Madam Speaker, I want to—
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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) specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service, unless the programs are prescribed by regulation;
(c) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of the Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should
(i) serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from Black or other racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages, and
(ii) provide opportunities to Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(d) enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society, including by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs in both languages;
(e) 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 English, French and Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide English, French or Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) takes into account, among other things, the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings,
(iii) ensures that any broadcasting undertaking that cannot make maximum or predominant use of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming contributes to those Canadian resources in an equitable manner,
(iv) promotes innovation and is readily adaptable toscientific and technological change,
(v) facilitates the provision to Canadians of Canadian programs in both official languages, including those created and produced by official language minority communities in Canada, as well as Canadian programs in Indigenous languages,
(vi) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities,
(vii) facilitates the provision to Canadians of programs created and produced by members of Black or other racialized communities,
(viii) protects the privacy of individuals who aremembers of the audience of programs broadcast, and
(ix) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which the Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on any class of broadcasting undertakings if that imposition will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(f) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(g) 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;
(h) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(i) 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;
(j) 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;
(k) 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;
(l) 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
(m) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act .
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Order. There is a member who is trying to answer a question.
The hon. member for Perth—Wellington has a point of order.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Madam Speaker, I did call out just to correct the member about the Conservatives' strong position on this matter, and its strong principles—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The question is that we do not like disorder in the chamber, especially when another member is trying to answer a question.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Madam Speaker, I would have gladly given my time up to my colleague from Perth—Wellington to answer that question because he is absolutely right. What we are talking about here is the creation and the creators on the Internet, not the traditional types of media that we have had in Canada. This is the Internet sites that we are dealing with and the types of creation that are on there are growing and expanding. I do not know where the member gets his information, but there are more creators on the Internet today than we have every had before.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my riding, South Shore—St. Margarets, to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, the first amendments in 31 years, I believe.
I was disheartened to see how swiftly the government moved to shut down debate on this important bill. The irony is not lost on me, or probably on the House, that the government moved to stifle debate on a bill designed to control what people can see or say on the Internet. The irony continues because the heritage minister recently stated that he does not expect the Senate to rush the bill through in the other place. This raises the question as to why the government was so eager to have the bill moved through the House of Commons committee.
My colleague for Perth—Wellington noted that the minister does not expect the Senate to rubber-stamp it, but for some reason he expects the House and our 338 duly elected members of Parliament to rubber-stamp the bill. The Liberals voted closure on the second reading of the bill, a bill that would let the government prioritize what is most important for us to see on the Internet, and a bill that would put new entrepreneurs under the thumb of government regulation. This is what the witnesses who generate content on the Internet say. This is what, in committee, the head of the CRTC said. Now, I know other members may have their own opinion, but I think it was the expert, the head of the CRTC, who said that the bill would give it the power to regulate the Internet.
The Liberals did not take what they were hearing and did not like what they were hearing in committee. What did they do? They had the House of Commons put closure on the public hearings and the clause-by-clause phase under the anti-democratic Motion No. 16, which stopped what the committee was doing on the bill and forced clause-by-clause without debate. It even stopped the committee members who moved those motions from reading their motions.
Numerous times during clause-by-clause, I asked the chair, when Motion No. 16 was stated, where in that motion it said, when it talked about debate, whether or not a member could actually read their motion so people watching could find out. The Chair went further to say that he was interpreting Motion No. 16 to mean that members could not even read the motion in the debate, which was quite shocking, because the member for Vancouver Centre who chairs the heritage committee, in 2015 on another piece of legislation, said:
We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says. It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation. Everyone has accepted that public consultation should occur. Public consultations went on before [it] was set up.... We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government.
That was from the member for Vancouver Centre, who chaired this committee, so it is incredible that the Liberals continued to follow a different path during these discussions. Conservatives have raised the concerns of Canadians time and time again, but sadly the Liberals are too focused on ramming through this legislation. The NDP, of course, were reading from talking points that someone in their coalition had provided them.
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the NDP House leader is fond of quoting Tommy Douglas, and I will read for him something that Tommy Douglas said: “The greatest way to defend democracy is to make it work.” Before the member joined the government, he used to understand that the House rules are made to ensure that opposition could do its duty in making democracy work by scrutinizing legislation. In hearing from a variety of witnesses on that legislation, and on proposing and discussing amendments to that legislation, since the member for New Westminster—Burnaby joined the Liberal government, he now thinks the opposition's role is to rubber-stamp legislation, as he clearly did during clause-by-clause.
