a delicate balance for all to thrive. Providing an even playing field with foreign Internet broadcasters like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney, Apple TV+ will certainly help alleviate the unfair competition. Foreign companies should also contribute to Canadian content, but with that should also come the right balance of regulations so that all players, domestic and foreign, can flourish. If they thrive, their investment in Canadian content creation and presentation will inadvertently benefit the fostering of Canada's cultural identity and economy.

In an age when many entities are competing for audiences in the digital world, Canadian news broadcasters are suffering from the added drop in ad sales caused by the economic downturn from COVID-19. A fair and modernized Broadcasting Act would benefit Canada's broadcasting sector. However, Bill C-10 is too vague and does not ensure that web giants like Google and Facebook are obligated to compete under the same rules as Canadian companies. That does not explain how digital platforms and conventional players will compete on an even playing field. It does not explain the guidelines that will be put in place for the production of Canadian content and contributions to the Canada Media Fund.

It would be incumbent on the CRTC to enforce regulations to reflect a modernized act. However, the role of the CRTC is vague. The lack of clarity raises concerns for all stakeholders as to how the CRTC will interpret its role. Will the CRTC over-regulate and stifle Canadian broadcasters among foreign digital counterparts? Will it over-regulate foreign players and shut them out of the system and thereby lessen opportunities for the relaying of Canadian content?

Based on the way the bill is written, it feels like the Liberal government is passing the buck to the CRTC for all decisions. They will then need at least nine months to undertake the first regulatory phase. In this COVID environment we need broadcasters and Canadian creators to have an assurance that they will survive and hope to thrive among international players.

I would like to refer to a conversation I had with one of my constituents, Rob, who owns Gearforce, a pro audio company that supports live concerts. He said that many of his technician friends in the entertainment industry are struggling not only because they are financially hurting because of shutdowns, but also because they are not putting their skills to work. They are afraid they will lose all of the skills they honed over their lifetime. There is a certain standard of excellence that circulates in the arts and culture sector, whether among writers, composers, artists, artisans or technical workers, who have had to work hard to get where they are in a sector where opportunities are very competitive.

A Broadcasting Act that is modernized with the right amendments is a small step forward to helping Canadian arts and culture sector workers and artists find their place in life. However, an ambiguous bill can be more damaging because of potential misinterpretations. If Bill C-10 passes second reading, I hope there will be fulsome discussions at committee to amend the bill.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak today on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

While this bill has some serious technical aspects, which I will get into in a moment, I would like to begin by highlighting the fact that at the end of the day, even though we are talking about regulations and broadcasting rules, we are ultimately talking about Canadian jobs. Today we can even look at some of the job losses. This morning we heard of the additional 213,000 job losses in Canada in the month of January, which once again has increased our unemployment rate, so while we are having this discussion we have to also focus on what this is all about, which ultimately is about people working here in Canada.

I also want to look back for a moment at what we have seen here in my own riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London and highlight some of the work that was being done here prior to the pandemic.

I remember the excitement in the community of St. Thomas when it was announced that Jason Momoa—and I probably said that wrong, as I am one of the few people who has not watched Aquaman—was coming to our area and that Apple TV was going to produce a show right in our own backyard at the psychiatric hospital here in St. Thomas, or actually in central Elgin, for those who are from here.

These are really important things to our community. Sean Dyke, who is our economic development agent for the City of St. Thomas, had talked about other companies coming to our area. Most recently, the Amazon movie The Boys was being filmed here, and Guillermo del Toro did Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. Many people are choosing locations right here in our own backyard in the City of St. Thomas, and also in the community of Port Stanley. I know the village of Port Stanley has been used for sites, and I can think of Bayham in the Port Burwell area as well.

These are really important parts when we talk about productions. We have to look at what is being done in our communities and how talent is being drawn to our communities, whether through production or acting, and how that is highlighting some of the great things we have in our own communities.

I talk about this with a lot of excitement because my son, who is an actor, has been part of multiple productions for Netflix, and this is an opportunity for actors to get their foot in the door. Many other companies are now coming in and producing well-connected dramas and shows in our areas, and we are receiving economic development from them.

I am not going to speak specifically on the infrastructure of the bill and what that looks like. The reason I am not is basically because of its lack of clarity. I am finding it very difficult to understand, so I have to just look at the impacts of Bill C-10 here in Elgin—Middlesex—London and how we can move forward from this.

I know that conversations about economic growth have unfortunately been falling on the deaf ears of the government for a while, and we know that many of these productions will not be able to get back in order until there are rapid tests, vaccines and the tools needed to get people back to work so they can resume the great work that is being done.

I am not trying to advertise for any of these movies or shows, but Bill C-10 will have a tangible impact on how the content will be classified. Filming movies and TV shows in the heart of my riding, within the Canadian economy and with Canadian actors, actresses and crew members, cannot be classified as Canadian content, because all of the financing and production is handled by American companies. That is why I talk about the clarity of this bill, the idea of Canadian content and what CanCon actually looks like. I will tell members that every single cheque my son brought home in 2020 was from an American company, yet he was a Canadian actor acting in Toronto, so what is happening in our own communities has to be looked at as well.

These massive companies are also not contributing back into the Canada Media Fund and are not being taxed in the same way as Canadian corporations. This is inherently unfair for local producers, small papers and broadcasters working to highlight Canadian content and provide reliable content for Canadians.

I want clarity in this bill so that I can read it and understand the impacts of what the Liberals are putting forward. There have been barriers in the past, and this is why it is really important to have this conversation.

While it is definitely important that we modernize the Broadcasting Act and introduce some fairness to the industry, including requiring web giants and social media to pay their fair share, we have to remember that getting this wrong can directly impact Canadian jobs and that over-regulation or lack of clarity in the rules will ultimately lead companies to film elsewhere, causing Canadians to lose out on these new opportunities. The more barriers we have, the more likely it is that people will wonder if it is worth doing in Canada.

I am not saying that there should not be some fair ground here; I absolutely believe that there needs to be, but I do want to put into this debate today the fact that the clarity just is not there.

Another worry I have from Bill C-10 is that it has placed limited abilities on parliamentary committees to oversee the directives and regulations that are being adopted by the CRTC. I do not have to remind everyone of the government's dismal record on accountability. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that it seems that the government's overwhelming priority, even in the middle of this pandemic, is to avoid accountability.

Without even getting into the political reasons for its completely unnecessary prorogation, we have seen by time and time again the government running from accountability, filibustering committees, covering its tracks on things such as the WE Charity and covering for a Prime Minister who would rather hide at Rideau Cottage than face the music. The fact that there is not going to be accountability here in Parliament for these powers being given to the CRTC is an issue. We do not want to see the unintended consequences without a thorough debate.

The government has not earned the trust of Canadians when it comes to broadcasting. Let us not forget that this is the same heritage minister who seems to have no problem in demanding that news organizations be licensed. I want to talk about that because I can share my own concerns on this issue.

There was a situation that happened here in Elgin—Middlesex—London with a person I know who is a journalist in our region. His concern is whether putting online publishers under the same type of broadcast regulations lays the groundwork to regulate online news content in the same way that television and radio content is being governed by broadcast regulations.

The government says news publishers will not be affected by these changes, but the problem is that the government has a limited definition of who qualifies as news and as media. According to the legislation, paragraph (i) specifies that “a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence.” Once again we are establishing so many unknowns, and once again we need clarity on this aspect.

Just prior to when this legislation came out, Andrew Coyne, a writer with The Globe and Mail, wrote:

If that sounds paranoid, consider the weight the government puts on its assurances that online broadcasters would not have to be “licensed”. That's true, as far as it goes. They would just be obliged to “register” with the CRTC, subject to certain “conditions of service,” enforced by “fines.”

We can talk about the fact that there will not be these limitations, but we have to look at some of the other language being used. This is very concerning, because at this time right now, it is really important that we have proper news agencies and proper news reporting and that we are ensuring that we are getting all sides of the story.

Finally, the bill does not provide any benchmarks to legislate the percentage of French content. We have heard from many of our members today, specifically from Quebec. I have been working on my French recently and I hope to one day enjoy the bounty of wonderful content filmed and produced in Quebec in French, but this bill does nothing to help French language content.

I know some serious modernizations are needed to help our Broadcasting Act here in Canada, but I do not believe that the bill exactly does this. I am very concerned with the bill, as I said, and I hope there will be much more clarity in it. I believe we do need to find a balance between our big corporations and our smaller corporations, the new players on the field and the players that have been there for years, but let us make sure that we are doing it with all players on board, because I believe we are missing out.

I am now happy to take any questions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock for his speech, in which he spoke about the importance of local content and a strong regional press.

During the pandemic, my colleague from Drummond and I have met with local media representatives and representatives from a co-operative radio station. They shared their concerns with us, including concerns about community media.

Although Bill C-10 has its flaws, we look forward to it being studied and worked on in committee. We want this to move forward because the concerns remain.

I just had a request for another meeting, along with my colleague from Drummond, because representatives from local media have some suggestions for us.

How can the GAFAM of the world pay their fair share and how can local media get adequate funding?

We all recognize that local media is essential. It is important to move forward and send Bill C-10 to committee. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this is one of my first times speaking over Zoom, so it is a new experience for me. I appreciate much more being able speaking physically from the House, but given the pandemic, that is not possible, so here I am speaking in the House in the Commons from northern Alberta. It is kind of a weird thing. Nonetheless, I have seen many of my friends on Zoom, who are all smiling, so I know they must be doing okay around the world.

Bill C-10, I must admit, is a tough bill to get through given that it amends a whole bunch of other pieces of legislation. It always drives me a little crazy when we are dealing with stuff like this, because there are all of these little chunks of law in the bill that amend this act and that act. It takes a long time to pull it all together and get a full picture of what we are all trying to achieve. What is clear is that it is giving the CRTC new powers and new responsibilities.

I do hear a lot of frustration about the CRTC, about its not doing what it is supposed to be doing and doing other things that people do not appreciate. This is going to be interesting one way or the other. I know that with Internet installation and whoever is bringing the Internet to certain communities, the CRTC gets involved and many times whenever that is happening, there is paperwork to be filled out, phone calls to be made and folks get frustrated with how the CRTC responds, like they do with many other government organizations, such as the CRA. Folks end up in my office saying that the government is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. I have to sort all of that out. Regardless of where this bill goes and how it ends up, there will be more folks showing up in my office complaining about the CRTC's doing something or not doing something when it is supposed to be doing something else. I know that will be a challenge going forward.

Bringing Canadian content to Canadians has been an ongoing challenge. We live next door to a media giant, the United States, which has the budget, the population and Hollywood. They are able to bring content to the world. I do not think this is a unique problem to Canada. Although we are very close to the United States and our culture is similar to theirs, I would imagine that the entire English-speaking world is dominated by American media. We often end up with American content on our local channels, because it is easy and we can get it for a relatively low price.

What is interesting about this is that we do have a national broadcaster dedicated to Canada, paid for by our taxpayer dollars. Over a billion dollars a year goes to the CBC. Canadian content sometimes is very minimal. I never watch the CBC, but I do listen to it on the radio in my pickup. Often, American politics and American stories take up the majority of the news cycle on our national broadcaster. I always find that fascinating. Nevertheless, I do listen to the CBC in my pickup. I have to admit that. I am Dutch. I know that I am paying lots of money to fund the CBC, so for as long as I can stomach it, I listen to the CBC because I think I should get something for all of that money we are paying for the CBC. The CBC comes up in this bill from time to time and I hope that it will be a part of it as well.

The bill talks about the CBC, our national broadcaster, playing a role in our Canadian content. I know that is an important piece of what the national broadcaster is there for and I hope that we start to see a culture change at the CBC so that Canadian content, Canadian topics and Canadian interests are covered and that 75% of the news cycle is not American stories. That drives me a little nuts, to be sure.

I am a unique member of Parliament in the fact that I live hundreds of kilometres from the American border. Many Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the American border and I live nearly 1,000 kilometres from the border, so I do not necessarily have as much to do with Americans every day life as maybe other Canadians do. I am not sure how much interaction the rest of Canada has with the United States, but I know that when I went to university in B.C., in the Fraser Valley, when I lived in Abbotsford, people could spit and hit the American border, as I would always says. We could see it. On the weekends, there would be a long line-up to buy milk and gas just up the road from where I lived, as it went across to the United States. For those living in the Lower Mainland of B.C., interacting with the United States was a common occurrence.

Where I live, the interactions with the United States probably come in the form of Amazon and the things we order having to come across the border. Every now and then we have to pay a little more money because something happened to the package at the border, such as agents opening the package, having a look at it and then charging $12 when we picked it up. That is more typical of the interactions we have due to our relationship with the United States.

I do see a need for local content. The billion dollars we spend on the CBC could definitely be put toward that. The CBC infrastructure where I live, in many cases, is the only radio station people can pick up. That is the repeater infrastructure across northern Alberta. I value that. People do not have cell service for stretches when driving, but they do have CBC radio. It could be that we would have more regional content.

We talk a lot about the Laurentian elite. The CBC is very good and very representative of eastern Canada. It tells the stories in the voice of a central Canadian. Even when they are telling the story of the perspective of northern Alberta or the territories, it is always in the voice of a central Canadian. I do not think it is necessarily intentional, but that is the way it is. There is a central Canadian feel about it. Ironically, I do not think central Canadians even understand what that is, in the same way I do not necessarily know what a western Canadian is or does and an eastern Canadian does not necessarily know what an eastern Canadian says or does from the other perspective. I would love to see the CBC definitely speak with a western voice.

It comes down to the way that we talk and think about things. We see that often. I do not know if it is because the journalism schools are located out east or what the deal is, but we get the general sense that even when our stories from northern Alberta, northern Canada or the territories are being told, it is told in an eastern voice, if that is even a thing. I am not sure an eastern voice is a thing, but it is a term I am going to use that I like.

I am excited to see that the government is going to try to encourage national content. I am always concerned, however, when the Liberals get involved in trying to encourage or discourage anything. That usually means taxing and subsidizing something, which is always a fascinating thing. I think there is something to the effect that if there is a successful company, it should be taxed, but when it is struggling, it should be subsidized. There is a story about that. We have watched that over and over again. The oil sector here in Alberta was doing great—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of my biggest concerns is how Bill C-10 treats local media. When we talk about the Francophone, we need to ensure we have culturally sensitive information. We are a bilingual country. We have to ensure it is entrenched in our communications that we have the proper amount of representation, in English and French, as they are both official languages. I would like to see this strengthened in the legislation. I do not think the bill does enough to strengthen our Francophone communities, and that is another area on which we need to improve.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a confusion. The broadcasting bill deals with cultural issues and has nothing to do with issues such as online harm or disinformation. The member for Yellowhead talked about the increase in cost. Netflix has increased its subscription in 20 different countries. Does the member think that increases in subscriptions in those 20 countries are a result of Bill C-10?

The previous Conservative member spoke at great length about how the Conservatives really liked the Australian model. Believe it or not, the Australian model has regulators to enforce the legislation. I have in fact spoken with those regulators. I would like the member to tell me the difference between what Australia is doing, by using regulators, and what Canada is proposing. How is that different?

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

Madam Speaker, it has been some time since the Conservative Party campaigned to stop any Netflix tax. The first time I thought about the Netflix tax was when Stephen Harper campaigned against it. I wonder what the current Conservative Party policy is. We know it is not in Bill C-10 to have a tax. It is, as described, a different forum through the CRTC in the form of fines. What is the current Conservative Party policy is in relation to taxing digital giants?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. In short, Bill C-10 would create a regulatory mess of our streaming and broadcasting industry in Canada.

I understand that one of the main reasons the bill is being brought forward is because it has been so long since our broadcasting regulations have been updated and our current policies are extremely out of date. Therefore, we need to update the Broadcasting Act. However, Bill C-10 as it currently stands is a regulatory mess. Real harms could come from the legislation, and I will use my time today to focus on how the bill is far broader than many realize and certainly broader than the minister has claimed. This has led to a lack of understanding of the consequences of the bill as it relates to the general public.

I will start with addressing the limitations that the government claims are integrated into the bill so that it is not too overreaching.

The minister said in the House of Commons, “user-generated content, new content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation can be imposed." This claim by the minister is false, as no specific economic threshold would be established by the bill, which means that all internet streaming services carried in Canada, domestically and foreign-owned, would be subject to Canadian regulation. This means that if someone has Canadian subscribers, this law would apply, regardless of where the service provider is located.

The limitations the minister is referring to are that the bill would give the CRTC the power to exempt services from regulation. It would also leave it entirely up to the CRTC to establish thresholds and regulations once the bill is enacted. However, members should make no mistake; handing this half-baked legislation to the CRTC is not a fix or the same as claiming that the bill contains significant economic thresholds.

It is probably fair to say that the CRTC will not limit its regulatory approach to companies that generate large revenues in Canada as they will want to generate more tax revenue in order for the CRTC to determine who might be exempt. It is only likely to require that smaller foreign service providers register with the CRTC and provide it with confidential subscriber information, revenue data and whatever else the CRTC may ask for.

This policy could have unintended consequences and internet streaming services thinking about entering the Canadian marketplace could put their plans on hold until the legislation has been implemented for some time and until they have a better understanding of what they will face from the regulatory perspective. This could lead to less competition, less choice and an oligopoly market where Canadian consumers are overcharged.

Further on this economic threshold, the bill would leave the CRTC open to establish its own thresholds. Then what happens if they establish a high threshold that limits it to targeting a handful of large companies like Netflix, Prime Video, etc.? These are American companies, and the policy then would invite a trade challenge.

As I quoted earlier, the minister said that there would be exemptions for user-generated content, news content and video games and that none of those would be subject to new regulations. There is a reference to the user-generated content in the bill, but it covers the individuals, not necessarily the sites themselves.

YouTube, as an example, is only exempt if it limits itself to user-generated content. Once it moves outside that realm and has subscription services, as the site currently does, then it would be caught by this legislation. Therefore, there would not be as many sites and services that are 100% completely excluded from this legislation.

Maybe now members can see what I am getting at when I say the bill is a regulatory mess.

Continuing to the video game side, there is no reference in the legislation, just an assurance by the government that video games will be exempt. However, we have heard assurances from the Liberal government before and know its assurances do not carry much weight.

On the issue of news content, the minister said that would be excluded too, but once again that is not the case.

Online sites that offer news in video and audio format fall into this grey area, where they could be interpreted to fall under the bill. The language surrounding news content in the bill is confusing to say the least.

For example, it says that news sites that do not predominantly display text are not captured by the act. What it does not say is that those same news sites that rely on audio and video would be regulated by the act. The potential scope of news site regulation under the bill is wide-ranging as it covers everything from small local media sites to podcasts. Therefore, when the minister said that news content was excluded, that is just not true.

Whether we are talking about Rebel News, PressProgress or anything in between, it is important that online news not be affected by regulatory burdens intended to target large companies. That would be doing the exact opposite of levelling the playing field as the government claims this bill is supposed to do. Regulating Internet content in any way sets a dangerous precedent and is a threat to the freedom of expression. We must ensure the bill would not do that.

I have only a few minutes left and I have not even begun to address the massive costs associated with the implementation and enforcement of Bill C-10. I am sure some of my colleagues will go into further detail on the costs, so I will leave it with them. However, the massive cost of this program will no doubt be passed along to the consumers.

Since the legislation was introduced to the House, several of my constituents have emailed my office expressing their concerns with the legislation. Constituents fear that in attempting to level the playing field, the government would only make things worse. They say, “All [Bill] C-10 will accomplish is further entrenching the power of the legacy media companies who already benefit from today's rigid CanCon/Canada Media-Fund structure, while leaving small and indie new media Canadian creators without meaningful government support.”

I absolutely agree that it is important we level the playing field. I think most members have the same sentiment. However, how we do that is where the Conservatives differ from the Liberals. As always, the Liberals want to bring in more taxes and punish ordinary Canadians who like to unwind and watch TV and movies. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a leader who is committed to levelling the playing field, but to do so by eliminating the goods and services taxes on subscriptions to Canadian digital platforms.

The government needs to step up and make clarifications in some of the areas I have outlined. As I have said, it seems we are trying to achieve the same goal here, but have different ideological approaches on how we get there. It is important that the legislation define the term “significant economic threshold”, and stop passing the buck to the CRTC.

I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues, and hope we can work together to pass a bill that would benefit the majority of Canadians and does not have unintended consequences.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments on Bill C-10.

She said herself that the act is being modernized at the expense of francophone communities. The other member who spoke just now also mused on the importance of “discoverability” for francophone culture.

What does my colleague think of the Bloc Québécois's more specific proposal to allocate 40% of the fees collected from online distributors to the creation and production of francophone content?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I apologize, especially to those from our Canadian public who are listening in. I wish I had caught that earlier.

I will end by saying that Bill C-10 does not succeed in making the changes to our broadcast system that are needed to ensure that who we are, what we say and how we say it within Canada and to the world is going to be available in the way it should be going forward.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to give an overview of some of the inadequacies of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The Liberal government has once again said one thing in its messaging and preamble about what this bill would do, in contrast with what the content of the bill actually enacts. Its message to Canadians is that the bill would ensure online broadcasting is covered under the act. It indicates that the bill updates broadcasting and regulatory policies to better reflect the diversity of Canadian society and that it modernizes and provides the CRTC with new enforcement powers through an administrative monetary penalty scheme.

Updating and modernizing the Broadcasting Act is very important, as it has been almost 30 years since any significant change has been made to Canadian broadcasting regulations. Many of my younger colleagues have commented during their speeches on this topic on how old they were when changes were last made to the Broadcasting Act, even speaking to the fact they were but a glimmer in their parents' eyes.

