Bill C-11

Online Streaming Act

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) 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.

Online Streaming Act

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the reflections of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on what we have heard from the Conservatives. They make some very strong points about freedom of speech, but how does that compare with their party's policy toward the CBC, which they say they would defund and basically try to get out of the news business? Is there a conflict there that she could comment on?

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

Mr. Speaker, honestly, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, who is a dear friend, may be conflating some things there, because it is not so much freedom of speech that is offended by calling for the end of the CBC. Really, it is about making sure we have a public broadcaster that can deliver things that the private sector does not care about.

I lament how many cuts have been made to the CBC. We have lost the suppertime news. The swim coach, believe it or not, in our fitness program in Parliament used to be Pierre Lafontaine, the former Olympic swim coach. He helped me and my dear friend Joy Smith, who used to represent the Conservative Party, learn to swim. We all learned how to swim really well because Pierre Lafontaine helped us. Pierre Lafontaine said that when CBC lost the suppertime news, it stopped covering local sports. That was a great way to get more kids involved in sports and more parents involved, because the CBC used to have enough money to cover local tournaments and local events.

Our news media in this country, whether community suppertime news or national news coverage, has suffered from being undermined. Private sector companies like CTV and Global have been undermined by competition from all kinds of news sites, Google and so on. This took away their advertising revenue at the same time that they have had cutbacks. We need to fund the CBC properly.

As far as freedom of speech goes, again, the Broadcasting Act says that freedom of expression is protected. That is clear. The charter protects freedom of expression too. However, nobody has the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. We have never had that right. That is freedom of speech misused. It is not an absolute right; it never has been.

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise as an artist. People may not realize this, but in Montreal, 80% of the members of the artists' union earn less than $20,000 per year. That is kind of a big deal.

At one point in her life, a few years ago, Sylvie Drapeau, a hugely famous stage actor in Quebec, was getting cast in all the biggest roles. She played the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, the Théâtre Jean-Duceppe, the Théâtre du Rideau Vert. She played lead roles in the evening and rehearsed during the day. Even when she was playing starring roles in all the top productions, she was earning just $35,000 per year, and she is an outstanding actor, probably one of the greatest actors Canada has ever known. Artists are starving, and the pandemic made things even harder.

What does my colleague think about the fact that we could have passed Bill C‑11 a year ago, which would have helped artists struggling to get by? I used a stage actor as an example, but the pandemic has also been very hard on television actors and musicians. What does my colleague think about the fact that, when the Liberals called an election, they delayed a bill that was needed to help our artists in Quebec and Canada earn a living?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank my Bloc Québécois colleague because one of the goals of this bill is to protect artists, actors, creators and directors.

We need to protect their role in our society because that is our wealth, our roots as a society. Canada's true soul lies in our artists. We need to protect them. I totally agree, and it was not our idea, as members of an opposition party, to hold an election.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

This legislation passed through this House just last year after extensive Conservative filibustering, but it had to be reintroduced because it ended up dying in the Senate. I felt it particularly important to speak to this legislation because there has been a coordinated attack of misinformation and disinformation that has confused people as to exactly what this legislation would do. In my brief speech, I will touch on what this bill would do, what it would not do and some of the implications around the some of the misinformation.

Given that the media landscape has changed, our approach to it must also change to bring things into the 21st century. The online streaming bill does just that. Like we have always done for radio and television, now online streaming companies will be there to support and promote Canadian content. The bill does this by bringing online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. This act has not been amended since 1991, and that was a very different time.

The bill would also do this by requiring online streaming services that serve the Canadian market to contribute to the production of Canadian content. In the same way that they benefit from accessing the Canadian market, they should be there to invest back into it. The bill would also ensure that broadcasters would showcase more Canadian content, as well as prioritizing content from Francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators.

We have to ask ourselves why this is important. It is important because we consume media very differently in 2022 from how we did in 1991. If Canadians are anything like me, they do not have cable. If they have cable, they may use it just to watch sports these days. They probably do not listen to the radio much. They may access music through apps like Spotify, Apple Music and others. They may be watching television or movies through Netflix, Prime, YouTube or many of the other streaming services that have absolutely revolutionized the media landscape over the last two decades. In order to have a level playing field, these platforms need to be treated just the same as television and radio have been treated for decades.

Sometimes the question comes up about why we need Canadian content. Quite simply, it is because we are not American. We feel the impact and dominance of the America media and culture, and that is something that every Canadian is familiar with. We are inundated with American news, TV, movies, music and culture. The American media and entertainment industry is very much a juggernaut, with the ability to promote and broadcast its influence far and wide. In Canada, we see that.

The close and familiar nature of our cultures and histories, as well as the vast funding and institutional entrenchment of American media, have allowed it to flourish in our country, and there is no doubt that there is exceptional content coming from south of the border. However, our Canadian content creators are at a disadvantage without the same levels of inertia, funding and entrenchment that the American media have had for decades.

That is why we need to take action to ensure that Canadian culture and Canadian stories are still promoted and told. I think we would all agree that our own culture and history are distinct from those of the U.S. We have stories, ideas and creative expression that are uniquely Canadian, and it is the shared cultural fabric that helps define our national identity.

That, right there, is what this bill is really about. We have our own cultural fabric and our own Canadian identities, and we must work to protect our heritage from the influence of foreign media. It is unfortunate that this bill, which is aimed at protecting and strengthening our cultural heritage by requiring only web giants to pay into creating Canadian content, has been so mired in controversy and misinformation.

I want to take a moment to try to set the record straight on exactly what this bill does not do. This bill does not impose regulations on content that everyday Canadians post on social media. It does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content, creators, influencers or users. It does not censor or mandate specific algorithms or streaming services on social media platforms. It does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form, or create the conditions for Internet censorship.

This bill specifically carves out from the bill content created by users on social media platforms, except where that content is commercial content. That is defined by the regulator, which evaluates based on three elements, whether the content is monetized, whether it exists on another non-social media platform, and whether the content has a unique international standard code.

This measure is designed to standardize treatments of commercial content across all platforms. We have to ask ourselves why such an innocuous bill, which would support our Canadian cultural producers, would become so controversial. Who can argue with bringing our regulation into the 21st century? The answer is actually quite simple. It has been a coordinated campaign of misinformation and disinformation.

Members opposite and their party's communication apparatus have peddled misinformation claiming that the bill would silence Canadian online content creators, despite the fact that the bill explicitly excludes content creators. They have claimed that the bill would violate charter rights and limit free speech, despite its direct predecessor's having been through multiple reviews for charter compliance and the fact that the Department of Justice has found it fully compliant. Members claim that the bill would control what people can post on Facebook and Twitter, despite the fact that the bill has absolutely nothing to do with regulating online speech.