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby said, in 2015:
There was concern over a wide variety of community impacts as well. We have a government that brought forward a badly flawed bill last year and forced it through. Initial debates reflected very poorly on the government, so it hid the bill for a year and is now bringing it forward with closure, trying to ram it through the House with no due parliamentary consideration.
He was often a critic of tactics of closure before, but he seems to enjoy using closure now that he is part of the government.
Conservatives would have updated the Broadcasting Act while also respecting digital-first creators and those Canadians who want to excel here at home and around the world with the freedom to create and earn a living without government regulation.
Bill C-11 contains disturbing open-ended online censorship regulatory power for the government. The legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a). That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Spotify.
What does “indirectly” mean? Everything posted on the Internet has some sort of identifier and code to it, and it is on a page. Everything and everyone in the House is on a page. Opposite that, everything posted on social media has advertising beside it, so everything posted on the Internet indirectly generates revenue. That is why the CRTC chair says it can regulate all user-generated content.
When Canadians do an Internet search or look at videos on YouTube or TikTok, the Liberal government, in this bill, would require that those platforms prioritize Canadian content to the top of the list of what people see. The CRTC would pick the winners and losers of what Canadians can see. It would determine whether the cat video one wants to see has sufficient Canadian content. Is the cat Canadian? Is the videographer Canadian? Was it filmed in Canada? That is how the CRTC would impact what one can see on the Internet.
It is horse feathers that this bill would not give the government the power to regulate all user-generated content, as the minister claims. The Liberal government rules will drive what one sees on the first page, and not what is most popular. Most people do not go past the first page. This bill forces platforms to develop algorithms to choose what cat video comes first on search pages. This is why this bill is so dangerous, but the NDP-Liberal government thinks if it moves we should regulate it: “Hi, we are here from Ottawa and we are here to intrude on people's lives.”
Liberals say to trust them, yet they refuse to release the directive that is required to give to the CRTC. That is the trust they ask of us. They say that it is not their intention and not to worry. If they want that trust, then they should make the CRTC directive public now, before the bill passes. What is the government hiding?
The minister has tried to claim that user-generated digital content and YouTube creators, TikTok creators and Canadians who have been able to burst onto the scene not just in this country but internationally, are free from having that content regulated. The government says it has no interest in looking at that. If that were true, the government should have made it clear by voting for our amendments in committee. It refused to pass amendments that would remove the government's and the CRTC's ability to regulate user-generated content indirectly. To me, that says it all. By refusing to do that, by defeating the amendments that would prevent the government from regulating indirect revenue and user-generated content when supposedly the government was open to amendments in committee, it admits the bill has that power.
The NDP-Liberal government only wants to see its ideas on the Internet, and no one else's. The bill is another dagger, in my view, to our democracy. I would urge all members to please vote against this at third reading.
Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Madam Speaker, in thinking back to Progressive Conservative governments of the past, they very much championed the idea that television corporations or radio corporations, for example, would have an obligation to support Canadian content. The world has changed very much since the last time the Broadcasting Act was updated in 1991. Streaming services play a fundamental role and are even more important than radio and television in terms of story creation.
Why not ask those streaming services to support the creation of Canadian content? That is my question to the member. That is the fundamental aim of this bill.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Madam Speaker, the ability of Canadian artists to develop their programs, music or content has not been hindered by not being regulated. The other day, the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke at length about one quote from The Tragically Hip saying how it could not have burst onto the scene without the use of this bill. It managed to burst onto the scene without this, and so did Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Alessia Cara, the Weeknd and Carly Rae Jepsen. They were all discovered on the Internet without the help of the CRTC or the Liberal government.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech. I had the pleasure of sitting with him during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, and we had a lot of fun. It was probably the most entertaining part of the study, I must say.
Having said that, in his speech, he talked about how the legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate content such as user-generated content, which I think is an unfounded statement. I am wondering how many opinions he would have needed to hear to convince him that there is no infringement on freedom of expression or on user-generated content. Clearly, I am talking about opinions that were contrary to the few that were presented by the witnesses invited by the Conservatives. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this. I know he did not attend all the committee meetings, but I think he has a pretty good idea of our work.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Madam Speaker, I also enjoyed our time sitting next to each other during the long hours into the evening on clause-by-clause. We had a lot of fun joking back and forth. That is part of the fun we can have sometimes in this place, regardless of the party.