I cannot say I was there when Maurice Cole was the essence of radio, but I do share a birthday with CKSW, a country music radio station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, which serves southwestern Saskatchewan and first began broadcasting in 1956.

I grew up enjoying Saturday morning cartoons with the Flintstones, the Road Runner and Bugs Bunny. Saturday nights we watched Hockey Night in Canada, and on Sunday evenings we had popcorn for supper as we were entertained by Red Skelton and Carol Burnett. Movies filmed a detective as he slowly crept along an entire block, and advertisements for headache relief lasted a full 60 seconds. We do not know what we have until it is gone.

That being said, boy, do I love getting to watch what I want, when I want and as much as I want. That is where we are at today, in the blink of an eye. However, that is enough of precious memories. We will move on to the task at hand.

This act provides the guidelines for everything in our media industry. It is a crucial vehicle for determining fairness in the way the industry is regulated, while ensuring it is vibrant and growing with opportunities for Canadians. The Broadcasting Act covers everything from how our Canadian broadcasters operate to how we support Canadian content and production.

The arrival of the Internet and online streaming services has been a reality for a long time now, and they have been competing with Canadian broadcasters on an uneven playing field. Unfortunately, Bill C-10 does not meet the need to set the policies and standards required to level that playing field. The bill is vague. It does not address important aspects of issues important to industry stakeholders, such as ensuring that the web giants Google and Facebook have to compete under the same rules as Canadian companies. It does not explain how digital platforms and conventional players would compete on an even playing field.

Bill C-10 also does not require broadcasters to contribute to the creation of Canadian content or the Canada Media Fund, as is currently the case for Canadian broadcasters.

In the previous majority Liberal government, the then minister of heritage championed the decision of Netflix to support Canadian content with a $5-million commitment. However, I could not help but notice that this generous contribution was immediately followed by an increase in monthly consumer fees, which smacks of Canadians paying outright for this supposed act of generosity and appreciation for investing in Canadian content.

The issue of proprietary content that is shared on digital platforms is also not addressed. The bill does nothing to address the inequity between digital and conventional media; the regulation of social media, such as Facebook; and the sharing of advertising royalties demanded by traditional media.

As well, the absence of language guidelines in the bill disadvantages francophone communities by failing to ensure that online broadcasters create content in both official languages. There are no guidelines to regulate French content, and the specificity of Quebec culture is not mentioned.

The one and only measure to increase the place of French language is the reference in paragraph 3(1)(k) of the act, which states, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as...[means] become available”.

This is to be replaced by simply removing that last part so that it will now read, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians”.

This does not better reflect the diversity of Canadian society. It changes it, for sure. However, it is unacceptable and represents a much weaker approach than the act provides for aboriginal, racialized and LGBTQ content. It is important to note I am not saying that their content should be minimized in any way, but simply that there is not an even playing field here, even within the act, for French and English content. It is important we do this.

I have children who home-school, and they watch French-language television to increase their French capabilities, which is something I wish I had had the opportunity to do as I was growing up. It was much more difficult for this lady who shares a birthday with a radio station.

The bill also does nothing to modernize the copyright law. With Bill C-10, the government has introduced a broad delegation of powers to the CRTC, without including clear guidelines, on the percentages of Canadian content required, fees and contributions, expenses, French content and so on.

The CRTC's powers have not even been clearly defined at all. In fact, the bill even chooses to limit the oversight powers of parliamentary committees with respect to the directives and regulations adopted by the CRTC. It also limits broadcasters' ability to appeal a decision. This is not acceptable. The message the government is sending is for us to trust it, and we will see it later. The government will, therefore, wait several months for the CRTC to act, and with very limited parliamentary oversight.

This is very poor governance on behalf of Canadians. Canadians expect and deserve accountability in and oversight over their government, and any and all laws, regulations and public institutions governing their opportunities as individuals and peoples. Taking authority away from committees' capacity for oversight and from the Auditor General, and increasing state control of information and conversation is regressive, not progressive. It is a serious overreach by the Liberal government.

In a minority situation, it would have been much more appropriate to come up with a clear bill, detailing in concrete terms the government's approach to all of these issues, rather than simply giving the CRTC more discretion and telling Canadians to wait and see how it would be exercised.

Stakeholders have outlined the many shortcomings I have mentioned today, and in their defence, Bill C-10 is not supportable without significant amendments in response to those requests. I can only hope that the Liberal government has been listening to our stakeholders.

Media has changed forever, and Canadians have changed how they gather information and find entertainment. They have also come to realize that there are no limits on the opportunities to choose where they go for their content.

Apparently I am having trouble with my audio. This is something I deal with all the time, and I apologize. Saskatchewan, for connectivity, comes and goes. I am very frustrated with that. I want what I have to say to be heard.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I must admit that I am wondering whether my colleague actually read the bill, because there is nothing in there about online hate. However, I was struck by his comment about how people are able to distinguish fact from fiction on their own.

I am wondering if my colleague remembers what happened south of the border on January 6. Does he think that those events could have been the result of the dissemination of misinformation? I would like to know what he thinks about that. I would also like him to tell me what evidence leads him to believe that people can distinguish between accurate information and misinformation. That being said, this does not pertain directly to Bill C-10, which is before us today.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I am a bit confused. The member spoke at length about a bill that has not been tabled, which is a bill that will be dealing with online harm, such as child pornography, incitement of violence and terrorism. It seems the member has not read Bill C-10, which deals with how the government wants to legislate to ensure that online platforms do their fair share when it comes to cultural investments in Canada. It has nothing to do with online harm, which is a very important subject, and in fact, many members of the opposition have asked us to—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on Bill C-10. There is a Yiddish proverb that says when one sweeps the house, one finds everything. I am not sweeping this House, as I am sure it is the cleanest house in Canada right now. I am sure the staff is doing amazing work.

In reading the legislation now before the House, I had to sweep over articles of what the minister and the government believe Bill C-10 would achieve, especially as conditions have changed over the past four weeks. I hope to demonstrate to the House that the intent of the government, with Bill C-10 and what it hopes to achieve, is confounding two different issues.

There is a role for the government to play in ensuring that regulations and laws are in place to offset disinformation and attempts by foreign governments, or entities with a nefarious purpose, to spread disinformation with the objective of achieving discord or chaos in our country, or causing economic harm.

I do not think there is as much of a place for the government to deal with misinformation, because Canadians are excellent at dealing with it themselves. A headline about an interview the Minister of Canadian Heritage gave states, “Regulation of online hate speech coming soon, says minister”. This is regarding Bill C-10, the legislation that was suggested. Hate speech is already banned by the Criminal Code. There is a way for police to monitor and go after individuals who spread hate speech. Nobody on this side of the House, or any side of the House, agrees with hate speech. I do my best to make sure that when I see it online I address it, whether it is directed at ethnicities or religions, and whatever the purpose is behind it.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage also said that the government wants to block messages on the Internet and social media that might undermine Canada's social cohesion. It is a lofty goal for the government to want to do these things with legislation like Bill C-10 and the vast extension of government powers that it is allowing. I will go through some of the proposed government powers that I find questionable.

I question whether ensuring the social cohesion of a country is the right role for the government to be taking on. Our citizens, NGOs and civic organizations do the job of protecting our civic virtues already. It is not the job of the government to be proposing such legislation as I see here. What I see in Bill C-10 is the government opening the door to state regulation of the Internet. While people define the Internet in different ways, we interact with it every single day, whether by watching steaming services online or interacting with others on different platforms. This is an area that I think the government is erring by getting into.

The same minister went on to say that he wanted to prevent media platforms from sowing doubt in the population with regard to public institutions. I find the government does an excellent job of sowing doubt in public institutions itself. We were told months ago that vaccines were going to be distributed and everybody was going to be vaccinated by September 2021. Then we saw an announcement for AstraZeneca vaccines from a facility that is not even built yet. It will be finished in July, and then we are supposed to believe that in two months somehow this facility will save the day, and also that Pfizer vaccines will be available now that its facility has been upgraded.

It sows doubt among people in my riding who trusted the government at the beginning, who had faith in public institutions and public servants and believed that the government had a handle on this. They do not believe that anymore. I had a digital town hall yesterday and the majority of the questions I had to field from over 600 constituents back home, at one point, concerned the government's dribs-and-drabs approach to the travel restrictions that it has introduced, and how confusing they are. To be honest, I am just as confused as everybody else.

The government does enough of a job of undermining public trust in public institutions. When it botches the rollout of the vaccine to the provinces and introduces random restrictions, it does not need legislation like this. I will go into some of the aspects of what this legislation would do that give me concern.

First, I am concerned that the bill chooses to limit the oversight powers of parliamentary committees with respect to directives and regulations that would be adopted by the CRTC. At the end of the amendments to the Broadcasting Act, the bill states that it would go around the powers Parliament rightfully has to oversee what is being done. I get constituents asking me, all the time, to intervene in the actions and regulatory activities of the CRTC. I have concerns about this.

The Broadcasting Act says that broadcasting undertakings include distribution undertakings. The proposed legislation would add online undertakings. About a dozen people in my riding have successful YouTube channels, such as toy channels and travel channels, when travel was easy to do. YouTube is one of those platforms I think the government is targeting for regulation. YouTube is both a streaming service and a platform. It is sort of a commons area like this chamber, for people to put up videos, whether funny or serious, and share their opinions. Whether or not one likes their opinions is totally secondary.

This is an expansion of what the government is trying to do. A lot of independent media are saying they are very concerned that they are going to be regulated directly by the government. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? What I see happening, mostly from parties on the left but all over the spectrum, is that misinformation is now whatever someone does not like, or whatever opinion one does not agree with.

A lot of Liberal caucus members have opinions I disagree with, but I do not want to censor them. I want to debate them, preferably on the floor of the House. I do not want to do it over Twitter. To me, Twitter is one of the lowest of all platforms. It is where people get attacked, mobbed and treated like second-class citizens. When I talk to constituents about it, I generally refer to Twitter as a sewer with its activities. Bots are all over the place, and there are vicious attacks on both Liberal and Conservative politicians. I think all members have been victims, at some point, of nasty online commentary, either calling for violence or treating the members very poorly. We can all agree that this is something awful and unique to that particular platform.

Another part of the legislation I am worried about would amend a portion of the intention behind the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It reads, “the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide broadcasting,” which is the new amendment, “services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains”. I have a hard time believing that a lot of the material being broadcast right now by the CBC, or its online platforms, informs, enlightens or entertains, unless it is a high form of satire it is producing in its news section.

Bill C-10 does not achieve the modernization of broadcasting, which was the idea the government had months ago when the bill was tabled. Generally, many members agree with that idea. In my lifetime, with the advent of the Internet, we have seen a lot of people migrate away from cable providers. Cable used to be the “it” thing in the 1990s. I would not know, as I never had cable. My family could not afford it.

Everybody has migrated to online services. The government is catching up to regulate these, but it is going way overboard and has missed the mark. This is not the way we should go about regulating it, nor should we take away from Parliament the ability to question and oversee regulators such as the CRTC.

I consistently get complaints about the CRTC and I do not think more government power over what Canadians share online, the discussions they are having at home and online, is an area the government should be getting into. It does not have the wisdom or the ability. It will always be catching up to society and civic institutions not attached to government. The government is erring, and I will not be supporting this particular legislation.

The House resumed from December 11, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to have the Thursday question. It allows me to talk to him, which is increasingly rare these days.

To answer his question directly, tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

When we return from our constituency week on February 16, we will resume consideration of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement. It is absolutely vital that we pass it quickly.

Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is also referred to as UNDRIP.

Thursday, February 18 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-13 concerning single event sport betting, as well as Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope all our colleagues have an excellent week working in their ridings.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Drummond. He is a valuable asset on the Canadian heritage committee.

Yes, we have seen drastic changes made in 11 months to the arts and culture industry in Canada. I am fearful it will never recover, or that if it does, it could take up to a decade.

We are going through the changes proposed to the Broadcast Act in Bill C-10 at the heritage committee. What are we going to do with the big multimedia giants like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple and Disney? These Canadian media giants really have no investment at all in Canada, and they are forcing a major issue here.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that.

My last question is for Mr. Kassem. I know I'm running out of time.

Thank you very much for everything that you've done and all your information about the diaspora and cultural community content.

One of the things you talked about was the accuracy of content. Could you talk a little about what you'd like to see in Bill C-10 to ensure we are getting accurate content to audiences, particularly online?

I think we've lost Mr. Kassem. If he comes back, if I get a second stab, I'll try to get his answer at that point.

[Ahmed Kassem, Executive Director, Global Village Centre]

Thank you very much to the committee for inviting us. I fully agree with both Ryan and John.

My name is Ahmed Kassem. I have been producing and hosting cultural community television shows for many years in the past decade. In addition, I am the host of a local community radio show that focuses on intercultural relationships in rural communities. All programs are intended to increase awareness and understanding of many cultures and languages in the Brooks area, to indicate to newcomers their rights and responsibilities in Canada, and to increase newcomer knowledge about the community they live in through interviews with key community leaders and service providers.

BIll C-10 is helpful to that if it goes hand-in-hand with the Canadian Broadcasting Act, [Technical difficulty—Editor] broadcasting. At the same time, we should impress the [Inaudible—Editor] digital world. It's more difficult than it used to be for families to come together to watch one TV screen; you can all watch the same thing on different devices. The online world should pass the same scrutiny as the Broadcasting Act, in that the contents should not be produced by someone from their home, which enables individuals and groups to spread misinformation, which can be harmful and sometimes dangerous.

The bill also helps visible minorities be a part of the broadcasting world because the voices of all Canadians matter, not where they come from. It could be said that the bill seeks to even the playing field, so to speak, for content disparities all over Canada. The bill would have them all operate under the same regulatory guidelines.

I believe it is critical to ensure that any legislation does not result in earlier streaming services pulling out of Canada. The proposed heightened guidelines as to what they are required to follow could drive the services out of Canada, therefore narrowing the scope of media and content available in the country.

I am personally in favour of the bill, with the caution that I mentioned before: Having all media providers in Canada under the same guidelines makes it fairer for smaller broadcast hosts to operate. It also safely [Inaudible—Editor] and ensures Canadian content availability in Canada, keeping us close to our roots—while also avoiding promoting harmful content—to ensure the protection and support of local broadcasting and newspapers, especially in our rural communities throughout Canada.

The discussions on this topic raise four main questions for me. One, how exactly will this be protecting Canadian content? Two, how will the content be vetted? Three, where will it come from? Finally, will this create any new employment opportunities for Canada?

[Kenneth Hirsch]

I'll defer again to Mr. Bossé for specifics of law, because I'm not a lawyer.

In general, and I know it may or may not be explicit in Bill C-10, quotas are very helpful to our production community, so we ask that CBC spend a minimum of 10% of its English language production content in Quebec.

We would ask the same thing of the big streamers that sell content to Canadians as well, and 12% of their development budget, but I'll leave specifics of how CRTC changes have hurt us to Maître Bossé.

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

That point, Ms. Morin, is a very good one. I wonder if you can speak a little bit more to that. As we try to rapidly expand broadband Internet access across rural Canada, do you see this problem being exacerbated? Does Bill C-10 go far enough to address that?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today. This is very interesting.

Similar to all of my colleagues I'm sure, I have had many meetings about Bill C-10, and I'm excited that we're starting the process of looking at it.

I represent the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. Many of you may not know, but in Alberta, it is one of our strongest francophone communities, one of the strongest OLMCs we have in Alberta, and a very important part of my riding.

I want to ask some questions of the FCCF, Mr. Théberge and Madame Morin. I know we've talked about this already, but I want to give you a bit of an opportunity to expand. You spoke about the importance, from your perspective, of the bill, ensuring that broadcasters, online or not, promote the French original content, especially in our linguistic minority communities.

Can you talk a bit more about how that could happen?

Madame Morin.

[Kenneth Hirsch]

I left the film board about 20 years ago to set up in the private sector. At that time English-language production in Quebec represented about one-quarter of production across the country. Now we represent less than 7% of English-language content production across the country. If regulation is not in place, the broadcasters, who are mostly based in Toronto, just don't think about us. We're a diverse and a distinct community, and in order to ensure the vitality of our production community, we need to see that recognized in Bill C-10.

[Darius Bossé, Lawyer, Power Law, Quebec English-language Production Council]

Thank you, Mr. Hirsch.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.

In general, the amendments to Bill C-10 that QEPC, ELAN and the Quebec Community Groups Network, the QCGN, are proposing are intended to ensure that the use of the discretionary power that the Broadcasting Act provides is well established.

Too often, we see that, although the CRTC and CBC/Radio-Canada must comply with the requirements set out in the Official Languages Act—

[Kenneth Hirsch]

I would just make the point that we're seeking to be recognized under Bill C-10 for very similar reasons in that we're a minority that is now threatened in terms of production quantity and we're looking to ensure the vitality of our production community. I'm going to defer to Maître Bossé to answer your specific question as to which one is most vital to us.

Maître Bossé.

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

My next question is for the Quebec English-language Production Council. Madam Ludvig or Mr. Hirsch, if you had just one element to improve in Bill C-10 what would it be for you?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses for joining us today and for giving us their time to help us determine how we can improve Bill C-10.

I have had the opportunity to meet representatives from a number of organizations across the country, some of whom are here today. They have told me about their concerns with Bill C-10.

First of all, I have to say that everyone agrees that it is time to get down to the task of modernizing the Broadcasting Act. The minister chose to divide his bill into three parts. Naturally, this does not address everything, thereby creating some dissatisfaction.

In the course of the various consultations that I have personally conducted, I have been told about concerns about the production of francophone content. People want to make sure that the bill will accommodate that in order to protect minority French-language communities all across the country, not just in Quebec.

My first question goes to the representatives of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française and to the representative of the Association québécoise de la production médiatique.

In your opinion, what are the key points, the amendments that should be made to the bill, in order to really take French into account. Should it be with quotas or should it not? I do not want to get into a debate about quotas but I would like to know whether you have any recommendations.

The people from the FCCF can answer first, followed by the AQPM.

[Eva Ludvig]

To that end, the English and French minorities agree on their approach to Bill C-10.

The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française,

as you heard, said in its letter to the minister:

In addition to those francophone alliances, we are proud to confirm the support of English-language organizations in Quebec... for the FCCF's position papers and for all the amendments we are proposing.

QEPC, ELAN—the English Language Arts Network—and QCGN said in our letter to the minister:

...we wish to stress that we support the amendments to Bill C-10 put forward by the [FCCF] on December 2.... These proposed amendments to Bill C-10 are aimed at ensuring that Canadian broadcasting policies consider the specific situation of [official language minority communities]... an objective also pursued by QEPC, QCGN, and ELAN.

When tabling Bill C-10, the minister said, “With the modernization of the legislation, Francophone, Anglophone, Indigenous, people with disabilities, racialized and LGBTQ2+ creators will have the means to tell their own stories.”

As the bill is now written, that is simply not true. Anglophone and francophone minority-language creators have been excluded.

To include us, we respectfully request, one, that the Broadcasting Act's interpretation clause be expanded to expressly include and support French and English minority-language communities; two, that the CRTC's and the CBC's obligation to ensure that positive measures are taken to enhance the vitality and support of the development of the OLMCs be expressly stated in the Broadcasting Act; and, three, that an obligation for the government to consult both official-language minority communities be included in the Broadcasting Act.

Thank you.

[Kenneth Hirsch, Co-Chair, Quebec English-language Production Council]

In Quebec, we are an increasingly vulnerable minority. There are fewer and fewer bilingual municipalities. Our school boards are under attack and our schools are closing. Our population is aging. Our jobs are leaving Quebec, and our children are following.

Over a generation, English language film and TV production in Quebec has fallen from 25% of total English language production in Canada to just 7%. On our current trajectory, we can foresee the end of OLMC production in Quebec, and the jobs that such production represents.

Worse, the loss of OLMC production in Quebec will drastically reduce our community’s ability to share our distinct and diverse stories with one another, with other Canadians and the world.

Our communications system, indeed our cultural sovereignty, has never been under greater assault from foreign streaming services than it is now. It has never been easier to be a cultural consumer, streaming more and more content, paying for more and more platforms to deliver it: someone else’s content, someone else’s platforms.

Bill C-10 legislation you are now considering is more desperately needed than anything Parliament has enacted for broadcasting since the establishment of the CBC in 1936.

Yet Canada’s official language minorities are totally absent from this draft of Bill C-10. Despite the parliamentary mandate to support the vitality of official language minorities in the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act, the draft legislation before you fails to even mention us. We ask you to reconsider and to rectify this regrettable oversight. Canadian broadcasting policies must consider the needs of the official language minorities and help us secure our future.

[Martin Théberge, President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Martin Théberge. I am the President of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the FCCF, and I am accompanied, as you have just said, by Marie-Christine Morin, our Executive Director.

This is a pivotal moment for the Canadian broadcasting system. We welcome the introduction of the bill, which, in itself, represents an essential advance in modernizing Canada's Broadcasting Act. This is crucial in maintaining our country's identity and cultural sovereignty.

Thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee today to present to you the key points of our thinking and our main requests about the bill you are studying, in terms of the issues and the particular needs of official language minority communities.

As well as being the voice of the ecosystem of French-Canadian and Acadian arts and culture, the FCCF is proud to present requests that reflect a broad consensus. Our efforts in horizontal collaboration have borne fruit. Like our members, our partners in the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, and in the Quebec English-language Production Council, the QEPC, formally support our position. It is also important to note that the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française has also allied itself with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, of which we are a member. Finally, to the quality process of our internal work, the FCCF adds assistance from external legal and institutional services that support our position.