The scale of misinformation and disinformation around the bill has been so extreme that one would be hard pressed to believe that it came about organically. If we think that there is no way that this misinformed outrage is organic, we would be right. Rather, far-right organizations like Canada Proud have been working overtime, pushing falsehoods about the bill on Canadians. This of course is the same Canada Proud that was founded by Jeff Ballingall, also known as the digital campaign director of the former leader of the official opposition in the last election, as well as that of the likely future leader of the official opposition.

It is disappointing that the official opposition works with groups such as these, which employ tactics of misinformation and in this case, clear disinformation. In doing so, it actually undermines and compromises the fabric of legitimate political discourse in Canada, while also sowing division for political gain. In this case, it means siding with foreign web giants over the Canadian cultural sector, which is resulting in that sector's being left behind, especially in light of the serious impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the sector. It is bad enough that these tactics are poisoning debate in the House and on topics at the national level, but we know this is not an isolated example.

In the last election, in fact, the Conservative candidate in my riding did a mail drop a couple of days before the election, with a nefarious-looking picture of the Prime Minister saying that we were going to remove the exemption on capital gains for principal residences. I am sure many other folks in the House could give us many other examples.

Unfortunately, I have little confidence that the official opposition is going to cease with these disingenuous tactics. It is their MO, after all, but these insidious approaches are now poisoning debate all the way down to the local level. I bring the example of Squamish Voices. Squamish Voices began as a social media Facebook page and built up a following as a faux community group by promoting themselves on Facebook and asking very innocuous questions like what someone's favourite ice cream was. Having built up a very large following, they switched into launching a very dedicated campaign of attacks and character assassination on progressive elected officials by spreading misinformation. They spent over $25,000—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply observe, note and call upon the constitutional requirement of quorum and question as to whether or not there is quorum in this place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Let me consult with the Table. I understood that Motion No. 11 did not have a quorum requirement.

I appreciate the point of order, but the order is specific that at 6:30, there is no quorum required.

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

Mr. Speaker, further to that point of order, on page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is a claim that I will quote, that “the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.”

Since Bill C-11 is currently being considered without quorum and quorum is a requirement of the Constitution, I trust the courts will take note of my interjection today in the event that Bill C-11 is challenged in a court in our country at some point.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As the hon. member knows, I have to follow the points of procedure, the orders that are set before us. Motion No. 11 specified that there were no quorum calls after 6:30, but I thank the member for his intervention.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has one minute and 35 seconds left.

We have another point of order from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a rule of the House that members are not to be eating in the chamber, and I saw the member for Kingston and the Islands stuffing his mouth in between chortling to the people on this side of the House. I would like clarification on whether we are now allowed to eat in here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The rule is still there is no eating in here.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to apologize to the House. I was eating a Fig Newton when I walked in the doors, and I apologize for that. It has since been disposed of, so I cannot take it back.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There are rules we need to follow. Unfortunately quorum is not one of them in this particular case, but not eating in the House is still a rule we should follow.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I promise I will get to the end of this speech.

I was talking about the example of Squamish Voices. Having built up a large following, it switched from this innocuous community group to launching personal attacks and character assassinations on progressive councillors. In fact, over $25,000 was spent on advertising to do this. Notably, its members do this behind a shroud of secrecy, by obscuring who they are and the real truth. They cannot be reached through their phone number; they cannot be reached through their email, and their web page URL does not work.

In fact, through investigative reporting and following the dots, the National Observer has found the group that is behind it. Of course, it is Canada Proud. This is not just a problem in my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. It is a problem right across the country. The network is making forays into municipal politics with anonymous pages in Vancouver, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Brampton, Georgian Bay and Terrebonne.

I feel compelled to bring this up because it is exactly what is happening in this circumstance in this House, and it needs to be called out. Unfortunately, the victims in this case happen to be Canadian cultural producers who are, of course, receiving less income because of the impact of the pandemic and because Canadians are consuming media in a different fashion. This bill needs to pass. We need to find ways to support our Canadian content creators.

I just want to mention that this year is actually the 50th anniversary of The Beachcombers, which is one of the most popular Canadian shows of all time. It included one of the first indigenous actors to be recognized in a national-level program. We need legislation like this to be able to support the future Beachcombers, which are so important for Canadian culture and which have also provided, like The Beachcombers, entertainment for communities all across the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite in one breath said there would not be any censorship, but in the next breath went on talking about True North and Canada Proud, and how they are speaking ill of his party or his set of Liberal values. That is quite a contradiction.

More to the point on censorship, there will be smaller, non-English, foreign-language sites and stations that stream online and do not have the subscription breadth of Netflix or other major streaming companies. They do not have the subscriptions and they do not have the money, so by virtue of not being able to afford the CanCon fees, they will no longer be available to Canadians who speak those languages.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, when I am talking about some of the very shady things that we are seeing happen that are poisoning discourse, I am not talking about censorship. In fact, I am talking about the exact opposite. We need to have transparency on that, on who is behind these things and why they are doing the things that they are. When we have these types of groups that are leading organized campaigns of misinformation and disinformation, it is something we should all be very concerned about. That is exactly what has been happening in Bill C-11, and that is why we need to keep calling it out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear a little more from my colleague on the benefits that Bill C-11 will have for our artists, musicians, and people who work in television and on our miniseries, which are of exceptional quality, not only in Quebec but also in Canada.

What positive effects or outcomes can we expect? Will our creators benefit in any way?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

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

This bill has several advantages. Creators will be supported by the web giants, and it will be easier for people to access what creators are producing. This is very important for Quebec and for the whole country, because we are very unique and we have to do what we can to promote the full diversity of this country.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for following up on the idea of supporting Canadian content. I am glad he mentioned The Beachcombers.

I was disappointed when his colleague from Kingston and the Islands mentioned MC Hammer, because if one googles “MC Hammer Canada 1991”, the year we are talking about, all we will find is the fact that there was a big riot in my hometown of Penticton in 1991, after an MC Hammer concert, when the iconic peach concession stand was rolled into Okanagan Lake.

I am sure he was not trying to draw us down that line, but I just wanted to use this opportunity to let the member from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country expand on the idea of supporting Canadian content and how important that is.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this bill is very, very important for doing just that: being able to support Canadian content.

That was a really unfortunate connection with the example that was given earlier, but whether it is Canadian TV like The Beachcombers, whether it is Canadian film or whether it is making sure that we are able to access Canadian music online, this is really, really important, just to make sure that, as we are a small country, we are able to support our artists and creators to give them that start, to allow them to have that runway to make it big. Otherwise, we are at risk of being completely dominated by a much larger media landscape in the United States. Therefore, it is very important that we support them and it is very important, given the impact of the pandemic and the change in the way that all people around the world are consuming media.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I cannot believe that we are talking about MC Hammer's U Can't Touch This and Molly's Reach in the same discussion.