In answer to the member's question, I do not think there is an actual number, but there were dozens more witnesses we were trying to hear from. I do not think the committee ever settled that 20 hours would be the limit. In fact, committees often change the number of witnesses once they are into the committee and say they should hear from more people. We thought we should perhaps hear from a few more witnesses to get a more balanced approach so we could have more discussion about the amendments that were being proposed in clause-by-clause.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, it is pretty rich to hear the Conservatives quoting Tommy Douglas, especially when it comes to time allocation: Under the Harper government, the Conservatives used time allocation over 100 times. I encourage my Conservative colleague to reflect on the words of Tommy Douglas when he said, “The greatest way to defend democracy is to make it work.” What we have seen from the Conservative caucus is obstructionist tactics, delays, repeated points of order and attempts to slow down legislation, not to try and make democracy work.
I encourage my colleagues to think about that.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the quote. The NDP used to remember what it was like to be in opposition, but now it seems to speak for government. The tools that the opposition has for democratic discourse are limited relative to members of the NDP-Liberal government trying to ram things through. We had to use every tool in our arsenal, which is limited in—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Skyview.
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brampton Centre.
I am pleased to rise today to share my support for Bill C-11, the online streaming act. The overarching goal of the act is to ensure that online streamers contribute in an equitable but flexible way to the creation of Canadian content, just as our broadcasting system has done for decades. I want to talk about why this bill is fundamentally important when it comes to our music sector.
Online streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music have dramatically changed how we listen to music. Today, most Canadians use YouTube as their primary music streaming service; however, these online streamers are not subject to the same rules as traditional broadcasting services such as over-the-air television, cable and radio. Right now, our system is not supporting Canadian musicians and creators the way it should.
The music sector is important to Canadian society. It includes a wide array of artists, including songwriters, composers, performers and arrangers. Agents, producers, record labels and many others also support their work. The music production and sound recording industry accounts for over $625 million to Canada's GDP and almost 10,000 jobs. Through their music and lyrics, Canada's musicians help create relationships and memories, initiate important social discussions and forge a collective national identity and values. Music allows us to share our country, our culture and our ideas throughout the world.
For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. This is by no accident. We choose to be different from the cultural juggernaut of the United States. We care about our cultural sovereignty. We believe our diversity should be celebrated. Our culture is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, our present and our future. It is how we tell our stories to each other.
As a condition of their licences, radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. It is why we have all the great Canadian content we love. Whenever we hear Charlotte Cardin, Coeur de Pirate, Joni Mitchell, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Great Big Sea, the Arkells and The PropheC from Calgary Skyview, it makes us proud to be Canadian.
Since the early 2000s, the music industry has navigated a landscape that has been proudly changed by new distribution models offered by online platforms. We have also seen the music industry evolve from selling music on physical media to digital sales and downloads and, most recently, the increasing popularity of online streaming. Online streaming has had positive impacts for Canadian consumers and certain artists.
Online broadcasters make music readily accessible to Canadians wherever they have an Internet connection available. They can access a variety of music and playlists tailored to their pace and interests. Streaming has also allowed a number of artists to be discovered and has bolstered their careers in other countries. Ruth B. is just one notable example of a Canadian artist who has achieved great international success after being discovered online.
However, the upheaval caused by digital platforms has also had significant consequences for our broadcasters and musical artists. Currently, online platforms have no regulatory requirements to support Canadian music. As more and more Canadians listen to online platforms and the revenues of traditional broadcasters drop, so too does the funding and support for Canadian musical artists. We need to fix this now.
We have heard, loud and clear, from Canadian music producers that passing Bill C-11 is critical to the industry. I want to share a quote from SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada:
Canadian creators need support to continue to develop Canadian music in the world of streaming, and Canada must be a place for emerging music creators, where songwriters and composers can create, grow and thrive.
It continues:
The tabling of the Online Streaming Act on February 2, 2022, is an important first step to make it easier for Canadian audiences to find and engage with Canadian creators, giving our music a place in the world of streaming.
The chair of the board of the Canadian Independent Music Association told us that:
The most tangible way to get our artists heard in Canada and around the world is to ensure that we have awesome Canadian artists, supported by strong Canadian owned independent music companies that can compete in the global music market.... I welcome all initiatives that help make our companies stronger and our artists thrive.
That is why we are here. On this side of the House, we want to see our artists thrive. Bill C-11 seeks to update our broadcasting framework so that online platforms would be required to support Canadian music and artists, just as traditional broadcasters currently do. Bill C-11 would ensure that our musical artists would continue to contribute to Canadian culture and be able to make a living from their music. This bill is a part of our wider commitment to supporting artists in Canada and strengthening our arts and culture sector.
In conclusion, this bill realizes the importance of investing in Canadian music. Bill C-11 creates a competitive and sustainable broadcasting system while supporting music. The modernized and fair regulatory framework that it proposes would support Canadian artists and broadcasters.
I ask the hon. members of the House to support this bill. We owe it to the next generation of Canadian music talent.