The amendments that the FCCF is requesting have four main objectives. First, Canadian broadcasting policy must take into account the particular situation of official language minority communities, or OLMCs, and the unique linguistic challenges and issues of Francophone minorities, through specific objectives specifically set out in Canada's legislative framework for broadcasting.

Second, the mission of the CRTC must be made more specific in order to include the needs of the OLMCs and their particular realities.

Third, the objectives for original content in French must be strengthened in order to take into account the unique situation of French in the country.

Fourth, the FCCF seeks to ensure that online distribution companies are established in such a way that the CRTC may issue orders to them requiring mandatory distribution and an equitable proportion of Canadian content. This must include a significant amount of original broadcasting in French, and a guarantee that it can be viewed in an optimal way.

The FCCF sees the significance of our requests to you in terms of support, in the broadest sense, for the development of our fragile artistic and cultural ecosystem. The broadcasting choices that are about to be made will be critical for our ability to see and hear ourselves, and to create and produce in French. The result will be nothing less than the protection of our country's cultural sovereignty.

The FCCF is adamant about the need for Parliament to clearly state its intentions for official language minority communities in Bill C-10. Our experience has shown that, only when OLMCs are specifically mentioned, will we be able to work towards the full and complete participation of our communities in the Canadian broadcasting system.

Before our appearance, the FCCF provided the clerk of the committee with a statement of our position. We have proposed specific wording for the amendments we are putting forward and have provided detailed explanations in support. We are convinced that including the points we are raising as amendments to the current version of Bill C-10 will allow official language minority communities to participate better in the Canadian broadcasting system and will foster their cultural development in the long term.

Thank you for your attention, we will be pleased to answer your questions.

[Hélène Messier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de la production médiatique]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, or AQPM, advises, represents and accompanies more than 160 independent film, television and web production corporations in Quebec. Thank you for inviting me here as the work on Bill C-10 begins.

In 2018-2019, Quebec's independent production companies generated a volume of $875 million in producing feature-length movies, television programs and web content, thereby creating the equivalent of more than 16,000 full-time jobs.

For more than 50 years, Quebec's independent producers have been able to provide audiences at home and abroad with original content in French and English. This is because of the determination of a few pioneers like Graham Spry and Alan Plaunt. Their work resulted in the Aird Commission, whose 1929 report led to the passage of the first version of the Broadcasting Act in 1932.

The government thereby recognized that it was essential to strengthen national identity and to affirm Canada's cultural sovereignty by providing local programming to Canadians who, at the time, were overwhelmed by radio programs produced by American stations. Those are the principles that led to the adoption of the first version of the Broadcasting Act and it seems important to me to recall them as the preliminary study of Bill C-10begins.

This bill represents the first major reform to the Broadcasting Act since the one in 1991. It seeks to integrate online transmission services, both Canadian and foreign, into the regulatory framework so that they can all play a role in funding and promoting our national content. It also seeks to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, the power it needs to ensure that the rules are followed by these new players. The AQPM is delighted with this historic step forward.

Since the first act in 1932, the landscape has changed greatly, with the arrival of our public broadcaster, with the creation of institutions such as the National Film Board, the NFB, Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund and the establishment of fiscal and financial measures to support the Canadian audiovisual industry. The industry now has reached an annual production volume in excess of $9 billion. This substantial figure seems to show that the industry is doing well, but it hides a troubling reality. In fact, 52% of the audiovisual content produced in Canada is not Canadian. It is made in Canada by foreign companies.

The rest of the production volume is divided between the broadcasters' internal production, at 13%, which includes sports, news or public affairs, and independent production, which comes to 35% of the total. So, independent Canadian content, which alone ensures the diversity of television broadcasts or feature films, represents only a little more than one third of the production in Canada each year. Can there be any question about the need to better support the creation, production, distribution and promotion of Canadian content?

The AQPM sees that urgent action is needed. Traditional sources of funding are declining, as are the production budgets for original content in French. The whole ecosystem must be overhauled so that production companies can develop, our creative resources can be fully deployed, and our cultural identity can live on. In addition, mass media like cinema, television and music are essential for protecting French and the indigenous languages.

However, Bill C-10 lacks some fundamental items, particularly in terms of adequate protection for original content in French, for Canadian talent, and for the intellectual property of Canadian production companies. Canadian content means ensuring that the bill focuses squarely on Canadian creators, that the content belongs to Canadian companies and that original content in French has a major place.

Bill C-10 excludes some critical players in the new media reality, such as social media, online distribution companies and the companies that provide Internet and cell phone service.

The task of implementing Canadian broadcasting policy rests with the CRTC. It is therefore the guardian of the objectives set out in clause 3 of the bill and in translating them to the requirements to be imposed on broadcasting companies. This fundamental role must be set within a serious framework provided by the government, something that is lacking in the current bill.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage would like the bill to put an end to the lack of regulatory symmetry between traditional broadcasters and online undertakings. Bill C-10 provides for fair and equitable treatment for the broadcasting companies that provide services of a similar nature. The AQPM is afraid that traditional broadcasters may see that as an opportunity to decrease their existing obligations.

If our wish is that bringing new players into the broadcasting ecosystem will result in new sources of revenue to produce and promote more original Canadian content in English, French and indigenous languages, and in content that is better financed and more diversified in genre, the government should quickly state its intentions in that regard.

The AQPM would like to point out that it is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. We therefore support the coalition's proposed amendments. But we will be producing our own brief, which will be sent to the members of the committee in the coming weeks.

Thank you for your attention.

[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.

[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?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I thank my constituents for all of their support. It is a great honour to represent them in the Parliament of Canada.

I welcome this opportunity to express the concerns of my constituents regarding Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The challenge I have as a legislator is this: Do the changes to the Broadcasting Act, which was originally enacted under a previous Conservative government, outweigh the concerns of Canadians regarding the steady erosion of free speech in Canada?

When the Minister of Canadian Heritage started talking about hate speech and fake news, it pandered to the less tolerant, the alt-left crowd. Their agenda is to silence the diversity in the voices in Canada. Canadians have every reason to be concerned. The Prime Minister goes to the United Nations and says one thing, and then denies his own words when questioned about his version of the great reset he has planned for Canada. It is not in the best interests of Canadians to turn the CRTC into some kind of censor board beyond the reach of Parliament.

I proudly speak today as a member of Parliament for the Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke riding, which is rife with Canadians and their stories, together with the storytellers. Canadians are proud of our stories. The storytellers want to share their stories with the world. The government claims Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, would support the Canadian storytellers. We all know that it would not support all Canadian storytellers, just the government-approved storytellers.

What is the price to support these government-approved storytellers? According to the government, the financial price is close to $1 billion, but what about the cost to freedom of expression, regulating the Internet, demanding control over algorithms and restricting foreign programming? Is this really a price Canadians wish to pay to not watch central, committee-approved, bland television productions? If Canadians knew the real costs and consequences of the Liberal bill to regulate the Internet, what they are really were, they would reject it entirely.

There are three things that Canadians need to understand about the bill. First, it is a deception. The Liberals would change the very definition of the words in order to grab some money for their friends. Second, it is an attack on freedom of expression. Mandating speech is the same as restricting speech. Third, in proclaiming to support diversity, the government would reduce the diversity of stories that Canadians have access to, and this would have a particular set of consequences for new Canadians and refugees who speak neither of the two official languages. This is what happens when governments strip our liberties away. The least powerful pay the highest price, but we all bear a cost. That is the reason for this deception. The Liberals cannot be honest about what they are doing, because what they are doing violates the charter. It violates freedom of expression.

We have the deception, the attack on free speech and the attack on diversity. I will begin with the deception, and for that we need to go back to why we have a Broadcasting Act.

Why is there a Broadcasting Act regulating television and radio but not a newsprint act regulating newspapers? It is because newspapers use their own print and paper to express their views. Broadcasters use public airwaves to broadly cast out electromagnetic signals that televisions and radio receivers can pick up. Airwaves are a classic public good. Broadcasters cannot use the same frequency or their signals become lost. Frequencies have to be allocated by the government or else everyone would broadcast on every frequency and nobody would get a signal.

For-profit broadcasters cannot charge customers for the signal after they have already broadcasted out, but the broadcasters were introduced to advertisers, and they all made a lot of money. The government later told these broadcasters that, in return for making huge profits from public airwaves, they would be required to support Canadian storytellers, artists and musicians. Canadians were largely supportive of using Canadian airwaves to support Canadians.

Even when cable came along, the government had a role in regulating cable monopolies for the public good. This arrangement was good for the companies, good for the government–funded, committee-approved storytellers and good for the advertisers. Any Canadian with a radio, TV and some rabbit ears could watch or listen to the free entertainment. The business model was simple: Cast out the programs to the broadest audience possible and then sell the viewership to advertisers.

Canadian consumers of music and stories received quantity over quality. Then the Internet came along and changed everything. It changed everything for advertisers. Just ask the newspapers that, ironically enough, are now lobbying for a newsprint act to bail them out. It changed everything for musicians and storytellers. Just ask Justin Bieber if he would have his globe-spanning career were it not for YouTube. It changed everything for consumers. No longer did they have to sit at a specific time to watch a somewhat decent program. Now they can watch when they want but, more importantly, they can watch what they really want.

For nearly 70 years, the biggest change in broadcasting was colour TV. Then in the last 20 years, everything from production to distribution has been revolutionized. In response to this tremendous revolution in technology, entertainment and opportunities, in response to all this change, the government’s only play is to fall back on 1970s-era protectionist talking points and slap 1930s-era legislation on a 21st-century technology. It is old, it is tired and it is a deception. These companies do not use public airwaves to broadcast out a signal. It is ridiculous to call them broadcasters.

The only reason the government is doing this is to stretch the justification of regulating public airwaves into a justification for regulating private viewing. As I said in my initial remarks, it has to commit this deception to hide the truth. This is regulating expression. It is a limit on speech. Our freedom of speech and our freedom of expression are not just about the right to be heard. It is also about our right to hear, to listen, to see and to understand. It is a human right, not a Canadian privilege.

What is a privilege is to live in a time and place where we can experience stories from any human on earth. The Internet has turned all of us into both broadcasters and receivers. The government seeks to regulate that. It seeks to control it. It wants to put the toothpaste back into the tube and turn the clock back to the seventies. It wants to bring back The Beachcombers, but it is not going to happen. It is 2020 and if there has ever been a year when Canadians appreciate the ability to watch what they want when they want it, it is now.

The government has different plan. It wants to regulate what people can watch. They want to charge a tax on these streamers to even have the opportunity to offer Canadians any kind of programming.

These new taxes and regulations will cut Canadians off from a growing, rich, diverse array of new streaming services from across the world. The Liberal attack on freedom of expression is an attack on diversity. The Liberals claim that this tax will help them fund a new film school of grads with diverse backgrounds, but what about the thousands of diverse Canadians who lose out?

Does the Liberal government really believe an Indian Bollywood streaming service is going to stay in the Canadian market if it is required to produce an unprofitable amount of programming? The grandmother who recently arrived on a family reunification visa had sure better hope so. She might be in luck, due to the millions of Canadians who watch those films, but what about new Canadians from different countries? Will every foreign-language streaming service in every country be required to produce Canadian content?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

There is one rather important aspect that is not addressed in Bill C-10.

The current crisis has been particularly hard on artists. Quebec has a fairly large dubbing industry that provides a living for artists, and I spoke with someone from that sector. She was telling me that if all the taxpayer-funded, English-language productions, like the ones produced in Toronto and Vancouver, were dubbed in Quebec, that would provide artists with work for years to come, and we would not even need American films. It is incredible.

However, that is not happening. Films and TV series that we pay for ourselves are dubbed in France. That makes absolutely no sense.

Does my colleague not think that, any time Canadian taxpayers' money is being invested, films should be dubbed in Quebec to provide work for our own people?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the government has finally brought this long-awaited modernization of the Broadcasting Act, also known as Bill C-10. Too often government regulations have fallen far behind human innovations and progress, such as those for unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, and various forms of the sharing economy, and it is definitely encouraging to see, 15 years after its founding and 10 years after YouTube reached one billion views, that the act is being updated for social media platforms. However, my initial excitement was doused with a bucket of cold water when I saw some of the half-hearted measures and the complete abdication of responsibility. We missed a great opportunity to genuinely reform the act for the 21st century, and I therefore find it challenging to cast my support for it.

Let me explain. In my research preparing for this speech, I came across Dr. Michael Geist's criticism of the faults of the proposed changes in Bill C-10. In fact, there are so many problems, he has a daily blog called “The Broadcasting Act Blunder”. Allow me to mention a few highlights from this blog.

First, Bill C-10, as a broadcast reform bill, could spell the end of Canadian ownership requirements by removing Canadian ownership and control requirements from the Broadcasting Act, yet the heritage minister says the bill would safeguard cultural sovereignty. Second, the bill in no way prevents online streaming services from operating in Canada or requires them to be licensed. It instead requires registration, which may result in nondescript additional regulations and conditions that are “virtually indistinguishable from licensing requirements”.

When the Liberals claim it ensures that online broadcasting is covered under the act, why is it covered in such indecisive terms? The bill creates uncertainty, increases consumer costs and creates a risk for tariffs and blocking content from Canada. However, the government calls the bill a matter of fairness.

Michael Geist is not one of those regular Canadians who the elitist government looks down upon. He is a Canadian academic. In fact, he is the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa and a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. He holds multiple law degrees from prestigious institutions and has taught around the world. It would be fair to take his misgivings on the bill seriously.

Let us take a closer look at fairness. The Liberals say they are updating broadcasting and regulatory policies to better reflect the diversity of Canadian society. How is it fair to virtual signal with much empty aspirations about gender equality, LGBTQ2+ people, racialized communities, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples without specifying how the changes will help them? Is it fair to arm the CRTC with new enforcement powers through an administrative monetary penalty scheme that, when translated into English, means government's overreach could potentially end in a windfall of cold hard cash?

Speaking of cash, is it fair that the government has used the pandemic to repeatedly seek more unchecked power for itself, all the while drowning Canadians in a projected $1.2 trillion in national debt? That is a credit card debt of more than $63,000 for each of Facebook Canada's alleged 19 million registered users in this country. Estimates indicate that if online broadcasters are taxed for Canadian content at a rate similar to that of traditional broadcasting, the new framework would create an $830 million government windfall in three years, by 2023.

In addition to power grabs, the government also wants a cash grab, but the obvious other side to this is increased costs. When someone is going to pays for fees that are projected to run into hundreds of millions of dollars, it is only obvious the burden will fall on Canadian consumers. None of this is fair to Canadians, and Bill C-10 follows a pattern we have become all too familiar with this year: bold intentions, little clarity, empty promises and a failure to deliver meaningful changes.

I, for one, am tired of seeing our government feeding Canadians word salad for every meal. It is past time for a meaty and substantial policy to be put forward.

Bill C-10 would hand massive new powers to the CRTC, Canada's telecommunications and broadcast regulator, to regulate online streaming services, opening the door to mandated Canadian content, also known as CanCon, payments; discoverability requirements, even though we have no issue discovering Canadian content on any capable search engine today without it; and confidential information disclosures, all backed by new fining powers.

Many of the details will be sorted out by the beefed-up CRTC bureaucracy long after the legislation is gone. The specifics will take years to unfold, meanwhile leaving Canadians in uncertainty and insecurity. Some are estimating it will take nine months alone to undertake the very first regulatory phase.

Thankfully, from where I am sitting, it appears that Canadians are not being fooled this time. They are calling for beneficial legislation that would tax multi-billion dollar foreign corporations such as Google and Facebook. They realize the bill would kick the legs out from under small content creators. They know the bill would be the surrender of any meaningful priority.

My office has been receiving notices from online campaigners asking to compel the CRTC to regulate online broadcasters, update the CBC mandate and governance structure and make sure social media companies are responsible for the illegal content they broadcast. They say, “Any updated Broadcasting Act that doesn't tackle these key issues isn't doing enough to defend Canadian broadcasting, culture and journalism.”

The bill also lacks definitions to clarify applications for social media services and user-generated content. For example, if a friend of mine sets up a subscriber-funded online broadcasting app to live-stream programs of Canadian current affairs and commentaries, unlike the author of this act seems to assume, he is doing this on his own and not relying on any of the big box social media platforms. His single-operator platform would be subjected to CRTC's mercy to allow his exercise in freedom of expression and speech, at best, or it would get buried out of business under the mounds of bureaucratic red tape, at worst. It is clear Bill C-10 does not meet the concerns of regular people.

I believe government control should be adequate and not overarching. As Andrew Coyne writes in The Globe and Mail, “But just how far the state's regulatory tentacles will now extend will depend in large part on how the CRTC interprets its new powers—and the bill's language gives plenty of room to worry.” I agree.

He is not alone in holding this view, though. Laura Tribe, executive director of OpenMedia, an Internet watchdog group, has issued an urgent warning, saying, “[The minister] has created an artificial sense of crisis around Canadian cultural content—content that is surviving and flourishing in the 21st century.” Amid all the other crises we have experienced this year, I hardly think now is the time or place to be manufacturing a new one to hive that policy.

When it comes to bills, like Bill C-10, that make claims as bold as they do, I agree with Andrew Coyne when he says, “You can lead a horse to culture, but you can't make it watch.”

On the last sitting day of the House, I wish you, Madam Speaker, and every member of the House of Commons a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and happy holidays.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

I want to wish everyone in the House and those watching a very merry Christmas.

The bill that we are debating today is a potential gift for all Canadians, something we all hold dear, and there needs to be a timely change to the Broadcasting Act. Things have changed so much in the last few years with digital content that change is something I think we can all get behind.

Being as it is a potential gift for all Canadians, I tried to consult the expert on gifts for all Canadians at Christmastime. Who did I try to get in touch with? It was Santa Claus. I have to say that it was a little more difficult this year. I want Santa to know that I tried to get in touch. I am wearing my favourite Christmas tie that he gave me and I want to thank him very much. It reminds me of Christmas. I wanted to get Santa's opinion on this bill, because this is a potential gift for all Canadians.

As kids around Canada are watching this debate intently, I want them to know that Santa is working hard this year. He is making sure the elves in the factory are kept very safe. He is following all of the protocols. He wants people to remember the Christmas message of being kind to our neighbours, to reach out to somebody who may be in need, and that this is a time about love and community. This year has certainly been a tough year, so I think all parliamentarians can get behind that statement.

Because I could not get in touch with Santa, I have to give my own opinion on this bill we are debating today. As I said, I would love to be able to support it because it is a great gift, but I think I am going to have to give it a lump of coal, unfortunately, that might increase greenhouse gases too. Because there are so many faults in this bill, it really is very difficult for me to figure out where exactly I can start.

Maybe I will start with last night. Like many Canadians, my wife and I were at home doing things that Canadians do. We were not drinking Sortilège and eating tourtière. I think everybody would like to be doing that, but we were streaming a series that my wife likes. We were bingeing on a series called Virgin River. It is a very interesting romantic drama series, a series I would normally not want to watch, but when wives say they want to watch a romantic drama series, it is really important that their husbands pay attention to that.

I was watching the show and I suddenly realized I knew actors and actresses. It was set in northern California, but it was beautiful.

As we were sitting around binge-watching, I thought I recognized what I was seeing. I googled it and I found out this show Virgin River actually has numerous Canadian actors and actresses in it and takes place in British Columbia. I thought how appropriate it is we are actually debating this bill, because Netflix is a company that already knows the quality of Canadian actors, sets and scenery. As far as it doing business in this country, there are not a lot of rules.

I have listened to some of the debates, and some of the parliamentarians here feel that big giants like Netflix are actually the bad guys. I actually think it is a great business. If someone had asked me a few years ago how I would watch TV, this was not the way I thought we would be doing it. It is the new way. If we can attract more of its investment in this community to take Canadian scenery and Canadian actors and actresses and spread it out around the world, would it not be wonderful for Canadian culture?

In this House, I think most of us disagree with the Prime Minister when he said that Canadians have no core identity, we have no distinct culture, we want to be the first post-national state. We are proud of our culture and we want to make sure going forward in this new technology, this new digital format, we will be winning in the world and not being set behind.

For companies like Netflix, one of the reasons I cannot support this is because this bill is not clear on the rules. We know Canadian providers need to have 25% to 40% Canadian content and participate with 5% of their profits into the Media Fund, but new technologies need new rules and this legislation falls short.

I want to talk about the vagueness of this bill. It is really important to have fairness and equity put into our system, but this bill would not ensure web giants such as Google and Facebook, for example, would have to compete on the same playing field as Canadian companies. Because it does nothing to address the inequity between digital and conventional forums, it is very difficult to support this bill.

On decision-making, while other countries have an arbitration board, decisions would be made with orders in council. In other words, the Prime Minister and his cabinet would be making decisions on this bill. Right now, Canadians are a bit edgy about the government making all these decisions.

This bill would also allow the CRTC new broad powers, with no clear guidelines, which increases the uncertainty. Like I said, for Canadians to flourish in this new environment, they need certainty. Investors need certainty. When we are competing around the world, if Australia has its system figured out but Canada does not, where do we think these large international platforms are going to be doing their work?

I want to talk about fairness. In the last couple of weeks I was contacted by the local newspapers in my riding. There are two really great local newspapers in Oshawa. One is The Oshawa Express, run by sisters Kim Boatman and Sandy McDowell. It is a great entrepreneurial business run by women. The other one is Oshawa This Week, and I was contacted by Barb Yezik.