The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is never a dull moment in this House. Even if we are close to quorum or not, it seems like things just continue to roll along in this House with the diversity of opinions. In fact, we as Conservatives value a diversity of opinions on a variety of subjects and welcome people to have different thoughts and views. In fact, we see that as a strength of our Confederation and not a weakness.

There are concerns many Canadians raise during these times and even during this debate. The concern that is elevating to the forefront is they feel there is a stifling of free expression, of free speech and even of thought, such that if they happen to think contrary to whatever the supposed latest whimsical fad of fanciful group think is, they can be labelled and therefore marginalized, called names and pushed out of the public discourse with ridicule and laughter.

However, in a healthy democracy, diverse opinions and differing points of view are welcome, and we ask them to come to the table and challenge us. An old expression says that iron sharpens iron. I think sometimes when we have differing points of view, it is a strength to the debate in this House and we can, in fact, come to better legislation. We can come to better bills that will get through and get passed and hopefully help all Canadians, as we learn to balance the differing perspectives that are in this House that reflect the viewpoints of all Canadians.

I think the content that is available to Canadians should be as diverse as Canada is. So should be the things they are allowed to view, and so should be the things they are allowed to listen to, produce or create. That is the strength of our democracy and, in fact, a hallmark of it is freedom of speech.

What I find quite contradictory is that during this time when we are talking about Canadian creativity and Canadian content, there is a distinct effort to shut down debate and bring closure. At a time when the Liberals extended the hours of sitting so we could have more transparency, more accountable government, more debate and welcome diverse points of view, they are now expediting the process on a bill that has raised concerns with many Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This House would be a better reflection of the concerns of Canadians by allowing those concerns to be fully vetted in this the people's House. That diversity of opinions could be welcomed on the floor of this House, but not only on the floor of this House; may it continue to be allowed, or even further allowed, to be expressed across the airwaves, online and through broadcasting.

I think what is happening is that many Canadians feel as though they are not free to express their points of view. They are feeling somewhat suppressed. They feel if they have a certain viewpoint or if they have a certain opinion, they are going to be labelled, disqualified or cancelled. I think it is a slippery slope.

This House needs to think very soberly and take its time in deliberating this piece of legislation. I think Canadians are raising rightful concerns about the fact that, while the Liberals say to trust them and that they are going to make sure it is done right and properly, the government has not instilled the confidence in people to just trust it with these types of matters.

We have seen how the Prime Minister has treated those with whom he disagrees. We have seen the efforts to continually divide, demonize and stigmatize those with whom he does not agree. When they go to express it, he gets angry, petulant and frustrated and then decides to throw the full force and weight of government and the law against those with whom he disagrees, even now as we learned today that at no point did the RCMP ever request or require such drastic measures as the Emergencies Act.

I believe the people of Canada have huge concerns in trusting the government with even more power to regulate what they can post and what they can view. Some would even go so far as to call it censorship of those who would detract from the government message of the day. Whether it is censorship indirect, it could be the back door to censorship, and I think what we need to do is be very careful and cautious.

We all love Canadian content. We want Canadian producers to do well. We, as Conservatives, believe in that.

My family is a big fan of the series Heartland. I must say that my daughters love watching it. It is a beautiful show made here in Canada. I enjoy Hockey Night in Canada. I enjoy Canadian content. I think it is wonderful. We have a great Canadian story to tell and there is nothing that gets any more intense than Canadians watching hockey or watching some of the shows they have come to adore and admire. That is great. However, we do not need some government czar censoring through the back door what content Canadians can produce, put online, listen to or view: “How terrible that someone has a different point of view than the latest fad of the whimsical group think, so let us ban that.” Canadians are genuinely concerned with this rabid push for cancel culture.

What we need to do is allow Canadians the chance to weigh this bill carefully. Let us have the debate. Let us improve the bill. Let us have all viewpoints welcome at the table. Let us stop the stereotyping, stigmatizing and demonizing of Canadians who happen to not share perhaps the priorities of the government of the day.

If it was the reverse situation and this party was on the other side of the House, I guarantee the uproar would be boisterous, loud and overwhelming. The Liberals would be saying that we are stifling debate, ramming through bills, and asking how we could be so draconian. We would hear it day in and day out.

The Liberals want longer hours in the House for debate and then they shut down debate. Why do we not allow the debate to continue? Canadians are not afraid of opposing points of view. They are not afraid of diverse opinions; in fact, they welcome them. That is our strength.

I think it is a great opportunity for us to hear the concerns of our digital producers, those who are making great Canadian content that is original and are doing it well. They have raised very legitimate concerns about this bill. Let us make sure those concerns are heard and addressed. Let us make sure that Canadian content is protected, is welcome and amplified, but at the same time that great Canadian producers can compete, do well and succeed. Canadians are right to have a bit of caution when it comes to entrusting the current government with even more unabated power.

I want to conclude with a quote from a former prime minister of old who was the architect of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker so adequately expressed it this way, and I hope his words echo in this House yet once again and resonate within each of our hearts and minds as we reflect on this bill.

He stated:

I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

When it comes to Bill C-11, let us uphold the principles of freedom of thought, expression and belief, first and foremost, and make sure that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that protection and to hear the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite used the old slippery slope argument. I think it is certainly the simplest of logical arguments, as one thing leads to another, which leads to another, and so on.

The member also spoke to promoting diversity of opinion. What about artistic expression and Canadian content? The bill explicitly tries to amplify content creators from diverse backgrounds. Does this not promote the diversity of opinion that the member said this bill is trying to squash?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the concerns I raise by no means take away from the beauty of artistic expression of Canadian producers. In fact, ensuring the protection of freedom of expression, freedoms of belief and conscience, freedom of artistic expression or freedom of thought is a worthwhile cause and should be debated thoroughly in the House, for whatever amount of time it takes, to make sure that the concerns of Canadians are being heard. It should not be rammed through by a government that shuts down debate at will.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague on his very passionate speech. He mentioned that we can have a debate. It would indeed be very interesting to have a debate, if only our Conservative colleagues would drop the ridiculous rhetoric of censorship.

Our colleague spoke earlier about the diversity of cultural expression that we have here, in Quebec and in Canada, and the importance of showcasing that and making room for that diversity. I would like to echo the comments made by my colleague opposite, who said that the purpose of this bill is precisely to create space for Quebec and Canadian creators in a world that is increasingly competitive and increasingly dominated by foreign powers.