They were talking to me about this legislation and how important it is to get it right. Right now with COVID, these businesses are struggling. We need to make sure when we implement a new piece of legislation we get it right, but also that it is done in a very timely fashion. They explained to me that the primary issue is how their business model is disrupted by the web giants like Facebook and Google.

For example, Oshawa This Week and The Oshawa Express are not paid for their content. As far as the process of which they are a part, it really is not transparent on revenue sharing and advertising splits. A statistic that really concerned me when I heard it, and I think it concerns all of us in here, is that Facebook and Google pocket up to 80% of the ad revenue in Canada. Think about that. That is a huge amount of money that goes outside of this country. It is huge, and especially during this time of COVID, it is affecting them more severely.

The Oshawa Express and Oshawa This Week basically have their bricks and mortar in my community of Oshawa. They pay their local taxes, pay their national taxes and pay reporters to go out and get these stories.

It is so important that we support these small businesses, these entrepreneurs. Right now we are stuck with so much uncertainty and lack of traditional income. I am really happy we are acting on this, but again, this bill does not provide a framework or certainty as to how these businesses are going to be able to continue. We need to make sure they are viable, because it is local media that really tells the truth about our communities. They come out to our events. They support Canada and Canadians in everything we do in our communities.

I only have one minute left, but I want to mention that I think yesterday Australia passed its legislation. That has given businesses that operate in Australia clear guidelines and a way to arrange their competitiveness not only in Australia, but to get an idea of how they will be able to compete around the world, because the world is getting smaller every single year.

We wanted this bill to talk about fairness, competitiveness and how it would ensure content producers are treated fairly. Unfortunately, we do not have that.

Madam Speaker, I would love to talk a bit longer, with a bit of time to talk about Santa Claus, but with that, I wish a merry Christmas to you and all of my colleagues in the House.

I am available for questions.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to speak today on this important update to the Canadian Broadcasting Act. It has been 29 years since there has been an update to this legislation and it is long overdue.

I graduated from the Algonquin College broadcasting program the same year that the Broadcasting Act was last updated in 1991 and I have seen many changes in the field since that time. I am a big supporter of Canadian content rules. It is important to have platforms and spaces where diverse voices and stories can be shared. I have seen first-hand how the CanCon system has benefited Canadians.

During the 1990s I worked at Video In Studios, which is now called VIVO Media Arts. It is an artist-run centre that provides access to equipment and training to video artists and media producers. I trained a lot of people in the new digital technology of that time. Many of those people did not see themselves reflected in the mainstream content being produced: indigenous people, people with diverse abilities, people of colour, street-involved youth and members of the LGBTQ++ community. Many of these people I trained went on to develop careers in the broadcasting industry and utilized CanCon rules to bring their unique stories and perspectives to Canadian audiences.

In the late 1990s, I worked with Dana Claxton, a renowned first nations artist. Her sister Kim Soo Goodtrack was a teacher who had written a children's book called The ABC’s of Our Spiritual Connection, which threads together first nations’ spiritual beliefs from across North America. Kim had an idea for a TV show, and together with Dana and their brother Don, I co-produced the pilot for Wakanheja. It was the first preschool show on a brand-new Canadian network, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN. We made 64 episodes of that series before going on to create 39 episodes of a pre-teen show for APTN called Art Zone. While these shows were targeted to an audience of children and youth, the cultural sharing and stories provided an education for people of all ages. This programming would not have been possible without CanCon rules.

Funding formulas are essential to ensure a diversity of content. If it was left solely to the market we would have nothing but Disney-style caricatures of indigenous culture and many uniquely Canadian stories would never be produced for film and television.

This bill is an effort to catch up with the new media reality that has been unfolding for the last two decades. In 2007, I uploaded my first video to YouTube. It was footage I shot of three Sûreté du Québec undercover police officers trying to provoke an attack on their own riot squad at a protest in Montebello, Quebec. We pulled the masks off their faces and when they were mock-arrested by their fellow officers we noticed that all of their boots matched those of the riot squad. The YouTube video went viral and became an international news story. YouTube has evolved into one of the most influential players in the media landscape and we have barely begun grappling with the implications of that.

One thing that Canadians really want to see is the Internet giants, Facebook, Google and Amazon, paying their fair share of taxes for the business that they do in this country. They should be paying not just the GST and HST on the advertising they sell in this market but corporate taxes on the income they generate from Canadians. One key thing that this bill does is create a new category of broadcasting under the act, the "online undertaking". This would ensure that the online streaming giants such as Amazon and Netflix are covered under the act. This would help to level the playing field. These multinational companies selling their services in Canada should be required to carry Canadian content and/or help to pay for the creation of Canadian content.

The health of our news media is another area of great concern, particularly local news outlets. Local news outlets cannot compete on a level playing field with companies like Facebook and Google. We need local media and the stories they cover in our communities. Their content is shared on social media platforms that sell advertising beside that content, but none of that revenue is shared with them. Our local media outlets are held to journalistic standards, but the social media platforms are not. This is another glaring omission.

Social media platforms are publishers who generate enormous profits from content, content which is often racist, homophobic, misogynist and misleading. Social media companies should be required to uphold the same standards as traditional broadcasters. The absence of these standards and the expectations of voluntary self-regulation has brought us to a place where social media is negatively impacting our mental health, creating deepening divisions in society and having a corrosive effect on democracy.

We must take steps to ensure the survival of local media outlets in a media landscape where the playing field will never be level. Taxing social media companies on the revenues they generate in Canada and directing a portion of those funds to support local media production would be one way of doing so.

The Broadcasting Act should not limit the definition of broadcasting, but should leave it to the CRTC to determine what should be regulated. As we have seen in the last few decades, the media landscape continues to shift and the CRTC needs to be able regulate emerging types of media dissemination. The CRTC should not just have the option to regulate Internet giants, it must be mandated to do so. The penalties for violations by these Internet giants also need to be substantial, so it is not just viewed as the cost of doing business.

There are concerns about the removal of the paragraph that reads in part, “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.” I understand the government is trying to bring the multinational Internet giants under the act, but we also need to ensure our existing broadcasting system is not opened up to foreign ownership.

As I emphasized earlier, the requirements for Canadian content are important. There are a lot of American productions shot in Canada using Canadian talent, but these are not Canadian stories.

I know we cannot expect Disney+ to create Canadian content based on Canadian stories, but it should be required to help fund Canadian content based on the amount of content it streams into the Canadian market.

Spotify does not create content, but it could be required to identify Canadian content on its streaming platforms and it should also have to contribute to CanCon based on the amount of business it does in our country.

Canadians need to be able to find Canadian content on these large streaming platforms. Companies like Netflix, Amazon and Spotify should provide the means for users to easily find Canadian content.

The Broadcasting Act must continue to protect the unique linguistic characteristics of Canada. We need to ensure that broadcasters create content in both official languages. Original French language content should not be sidelined by English language programs that have voice-over translations that are then passed off as French language content.

Bill C-10 proposes to replace the current conditions of licence with “conditions of service” to prohibit the appeal of any conditions of service to the cabinet. The public must have the right to appeal a CRTC decision that it considers unfair. While every decision of the CRTC should not necessarily be up for appeal, the process for appealing to cabinet should be retained in the act.

To summarize, this bill introduces changes to the Broadcasting Act that I am happy to see, but there are changes to the act that leave many stakeholders concerned. Some of the issues can be fixed with amendments. Some of the issues I have raised can only be addressed through regulation. Some can only be addressed through additional legislation, including proper taxation of multinational digital media giants.

I will be voting for the bill at second reading and I look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say in the committee process.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the you, Madam Speaker, the House of Commons staff, my hon. colleagues in the House of Commons, my constituents and all Canadians a happy and healthy holiday season.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I hope I have enough time to get to all three questions before I get cut off.

I wonder if the member was talking about the 1970s in Canada, Soviet Russia, Cuba or China, because there are some parallels of governments having too much control.

On the competition aspect, if we restrict people's access to different streaming services or offerings, we will have fewer options for consumers. On the Canadian content, there are sites such as BritBlocks, a small streaming service for Canadians of British descent, which would just leave Canada, and so we would not be able to access its services and consumers would be less enriched from British stories. However, in return, does the member not think that other countries would restrict our content and our platforms if this is successful? We know that CUSMA has a regulation that could potentially cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars if an appeal process is granted and exercised on the impact of Bill C-10. There is—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was certainly a creative way to finish it.

One of the things that I have noticed in the time since I was elected is that the preamble of a bill, or the press conference to an announcement, is very different from the entire text of a bill or the action related to any announcement. It seems to me that Bill C-10 is in line with that pattern. I am wondering if my colleague has further comments on how the intent of this bill, as it is presented, is very different from what appears to actually fill the full 13 pages of it.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss a bill that is close to my heart.

As I have been a professional performing artist for most of my life, I know that for these kinds of bills, the devil is in the details. I was very glad to see the union ACTRA endorse the bill. It said performing artists from coast to coast to coast will now be able to perform more, have their works seen on more screens and devices, and be paid for their work.

When I first started acting, I was 16 years old doing theatre in Nova Scotia at the Neptune Theatre in Halifax. From there, I moved on to doing theatre right across the country, including in Edmonton, where I played Marilyn Monroe in a rock opera on the life of Marilyn called Hey, Marilyn!. I was 19 at the time. From there, I went on to do my first movie at the age of 20 in Wilcox, Saskatchewan. It was called the Hounds of Notre Dame about Père Athol Murray. Anybody from out west might remember that. I then went on to play the fiancée of Colin Thatcher, a Conservative politician who ended up murdering his wife. I played his girlfriend, who helped turn him in to the police.

These were all heady days of the business. We also did live radio. I remember the Jarvis Street studio in Toronto. We did live radio plays, and sometimes we would need to be at the radio station at 6:30 a.m. to do a live one-hour or half-hour show. One of my favourites was about a politician. The amazing Gordon Pinsent played that role, and I played a cabinet minister.

I remember one day early in the morning we were waiting for the star of the show to arrive and he was not there. We were about to go on live radio. The producer was getting ready to take his part, and was pretty freaked out, when in came Gordon, in his pyjamas, at the last minute. He went on to perform brilliantly, of course, the role he was born to play.

I have lived through the times when radio was cut and cut and cut. We called it “death by a million cuts”. CBC was being cut. Radio was being cut. Dramas started to be cut down. This is the lifeblood for performers who do a lot of theatre but who also need to be seen on camera. To be honest, it is the cheapest and best way a government can invest in tourism. It brings people to a country and gets people around the world to see the beauties of our country and the stories that make us unique and different from any other country in the world.

That is why it is so important to look after people. It is so their work can be performed and seen all around the world, and now on many different devices.

Let us fast-forward to around the year 2005, when I was living in New York doing animation for PBS.

PBS wanted me to sign a contract, and I had never seen one that said work could be shown on all devices in the universe. PBS wanted me to sign away my rights for eternity throughout the universe. It was the first time I had ever seen that and the first time I had ever seen “on devices” in a contract. I had to ask somebody what that meant, and they said that pretty soon people would be watching things on their watches or their phones. I could not conceive of that concept. I thought it was crazy. However, if we fast-forward, where are people watching things now? They are watching them on watches, phones and all kinds of devices.

Currently, online undertakings that deliver audio and audio-visual content over the Internet are exempt from licensing and most other regulatory requirements. That is why Bill C-10 really aims to clarify that online undertakings are within the scope of the broadcasting regulatory system.

It would also provide the CRTC with new powers to regulate online audio and visual content. It would allow the CRTC to create conditions of service and other regulatory requirements under which those online broadcasters would operate in Canada, and update the CRTC's regulatory powers as they relate to traditional broadcasters as well. This is good.

The bill would ensure the act would not apply to users of social media services or social media services themselves for the content posted by their users. However, the bill aims to update key elements of the broadcasting policy for Canada to ensure the creation of Canadian content is reflective of Canadian society and accessible to all Canadians. This is what I am talking about. We need to get our stories told. We need to see more diverse Canadian faces and voices.

I have many friends in this industry who are Black or indigenous. We need to see them. We need to hear them. We need to hear the beautiful stories they have to tell. This is a great way to be able to open the door so that more of this content can be seen.

One of my favourite stations now is APTN, so here is a shout-out to APTN. It does some amazing work.

The bill would amend the act to take greater account of indigenous cultures and languages, and recognize that Canada's broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic status, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions, and age. Additional amendments would also serve to promote greater accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Is it not time we show more people and more different diverse stories? I think Canadians are open to that content now. The more we talk about different styles of living and cultural backgrounds, the more people will start to understand that we really need to walk a mile in people's shoes, moccasins and so forth, to understand where they are coming from, what their background is and what they have been through. At the end of the day, it is all about compassion and trying to understand where another person is coming from and putting ourselves in their place.

As a performer and professional actor for 30-odd years and now as a parliamentarian for 11 years, I have to say that being a performer was very good training for being a politician, and not for the reasons some people would think, such as that we can pretend and put on a stony face. It is because we can feel compassion for others. I think that is an important part of this job.

I am very glad the bill has been introduced and is hopefully going to be passed. The bill would also provide a flexible approach to regulation, allowing the CRTC to tailor the conditions of service and other regulatory requirements imposed on broadcasters, taking into account the act's policy and regulatory objectives, the variety of broadcasters in the system and the differences between them, and determining what is fair and equitable depending on the circumstances.

With that, I believe my time is up. I would like to express a merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and safe travels to all of my colleagues and everyone across Canada. May everyone's families be safe. Remember to love one another because, in the end, all there is is love.

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

Business of the House

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

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

It is important for me to inform the House and the thousands of Canadians who are waiting to find out what we will be debating this week. Without further delay and so as not to make them wait, I will tell my colleague right away.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-10, the Broadcasting Act.

In the event that we finish debating Bill C-10, we will then give priority to the following two bills: Bill C-12 on net-zero emissions and Bill C-13 on sports betting.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity afforded to me by my colleague's question to thank you and your colleagues in the chair.

I also want to thank my colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, and our Bloc Québécois and NDP counterparts and their teams.

I want to thank the table officers, who do extraordinary work, all of the teams, and the pages who are patient enough to work with us every day and kind enough to always smile while doing so. I also want to thank the whips and their teams.

Finally, I want to thank all members for this very different session. It has not always been easy but, together, we were able to do a lot for the good of all Canadians.

Broadcasting Act

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague.

Bill C-10 is a direct response from artists, musicians, independent producers and technicians in the arts and culture sector in Canada. They are saying that we are losing our cultural sovereignty. What the member said is true. A number of productions are happening in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Manitoba, but these are service productions with American stories being told. They are telling us that we losing our cultural sovereignty, and I think the Conservative Party recognizes that.

In fact, a few days ago, the Conservative MPs for Lakeland, Portage—Lisgar and Peace River—Westlock all said that government needed to intervene to regulate online platforms. However, the minute we try to do something and the first attempt we make at doing that, they say we are trying to take away free speech.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that levelling the playing field and taxing web giants is the purview of the Minister of Finance, which is why the Minister of Finance, in the fall economic statement, said that we would be taxing web giants.

With respect to Bill C-10, which was presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I would say, perhaps echoing colleagues from the Conservative Party, that it is high time we modernize the Broadcasting Act. I wonder why this colleague is suggesting that we should delay it further by doing more consultations. We have consulted extensively with the broadcasting sector, content providers and the culture industry here in Canada.

Unlike the Conservatives, who did not modernize the Broadcasting Act when they were in power for 10 years, we are proposing to do that now. It is 2020, and it is time to move forward. Would the member opposite agree?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, how does one follow on the comments made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands? I congratulate her relative for getting a role in Star Trek: Discovery. I am sure there are a lot of Trekkies out there who appreciate that and will watch with bated breath to see who she is portraying.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House today to join in the discussion of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

As the member for Abbotsford put on the table, there are some fundamental flaws with it, one of which relates to the Governor in Council. When we go through the bill, one thing that jumps out right away is the power the Governor in Council will have. There would be a lot of power situated in the minister's office and cabinet when it comes to making decisions regarding Canadian content and broadcasting services, and that is a fundamental flaw in the bill.

What also pops out when reading the bill is the pretty broad definition of “online business”. I think that is what people were looking for.

Another issue my constituents have brought forward to me, which we will have time to talk about more, is the issue of giving more power to the CRTC. When we talk about the availability of online services, broadcasting and the news, most Canadians would like to see less power in the Ottawa bubble and the CRTC and more power throughout the country, as people would like to have more options.

I agree, and I think many members of the House would agree, that waiting 28 years to update a bill is a substantial length of time. The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry mentioned he was three years old when this act was introduced, and he talked about some of the great music then. Times have changed, and a lot of conversations need to be had now about how we are going to do business using online services with Facebook and Netflix.

What are we going to do? How are we going to do it? The members across the way have talked about what taxes should look like for very big corporations, and the member for Abbotsford brought it up very well when he said that when businesses come to Canada they expect to be treated fairly. That is something we need to keep in mind when we are looking at this legislation.

We talked about having Canadian content and making sure there is a level playing field when it comes to news services. I think the other issue we need to talk about is how smaller online businesses and news services are competing with the bigger online services. That needs to be levelled as well.

Some smaller businesses are trying to compete against taxpayer dollars. The member for Barrie—Innisfil said, very correctly, that some of these small local publications are trying to compete with the CBC online, and the CBC has a good online paper. The member for Saskatoon—Grasswood talked about how it just updated its online presence, which is wonderful, but that online presence is now competing with smaller online papers. It is very hard for them to compete, because they do not have the resources that bigger companies like CBC, CTV or Global have. We need to take that into consideration as well when we are looking at how we will be able to ensure that smaller publications have the ability to compete. A lot of Canadians across the country want to see competition in the online broadcasting field and the ability to have more selection and options when looking at online news and broadcasting.

We also need to have a discussion about how we are going to ensure there is correct information online. That conversation is important in this day and age. Some of the members across the way have brought up fake news, or whatever they like to call it, but I think it is also incumbent upon us to make sure we hold ourselves to a higher level of decorum in the House when debating bills. Let us not bring up issues that are not related to Bill C-10, nor have personal attacks back and forth during these speeches. That is below parliamentarians and below the level that our constituents expect from us. We need a higher level of discourse in this chamber.

I expect that to continue and expect us to raise the bar of decorum in the House to ensure that when we have debates about important legislation, we stick to the facts and the debate at hand. We must leave personal and partisan feelings away from the table when we have these conversations. I will do my best to ensure that there is good decorum in this chamber whenever I am on my feet to talk about important bills.

When we have conversations on Bill C-10, possible situations could arise that are interesting. The long-awaited legislation is the result of the Yale report on the framework for communications in Canada tabled in February 2020. The 97 recommendations of the report deal with social media, copyright, taxation of web giants and advertising fees to ensure the sustainability of traditional media. Bill C-10 is limited to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, which essentially consists of introducing, as I said earlier, a very broad definition of online business, broadcasting cultural content and giving the CRTC broad discretion to regulate them where it does require a percentage of Canadian content, requires financial contributions and imposes fines to investigate compliance.

There are a lot of recommendations from the Yale report, which Bill C-10 is based on, that have not been implemented, and I think we should take some time to step back. That is why on this side we think Bill C-10 misses the mark in a few areas, especially regarding centralizing the discretion within the CRTC and within the Minister of Canadian Heritage's office, which we think is a big concern. Many of my colleagues have talked about that concern. We need to ensure there are broader consultations about where Canadians would like to see the ability to regulate and where our online business and our broadcasting ideas would come from.

We want more news available, and we want Canadian content within our broadcasting. However, the bill misses the mark on creating some fairness within the broadcasting sector and ensuring that we have space for smaller and start-up publications. There are a couple back home I can think of that would be hurt from not having a level playing field when starting up and competing with the larger companies, such as CBC, Global and CTV. They need to start with an online presence, because that helps.

I know, as do the young staff in my office, that there are not a lot of newspapers in the office anymore. We have our phones and PressReader, and we get much of our information from online sources.

I know the Regina Leader Post and The Star Phoenix have dropping publication numbers in Saskatchewan. They are working hard to make sure they have a large online presence because they realize that more and more people are getting their news from websites and through online services.

We need to allow for room in online businesses so they have the ability to compete. It is not as fair at this point as we would like to see it, and we wish there would have been the ability within Bill C-10 to create a more level playing field.

When it comes to online services, companies such as Netflix and Facebook should pay their fair share, as my colleagues across the way like to say. I think that is a good point, but they need to have certainty so that before they come to Canada, they know what the taxes or fees are going to be when they bring their businesses to Canada. Without certainty, it is very hard to attract new businesses and new tech companies to Canada if they do not know what the fees will be.

Given the uncertainty reasons and the power that is going to be situated within the CRTC and the minister's office, we have issues and concerns. That is why we will not be supporting this piece of legislation at this time.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a good point, and it is another one of the major flaws in this legislation and why the Conservatives cannot support it.

I do not know if he and the NDP will be supporting it, but the reality is that when we walk through Bill C-10 step by step, we see flaw after flaw. We could have done much better. Unfortunately, the bill is fundamentally flawed, which is why the Conservatives will not support it, but it is time to review our broadcasting environment in Canada and introduce fairness onto the playing field.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate, which really does affect Canadian culture, how we see ourselves in the global marketplace and our identity as Canadians.

The Broadcasting Act has not been renewed or reviewed for 28 years, so it is time that we get this done. The problem is that, as is so typical with the Liberal government, it has brought forward legislation that is so deeply flawed that we, as Conservatives in the House who want to get it right, just cannot support it. I am going to go through some of those flaws, because they are significant, but the reason we are even talking about reviewing the Broadcasting Act is because the whole environment in which broadcasting takes place has changed.