My question is this. Do we want to make room for Canadian and Quebec creators or do we want to allow a free market where we will be completely invaded by big foreign players, such as GAFAM, and where we will see our Quebec and Canadian culture and our cultural identity disappear completely because of their arrival? Is that what we want?

What Bill C-11 seeks to do is protect the cultural environment of Quebeckers and Canadians so that we can survive, change with the times, make progress and prosper in this increasingly competitive world.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually believe that Canadian producers of digital content and otherwise are raising legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. I believe Canadian artists and producers can compete with anyone. We have great content, and that content is strengthened by competition and not weakened by it. We can stand on our own merits.

Yes, we should take the measures we can to protect cultural heritage and ensure it is upheld. However, Canada has survived to this point, and we will continue to survive, with a rich heritage and rich culture without draconian measures that open the back door to censorship.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing my colleague, though I must say he was so far removed from the actual bill we are supposed to be discussing tonight that it was unbelievable. Conservatives, for weeks and weeks, have been blocking every single piece of legislation. They have been gumming up the works for Routine Proceedings, stopping members of Parliament from presenting petitions and stopping private members' legislation. The Conservatives have basically tried to shut down the House of Commons.

We are having an evening debate. We are discussing Bill C-11, and the member talks about something crazy that has nothing to do with the bill. If Conservatives do not actually read the legislation before they speak on it, why do they not take the time to read the legislation and address it? It is legislation that I believe needs some improvements, and we are hoping it will get to committee so we can make those improvements. For goodness' sake, speakers in the House should actually address the legislation that is before the House. Why did the member not do that?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the incredible blooming and blossoming relationship between the coalition partners is quite a thing to witness. I am glad to see members complement one another in the House so incredibly well.

I can assure members that the role of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to make sure the legitimate concerns that millions of Canadians have are brought to the floor of the House and discussed thoroughly. Many millions of Canadians have expressed their concerns about this bill's predecessor, Bill C-10, and the current bill, Bill C-11. We will continue to stand up for those Canadians.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I happily rise to speak to Bill C-11, especially after that display of political theatre that we saw on the other side. It was very entertaining for some but quite frustrating for others, I am sure. Certainly, onlookers in the Canadian public who are watching tonight are probably quite concerned that the Conservative Party of Canada is not even really reading the bills that the government puts forward, and on such a topic that is so important to Canadian creators right across this country.

Despite the Conservative Party of Canada and its members propagating inaccuracies in relation to this bill and trying to make Canadians believe that this is somehow about censoring user-generated content, it clearly is not. That is explicitly stated by the government in many places. I am happy to rise to speak to the merits of this bill and its true intention, which is really to level the playing field and ensure that online streaming platforms are subject to the same rules and regulations as other broadcasters are.

It is about time that we did that because, as members have said, the Broadcasting Act has not been amended in over 30 years. Just for fun, before my speech today, I looked up the hits in 1991. Some of the Canadian hits on the charts were Bryan Adams' (Everything I Do) I Do It for You and Tom Cochrane's Life is a Highway. It was a banner year for Canadian content. Not only that, but there was Glass Tiger, Alanis Morissette, Sarah McLachlan, Crash Test Dummies, Blue Rodeo, and none other than Kingston's The Tragically Hip with Little Bones. What a great tune.

Honestly, the content creators who are musicians that we have had in this country are incredible. There is no doubt we can be very proud.

The overarching goal of the bill 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: I know I do. I use it all the time for that purpose.

However, these online streamers are not subject to the same rules as traditional broadcasting services, like over-the-air television, cable and radio. Right now, our system is not supporting Canadian musicians and creators the way it really should. If online streaming services are, more and more, the way music lovers like me are accessing music, should they not be subject to the same rules as other broadcasters? That just seems like common sense to me.

The music sector is important to Canadian society. It includes a wide array of artists, including songwriters, composers, performers and arrangers. Let us not forget the people who support them: the agents, producers, record labels and many others. The music production and sound recording industry accounts for over $625 million of 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, forge a collective national identity and promote Canadian values.

Music allows us to share our country, our culture and our ideas throughout the world. The best of what Canada has to offer, I would say, is on stage when our musicians, content creators and artists are successful.

For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios, and this is no accident. We choose to be different from the cultural juggernaut of the United States, and 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, our artists and musicians. It is why we have all the Canadian content that we love today. Whenever we hear Charlotte Cardin, Joni Mitchell, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Great Big Sea and the Arkells, it makes us proud to be Canadian.

There has been a digital disruption. Since the early 2000s, the music industry has navigated a landscape that has been profoundly changed by new distribution models offered by online platforms.

We have also seen the music industry evolve from selling music on physical media to selling digitally and selling downloads. Most recently, there is the increasing popularity of online streaming.

Online streaming has had positive impacts for Canadian consumers and certainly for 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 tastes and interests. Streaming has also allowed a number of artists to be discovered, and their careers have been bolstered in other countries as a result.

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 our 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 does funding and support for Canadian musical artists.

We need to fix this now. That is what this debate is about, and that is what this bill is about: It is about how we fix this problem. The problem is that our online streaming platforms are not contributing to supporting our Canadian artists, musicians and content creators here in Canada. This bill is really about that.

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.... 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 also 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.

This is why we are here. On this side of the House, we want to see our artists thrive.

The time to act is now. Bill C-11 seeks to update our broadcasting framework so that the online platforms would be required to support Canadian music and artists, just as traditional broadcasters currently do. Why would anyone not want to support our artists and musicians in Canada?

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. The bill is part of our wider commitment as a government to support artists in Canada, and is part of the strengthening of 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 Canadian music. The modernizing and fair regulatory framework that the bill 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 musical talent, the Tragically Hips and the Alanis Morissettes of the future. We certainly need to support them now. This bill, I think, has really got intentions built into it that are very promising for the future of our cultural sector here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals really wanted to drive this bill all night long, they would not have called closure on it. More to the point, they were talking about this bill applying to broadcasters. Our concern is the definition of “broadcaster”. What we find with the Liberal government is that the definitions expand, and we are concerned that the broadcasters will now be the people who are broadcasting their own news stations.

We had Canada Proud and True North slagged as broadcasters. Are they now going to have to pay into CanCon as well?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is actually very clear on this in terms of defining the terms of broadcaster and what counts as commercial content that would be subject to the regulations within the bill. To me it is actually quite clear. There is no slippery slope here. There is no backdoor attempt at trying to censor user content. The member opposite should not be concerned about her nightly news channel being censored.

Certainly, the very large streamers that are streaming content are making money doing that and they clearly should be subject to the same rules that other broadcasters are subject to. That is the intent of the bill. It is very clear.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have repeatedly said that the bill regulates the platform, not content or users. However, proposed section 4.2 says that the CRTC can create regulations that treat content uploaded to social media services as programs to be regulated by considering three factors: one, whether the program that is uploaded might cause direct or indirect revenue generation; two, if the program has been broadcast by an undertaking that is either licensed or registered with the CRTC; and three, if the program has been assigned a unique identifier under a standard system.

The law does not tell the CRTC how to weigh those factors, but the bottom line is that this might apply. Michael Geist has said, “TikTok videos that are uploaded to the service may generate indirect revenue. That content is available on licensed services and the music has a unique identifier. The same is true for many YouTube or Instagram videos.”

What is my hon. colleague's response to that concern that proposed section 4.2 does permit in at least certain circumstances the regulation of content?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member for a good faith question. I appreciate it.

The way I read the bill, and I have the section in front of me, is that this is how the bill defines commercial content and commercial content is part of how we define whether someone is broadcasting or not using a streaming service. In many ways, this is part of the definition of being able to determine whether Canadian content should be promoted. I think that is the intention of the bill, that broadcasters that are already promoting commercial content and distributing that are subject to the same regulations that other broadcasters are.

That intention is very clearly laid out in the bill. It is very specifically and clearly not to regulate the user-generated content.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. The member for Drummond, on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure this may be just an oversight on the part of my colleague from Peace River—Westlock, but I think it has already been made clear that wearing buttons in the House of Commons is not allowed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the most fundamental piece for me on Bill C-11 is around this whole idea of levelling the playing field. People can post a podcast in about 30 minutes or less; however, if they want to start a radio channel, as several people in my riding would like to do, it typically takes three years. It seems to me that rather than trying to get podcasts to operate like radio channels, how about we try to get radio channels to operate more like podcasts?

In my opinion, if we could get a radio station signed up in about a day, that would be great. Why does all the content the CRTC requires on a radio station have to be a thing? Rather than that, just say, “As long as you are not blowing other people off the air by interfering with the channels, here is your radio station.” That would be a levelling of the playing field.

I am wondering what the member has to say about that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think the member misinterprets the intention of the bill. When we say level the playing field, we are talking about the very traditional broadcasters that would be subject to the Broadcasting Act versus the very big, successful online streamers that are running platforms that are streaming content for commercial gain currently.

The playing field is not level because the one that is now successful in today's society is not contributing to Canadian artists and musicians and content creators. We want to make sure that they do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the Liberals' Internet regulation bill. This is an important bill, because it could have everlasting impacts on how every Canadian experiences the Internet.

Before we fully examine the details, it is critical to state why we are debating this legislation today. The reality is that I would not be standing here today to debate Bill C-11 if it were not for Bill C-10 in the 43rd Parliament. Canadians may recall that it was just last year when Parliament witnessed one of the most alarming pieces of legislation the Liberals had ever introduced since their election in 2015. Many Canadians viewed Bill C-10 as an attack on our freedom of speech, a measure of government overreach and a new means of censorship. I shared these valid concerns and strongly opposed Bill C-10 until the final hour on the final day.

Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor and expert in Internet policy, was one of the most outspoken opponents of Bill C-10. Parliament needs to remember his criticism of the previous legislation. He stated, in referring to Bill C-10, “No one – literally no other country – uses broadcast regulation to regulate user generated content in this way.”

Many members of this House voted against Bill C-10 at one o'clock in the morning, as the Liberals tried to ram it through Parliament with as little debate as possible. This is déjà vu. I was one of them. Thankfully, because of the hard work of Conservatives and Canadians, we defeated Bill C-10, so that it never had a chance to become law.

Bill C-10 died, but it has re-emerged as Bill C-11. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-11, the minister responsible for the legislation stated, “This is about making the Internet a better place for all Canadians.” It sounds grand. That statement should have been a red flag for every Canadian. We have heard this kind of language from the Liberal government before. The Liberals say, “Trust us. Everything will be okay.”

It was former president Ronald Reagan who famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'” It would be unwise for any member of this House to trust that the government has the best interests of Canadians top of mind, particularly on the issue of Internet regulation.

Bill C-11 is legislation that proposes to regulate the Internet. The government wants to influence what you see while browsing the web. It wants to push specific content to the top of our screens so we see it first. Consequently, this would move content down our screens, so we would see less of it. This is what the government really means when it says it wants to make content more discoverable.

The details of what content and how much the government will promote are unknown. This is because Bill C-11 would hand over this decision-making power to the government-appointed body called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or as most Canadians know it, the CRTC. The government claims that this is a way of promoting Canadian content, but I believe that if Canadians want to watch Canadian content, nothing is stopping them from doing so.

Why does the government need to reach into the Internet to pick and choose what Canadians discover? Canadians do not need assistance from the government in discovering what they see on the Internet. They are totally capable and free to discover the content they want to see.

The Internet is exceptionally vast in content. An immense amount of content is uploaded on the Internet daily. YouTubers alone upload over 700,000 hours of content every single day. I cannot stress how much content and how many content providers exist in Canada. How can a government body like the CRTC monitor all this content to determine if it meets the Liberal government's standards? It is impossible.

I want to discuss some of the technicalities of the legislation. Although clause 2 of the bill mentions who is not subject to the regulation, it does not address what content is subject to the regulation.

The government claims that user-generated content is exempted from this bill through proposed subsection 4.1(1). However, proposed subsection 4.1(2) creates an exemption for the previous exemption in proposed subsection 4.1(1) and allows the CRTC to determine who is subject to these exemptions. The bill is confusing, to say the least, and I sincerely question whether it was intentionally done this way.

OpenMedia, an organization that works to keep the Internet open and free, and an organization that I had the pleasure to work with on my private member's bill in the previous Parliament, has also raised many valid concerns. The bottom line is, as Michael Geist said, “The CRTC is empowered to create regulations applicable to user content uploaded to social media services as programs.”

Canadians will not fully know who or what is exempted from this bill because the Liberals have yet to announce their policy directive for the CRTC. The Liberals have told Canadians that this policy directive will be given to the CRTC after the bill becomes law, not before, which is suspicious. I think that parliamentarians and all Canadians deserve to know what the government is planning to direct the CRTC to regulate before Bill C-11 can become law.

I want to quote Dr. Irene Berkowitz, a senior policy fellow from Ryerson University. She stated:

The idea that the CRTC can – or should – regulate the global internet, in an age when market intervention should be sharply decreasing, is unworkable and counterproductive, falsely pitting the industry against itself.

I agree with her. Canadians do not want their government regulating the Internet. The government regulates and restricts enough as it is, especially the Liberal government.