We have moved from an environment in which digital forms of communication were mostly unknown to an environment in which we have digital platforms that are, in fact, challenging the role of conventional broadcasters in Canada. We have to get this right, because there is a lot at stake. What is at stake is Canadian content and making sure that we, as Canadians, see ourselves in the products we see on television, on streaming services and in the movies. It is also important that we recognize that there are individuals and companies within Canada that are producing content, really good and in most cases Canadian content, that are actually not being reimbursed and compensated for that content.

I will start by highlighting that this bill, and this is one of the positives in it, will effectively add online businesses to our broadcasting regime. This is to make sure that we capture everything that is happening online of a broadcasting nature, and we include it in the regulations and the legislative regimes that we put in place. We do not want conventional broadcasters, which already operate within a set of rules, to be placed at a disadvantage when we have a whole set of other online content providers that operate either under a different set of rules or, in most cases, in the absence of rules. We want to get this right.

One of the challenges of this bill is that it does not address the monetization of content on some of the largest online content providers, the Facebooks and the Googles of the world. Recently, I met with Ken Goudswaard and Carly Ferguson from the Abbotsford News, our local newspaper. It is an excellent newspaper focused on the local issues that matter to our residents.

I met with them and the first thing they raised with me was the Broadcasting Act and the fact that they operate in an environment where the big players, such as Facebook and Google, take advantage of them. I asked how that happens, although I had an inkling of what they were going to say. They said they are producing 100% Canadian content within our community, the city of Abbotsford. They are the ones who pay the reporters, the layout people and everybody else who works in the newspaper office. They are the ones who pay for all of it. They then put that content online, and Facebook and Google get to then advertise off of that content without compensating the Abbotsford News for any of it. It is, in fact, a freebie.

These are the largest corporations in the world. They are also among the most profitable corporations in the world. They are not sharing their wealth and the income that our local content producers rightfully deserve. That is one of the failings of this legislation. It does not adequately address that challenge.

To Ken and to Carly, I say I am advocating for them. We Conservatives are advocating for them in the House. We want to make sure that those who deliver content, Canadian content, in Canada are also properly compensated for it, and that others do not get rich off their backs.

One of the other considerations is that the bill has a lack of clarity when it comes to the powers that would be granted to the CRTC. My colleague rightfully raised this challenge earlier in that much of the decision-making is vested in the Governor in Council. For Canadians who are wondering who the Governor in Council is, it is effectively the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the cabinet, who can simply, by fiat, say that this is what we are going to do and this is how much will be committed to Canadian content.

As members know, in Canada our broadcasters have to invest in Canadian content. They have no choice. We want to make sure that we, as Canadians, see ourselves in the products of online content, as well as in our broadcast media. They are committed to taking anywhere from 25% to 40% of their content and ensuring that it is Canadian. They also have to contribute 5% to the Canada Media Fund, which is a separate fund that helps Canadian content producers deliver Canadian content in a way that does not bankrupt them.

These support mechanisms are in place for Canadian broadcasters, the conventional broadcasters, but we have this whole other realm of content producers and content streaming services, the online platforms that are not part of that broadcasting regime. We want to make sure that they also play by the same set of rules that our domestic broadcasters have to play by.

Unfortunately, the powers to direct this are vested in the cabinet and the CRTC, but those powers are not clear on exactly what kind of requirements would be imposed upon our online streaming services when they deliver content to Canadians. There is no certainty, and if I were someone who was leading one of these streaming services, I would think that, until I had clarity from the Canadian authorities as to exactly how much I had to invest in Canadian content and how much it was going to cost me, I would probably hold off on any further investments, and that is not good for Canada.

To their credit, companies such as Netflix, Crave and Amazon Prime and others like them do invest in Canadian content already, but they are not subject to the same rules as our Canadian broadcasters and content providers, and that needs to change. What we are doing is levelling the playing field. Unfortunately, we do not know what the rules are for that level playing field.

Effectively, the government is saying to trust it. When have we heard that before from the Prime Minister? The irony here is that we have a Liberal government that is bringing forward Bill C-10 with changes to the Broadcasting Act that are supposed to enhance Canadian content. This is to drive home the fact that we are Canadian, we have a Canadian identity and we want to see ourselves in that content.

However, this is the same Prime Minister who publicly said that Canada has no core identity. Do members remember when he said that? We have no core identity but we want Canadian content. Members can see that there are so many flaws in this proposed legislation. Step by step, we need to deal with the Broadcasting Act in a manner that actually delivers exactly what Canadians need.

The last point I will make is that there is no reference at all to taxing the big boys. The Facebooks and Googles of this world are still not paying taxes in Canada. Are Netflix, Crave, Amazon Prime, Spotify and the others paying taxes in Canada? No, but they are driving major revenue growth from delivering their content here in Canada.

This is all about fairness. Bill C-10 does not deliver fairness, and for that reason we, as Conservatives, will be voting against the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke at length about local content, but also about the media and journalism. The NDP is quite disappointed with the current bill. We hope we can improve it by amending it in committee.

Right now, many websites like Bing, MSN and Yahoo rebroadcast news content created by others, but they do not pay for the content. Unfortunately, Bill C-10 does absolutely nothing to force these web giants to pay for content created by real journalists.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the context of Bill C-10, I am not even going to dignify that with an answer.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

And the King of Kensington part, too.

Madam Speaker, we have some concerns with the legislation. There are some good things, like all pieces of legislation, but there are certainly things that provide some inequity that need to be addressed. There have been numerous studies done over the years about upgrading the Broadcasting Act.

In fact, just recently there was a recommendation from the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review, which published a report in 2020. It was appointed a few years ago, and its purpose was to look at the key pieces of legislation that govern our communications sector. In that report, there were 97 recommendations based on the objectives of supporting the creation, production and discoverability of Canadian content, and improving the rights of the digital consumer, amongst other things.

In the report, it spoke specifically, and of course Bill C-10 speaks specifically, to online platforms. It speaks to financial contributions by broadcasters and online undertakings, and an update to Canada's broadcasting and regulation policy. It also gives the CRTC increasing powers.

For us, that is probably one of the most concerning parts of the bill, among some others, the fact that it can impose an administrative monetary policy for violations of certain provisions of the act, such as contraventions of regulations or orders made under the act, broadcasting when prohibited to do so and failing to submit information. There are numerous things that the CRTC will gain power on with respect to this. It also provides for oversight of the Canadian broadcasting landscape.

There are things within the bill that definitely need to be worked on. Here is one of the things that the bill does not address, and I want to spend a considerable amount of time on this. Recently I had the opportunity to meet with Metroland newspapers, which is part of the Torstar group. They were advocating on behalf of online digital content.

As members know, the inequity that is created, the disparity of online digital content is significant for those content producers. Oftentimes many of those stories will end up on Facebook or even Google, and a lot of the ad revenue that is being created does not go back to the content providers. That means there has been a significant change in the landscape of digital content in this country as a result of players like Facebook and Google. Facebook and Google profit significantly from that content that is being provided, but those content producers do not. It is causing a significant problem.

In meeting with Metroland, Shaun and Elise brought to my attention some of those concerns. My hope is, and I am writing a letter in support of their ask, that some of what they are suggesting to level the playing field is actually adopted by the government fairly soon. What the bill would not do is address the concerns of the digital content providers.

Their concern, of course, is preserving a functioning journalism industry. They said at the time that citizens around the globe are demanding high-quality journalism and investigative reporting. Nonetheless, the ability of news publishers to continue providing such critical information is under threat by the market power and preferential regulatory treatment of dominant platforms in digital information. Democratic governments are recognizing market failures in the market for news, and they are now working to implement policies to address them.

Just the other day, I was in a conference Zoom call with the new owners of Torstar, who own Metroland Media. Overwhelmingly, the consensus of the community leaders who were on that call spoke about the role of journalism, the role of truth and the role of providing balance, particularly in the case of local journalism. We had quite an interesting discussion about that because, as we see the evolution of social media platforms, there is a level of disinformation. Therefore, it comes back to a matter of trust in the content being provided by these digital producers.

France, Spain, the U.K. and Australia have already passed regulations. In fact, I am told that just today Australia passed legislation to level the playing field. Again, in the context of Bill C-10, none of this is addressed in this piece of legislation. What the Australian legislation is designed to do is to reduce the effects of the platforms' market power and to restore balance and fairness in the market for digital advertising and digital news distribution, which is exactly what I heard from Metroland representatives when I met with them.

Other countries, including the U.S., are now analyzing how the market is dominated through those digital platforms, and they are developing regulatory reforms and legislation and beginning antitrust proceedings to rectify the platforms' market dominance. The hope is to continue that discussion here in Canada and end up with either regulation or legislation that solves that inequity in the country. When many of our allies, and I do not mean that in a war context but in regard to the countries that we are aligned with digitally, are engaging in that process, we need to start doing that as a country as well.

Consumer demand for news obviously remains high, not just in the local and national content but also digital content. That speaks to the need for more credible and professional news as a result of that increased demand. There was a time when there was no social media, obviously, and as Canadians we received our news from reputable sources and reputable news people. There is an online demand for that news to continue, but in some cases it is not indicative of what is important or what is factual in a lot of cases.

Therefore, supporting that level playing field for the digital content and the producers of it becomes critical in protecting the truth, and that is what the Metroland representatives are talking about. They are, in their words, approaching market failure because of the inequity that is happening. They reminded me that market failure occurs when participants in a market do not produce an economically and socially optimal outcome because of non-market factors. Examples might be the inclusion of regulatory barriers to enter or market power.

Market failures can take several forms and several of them are applicable to the market for digital ads and news in Canada. The most pressing failure that they indicated was the result of the market power of both Google and Facebook, which I referenced earlier. Google and Facebook, they say, are in an effective duopoly over the market for digital advertising in Canada and its peer nations. Those platforms have segmented the market between search, which is Google, and Facebook for social media, which limits the direct competition between the two.

I know I have spent a lot of time on levelling the digital playing field in support of local content producers, but the concern that I have and the hope that I have is that the government will recognize this inequity and will work toward regulation or legislation that allows for these local content producers and the individuals who work for them to be paid fairly, not just from a monetary standpoint in terms of income but also from advertising as well, because that becomes important to the viability, the sustainability and the legitimacy of the news business in this country, going forward.

I would be glad to answer any questions.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of modernizing the Broadcasting Act given the rapid and staggering evolution of information and communications technology.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C-10 is designed to really reflect and make room for the perspectives of indigenous peoples, Quebeckers, racialized communities and various other ethnocultural communities?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to speak at second reading stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Let me begin by saying that we have some serious reservations about this bill. I will have the chance to talk later in greater detail about the major powers being given to the CRTC, the lack of definition on certain important issues, as well as the fact that it does not fix essential problems that directly affect the broadcast of information and the current more modern context of web giants and social media. I will also come back to the lack of consideration given to French in this new legislation, which was surprising and disappointing coming from the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

First, let's be clear. It goes without saying that we are in favour of reviewing the Broadcasting Act. The last review occurred 28 years ago. The Internet was available on some university campuses and in some spheres such as the Department of National Defence, but it was not part of our daily lives like it is now.

Twenty-eight years ago, anyone who knew a little English may have known what the word “Google” referred to, but that was about it. If, 28 years ago, we had mentioned Facebook to our children, neighbours or friends, they would have given us a weird look and asked what we were talking about. It makes sense, then, for the Broadcasting Act to be reviewed after 28 years.

However, it is disappointing to see that the government is not going deeper on important issues like the web giants and social media platforms. That is disappointing, because we are already going through the bill 28 years later, so we might as well do it right and not put off regulating certain issues, like these ones in particular.

Now, 28 years later, the Broadcasting Act is in need of updating, meaning that it needs to be reviewed and then amended. Furthermore, the Conservatives agree on the principle of fairness regarding the web giants and social media platforms. We need to ensure that people who pay for and use these online services and people who pay for and use so-called traditional services, such as cable, are treated the same way. We need to ensure this process is fair and that taxes are collected fairly.

We are guided by these two principles: The Broadcasting Act must be reviewed and we must address the new realities and respect the principle of fairness. I will now speak to the matters that concern us.

First, let us talk about the French language. Even though the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I may have serious differences of opinion on certain matters, I am in complete agreement with him on one thing: the importance of French. At our request, the House had a take-note debate on this and the minister asked us out of the love we all have for the French language, to defend it and preserve it in Canada. This applies in particular to Montreal where, by its very nature and the fact that there are seven to eight million francophones in a sea of almost 350 million anglophones in North America, it is only natural that French be deemed worthy of always being preserved.

If ever there were a vehicle to help protect the French language, goodness knows it would be broadcasting, the web and communications, and yet, French is somewhat neglected in this bill, which is disappointing. French is specifically mentioned twice in this bill. Before reading it out, however, I will put on my glasses, because no matter how much I speak, I still need to know how to read, and if I am going to read, I might as well read properly. I am 56 years old and I fully accept what that entails. I have white hair, I have wrinkles, and that also comes with glasses. I am going to stop talking nonsense and get serious again.

The one and only measure to improve the place of French can be found in the proposed amended version of paragraph 3(1)(k) of the act, which states that “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians” as resources become available. That wording is nothing more than wishful thinking, although the government boasts that it is doing everything it can to protect the French language. It can hardly be said in this case that it is written in black and white and backed by concrete actions.

We think this situation is unacceptable, and it represents a far too vague approach to protecting French.

This is no small thing, given that the debate on the importance of French is currently under way in Quebec and Canada and we are waiting for this government to finally introduce a new version of the Official Languages Act. Rather than honouring and respecting its commitments under the act, the government has decided to publish a white paper. We know what a white paper is: When we read it, there are only blank pages, because it does not propose any concrete measures on the subject at hand.

We would have liked this bill to have a little more muscle. Unfortunately, it is not what we expected. However, we acknowledge and applaud the fact that there are proactive measures regarding indigenous people, racialized individuals and members of the LGBTQ2 community. We agree with all of that.

However, we believe that French would have been entitled to the same attention that was given to indigenous communities. For the benefit of members who might not know my story, in 1984, I started my radio career at CIHW-FM 100.3, in Wendake, so I am fully aware of the importance of radio and broadcasting for indigenous communities.

Therefore, we believe that this does not solve the issue of social media and web giants. Quite frankly, we would have expected some basic guidelines, frameworks and fairness with respect to social media and web giants.

As I said at the outset, and everyone recognizes this, 28 years ago, when someone talked about “the web”, you had to know a little bit of English to know that they were referring to an actual web. The word was not commonly understood in everyday speech. So while the Broadcasting Act needs to be refreshed, the government needs to directly address the issue of social media and web giants.

In this case, we do not feel that this bill resolves the major problems this new reality created. It goes without saying that we agree on what is happening. We have to pay attention and not fool ourselves. We are in no way suggesting that this reality does not exist. We are not against it. It exists, and all we have to do is regulate things properly.

Often, the best regulations are those that create an equitable framework that allows and protects freedom of expression. The rules must apply to each and every one of us. We must not create two classes of news media where some broadcasters have certain obligations while others, like online outlets, are subject to different kinds of regulations. Fairness is important here, but unfortunately, the government came up short in that department.

Earlier, I was talking about the CRTC's inherent powers. We have very serious reservations about that because it gives the CRTC considerable discretionary authority to define what constitutes an online enterprise and to force such enterprises to spend money producing and broadcasting Canadian content.

Of course, we recognize that the CRTC has a role to play in making sure that everything is done properly, but the way the current bill is drafted, we think it has been given far too much power. We have nothing against the CRTC, but if you give the CRTC all the powers, you have to give it the means to do what it wants to do. Also, this provides a structure that means that it takes a long time before results can be implemented. As a result, the common good is not very well served in all of this.

Following this second stage of the bill, a parliamentary committee will study it and propose amendments. Our critic in this area will make proposals to move in the direction we are interested in, which is to freshen up the Broadcasting Act.

We are obviously in favour of fairness, but these two elements still need to be included in the bill. That is not quite what we are seeing right now. We hope that the improvements and amendments that we will bring forward in committee will be accepted by the government.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I was surprised when the hon. member referenced the FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting, as that organization's strongest criticism of Bill C-10 was its failure to provide long-term sustainable funding and a path forward for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I was under the impression that the party to which the hon. member belongs was not in favour of expanding CBC funding or of better supporting our public broadcaster.

I would like to ask the member's opinion, and if he is in fact supporting the demands of FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Broadcasting Act is absolutely outdated, and we are trying to move forward so that everyone who benefits from the broadcasting ecosystem can contribute to the production of Canadian or Quebec content.

Bill C-10 is a step forward. However, it completely ignores social media that broadcast content, such as YouTube. I therefore think we need to expand the definition of broadcaster, because if it takes another 30 years to review this new legislation, which is how long it took to review the old one, it will be important to ensure that, regardless of the broadcaster, we can bring everyone who benefits from culture around the same table, so they can contribute financially to producing that culture.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I am a very firm proponent for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but after hearing my colleague's comments on Bill C-10, I believe him to be of the view that there should be very limited regulation on the part of the government with respect to the information that is disseminated on the Internet through web giants, as he describes them.

I would ask him if he believes there should be some role for government to play with respect to regulating information that appears online, for example, anti-vaccine campaigns or other information that is not based on science.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-10. To quote the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the official background documents for the legislation, it states unequivocally:

Canadians have a right to recognize themselves in the music they listen to and the television they watch. We are proposing major changes to the Broadcasting Act in order to ensure online broadcasting services that operate in Canada contribute to the creation, production and distribution of Canadian stories.

I share the minister's support of Canadian music, movies and television, or as I will call it throughout this speech, CanCon. However, the bill may do exactly the opposite of supporting CanCon. It is not about the intent of a bill but about the reality, and I believe we will all see room for some serious concerns on this issue during my talk today.

I would like to point out that notwithstanding any criticisms I make, changes need to be made to rules surrounding production and creation of CanCon. We need to revisit the content qualification rules that specify whether something is Canadian. We heard a great example in the speech just prior to mine about a production in Quebec that did not qualify as CanCon even though it was produced in Canada and told Canadian stories.

There is a real need to look at these thresholds. However, when we dig deeper into what is being proposed by the minister, his commentary about wanting to licence Canadian Internet content producers, the realities of digital content creation and the big tech corporations that dominate the media landscape today, it becomes apparent to me that the bill has serious shortcomings. The bill may lay the foundation in the future for a series of government interventions that have the potential to damage the creative and innovative Canadian media producers in the digital field.

On November 3, the day the legislation was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, several Canadian media experts spoke out publicly against Bill C-10.

An article published in The Globe and Mail, for example, entitled “Broadcasting bill targets online streaming services”, mentions digital media expert and University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist. I have enjoyed reading his daily blog posts on this issue. It is very informative. He said that the policy foundation behind Bill C-10 was very weak and that the government's claims that the Canadian film and television production industry was in crisis was not supported by evidence.

Mr. Geist said, “The truth is that the market has been working...well as Canada being an attractive place to invest in these areas.” He further stated that what was actually at risk was that some of the largest investors in film and television production would pull back until they had more certainty on their obligation and that new services would think twice before entering the Canadian market.

Perhaps more concerning for the government is that in that same news article, the well-known advocacy group, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, which specifically promote Canadian content, called the bill “a mess that fails to ensure the companies are subject to specific requirements for using Canadian production teams.”

I am personally concerned by the fact that the legislation does, as mentioned by the member prior to me in his speech, give a vastly enhanced range of abilities to the CRTC. For example, it grants it full enforcement powers, while at the same time providing no fulsome detail as to the guidelines for Canadian content production and future contributions to the Canadian media fund.

Despite asking MPs to vote in support of the legislation, it is hard to shake the fact that the lack of details creates a situation where we have to trust the government and see the details later. We should all find that problematic.

To go back to some comments made by Mr. Geist, the law professor in Ottawa, the primary concern to examine, in his view, is that the policy foundation for the bill is weak. He has stated that CanCon is not in crisis and the level playing field claims are misleading. The example of the CanCon production here is relevant. The minister has acknowledged that foreign-based streaming companies are investing directly into Canada, but the minister wishes to compel such investments to be made mandatory.

In the words of Mr. Geist, this indicates a lack of confidence in our ability to compete and in fact flies in the face of all the evidence. Just hear me out here.

The CRTC chair, Ian Scott, has already said that Netflix is probably the biggest single contributor to the Canadian production sector today. The Canadian media industry has received record amounts of investment for film and television production. Over the last decade, investment levels have nearly doubled. Certified Canadian content has grown, with two of the largest years on record for CanCon television production having taken place within the last three calendar years. Last year was the biggest year for French language production over the last decade.

When we dig down into the available provincial data, we will find further evidence of production levels setting new records. Earlier this year, the Ontario government's agency for cultural creations, called Ontario Creates, announced that it had a record-breaking year for Ontario's film and television sector, with more than $2 billion in production spending for well over 300 productions.

Professor Dwayne Winseck at Carleton University is on record. In his annual review, he finds film and television production in Canada has continuously increased for two decades, most recently driven by massive investments from streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime.

These facts and figures show that the basis for which the minister claims Bill C-10 is necessary are actually contrary to reality and once again raises the issue of the unintended consequences of interfering in the wrong way in this sphere.

The second issue noted by Mr. Geist is that as opposed to creating certainty, the bill would create enormous short-term uncertainty. For those companies that do invest, they may not know if their investments will count.

I suspect that Amazon, Netflix and these types of companies will keep investing regardless of whether the bill is passed or not. However, many smaller streaming services, BritBox, Spuul, Crunchyroll, are not household names, but are among dozens of streaming services that have emerged in recent years to serve a global audience. Unless the CRTC provides specific exemptions for these niche services, many are likely to forgo the Canadian market entirely, given all the new regulatory costs. Many multicultural markets will be especially hard hit by what will amount to, by the bill, a regulatory firewall in Canada.