Bill C-11 is a very concerning piece of legislation that opens the doors to government overreach. It will impact every Canadian who uses the Internet. Canadians expect their elected officials to study it carefully and debate it thoroughly. However, the Liberals are playing the same political games that they did with Bill C-10. They are limiting the time we can spend debating this important bill. Instead of debating this legislation through the standard parliamentary procedure, the Liberals are supporting a procedure called time allocation to stop debate. The fact that the Liberals would move time allocation while dozens of members of Parliament wish to speak on behalf of their constituents is simply unacceptable. How ironic: government overreach on a government overreach bill. It is sad.

Canadians are concerned any time the government wants to create more regulation. Any time the government wants to regulate what Canadians see or hear is even more concerning. The idea that the Liberals want to promote certain content to Canadians who use the Internet is disturbing. My constituents believe in less government, not more.

As I said earlier, Canadians do not need assistance from the government in discovering what they see on the Internet. They are capable and free to do so themselves. I will be opposing Bill C-11, just as I opposed Bill C-10.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there, but perhaps I will just stick to one point. At the beginning of his speech, the member talked about Bill C-10, and if I heard him correctly, he said, “Thankfully, Conservative MPs defeated the bill.” That is not what happened to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 actually passed this House and went to the Senate.

Is the member trying to take credit for the fact that it did not pass through Parliament? That is what he is trying to say. It just goes to the continued manufactured outrage that comes from Conservatives as though they have somehow saved Canadians from the injustices that the Liberal Party is trying to impose upon them just because of some grandiose thinking. The member is trying to take credit for the fact that the Senate was not able to deal with Bill C-10. It is remarkable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that was more of a comment than a question. Here is my quote, “Thankfully, because of the hard work of Conservatives and Canadians, we defeated Bill C-10, so that it never had a chance to become law.”

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That's not what happened.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

You're making it up. That's not what happened.

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

What happened? There was an election called, so the bill got done. There we go, by their own Prime Minister. That is what happened. They killed their own bill. That is even better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my Conservative friends hate culture.

I think they do not like culture, that they do not like our artists. It is true. At the ADISQ gala two years ago, Pierre Lapointe revealed something that drew a lot of attention. He said that he had been paid $500 for the song Je déteste ma vie, which got a million plays on Spotify. Pierre Lapointe is a huge artist. We have plenty of artists in Quebec, including Ariane Moffatt, les Cowboys fringants, and Coeur de pirate, who make videos, broadcast songs on Spotify and do very well. Our Conservative friends think that this bill is just for losers, but that is not true. It is there to fund Quebec's great artists who cannot get paid in the system the way it is set up right now.

When will our Conservative friends understand that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we understand that we look far beyond Quebec. I think we have to remember that this is a bill for all of Canada.

I would ask the member to consider this for a minute. Can he imagine if Quebec artists said they had great songs or great movies and the CRTC said they do not quite meet the Canadian content? How would he feel about that? We do not know. That is the problem. The government has not supplied the directive to the CRTC yet, and that is the biggest problem with this bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I was struck by a question the member asked, and here is my question for him: What is stopping Canadians from watching indigenous online streaming services like IsumaTV? The answer is, American streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+. Does the member truly believe that without this bill Isuma will ever achieve the fair Canadian audiences it deserves?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is questions like this that we need to debate more to have a clear understanding of what this bill is going to do to the future of the Internet, and introducing closure does not help that situation.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, I had a few questions for my colleague, and I even had the lyrics of the Pierre Lapointe song, Je déteste ma vie, running through my head, although I do not hate my life today, since we are talking about this bill. It is an honour to talk about it.

Having been a musician, creator and singer myself, I would like to inform my colleague opposite that I have had the opportunity to perform on the Internet without having to pay anything, since anyone can post a video on YouTube, for example. This is not included in the bill, and it allows everyone these days to be creative and share our amateur talents without being mortgaged to the hilt, without having to pay anything.

It is important for me to discuss Bill C-11 and how best to support original French-language content and production.

I respectfully acknowledge the Anishinabe people as I join my colleagues in the national capital region, which is located on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. I realize that we all work in different places and that some people, including those who are watching at home, might therefore be joining us today from the traditional territory of another nation.

As we all know, this bill responds to the urgent need for legislation that updates the Canadian broadcasting system for the era of online streaming. The last major reform of the Broadcasting Act was over three decades ago, which is more than one generation. Simply put, our legislative framework needs to be reviewed because it does not reflect new technologies and the realities of today's digital world.

For decades, only traditional broadcasting services such as radio, television and cable had requirements to meet under our system. We are a far cry from the days of the old CDs and cassettes we listened to in the car. We bought CDs and recorded off them at home, but we paid royalties every time we went to the record store, which meant we were supporting our artists.

In those days, our artists were paid every time we purchased content. Nowadays, they alone are funding Canadian content, even though the world has changed and the industry has evolved a great deal in terms of its product offering and capabilities. We can no longer ignore the reality, and the government cannot sit idly by in this situation.

Our bill will ensure that all broadcasting services, including both the traditional ones and the online ones like Netflix, Crave and Spotify, contribute appropriately to Canada's creative industries. We believe and recognize that the contributions made by these online services will be important for supporting a large number of Canadian creators and artists. Francophones, Canadians from francophone communities and anglophone minority communities will benefit.

This bill is proof of our government's commitment to and support for francophone communities, and this bill's impact will be felt in the arts, culture and innovation sectors. The government plans to continue bolstering French-language productions. The CRTC already has a very strong regulatory framework in place for traditional broadcasters, requiring them to contribute to and promote francophone creators and French-language content.

The government expects online broadcasters to abide by these same requirements, which is what this bill would do. The online streaming act would give the CRTC new powers to more effectively oversee French-language content production and to protect the promotion and availability of this content on these platforms.

In spite of existing safeguards, there is not enough access to content in French through dubbing and subtitles. The content that does exist does not fully meet the needs of francophones who want to see their history, their culture and their identities on the screen. We have francophone talent in Canada and it must be showcased. Producing original French-language content that reflects the realities and needs of francophones should be a priority for all broadcasters, and that applies to online broadcasters as well.

These days, we listen to music using very different platforms from those that existed back when the Broadcasting Act was passed, and then updated in 1991, which is when I got my first car. It had a tape deck.

With the emergence of online streaming services such as Apple Music and Amazon Prime, French-language content is now in a worrisome situation considering the competition from foreign offerings, which are mostly in English. The car I just bought has an interactive display, but nowhere to insert a CD or a cassette. The music I play in my car is provided by network programming. However, francophone Canadian artists are not well represented among the most popular artists in Canada on digital music platforms.