Another very interesting point that has been raised by certain critics is the topic of trade threats and retaliatory tariffs. This concern should be on all of our radar screens. According to Mr. Geist, in this case, Bill C-10 violates the general standards in the USMCA. The government is relying on the cultural exemption to allow for this, yet even with the exemption, the U.S. will still be entitled to levy retaliatory tariffs.

Given the claims by the minister that this will generate billions of dollars in financial benefit for the industry, the retaliatory tariffs could be enormous and given the reworked structure of the USMCA, the tariffs the U.S. launches against Canada need not be limited to cultural tariffs. It could target any sector it likes. This is a potential concern that needs to be examined.

The legislation is likely to result in less competition and higher costs. If we generate large revenues, we will face mandated CanCon payment requirements that make no sense given the content. If we stay small, we will still have to comply with disclosure requirements that have no real incentive to grow past the threshold. That is assuming we see an actual threshold as none was listed in this legislation. This will result in less competition and less choice for the Canadian market.

I believe that the Netflixes and the Amazons will continue to invest, but as I mentioned earlier, some of the start-up companies that have specialized content, maybe multicultural content, will not know whether to invest in Canada or not because of the uncertainty around the bill. This will lead to a scenario where they will just avoid investing in Canada. We need to think about what this mean for the future of Canadian content.

My view is that the bill is not protecting Canadian sovereignty. The legislation basically surrenders it to the Internet giants. Therefore, they will keep investing here, but I do not know if it opens up the ability for some of these other start-ups to do so. They will become the dominant funders and purchasers of Canadian content. Canadian broadcasters may not be able to compete for Canadian content, given the desire of the giants to meet their CRTC obligations. This would force big decisions to Amazon and Netflix and leave Canadian broadcasters and smaller streaming services on the outside looking in.

I would ask all of us here to heed the warnings of different experts who have raised valid concerns, whether they be trade or investment related, and let us take a look at amending the bill in a way that will answer those concerns.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find myself saying this too much when we have these debates, but I agree with the member for Timmins—James Bay. I cannot believe I am saying this, that we have some agreement on the frustrations.

I go back to the member's point about kicking the can over to the CRTC. Parliament needs to be more active in the promotion of Canadian content and in the regulation of this. I agree with him when we talks about the giant tech companies like Facebook and Google.

The frank reality is that we need to have more tough conversations about these companies and what they are doing. We can talk about MindGeek and Pornhub and what they are not doing from a perspective of revenue and contribution to our Canadian economy, but also from a public safety perspective.

I was horrified to see a story in the last few days, I think it was in The New York Times. It talked about MindGeek and the lack of protections. In the year 2020, for all the advancements we have made in online broadcasting and technology, to still have these gaps from a tax perspective, a government perspective, a privacy perspective and safety against children from being victims of sex trafficking, sex crimes perspective, whatever it may be, says a lot.

I will go back to the same thing about Bill C-10. It does very little to actually resolve the key issues that Canadians want to see addressed.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to and give some thoughts on Bill C-10, which makes amendments to the Broadcasting Act with respect to changes the government is proposing.

As a parliamentarian, when I first learned of the legislation and began doing research on it, I realized it is important to give some context as to why this act requires amendments. It is 29 years old. To give some context as to what was happening in the broadcasting and entertainment industry back in the day, I was three years old. I do not remember when the original Broadcasting Act came into force in the Parliament of Canada very well. Bryan Adams was topping the charts, and the relevant music was by Paula Abdul and Boys II Men. I am not denying it was great music, just a little older. It was six prime ministers ago.

Three decades later, I think there is consensus among the parties in the House that we need to tackle this legislation and make updates to reflect the reality we are in today. The bill proposes to update a huge part of what was not there in 1991 regarding Internet and social networks. Today, if we go through the list, we have Facebook, Google, Netflix, Crave, Spotify and Apple Music. All these online platforms are new to the rules the federal government must regulate around. They are not the same as the conventional players we had when this act was enacted back in 1991. It is key that we find a balance between conventional media and the new online platforms we have around today.

Having said that, I am disappointed with the government side and not very happy with or supportive of the legislation as it stands today, not necessarily because of the direction it takes regarding some angles, but the lack of direction and answers we are getting on this.

Like many pieces of legislation, I would say there are parts I support and parts that I oppose. There are far too many I am not satisfied with, that would need serious amendments for me to support it in the end. I want to be clear when I say that. The frustration I am sharing regarding Bill C-10 is not because I do not believe we need or do not need to modernize the law; rather it is because of the many shortcomings I am hoping to address in my time here today.

I want to commend our shadow minister, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who kicked off the debate on this legislation. As a Quebecker, a Canadian and a francophone, he gave some great context about the importance of getting this legislation right.

In my time today, I want to talk about two things. One is Canadian content. Of course we all want more Canadian content. I also want to talk about the aspect of conventional broadcasters to give my constituents of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry who are watching this clip, or Canadians who may not be familiar with this legislation, the rules and background around it.

There is a rule for conventional broadcasters in this country that anywhere between 25% to 40% of their content must be Canadian. When we talk about conventional broadcasters, it is important to understand who they are. We are talking about CTV, Citytv, CBC and Global. Those companies have an easier time of meeting the requirement for Canadian content because they broadcast sports and have news programming. They also have to contribute a percentage of funds to the Canada Media Fund, which supports the production of Canadian content in this country. As parliamentarians, the challenge we face is that we need to debate and have good legislation on where these online platforms fit into that. Netflix has talked about wanting to create more Canadian content, but it is concerned, and this is where we get into a bit of red tape, that it is harder for it to meet that threshold because it does not have the sports and news programming a conventional broadcaster does.

Here is the crazy part and where the red tape is outdated and needs updating. My colleague, the shadow minister, mentionedThe Decline in his speech, a Quebec feature film that was done in partnership with Netflix, and I believe was filmed in his riding. It used Canadian actors, had a Canadian crew and was filmed in Quebec. The economic impact was that it brought over $5 million in economic growth to the province of Quebec. It checks all the boxes, except it could not be certified as Canadian content because it was financed and produced by Netflix, which is not recognized.

This speaks to where we literally have millions of dollars in economic development and a film based in Quebec with Canadian actors that cannot get recognized with some of the red tape and rules that are in place today. Netflix is trying to make an effort, but cannot get there. One would think that, when we talk about updating Bill C-10 and modernizing some of these laws, it would encompass some of those areas. Unfortunately, from what we have seen to date, without serious amendment, I do not believe it is there.

One of the concerns we have with the legislation before us is that, for a lot of these parts, it would kick the can down the road on a lot of these decisions, saying that there is the intention to do something but will let the CRTC come up with the rules, regulations and deadlines on it. However, as a Parliament, I believe it may be our role to set those benchmarks. As well, there are provisions in the bill that would take away Parliament's ability to scrutinize some of these decisions and give that ability over to the CRTC.

To my colleagues on the government side or any party that, when my constituents ask me what I did to support Canadian content and the industry in Canada, if I were to say that I supported a bill that passed it over to the CRTC to deal with, I do not think they would be very happy with that.

I apologize in advance to the interpretation team because I am still in the process of learning French.

I am an anglophone from the very anglophone Dundas County, where there is not a lot of French-language content. There is a little in the Township of North Dundas and Dundas County.

Nevertheless, I feel that French-language content is very important, and not just for people living in Quebec or for francophones, but for all Canadians. Canada needs lots of French-language content for people like me who want to study a second language, as well as for people who want to get to know French and francophone cultures.

A law like this would mean we would have to pass even more laws. I do not think this law is acceptable because it is not nearly good enough.

One thing we need to do is send Bill C-10 to committee. As we debate the bill in the coming weeks and months, likely with the Christmas recess coming up, I would encourage my colleagues on the government side and perhaps other parties that may be inclined to support the bill to make sure that we are modernizing, that we do not have a piece of legislation to say that we checked a box to make amendments to the Broadcasting Act, but rather have tangible, meaningful ways that update conventional broadcasters in the online industry.

We can all agree that we need modernization of this law. We can agree that we need to have more online platforms, get with the times and understand what is there. However, this legislation as a whole would kick the can down the road and would not address a lot of the key issues that Canadians expect with legislation such as this.

I am supportive of more francophone and French content, LGBT content and first nations content, absolutely, but it is our Parliament with the oversight that we deserve here to hold the government of today and future governments accountable to those rules. We can go back to our constituents to say that we are doing meaningful things, not passing it to another body and not reducing transparency, but making it stronger than ever.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10 today. I look forward to following the debate in the coming months and, as always, I look forward to questions from my colleagues on the legislation.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Justice

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, we intend to introduce these regulations as early as the beginning of the session in 2021, and we have already started tackling online platforms. I tabled Bill C-10 just a few weeks ago.

I hope Conservative Party members will vote in favour of the bill to start tackling online platforms. I hope they will also vote for the bill that we will be bringing forward to tackle online hate and child pornography.

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?

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

He clearly pointed out that Canadians and communities that are racialized or diverse, have a certain economic status or have disabilities should also be included in Bill C-10.

Why does this bill not make more reference to the linguistic minority, in this case the francophones who live all across the country, especially in Quebec, of course, but also in other parts of Canada? Does he believe that these groups should have greater prominence in this bill?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House today from my riding in Toronto on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-10 is a crucial initiative that will bring the radio, television and telecommunications sector into the 21st century.

As we have previously heard in the speeches from many of my colleagues, the last major reform of the Broadcasting Act occurred in 1991. All of us have witnessed an incredible shift in the radio, television and telecommunications sector since that time. Back then the Internet was not even in its infancy: It was the purview exclusively of the U.S. military. I did not even obtain my first email address until about 1994, if memory serves correctly, when I was in my last year at McGill. It is incredible to think that an act drafted around basic radio and television technology, circa 1991, is still regulating the sector today.

Today, as parliamentarians, we are taking an important step forward in modernizing broadcasting regulation in Canada. Nowadays, we know that this sector has remarkably flourished and represents a unique opportunity to access culture. Many platforms have emerged, including Netflix, Disney+, YouTube and Spotify. These provide opportunities to share Canadian culture and content all around the world, also while consuming cultural content here at home that comes from several different countries.

However, online broadcasting services are currently not subjected to the same regulations as traditional broadcasting services. This bill would fix that basic inequality. Canadians greatly benefit from accessing foreign productions, but it is also essential to support our Canadian producers and creators, especially now during a pandemic, when showcasing Canadian content and telling Canadian stories is so critical to the well-being of all of us. This is something that we as a government have always sought to do since coming to power in 2015, by funding our national broadcaster the CBC, and by increasing funding to the Canada Council for the Arts as well as to Telefilm Canada.

However, one issue has remained a stubborn obstacle. How do we support Canadian content in an era when the methods for broadcasting are shifting massively, from radio and TV to online? Bill C-10 would fill this void by providing the CRTC with modern regulatory tools.

Canadians are increasingly using online platforms to access cultural content. For instance, it is estimated that 62% of Canadian households currently use Netflix. This dramatic shift has resulted in an increase of approximately 90% in online video revenues per year for the past two years. Meanwhile, conventional broadcasters have experienced a steady revenue loss of 1.8% per year for the past five years. These alarming statistics clearly demonstrate that the CRTC's regulatory framework needs to be adapted immediately to better support Canadian content producers in order to level the playing field.

Implementing the changes in Bill C-10 would quickly produce clear and concrete impacts. Let me give an example. By creating a new category of broadcasting under the online broadcasting category, Bill C-10 could lead to increasing contributions to Canadian music and stories by as much as $830 million by 2023. This is excellent news for our Canadian cultural sector.

Let me speak about diversity. In addition to levelling the playing field between the traditional broadcasting services and the web giants, by ensuring that web giants contribute to the creation, production and distribution of Canadian stories and music, this bill would also reflect where Canadian society is in 2020. The new regulatory framework outlined in Bill C-10 is focused on building a more inclusive cultural sector as part of the larger goal of building a more inclusive Canada.

Supporting diversity and inclusion is essential, and that it is exactly what Bill C-10 would do. Anglophones, francophones, racialized Canadians and Canadians of diverse ethnicities, socio-economic statuses, abilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions all deserve to be represented in our cultural sector. I cannot stop myself from thinking about all the kids out there, including my own brown-skinned South Asian children, who are watching shows and dreaming of their future. They have to know that their dreams can come true and they can achieve everything that they want. Seeing people who look like them in the shows that they watch is undoubtedly important. I know this as a parent. I know this as a racialized parliamentarian.

We know that representation is a key step to reaching better inclusion of marginalized groups. The logic that applied when we decided to put Viola Desmond on the $10 bill to ensure that all Canadians, including Black Canadians, could see themselves represented in our institutions, also applies here in the cultural sector. The more Canadians who can see themselves reflected in our cultural sector, be they religious or racial minorities or others, the better we are as a nation.

I want to also highlight the importance of improved support for indigenous cultures in our broadcasting sector. During the last Parliament, I was privileged to be asked by the Prime Minister to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of heritage. In that role at that time, I had the chance to work on co-developing with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders Canada's first ever Indigenous Languages Act. The work I did on Bill C-91 in the last Parliament deeply shaped my own understanding of the need to protect indigenous cultures and languages in order to empower first nations, Inuit and Métis people on Turtle Island.

By including concrete measures in this bill to better reflect indigenous cultures in Canada, Bill C-10 will contribute to that work of the revitalization of indigenous languages by ensuring that indigenous children have access to cultural content in their languages. Let me emphasize that Bill C-10 would have a real impact on the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages and cultures, which is fundamental to reconciliation.

I am also pleased to see that the broadcasting system will be adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities. There is a lot of work ahead of us in order to build a more inclusive Canada for people living with disabilities. Ensuring that programming on TV, radio and online is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities is a step in the right direction.

When I speak about my riding of Parkdale—High Park, I know that promoting arts and culture is a very important issue not only for my riding, but indeed for all Canadians. I want to highlight, for example, that just last week Warren P. Sonoda was elected president of the Director's Guild of Canada. I had the opportunity to work with Warren on important roles when I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage. I am thrilled to see what he will accomplish while holding that position. I want to credit the work by outgoing former DGC president, Tim Southam.

My riding of Parkdale—High Park is known for many people like Warren and Tim. It is known for great artists, wonderful creators and important film and TV producers. I am speaking for example of Dave Forget, currently on the national executive team for the Director's Guild, having previously worked for 14 years at Telefilm. He has spent most of his life working in the film industry, and I am proud to call him a constituent.

Additionally, professor Chris Romeike in my riding did the cinematography on the recent movie The Inconvenient Indian, which was based on Thomas King's bestseller. It explores the cultural colonization of indigenous peoples in North America and was deemed by the producers of TIFF as the one must-see film at TIFF this year.

I want to congratulate so many people: Paul Barkin, Mary Young Leckie, John Turner, David Makin, Alain Zweig, Jasmin Mozaffari and Ali Kazimi, for all of their important and award-winning work and contributions to the film and TV sectors. Ferne Downey, who was mentioned in the context of the previous speech, is my constituent. She was previously the head of ACTRA and is now the head of the International Federation of Actors.

I could keep going much longer, but I will mention one last person: Jeff Churchill, of Jitterbug Boy, an original footwear company in my riding whose shoes are being made for a variety of shows such as the upcoming Batman film. What is important about that last reference is that when we support the Canadian cultural centre, we are also supporting all of the derivative economic benefits that come from supporting film, TV and our content creators. That is what Bill C-10 will enable us to do by better funding the sector and levelling that playing field. This is a critical piece of legislation.

We know that financial support for Canadian content will decline as the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters continue to decrease. Bill C-10 is the first step in aiming to fully modernize the broadcasting system in Canada to ensure that both traditional and online broadcasting contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system. Our Canadian producers deserve to be operating in a fair situation where the rules are equal for everyone. Allowing the CRTC more powers to modernize the regulatory framework is important, by imposing more regulations on online broadcasters, as is simultaneously ensuring the regulatory independence of the CRTC.

In conclusion, as I have outlined, Bill C-10 is about ensuring fair and equitable treatment between traditional and online broadcasters. It is about better representation of Canadian society in our cultural sector. I am incredibly proud of our Canadian cultural sector, and in particular the role it is playing in buoying Canadian spirits and easing Canadian anxieties during the COVID-19 pandemic. I know that with the right tools, our Canadian creators will continue to keep producing terrific Canadian content for years to come. Bill C-10 is one of the tools we need to maintain our support for Canadian creators. The work of passing it should not be a partisan issue, nor should it be delayed. We cannot afford to wait 30 more years before modernizing the act. The time to act is now.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as a professional artist myself for 40 years, I am also a member of the Canadian actors' union, ACTRA, and colleagues like Ferne Downey, Theresa Tova and David Sparrow have been lobbying governments for the modernization of Canada's Broadcasting Act, which is now Bill C-10, for years. They say that these proposed changes will help strengthen the industry and lead to increased investment in Canadian content production and, by extension, increased work opportunities for Canadian performers.

My question for the member, therefore, is this. Will she and the NDP be supporting this important legislation? It is a first step in doing the right thing for Canadian performers.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here today to talk about Bill C-10, and more importantly, talk about the reality that we need to continue to protect Canadian content in our broadcasting systems, in all of our media. The other part of this conversation is about fairness and acknowledging web giants in this country have been getting off very easy. As they have been getting off very easy with very little content taxes, our people who fight for local Canadian content have been left behind.

I represent the beautiful riding of North Island—Powell River. It is the third-largest riding in British Columbia and it is part of Vancouver Island and is also on the Mainland. I am incredibly proud to represent these voices.

Recently, there was a huge storm in our riding. It was a mix of wind, thunder, lightning and snow, of all things. Snow is very rare in our part of the world. During that time, there were huge power outages and people were not sure what was going on. It was our local newspapers and radio stations that let people know what was happening, and if it was not for them, folks would have been isolated and alone. I can promise the House that none of the big web giants were concerned about what was happening in our riding.

I want to give a special shout-out to the local Port McNeill IGA. When people went without power for a long period of time, it had a beautiful BBQ to feed people. It said that if people had any money to give to please give and it would donate it, but if people could not, to just go there and they could get fed. Those are the people I am so incredibly proud to represent and those are the stories we as Canadians need to hear.

There are local papers in my riding: the Campbell River Mirror, the Comox Valley Record, the Powell River Peak and the North Island Gazette. They are always making sure we know what is happening in our riding. I respect them immensely. They are very small, and they get out there and make sure we record what is happening and let other people within our communities and region know what is happening locally in our community. They remember all of those communities, the little ones like Sointula, Woss, Whaletown, Van Anda, Alert Bay and many more.

Something particularly unique and special about Canada is that we have a huge land base and a small population, and people are living all over the place living important lives. These papers connect us. They work hard to keep us informed on what is going on nationally, internationally, and most importantly, locally. They tell us what is happening.

I think about Remembrance Day this year. It was very different than the Remembrance Day we are used to. Usually people are out together across all the communities. This time, people were waiting for the newspapers to share their recordings on social media. They were waiting to see the pictures. These are important roles, and if they were not there watching, it would not be happening.

The reality is they are facing a huge challenge. They are having to fight every day for their survival. Their huge competition are significantly bigger corporations like Facebook and Google. They are fighting them and trying to survive. All of those local papers use Facebook, which is an important tool. However, more and more people are using things like Facebook and Google to advertise, which means they are not getting the same amount of money that really helped them build their businesses.

I want to say it again, Facebook is not dedicated to our region. It does not show up at all the local events and it does not make sure to keep the history of our community. If people want to know what happened in their community in the past, where do they go? They look at old newspapers. That is where we learn about what happened and get those pictures of our ancestors who did things in the communities. That is an important part of carrying on our history.

We know when COVID came the challenges for our local newspapers only increased. In the middle of a pandemic, our local culture and media folks were worried about keeping their jobs. According to the Yale report, Google and Facebook have received nearly 75% of online advertising revenue in Canada. That leaves our local TV and newspapers only gaining 8.5% of all Internet advertising.

The CBC did a compilation that showed that in 2018-19, Ottawa spent $52 million advertising on web giants. That was five times more than the local Canadian platforms. That is devastating, and it tells us something very important, that we are seeing a decrease of support for local content.

I said earlier that I represent a rural and remote riding, with lots of communities that really need these meaningful jobs. When we see that unfair competition, we see that they are not getting to keep those jobs. This is another thing that we have to start addressing in this country, that rural and remote communities are challenged. We need to have a better strategy so that those economies can grow and blossom. The more we centralize, the less those communities flourish. We have to take some leadership on that. I am waiting to see the government do that.

This bill really punts it down the line. I know the last member who spoke disagrees with that, but we are giving it to the CRTC and saying, “Figure something out.” It has happened in other places. For example, in France, the cultural minister actually stood up and said that if they were going to go there and create content, they would have to pay taxes so that there could be local content.

If all of these web giants are going to be making money, they are going to have to pay their fair share so that our Canadian folks do not lose their jobs and we do not lose the history of our precious country.

Here we are again, discussing, and I did this in the last Parliament, the Liberal promise to make sure that web giants pay their fair share. However, again, this legislation has nothing around fair tax rules. That is what we need. Most people would remember when the Liberals made a big announcement that we were going to get money from Netflix, it would be great, it would be taxed a bit more. What did we all see across the country? Canadian rates for Netflix were raised to cover that cost.

We are talking about actually taking these guys on and making sure that they pay their fair share so that Canadians can remember their own content. We need to protect Canada's unique voice.