Another reality that should not be ignored is the fact that investments in and budgets for English-language film and video productions have continued to rise in recent years. It is estimated that this year, streaming giants will invest $125 billion in films, series, and dramas worldwide. We must ensure that an appropriate proportion of this spending is allocated to original French-language productions. We must act quickly.

To resolve the problem, we added significant objectives for producing and broadcasting original French-language programming, not just translated content. They must work in French, produce in French and broadcast in French. We also strengthened the mandate of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to recognize all the needs of Canada's francophone community.

Bill C‑11 expressly states that our broadcasting system must support the production and broadcasting of original programs in French. It also requires the CRTC to facilitate the provision of programs created and produced in French. That will make it clear to all broadcasters operating in Canada that the needs and interests of francophones are of paramount importance in this bill.

To make it even clearer, the bill gives the CRTC the power to impose conditions of service, including conditions respecting the proportion of original French-language programs, especially first-run programs. In addition, the CRTC will have the power to make regulations on expenditures to be made by broadcasters, including online services. In the specific case of broadcasters that offer programs in both French and English, such as Netflix or Crave, the CRTC will be able to prescribe the minimum share of expenditures that are to be allocated to Canadian original French-language programming.

By including these flexible mechanisms in the act, we are ensuring that programming and spending proportions can adjust to a changing society and the needs of francophones now and in the future. This way, we avoid forcing lawmakers to amend a number in the act as well as the possibility that the proportion could soon become a ceiling. In short, the government is taking the initiative to protect original French-language content and production for years to come. With input from public consultations, the CRTC has the resources and expertise to examine and be informed by the research and diverse stakeholder perspectives as it strives to ensure the regulations remain effective and relevant.

In conclusion, hon. colleagues, we all know it is time to restore balance to the broadcasting sector and implement the regulatory mechanisms that will ensure a flexible, diverse and inclusive broadcasting system.

Let us go ahead with Bill C‑11.

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

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that we are engaged in time allocation on what is a very important bill on censorship, the irony is not lost on me that the government is censoring members of Parliament from speaking to this bill.

I look forward to this going to committee, because the witnesses we are going to get, I suspect, will speak mainly against this bill, including Dr. Michael Geist, who is the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. He said:

Indeed, for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”.

I know the member for Perth—Wellington spoke about what guidelines the CRTC is going to receive. Why is the government not tabling those guidelines to Parliament so that we can understand and, in fact, Canadians can understand better what the direction of the CRTC will be from the government after this bill is passed, which is ridiculous?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

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

The Conservatives are using this bill as a bit of an opportunity to spread misinformation. What they are saying is false. People will still be able to post their content on social media.

They will be able to do what I did during the pandemic. I created a YouTube channel to sing to isolated seniors. On Monday and Wednesday evenings, I sang to entertain them. Seniors could choose songs from my repertoire, which I would then practice and sing to them. Nothing can stop me from continuing this. I was free to do that, and everyone will continue to be free to do that kind of thing. What the Conservatives are saying is misinformation.

We want to take on the web giants to give back to artists. The Conservatives do not agree with that, because they want to support the web giants and give them free rein on the Internet.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation on his speech.

It was a great pleasure to listen to him talk about improvements that have been made to Bill C‑10, including on the discoverability of content and on developing francophone content. I heard him talk more about francophone, Quebec and Canadian content also. Of course, it was the Bloc Québécois that really pushed for these improvements.

He also talked about another very interesting fact: the specific requirement to create original French‑language content, in other words content produced in French, not translated content.

I was listening to my colleague's speech and I wanted to know whether he realizes that he could almost be a Bloc member. He would just have to change his repertoire on Wednesday afternoons and I think we could get him to cross the floor.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

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

I can assure him that there is no one more Liberal than I am, but there is no one more Québécois than I am either. I am an ardent defender of French. I have many friends in my riding who are Bloc supporters. I am very comfortable in this seat.

When I read this bill and I saw that a francophone could create francophone content, deliver francophone content and be paid for francophone content, I thought to myself that we could not ask for better for a Quebecker.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to wish the House leader of the official opposition a very happy birthday. We are glad he is with us today in this debate right until midnight. That is quite a way to celebrate a birthday.

I wanted to ask my colleague a question.

The web giants are making record profits, crazy profits even. Musicians, however, lost $3 billion during the pandemic. In general, Canadian musicians lost almost 80% of their income. On the one hand, we have web giants making huge profits, and, on the other, we have musicians and other Canadian artists who create content getting peanuts.

What does this bill do to balance out the situation?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat some of what I said in my speech.

Back when I was a saxophone player and we were recording music, the money went to the orchestras, creators and musicians. Whether the music was recorded on an eight-track tape, a four-track tape or vinyl, we had a basic income.

What we want to do is revise this act, which has not been updated since 1991, by adapting to the new formula. This means taking the money that web giants earn through social media, without touching the content of ordinary Canadians, and using it to give artists their due and to ensure that Canadian francophone and anglophone artists are treated equitably. We want to give the music, arts and cultural community what it is owed.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously Bill C-11, the online streaming act, is a very important issue to talk about today, and I look forward to outlining my thoughts about the bill, and more specifically, some of the concerns I personally have with this particular piece of legislation.

However, if the Speaker will permit me, I want to first begin my remarks by addressing a very urgent and rapidly evolving situation in the Kenora riding. There are many floods across the Kenora riding right now. In fact, Highway 105 and Highway 599 are completely closed off, meaning residents of multiple communities have no way of leaving the community for perhaps urgent medical appointments or other essential trips.

There have been multiple states of emergency called by municipalities across my riding, and the Trans-Canada Highway itself, the only corridor east to west through the country, is actually now at risk of being completely blocked. It is “passable” right now, according to the Ministry of Transportation. However, the actual current detour is going over a Bailey bridge, which cannot support the weight of a transport truck. There is certainly a very urgent situation evolving there.

I am pleased to say I did speak with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness today. He is well briefed on the situation and standing by to provide assistance should it be called upon. I want to assure all members of the House and all my constituents back home in the Kenora riding that this is a top priority, and I will continue to stay in touch with the minister on this to ensure the proper supports are in place. I want to thank the Minister of Emergency Preparedness for his work so far. I appreciate the opportunity to make note of that here this evening.

I will get back to the debate we are having on Bill C-11. In general, I certainly would support creating a more even playing field for Canadian content creators, especially up against many large foreign streaming services. However, this bill, as I am sure has been alluded to by many of my colleagues tonight, is almost an exact replica of the previous parliament's Bill C-10.

I am sure the Speaker will remember Bill C-10, and I can see she does remember it quite well. Obviously there has been a lot of criticism, and not only from members of the opposition here in the chamber but also from folks outside of the chamber, such as experts and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They raised concerns about that bill and are now raising those same concerns about this bill.