In my riding, I am so impressed with the Vancouver Island North Film Commission. Its leadership has been immense and has brought opportunities into our riding. It has really worked hard. I just want to say how much I respect the commission and how important that is. In fact, it locally connected with the North Island College not too long ago. It began training people.

What we are seeing is local people being trained in our local communities, and then working in the film industry in our region. This is so important.

In this country, we need to take leadership and say, “We have this immense country. We have rural and remote communities, and their economies are based largely on the resources. We do not want that to end, but we want to diversify so there is more stability.”

This is a place where resources could go from these big web giants, and make sure that these folks get the support they need to build important content that is Canadian, but also to maintain a diversity of employment, of good-paying jobs, in our regions.

When we talk about addressing these big web giants and their paying their fair share, we know that organizations like Amazon, Apple and Netflix can pay. While the reality in this country is that they are not paying, and are in fact undercutting our local content providers, we are not doing the right thing.

When we work on this bill, and I see some good things and I hear from the government that we should get into committee and make it work, I wish the government would be a little more ambitious. I wish the government would not wait for the opposition parties to tell them what to do.

When we get down to it, we have to protect local content. We have to look at our systems and make sure there is a diversity, so that when we look at our economy, we see that diversification happening across the board so that everybody benefits from it.

In closing I will simply say this, I come from a riding that has built this country. That is what rural and remote communities do. They have their economies that are largely resource-based, and they have built Canada. I want to thank them. We want to see some accountability in this House to make sure that those communities stop suffering and start having a more diverse and stable economy. It is simply time. It is definitely time to make sure those web giants pay their fair share.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague from Newmarket—Aurora's speech and I am very interested in Bill C-10 and seeing it get to committee.

The member made the point that this treats the live-streaming digital giants in the same way that we would treat other parts of our economy. I want to ask him if we do not need an amendment to direct that, in the case of outfits like Twitter and Facebook that are actually gutting our Canadian journalism, they be treated as publishers and not this fiction that they are platforms. Then, all the rules of libel and slander, etc. would apply to them.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging this House sits on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

Canadians are enthusiastic early adopters of technology. Time and time again they have readily embraced the wide variety of broadcasting services available to them, foreign and domestic. These broadcasting services empower consumers with the ability to watch what they want whenever they want it and however they want it. The same goes for listening to music and hearing the news. Bill C-10 will not limit the ability of Canadians to access the programming platforms of their preference; rather, it will ensure the Canadian broadcasting system continues to meet the needs of Canadian consumers.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is the independent regulator of Canada's broadcasting systems. It requires television and radio stations and cable and satellite distributors to support the creation and display of Canadian stories and Canadian music. These are requirements that have been in place for decades and have resulted in greater investment and promotion of Canadian content and talent, including high-quality journalism, groundbreaking musical artists and compelling and acclaimed programming.

However, in the current regulatory framework, online broadcasters are exempt from most broadcasting regulations. In other words, they are not required to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system as is required of the traditional broadcasters. This is because the last time major changes were made to our Broadcasting Act was in 1991, before we experienced the new digital age and its challenges. We are well into the digital age now and it is time for our legislation to join us. It is time for online broadcasters to be treated the same as traditional broadcasters.

Bill C-10 would create a level playing field where all broadcasters have a fair chance to compete by ensuring that online broadcasters are subject to the same regulatory framework. Most importantly, it ensures that both traditional and online broadcasters contribute to a healthy and vibrant Canadian broadcasting system. For Canadian artists, this means securing sustainable funding that will allow them to continue telling stories and making music from a uniquely Canadian perspective. For most consumers this means the ability to access more content that will allow Canadians to see themselves, their communities and their stories reflected through different points of view. For Canada it means a stronger cultural unity, a shared national identity and a more inclusive society.

By presenting the content that is representative of different cultures, communities and languages from across Canada, broadcasting provides a window into the diverse experiences of Canadians. Made in Canada content is considered personally important to 78% of Canadians. It is clear that Canadians see value in seeing their stories on the screen and in hearing Canadian artists on the radio.

I am proud to say that the interest in Canadian content exists far beyond our borders. The hit show Schitt's Creek recently brought home nine Emmys, the film Indian Horse won an award at the 2018 San Diego International Film Festival and Quebec native Céline Dion is one of the best worldwide selling artists of all time. The list goes on. Including online broadcasters in the broadcasting regulatory framework could result in online broadcasters being requested to invest more than $800 million in our creators, music and stories by 2023. It could result in more Canadian successes being enjoyed and recognized abroad.

Whether getting traffic and weather updates or learning about the day's events from prime-time broadcasts, the broadcasting system is an important source of news for Canadians. Traditional broadcasters have long supported journalism and the delivery of local, regional and national news. By including a new policy objective that promotes the provision of news, including that produced by Canadians and reflecting Canadian perspectives from a variety of sources, we are strengthening the role of news in the broadcasting system.

Recognizing that a free and independent press is the cornerstone of our democracy, the bill would not contemplate the licensing of news organizations. However, the bill does create an equitable framework for broadcasting that will help safeguard news production. This way, traditional broadcasters who are important sources of news, and particularly local news, would be better able to compete with online broadcasting services.

The bill was also crafted to keep both online and traditional broadcasting services affordable for Canadians. We understand that, every day, Canadians are making difficult choices on how to spend their hard-earned dollars. This is especially true during these trying times.

Bill C-10 provides the CRTC with the ability to tailor regulatory requirements to specific business models. For example, the CRTC could impose mandatory Canadian programming expenditures on services that are already in the business of commissioning and producing content. Requiring services, such as Netflix and Crave, to spend a certain amount of money each year on Canadian content will help us move the needle on directing investments toward programming that is created and produced by Canadians, for Canadians. This will help the CRTC avoid imposing undue regulatory burdens on a particular service that would then result in raised prices for consumers.

These are just some of the ways that Bill C-10 would benefit Canadian consumers, creators and artists. The exemption for digital services was originally put in place to allow for the innovation and development of new online media services. In 2020, when Canadians mostly access programming online, these exemptions no longer make sense.

The inclusion of online broadcasters in the Canadian broadcasting system with regulatory clarity would promote the entrance of new players into the Canadian market. It supports a vibrant and healthy competition in the sector, creating additional pressures to keep costs down. For Canadian consumers, it leads to a wider variety of high-quality content, with a greater diversity of views in which Canadians proudly see themselves and their stories. After nearly 30 years, it is time to modernize our broadcasting system and to safeguard it for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to stakeholders and industry people about this, and YouTube is completely unregulated in Bill C-10. It has been 28 years since we last updated the Broadcasting Act. Where do members think YouTube is going to be in the next 28 years? Should we be regulating YouTube? Sure we should be regulating it. That is my personal opinion. It is one thing we have talked to industry and stakeholders about. They are concerned that YouTube is not involved in this.

Only two provinces in Canada have a tax on Netflix. One is Saskatchewan and the other is Quebec. It is being taxed in only two jurisdictions, and I would say that it is getting away with murder in the rest of the provinces and territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-10. It is an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Updating this Broadcasting Act is crucially important. The statutes in the act provide the guidelines for everything in our media industry, from how our Canadian broadcasters operate to how we support Canadian content and production.

Updating it right now is particularly important because, as we know, the Broadcasting Act has not really been updated at all since 1991, a long time before Internet companies and online streaming services were competing with Canadian broadcasters.

It is deeply disappointing that the government’s proposals are so incredibly lacking. I am going to focus in on four points today. First, the legislation does nothing to address social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, and their various properties, such as YouTube, to pay its fair share. Second, it does not bring digital platforms, such as Netflix and Spotify, into a system in which they are on a level playing field with the conventional Canadian broadcasters.

Third, it does not provide any details on Canadian content production and media fund contributions by digital broadcasters. Finally, it gives all of the power to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, commonly known as the CRTC, which is a body that is not only ineffective at regulating in its area, but that also often struggles to even enforce its own regulations.

Before I dive into the details of this bill, I want to give some background. A lot of people in the House know that prior to my election, I spent over 40 years as a radio and television broadcaster here in the province of Saskatchewan.

During my broadcasting career, I experienced first-hand the dramatic evolution of those industries and how Canadians interact with their media. When I first entered the industry back in the 1970s, radio and television were the dominant forces of entertainment here in this country.

Over time, as television became more and more accessible and mainstream, demand for radio really declined. More recently, we can look at music streaming services such as Spotify, Google Play Music and Apple Music, which have attracted many Canadians away from radio. This has resulted in many stations across the country being forced to either greatly downsize or shut down entirely. We have seen that here in Saskatchewan.

I will give some details on the radio industry. Right now, a lot of stations in Saskatchewan run for only 12 hours. They will come on at six in the morning and broadcast until six at night. They will then have repeat programming for the next 12 hours. This is disturbing. It is hard to find a live disk jockey or newscast at night because these stations only run 12 out of 24 hours.

It is disturbing because, as a young broadcaster back in the 1970s, that was how one learned the business, by working nights and late nights. That has been taken away from people in this province. It is hard to find a live announcer after 7 p.m. on any Saskatchewan radio station.

Major conglomerates have gobbled up some of the radio industries in Saskatchewan. Stations in places such as Prince Albert, North Battleford, and even the satellite feeder in Meadow Lake, are now part of the Pattison Group.

We have seen a sort of renaissance in the province with smaller radio stations trying to make it on the FM dial, such as Humboldt and recently Assiniboia. This past January, Nipawin got its licence for the first time in the north-east area of Saskatchewan. There was an intervention by one of the big players in the country, but today Nipawin has its own FM radio station. It got approval from the CRTC in January.

I would be remiss to not mention MBC radio, of the Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation. It is Saskatchewan's only indigenous radio station, and it is located in La Ronge. For some 10 hours a week, it broadcasts in Dene, and for another 10 hours a week, it broadcasts in Cree.

With this bill, Bill C-10, this is where I would really like the CRTC to concentrate. We have seen that this station uses Cree along with Dene up in northern Saskatchewan. It is needed. In fact, during the election I caught a 30-second advertising spot by a candidate done in Dene, telling the people up there to vote for him or her. It was kind of interesting. It was really good.

I also had the fortunate opportunity to go to Nunavut just two years ago. I went to eight communities up there. They speak a lot of English. Inuit and Inuktitut are spoken as well. I went up there and saw the people up in Nunavut, including Chesterfield Inlet, Arviat, and so on. That is their way of communicating.

This is my concern today with the CRTC. How is it going to look after this whole Bill C-10, and the Broadcasting Act? It is big. We have a big country. I have just pointed out the needs in Nunavut and northern Saskatchewan. There are many other places in this country. This is a very, very big bill.

Similarly, streaming services such as Netflix, YouTube, and even Disney+, are increasingly becoming the default source of entertainment for many across the country. Many television studios are struggling and beginning to downsize and cut costs. We saw that today with the announcement from Rogers.

Much like their radio counterparts, television stations here in Saskatchewan have been forced to make cuts. Many local stations have either been shut down or have really reduced staff. I can tell the House that, as a former broadcaster in that province, I remember when Swift Current had its own television station.

Yorkton and Prince Albert are repeater stations now. Prince Albert rebroadcasts Saskatoon, and Yorkton rebroadcasts Regina. I remember at one time that CKBI, Prince Albert television, had over 80 staff. We do not have that any more, so we can see that the industry is coming down. Swift Current no longer has a TV station. Yorkton basically has two or three people, and the same thing at CKBI Prince Albert.

For a long time, I think that sports was considered the bedrock of television. While television series could always be recorded, watching sports live had a particular importance. No one wanted to miss that big game or have the results spoiled.

However, today even sports, a sector that has long thrived based on live television, is moving away from the traditional broadcasts. Services such as NHL GameCenter, Dazn, Sportsnet NOW, and TSN Direct allow sports fans to watch their favourite teams from wherever they would like. They can flip between games and even watch multiple games at once.

I will make this point. I remember the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. The president of Bell Media was in line for the gold medal game, the women's hockey gold medal game. There was a big crowd in Vancouver. No one could get into the game on time, but at that time the game was streamed.

The president of Bell Canada went on his phone and watched the game. He turned to his assistant while he was in line and said that this was the future of broadcasting, and that Bell Canada had to buy it. That was in 2010. Lo and behold, a short time after, Bell reacquired the CTV television network.

The reality today is that the way most of us here in the House of Commons consumed entertainment growing up is no longer the norm. Many growing up today would consider it simply out of date or even obsolete.

Certainly, even though many of these changes have been revolutionary and have benefited consumers, they have created many problems for the Canadian broadcasting sector. Our laws and regulations need to be updated to match the changes of the last 30 years. That raises this question: What exactly needs to be fixed in a modernized broadcasting act?

The Internet giants such as Netflix and Spotify are simply not paying their fair share. These companies do not pay taxes. They are not required to pay into the Canada Media Fund, as conventional broadcasters are today. They are not required to meet the Canadian content requirements that conventional broadcasters are bound by.

As more and more attention is paid to major streaming giants, and they are taking up more and more of the market share, conventional Canadian broadcasters, both at the local and the national level, are being pinched out, and they know that.

The current circumstances not only create an uneven playing field, they also put Canadian broadcasters at a significant disadvantage in having to allocate their resources, when Internet giants simply do not have to do that. The Broadcasting Act clearly needs to be updated for the world that is dominated today by the Internet.

Unfortunately, the legislation that the government has put forward to us today is wholly inadequate in addressing the issues that I just laid out. Let us begin taking a look at what the government's main solution seems to be in Bill C-10. I think they are passing the buck solely to the CRTC. It is unfortunate the government is simply passing off the responsibility to the unelected body that has historically had many issues fulfilling its own mandate, particularly on this issue.

At the beginning of this year, the Canadian Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review panel tabled its report, known as the “Yale report”. In fact, I attended that news conference in Ottawa in January when the panel released its 94 recommendations. That news conference lasted almost two hours. There were plenty of questions directed at the panel, and it was directed by conventional broadcasters.

Many of them expressed concerns about some of the 94 recommendations that were made that day. The objective of the panel was to review the current broadcasting and telecommunications framework and present possible paths forward for Canadian broadcasting.

While I have my own issues with some of the recommendations in this report, one thing that has been raised as a major concern in my meetings with industry stakeholders is that the Yale report makes it clear that the CRTC already has the power to regulate Internet giants like Netflix. That surprised a lot of people.

If the CRTC can already regulate Netflix and its online counterparts, why has it not done so? Let us be clear here. The CRTC, the Canadian broadcasters and the government have all known for years what the impact of the unregulated online market is. It is crushing Canadian broadcasters. The CRTC done absolutely nothing with the power that it has to regulate, despite having had years to act.

One cannot help but wonder if the Canadian media today would be in a much better state if it were not for the CRTC's lack of desire to actually take some action. This bill would not change that. It simply reiterates it. It restates a power that the CRTC already has and has opted not to use, so why would it use it now? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the CRTC is going to change now, when there is no compulsion to do so.

Even if the CRTC decided to finally take the steps that it has had the power to do for years and regulate the web giants, I am highly skeptical that they would bother to enforce them. Sure, the government claims that this legislation before us today would modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers to ensure compliance with hypothetical regulations that the CRTC is not bound to actually make, but we already know that the CRTC does not necessarily use the powers that it is given.

On the specific issue of enforcement, I remember during my time as a broadcaster that when the licence renewal would come up every five years, everyone would be on their best behaviour in the station. Station management would make sure that everything was perfect for its hearings with the CRTC. Once it gave us the licence renewal, we would not hear from the CRTC again until five years later. The CRTC did not follow up to make sure we were abiding by the terms of our licence at all.

I also think about a more recent example of the CRTC simply failing Canadians. Earlier this year, at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CBC decided to pull Compass, its 30-minute local news program in Prince Edward Island. It is the only local news for P.E.I., and CBC took it off the air.

At a time when islanders needed their local news the most, the CBC abandoned them. What did the CRTC do? Absolutely nothing. It was only through the outrage of viewers in that area that the CBC brought Compass and the newscasts back to the people of Prince Edward Island.

If the CRTC is not going to act when Canadians need it the most, how can we expect it to actually act in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to Internet giants?

I remember an instance when Global doing something similar here in the city. In Saskatoon we had a newscast that actually came out of Toronto. The CRTC was unaware of that, but it has since been rectified in the city.

I think everyone here can understand my skepticism today of putting all of our eggs into one basket by dumping this onto the CRTC. However, for the sake of argument, let us pretend it is not an issue. Let us pretend that the regulator has absolutely no issues with fulfilling its mandate. Are there are any other problems with the bill?

Let us start with social media. The legislation does nothing to ensure that online platforms, such as Facebook and Google, that have built their businesses by sharing other people's content are paying their fair share. In fact, the bill absolves those companies from responsibility for content posted on their platforms.

Then we need to consider what measures are being proposed to make sure that conventional broadcasters are on a level playing field with digital platforms. The reality is there is nothing. It gives no guidance or explanation of how the regulations or guidelines should be created or drawn.

Finally, this legislation provides no guidelines at all as to whether or not digital platforms will be forced to meet the same Canadian content production rules or be required to make payments into the Canada Media Fund. All of our conventional broadcasters must still meet these requirements. This sounds nothing like levelling the playing field.

However, we should not worry if this does not go well, because the government is here to save the day. It can settle issues with an order in council afterwards. Instead of being clear with broadcasters and Canadians, the government is going to wait a little longer and potentially implement policy later. That is simply not a plan. Broadcasters cannot prepare for the future while these discussions and regulations are created behind closed doors.

Who could blame Canadians if they begin to wonder what the government is planning to implement that it is not willing to put in today's legislation. What is it hiding? The government has not told us.

Let us review. There is no guarantee that the CRTC will actually fulfill its obligations and produce regulations. It could have before, and it did not. If it does, will it enforce them?

What about the rules for platforms and conventional broadcasters? What are they going to look like? The bill does not tell us. We do not know what the rules around the Canada Media Fund or even Canadian content will be. There is nothing new for dealing with social media platforms.

What do we know? Well, not a lot, actually. What we do have is a lot of uncertainty.

The government is leaving the whole process up in the air with regard to the CRTC. Industry cannot be sure what the government is going to do to regulate in this area because it has totally neglected this in the past. Even if it does, it is going to take months for Canadians to hear anything from the CRTC, and that means months of more uncertainty at a time when our media industry is already greatly struggling.

I want to reiterate my serious concern about the legislation before us today. Canadian broadcasters and creators are struggling mightily. We know that. The government needs to do something to remedy the situation.

The power to regulate companies like Netflix already exists under the CRTC, but it has chosen not to act and this legislation does not compel it to. What reason do Canadians have to believe that the CRTC will bring in new regulations or that they will be enforced?

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

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the importance of local radio.

Local broadcasting is essential because local information cannot be covered in national news reports. Local radio stations are needed to cover municipal and school news. They also mean local journalists, local artists who can send in their productions, and local jobs.

These radio stations could be decimated over the next few months if we do not take action. In my riding, there are two radio stations that I love to listen to. They are Radio Acton and Boom FM. What will I tell those stations about targeted support and the more flexible regulations that they need in this time of crisis?

Why is there nothing about that in Bill C-10?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for sharing his time and for his willingness to work with other members of Parliament across the nation.

I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. It is sad that in the digital age in which we are living, the law is rarely able to keep up with technological advancements. This digital revolution, referred to as the fourth industrial revolution, is characterized by a pace of breakthroughs that we have never seen before. Every industry in every country around the world is being disrupted. As a result, it is impacting production, management and governance.

A 2016 paper from the World Economic Forum on the fourth industrial revolution makes one point very clear. The only way for governance and regulation to work in such a complicated environment is to operate with a clear foundation of values rather than playing regulatory catch-up. This is the essence of the bill.

With audio and audiovisual content being offered for mass consumption online over the past two decades, Canada has been exposed when it comes to fostering Canadian content, as has been done for decades through the CRTC. Supporting the telling of Canadian stories, giving a platform to Canadian voices and sharing Canadian perspectives for our population from coast to coast to coast has always been a challenging issue with Canada being located next to the largest producer of content in the world; that being the United States.

The CRTC is unique in that it is not only a regulatory agency but, rather, a key component of our Canadian cultural landscape. It serves as the primary actor in facilitating Canadian content production to the broadcasting sector. It is our path toward preserving local culture as well as our national identity.

Since the Broadcasting Act was last updated in 1991, Canadians' consumption of content has changed dramatically. Millions of Canadians have cut the cable, so to speak, and are receiving their news and entertainment through online platforms. As an example, as of 2019, Netflix is present in 62% of Canadian households, with other streaming services continuing to grow year after year.

To give some context on how large digital content consumption has become in Canada, it is estimated that revenues for Canada's digital media market will hit over $4.7 billion in 2020. This number is skyrocketing when compared to other forms of media consumption, such as television and radio. In other words, updating our Broadcasting Act is long overdue.

The streaming that we now consume in the comfort of our homes carries stories from across the globe as consumers have never had more choices and access to such a diversity of content. However, that also means that Canada's history of promoting and supporting Canadian content must be extended into the realm that so many of us rely upon daily.

We are lawmakers, and we have an obligation to not unduly disadvantage Canadian content creators in the digital era. We have an obligation to do everything in our power to ensure the diverse voices that make up our country, including indigenous peoples, racialized communities and persons with disabilities, have the same ability to share their stories as the international content producers that are so readily available to us now.

This is where the intent of the Broadcasting Act becomes so apparent. As mentioned, our lives are filled with receiving and consuming online content. We might wake up in the morning and check the news headlines on our phones or other digital devices, which of course was a role filled in the past by news publications: independent media.

We might now stream music on our commute to work, as opposed to traditional radio that might have filled our vehicles or headphones. In the evening when we get home from work, we might then search through our favourite streaming service to find a show or movie we can relax to. This is just a very general snapshot of the types of activities and choices of content in 2020.

Of course, this is particularly heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic, where social interaction is now regularly replaced by consumption of this content.

Ultimately, Bill C-10 is defined by the principles of equality, inclusivity and, most importantly, by Canadian content creators and sustainability. While this legislation would modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers and update the oversight and information-sharing provisions it has available, ultimately it is about creating opportunity through collaboration. It is about mandating the streaming services that want access to the Canadian marketplace to meet certain broadcasting obligations that provide financial support to allow for more Canadian content to be produced and consumed.

While members across the House might attempt to characterize this bill as an example of over-regulation or limiting free speech, the reality is far different. Simply put, this is an update to our Broadcasting Act that would allow Canadian stories to be produced. It would allow Canadian consumers to have ample access to such stories and, most importantly, it would allow our unique cultural identities to have ongoing security and opportunity in the rapidly evolving digital world.

In conclusion, I hope this bill is widely supported by all parties in the House as it is an update that goes beyond politics or ideology. For the most part, technology moves far faster than we do as legislators. This legislation is a tool that would ensure we are always ahead of the curve in preserving our diverse voices in the age of digitization. This is about ensuring Canadian content can thrive for generations to come, and ultimately, there should be no party or member in the House who can argue with this fundamental principle.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation today.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we see the trends for content consumption and the platforms that are utilized. Currently, online undertakings that deliver audio and audiovisual content are exempt from licensing. We want to ensure the regulatory requirements that the traditional broadcasters and platforms have are extended to those online undertakings. We need to ensure a vigorous framework for broadcasters, which is what we are doing with Bill C-10.

I again encourage all my hon. colleagues to get the bill to committee stage so the learned committee members can have a vigorous debate and put forth even more ideas that could potentially improve the bill, and have the process to continue.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all need to support our local newspapers.

When I was a young individual, I delivered the Prince Rupert Daily News door to door. That was great content for households in the hometown in which I grew up.

Today we need to modernize many aspects of our legislative framework in telecommunications and broadcasting. Bill C-10 is one part of that.

Let us get the bill to committee stage where there can be a vigorous debate. We know that with the world evolving as it is and with technological change, it is very important our legislative frameworks and structures correspond to that and that we continue to update them.

Canadian content is very important for me, for our government and for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

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

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

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

The bill seeks to ensure that traditional and online broadcasting services are appropriate for Canada's creative sector. Of course these contributions must benefit a wide range of Canadian creators and consumers, including francophones across the country, as I heard from my colleagues in the opposition.

I now want to speak about the issue of support for francophone creators and French-language content produced by francophone minority communities.

First, it is important to recognize that this is a key issue and that the concerns expressed by stakeholders are entirely legitimate. We must not forget about the minority status of francophones in North America, which is dominated by the English world.

Online broadcasting giants like Netflix and Spotify will not necessarily consider the needs of francophones in Canada, whether they live in Quebec or in a minority community in Canada. However, we know that television and radio are vitally important to language, culture and the identity of the francophone minority in North America.

It goes without saying that measures are needed to support and promote francophone history and music. We agree on that, especially now that online broadcasters have turned Canada's broadcasting sector upside down, and the French-language market is no exception.

Online broadcasters present unique challenges regarding the availability and promotion of online content in French, and especially content produced by our francophone minority communities. I want to point out that 47% of francophones watch primarily English content on Netflix. That is a departure from traditional television, where 92% of the francophone market tunes in to French-language programming.

Similarly, the appetite for English-language films and audiovisual productions has been increasing for years, as has funding from foreign investors, but the average budget of French-language productions has decreased, and these productions receive little funding from foreign investors.

On the music and digital platforms front, in 2017 there were just six French Canadians in the top 1,000 most popular streaming artists in Canada.

Obviously we must act, but how? Some have proposed to include quotas or mandatory investment thresholds for French-language content in the Broadcasting Act.

At first glance, this may seem like the best way to remedy the problem, but what is it really? The fact of including a mandatory investment threshold in the act fixes it permanently and, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage rightly pointed out, the minimum is likely to become the maximum.

There is no reason to cut funding for French-language content in this way. A better way to do this is to give instructions to the CRTC, telling it to ensure that an appropriate portion of the funding is devoted to the creation of French-language programming and to take into account the difficulties inherent in the creation and broadcasting of French-language programming, particularly in minority communities.

This is how our government suggests we proceed. Regulation is a flexible tool that allows action to be taken that is in tune with technological advances, the development of industry and the values of Canadian society. It should be noted that the CRTC has long overseen the application of a rigorous regulatory framework of traditional services to support and promote French-language content. The CRTC's record is unambiguous. It has demonstrated a firm commitment to the imposition of regulations that ensure support for francophone creators.

Thanks to the CRTC's efforts, for the past 10 years the volume of French-language television production has been stable and represents 25% of the total volume of Canadian television production. The efforts of the CRTC have also served to promote French-language music. French-language radio stations must devote at least 65% of their weekly programming to this purpose, from popular music to French-language music. The CRTC can be expected to put in place an equally stringent regulatory framework for online broadcasters. It will ensure that it provides fair and equitable support for Canadian content in both official languages and that it takes into account the specific needs of francophone creators across Canada.

We all agree that action must be taken to support francophone creators and French-language content across Canada, its primordial, and also all creators and content creators in Canada. Our bill and the instructions it gives will give the CRTC all the tools it needs to ensure that funding and regulations support Canadian content in both official languages, but also indigenous, multicultural, real Canadian content and just a window into Hollywood.

This is the best approach to ensure that Canada's creators can continue to create audio and audiovisual works that reflect who we are as a country. The creation of content in both official languages is an essential cultural objective. Regardless of technological or other advances in the broadcasting sector, this modern and equitable legislative and regulatory framework will provide unequivocal support to broadcasters, producers and creators across Canada.

I encourage all members of this honourable House to hastily send the bill to committee to be improved and to deliver real changes to the broadcasting sector, which it has been requesting for so long.

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for the extremely important and very useful question he repeats every week on the status of parliamentary business.

This afternoon we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Tomorrow we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act. Monday of next week will be devoted to the study of Bill C-8, on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94. On Tuesday, we will begin our study of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which was introduced earlier this week by my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, November 24 for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Thursday, November 26 for the Department of Health.

Lastly, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That a take-note debate on the status of the French language in Montreal be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Broadcasting Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to join the debate today on Bill C-10, the government's bill that purports to modernize Canada's Broadcasting Act. It raises many issues.

I have certainly enjoyed listening to the debate and seeing the passion that colleagues from all parties on all sides of the House have for Canadian culture and for the particular linguistic or regional identities that animate their corner of what constitutes Canadian culture. I want to start by identifying the objectives of the bill and then highlighting some of the challenges and some of the concerns that we have in the Conservative caucus with respect to Bill C-10.

As I said, Bill C-10 proposes to modernize the Canadian Broadcasting Act and certainly Conservatives recognize the need for change, modernization and updating, but we have some significant concerns about the way the bill fails to live up to its stated objectives. I am struck again and again by this.

I think a particular thing about the government and the way its members speak about their proposals is that they often want to focus on the objectives of what they are doing instead of on the substance of what they are doing. Regularly, government members talk about the objective being this or the objective being that, but it falls to us in the opposition to then point out that good intentions are not enough. It is not the intention but the text of the bill that becomes law, and the failure of the text of the bill to live up to the intention of the bill creates big problems for those who are then impacted by the measures that have been put in place.

More precisely, under the ambit of modernization, the bill confirms that online broadcasting is covered under the act. It seeks to introduce additional provisions for encouraging more diverse content in Canadian broadcasting, including content that is reflective of the experiences of Canadians around gender equality, as well as those of LGBTQ2+, racialized communities, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples. That is one of the identified objectives.

It purports to create a more flexible approach to regulation that would allow the CRTC to establish rules for all broadcasting services that operate in Canada. I will speak more about this in a few minutes, but, when the government talks about a more flexible regulatory approach while in the process of giving powers to an external agency, this should be a red flag for all of us.

Effectively, what this gets at, in coded language, is the fact that vaguely worded legislation is giving powers to the CRTC. These powers are not as clearly or precisely described as I think most Canadians would expect them to be. The language that the government uses around regulatory flexibility is something that I think we should watch out for and understand what is underneath it.

The legislation also purports to “modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers [and] update oversight and information sharing provisions to reinforce the CRTC’s role as a modern and independent regulator”. What is the context in which we see this legislation, and what do we make of these purported objectives?

One thing that all of us as members of Parliament should think about is how we are defining broadcasting in the world of changing technology. In a sense, as a member of Parliament, I am a broadcaster. While I do not think this speech is being livestreamed on my Facebook currently, although obviously sometimes we do that, it is likely that clips of what I am saying will end up being broadcast to my some 30,000 followers on Facebook, as well as possibly on Twitter and Instagram. Therefore, I am a small broadcaster. There are many people out there who have podcasts or YouTube channels who are using the unique power they have through social media and other channels to broadcast their own opinions. This is really a revolutionary power for everyday citizens to have.

Historically, when we spoke about regulating broadcasting, it was because there was a limited amount of bandwidth in terms of radio and television air waves. Decisions had to be made collectively about who had access to that bandwidth. There was a hope that certain content would be broadcast in that way.

However, now we are living in a world of unlimited broadcast capacity on the Internet, where people can access more of the different kinds of content that they want. That world of unlimited broadcast capacities lowers the barriers to entry in terms of becoming a broadcaster and being a person who is broadcasting their views to a wider and wider audience. This is the new world we are living in.

There are many cases where somebody working out of their basement on their own YouTube channel may have far more views and importance as a voice than certain “mainstream” networks and channels, so how do we define what constitutes a broadcaster? If somebody is running a very popular YouTube channel where they express their own views, are we going to expect them, through the CRTC, to have a certain proportion of a certain kind of content? Is that where we want to be going with modernizing this act?

I think most members would accept that it is not particularly reasonable for that to happen, and that the idea of prescribing parameters around broadcasting is aimed at only the very large producers and purveyors of content, but that is a slippery space to be in. It raises, I think, some questions on the regulations around the parameters of content in a world where the barriers to entry are so low. We are not dealing with the same limited supply of bandwidth in terms of television or radio that we dealt with historically.

Under the label of modernization, this bill brings the online world into the existing legislative framework, but I do not think that it engages enough with this question of whether or not the current frameworks are aligned with the kind of world we find ourselves in today. I would be concerned about the possibility that Canadians who are not running big budget operations, who are just broadcasting their views and making content of different kinds, would become subject to CRTC intervention if the level of public attention crossed a certain threshold.

I want to flag as well a continuing issue concerning broadcast regulation, and that is this issue of market demand and how we define Canadian content. It is my observation and my contention that there is actually a strong market demand for more and more diverse content. There is a great deal of interest among people I talk to in learning more about indigenous culture and indigenous communities. I think there is a real demand for that content, and that is good to see.

I think there is growing interest among people in my Alberta constituency to learn French and consume content in French. That market demand is really necessary for the increasing knowledge of those things, because if there is no market demand for these shows and messages to be produced, then people will not consume them.

It is one thing to say someone may want more diverse content on a major online video platform. The question comes down to, though, whether people will consume that content. If people are eager to consume that content then, presumably, the incentives will exist for there to be increased production of that content. As parliamentarians, I think we all want to see increasing diversity and to see that reflected in media.

I also think we should recognize there is demand for that content and some of that increase in diversity is happening. It will continue to happen, naturally, but I think it is something we should be aware of and looking at. We should be seen putting in place policies to reasonably incentivize that development, without giving the CRTC powers that are excessive, in terms of its intervention.

Then there is the question of how we define Canadian content, or how we define content in terms of whether it is reflective of different diverse communities. Something that I looked at in university was precise definitions of what Canadian content is. It always struck me as a little odd that we could have a story that takes place in California, and that is the film, but then we have an actor who was born in Canada playing a prominent role, or we have a director who is Canadian, or maybe it was filmed in a location in Canada, even though the story purports to take place in California. However, by some definitions, that film is defined as Canadian content because of the national backgrounds of some of the people involved, even though the story that is being told is not actually about Canada.

When we talk about indigenous content, I think there are some questions that perhaps should be looked at by the committee in terms of what is meant by this. If we have an indigenous actor, but the story does not show that character as being indigenous, is that indigenous content? If we have a story that purports to be about indigenous culture, but does not represent that culture accurately, and that particular show was not created through engagement with indigenous communities, does that still constitute indigenous content?

The challenge is that at an individual level we might be able to look at whether a particular representation qualifies or not and come to our own conclusions. When we have regulatory definitions of these concepts, it can raise some significant problems in terms of whether the regulations, in the way they are applied, actually achieve the intended objectives. I think that is something that members need to think about as well, as we study and go deeper into this legislation.

I think there many problems with this vague bill, which seems to be typical of Liberal bills.

The bill is vague with regard to the powers of the CRTC. First of all, it does not guarantee that foreign tech giants like Google and Facebook will follow the same rules as Canadian tech companies. Some people have accused these foreign tech giants of misusing Canadians' personal information and censoring some Canadians' opinions. Unfortunately, this bill will allow the tech giants to continue their unfettered reign over Canadians.

I am also concerned about the lack of specific guidelines regarding Canadian content and the distribution of funding to Canadian media. We know that the French language is under threat in Canada, as my colleagues have emphasized in recent days. Canada is a proudly bilingual country, and our French culture, which has such a strong presence in Quebec, is the key to Canada's bilingual future.

Canadian French-language media outlets have a wealth of unique cultural content. That is why the Conservatives will work to preserve and maintain funding for French cultural programming once we are elected.

I am proud to be speaking in French today, even though it is not my first language. Many people in my province of Alberta enrol their children in French immersion programs because they want their children to proudly speak both official languages.

I am also concerned that this bill does not modernize copyright. At a time when the Internet dominates our lives, it is crucial that content produced by Canadians be protected against unfair use such as plagiarism.

Canadian artists work hard to produce high-quality content, and we ensure that their rights are fully protected. Unlike the Liberals, we Conservatives believe in modernized copyright legislation, new measures to preserve the French language, and protecting Canadians from foreign tech giants that need to assume their responsibilities.

Once our leader is elected prime minister after the next election, our Conservative government would eliminate the GST on Canadian digital platforms to support and promote Canadian media content that showcases the beauty of Canadian culture. We understand that proper CRTC legislation is important for the benefit of our nation and its people, and we wish that the Liberals understood that too.

The Conservative Party is a national party that is there for all Canadians. We are the only party with MPs in every region of the country. We are proud to have Alberta MPs who, like me, stand up the French language, and Quebec MPs who stand up for oil workers. We are the party that unites all Canadians and respects the unique characteristics of each region.

The French language is important not just to Quebec. There is a strong francophone community in my riding in Alberta, and I love working with that community. There are francophones as well as francophiles. There are communities of francophones who have been there a long time, and there are francophone communities full of newcomers.

I invite my francophone colleagues, especially those in the Bloc Québécois, to come to Alberta to discover our vibrant francophone community, as well as to visit Fort McMurray.

I would like to reiterate some of those points in English.

I am very proud to be part of a Conservative Party that is studying these issues carefully, diligently and recommending amendments, identifying problems and looking at the text as well as the intentions. I am proud to be part of a Conservative Party that is serious about uniting Canadians from coast to coast. We have MPs all across the country, Anglophones and Francophones, who recognize and defend the importance of English and French in all regions of the country. Also, we are a party that stands up for jobs and the economy in all regions of the country.

As a final note, I want to briefly touch on this. It is striking to me that the legislation speaks about the representation of people with disabilities, and it is very important it does that. However, people from all kinds of disability organizations are descending on Parliament Hill. They are deeply concerned about how the poorly drafted Bill C-7 entrenches discrimination against people with disabilities.

At the justice committee, so many different disability organizations have spoken out about those problems, calling for real and meaningful changes. The best the government can do for people with disabilities is to include in an amendment to the Broadcasting Act an expectation for representation of people with disabilities.

Sure, that is a nice to have, but if the government were really listening to people from diverse communities facing particular challenges, including people with disabilities, it would be doing far more than including a line in the Broadcasting Act. It would be taking the steps that are necessary, and that groups have been calling for, to support the dignified life for people living with disabilities. It would support reasonable amendments that have been put forward by disability organizations. It would be engaging in proper consultation instead of shutting it off.

I look forward to continuing debate on the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is being proposed in Bill C-10?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2.1) A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service — and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act.

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

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

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

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

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

This is the CRTC chairman saying that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.

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

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

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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today.

I'm joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawks and the other Haudenosaunee peoples.

With me are Hélène Laurendeau, deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, and Jean-Stéphen Piché, senior assistant deputy minister of cultural affairs. I want to thank them for their outstanding work under circumstances that have not been easy in the past few months.

The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting all of us. Its impact on our country is significant in every part of our society.

The Department of Canadian Heritage supports the commitments of the Government of Canada, grows the country's cultural and creative industries, and shares Canada's stories both at home and around the world. As you will recall, the 2020-21 main estimates were tabled in Parliament last February 27. The total funding allocated to my department was $1.5 billion, including $1.3 billion in grants and contributions, and $203.2 million in operating expenses. Heritage portfolio organizations received $2.1 billion in funding.

In early March, we all entered a period of uncertainty. The pandemic hit the cultural, heritage and sports sectors hard. Following the Prime Minister's announcement in April of a $500-million emergency support fund to provide temporary assistance to these three sectors, I announced further details of this funding on May 8, June 18 and July 7.

A survey conducted by Canadian Heritage of the recipients of the first phase of the fund's implementation showed that we met our objectives, both in terms of supporting business continuity and jobs. With a 56% response rate, we obtained a wealth of information. For example, 77% of respondents indicated that the fund helped them a great deal or moderately to stay in business, and the vast majority of respondents, 98%, expressed satisfaction with the speed with which they received the funds.

In rolling out this emergency support fund in record time, in designing all the supplementary measures that went into effect this summer, and in doing so while the department was operating at limited capacity on a business continuity plan, we relied upon our network of dozens of portfolio organizations, thousands of partner organizations, and tens of thousands of stakeholders.

All of these partners contribute to the cultural, heritage and sports sectors which together comprise almost $62 billion of our GDP, contribute 750,000 jobs to the country, and provide us all company, comfort, community and identity in moments like these. Their work demonstrates the power of art, sport, music, literature, and the simple power of telling stories—our stories—in myriad ways.

Since the spring, I have been in close contact with these sectors, which have suffered income losses, job losses and structural changes because of the health measures. To give you an idea of the extent of these losses, according to Statistics Canada, the GDP in the information and cultural industries sub-sector declined by about $3 billion in July compared to February of this year. Similarly, GDP in the arts, entertainment and recreation sub-sector fell by more than 50%.

While this picture is incomplete, it does reveal some vulnerable sectors. This is why I participated in a series of town halls and roundtables to hear from stakeholders, so they could share their ideas about how we can work with them and better support them. Roughly 4,000 participants attended these town halls and roundtables in September and October.

These discussions allowed me to target our assistance more precisely. For example, in September, I announced a $50-million short-term compensation fund to help our film and audiovisual industries resume production activities. The fund will be administered by Telefilm Canada.

Our various assistance measures are reflected in the 2020-21 supplementary estimates (B). The increase in appropriations for Canadian Heritage and its portfolio organizations has made several things possible, including the following: the implementation of the emergency support fund that I mentioned previously; support for students and youth affected by the pandemic; support for the six national museums and the National Battlefields Commission; support for several key cultural organizations, such as the National Arts Centre and Telefilm Canada; and finally, financial relief for broadcasters through a waiver of CRTC licence fees.

Canada's cultural offering is among the best in the world, and I am pleased that our government is supporting it during this critical period.

On Tuesday, I introduced Bill C-10 to amend the Broadcasting Act. This is an important first step in modernizing the Canadian broadcasting system. I also intend to propose other measures to put in place a regulatory framework in which digital platforms contribute their fair share.

We are following developments in France, which has enacted a neighbouring right for newspaper publishers into domestic law. We are also following the situation in Australia and are examining options here in Canada.

In addition, I want to introduce a bill proposing new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech. Finally, I am committed to reviewing the Copyright Act.

I would also like to reiterate that our government has made reconciliation with indigenous peoples a priority. That is why, despite the circumstances, we are continuing to implement the Indigenous Languages Act in cooperation with our indigenous partners, and to support their projects to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen their languages.

Indigenous cultures, arts, heritage and sport are among our key priorities, and we continue to support them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am ready to take your questions.

Business of the House

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

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

This afternoon, as planned, we are continuing with the NDP opposition day debate.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the parties for their collaboration and co-operation on this very important bill for all Canadians.

Tomorrow we will take up and complete the report stage and third reading of this bill.

Next week, as my colleague said, we will not be on vacation, but rather working hard in our ridings across Canada.

When we return on November 16, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill C‑3, which deals with training for judges.

The Wednesday and Thursday of that week will be devoted to Bill C‑10, the important broadcasting bill that we really like.

Lastly, my colleague will be pleased to know that Tuesday, November 17, 2020, will be an opposition day.

Canadian Heritage

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française applauded the introduction of Bill C-10 to modernize broadcasting. ADISQ called it a historic day. We will be forcing web giants to invest almost $1 billion in Canadian culture, in our artists and in our stories. Special attention is being paid to the francophonie all across Canada, to first nations, to indigenous productions and to racialized groups wherever they may be in the country.

Broadcasting Act

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)