I am hearing that at home in the Kenora riding. Given the current situation, it is not necessarily a top-of-mind issue at this very moment, but it is something many people had been raising to me over the last year, particularly since Bill C-11 was brought back in this new Parliament. I share a lot of the concerns my constituents have brought forward, and that is what I would like to outline in my comments today.

As my esteemed colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, who is here on his birthday, noted not too long ago, through the bill, the government would be giving the CRTC more power without telling Canadians exactly what it plans to do with that power. The minister noted he plans to issue a policy directive after the bill becomes law. That is problematic because in the chamber, we need to know what we are voting on. Canadians need to know what this bill is going to be ahead of time. The lack of transparency is certainly a cause for concern for many of us, myself included.

The bill would also give the CRTC the power to regulate any content that generates revenue “directly or indirectly”, which means virtually any content on the Internet could be regulated, despite the government members claiming that the bill would exempt user-generated content.

If we look back to Bill C-10 and the new iteration, Bill C-11, something that is a major cause for concern for a lot of people is that government overreach and the potential censorship that would come into play when the government would potentially be regulating all of that content. We need some transparency from the government on that.

Through this bill, the government would also get the power, if it becomes law, to boost the content it wants Canadians to see. Again, this is a very dangerous precedent to set in government overreach over what Canadians see privately on their social media and on other sites.

Unfortunately, I have a long list of concerns with this bill, but I would like to take a step back and talk about the scope of this bill. The government is talking about supporting Canadian content creators and promoting Canadian culture and heritage, and that is great, but what we are seeing in the bill is a number of measures that seem to be targeted at specific Canadians, and the regulation of what Canadians see and post on social media.

I can assure members that, if it were a Conservative government proposing a bill such as this, the Liberals would have a very different take on this legislation. Frankly, I am sure we would hear some very strong language coming from Liberal members. However, when they are doing it themselves, of course they do not see a problem.

Another question raised to me by many in my riding is, “What is Canadian content?” There is certainly a very important discussion around that, but not a lot of clarity. There are questions of whether it is Canadian content if something is made in Canada, if a Canadian contributed to it, or if a Canadian wrote something but was not actually a part of it after that. There are a lot of questions as to what Canadian content is. The government is planning to put a commission in place to determine that, but without proper debate and discussion around that beforehand, it does remain a major question mark.

Experts have said that this bill has “limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope, and harmful discoverability provisions.” When we are hearing this type of language, and not from parliamentarians but from experts in the field, it is really important that we pause and take a step back to reflect on that. Above all else, when we are talking about Bill C-11, it is important that we have a wholesome debate on that.

I know we are doing our due diligence as the official opposition to review the bill. Obviously we have some concerns with it. We want to review the bill, and hopefully bring forward some reasonable amendments to improve it. However, my concern is that we saw the government move closure on this legislation, which is quite detrimental to the debate. There are a lot of members who want to be able to speak on this and share their concerns and ideas. Having a limit on debate, moving closure and not allowing members to speak to this does a disservice to all Canadians because their views are not being properly represented in this place.

The member for Barrie—Innisfil, and once again he is being featured in my speech today, noted that this is a bill that has many concerns around the potential censorship of Canadians on social media. Now we have a Liberal government that is actually moving closure and limiting debate on this censorship bill. It cannot get more hypocritical than that.

The last thought I want to leave the House with today is that there are certainly some important measures or goals set out in this bill. There is no doubt that promoting Canadian content and ensuring Canadian communities are represented in our content is important, but Bill C-11, just like the previous Parliament's Bill C-10 does not appear to be much more than the Liberal government single-handedly deciding which content Canadians should or should not see. That is a cause of concern for me and for many in the Kenora riding, and I believe for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that what scares him about this bill is the CRTC's new powers.

The Conservatives quoted experts who think there might actually be no need for legislation to accomplish the goal of boosting the discoverability of francophone and Canadian content.

I would like my colleague to help me understand exactly which of the CRTC's new powers are a problem for the Conservatives.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question gives me the opportunity to reiterate what I said in my comments. Giving sweeping new powers to the CRTC without any indication of what those powers will be and how they will be used is a cause for concern. The hon. member mentioned the experts. The experts have said that this bill has “limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope”. I cannot say it any better than that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know that the member for Kenora has a huge indigenous population in his riding.

I would like to ask about the sections of this bill regarding indigenous people. One says, for example, “provide opportunities to Indigenous persons to produce programming in Indigenous languages, English or French, or in any combination of them, and to carry on broadcasting undertakings”. Does the member consider sections such as these censorship?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I certainly would not consider that censorship. As I mentioned off the top, there are some very important goals set out in Bill C-11 and some important aspects of it in terms of promoting Canadian content. I know from my constituents, particularly those in the remote northern first nations of my riding, which I know are still further south than the member's, but northern as far as Ontario goes, that culture is so important, especially in the remote, isolated communities, and anything we can do to promote that and to ensure that traditional languages and practices are preserved is definitely very important.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his measured tone. I may not have agreed with everything he shared, but I do appreciate the tone he shared it in.

My question is with respect to making sense of the user-generated content provisions of the bill. My understanding of proposed subsection 4.2(2) is that it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, which would ideally cut out concerns with respect to a parent who might be posting videos on Facebook, for example.

I am looking to better understand the member's concern with respect to user-generated content. He used the term “censorship”. If it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, does that not address the concern?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, we do not always agree on everything, but I have always found that his interventions in this place are very balanced and positive, and I appreciate his contribution to this chamber.

From my point of view, to the member's point, the issue I take is with the wording “directly or indirectly generates revenues”. That opens up the door and makes it a bit more of a grey area in terms of what could possibly fall under this category. That is why I think we need to have more debate on this and more discussion. I suspect, based on some of the comments I am hearing today, that this will end up in committee and I am hoping that all parties at committee will be able to work together in order to clear some of this up and make sure we bring forward a better bill for Canadians than the one we currently see.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by sharing my concern for the residents of the hon. member's riding. I know they are in good hands and he is going to work extremely hard on their behalf to ensure that the situation is rectified for the safety of all the residents he represents.

This was once a place of informed debate. The concern with this bill, specifically as it relates to the CRTC and the policy directive to the CRTC happening after the bill is passed, causes me and, I am sure, many Canadians great concern. I am wondering if the hon. member can reflect on what the consequences of that may be as it relates to the online content of Canadians.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for his kind comments.

I would simply say that the lack of clarity, the fact that there is no transparency on what that directive will look like, really leaves it open to interpretation. It leaves it open to the fact that any Canadian content could fall under this.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, good evening to all my hon. colleagues this evening as we continue to debate Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which is very important to the modernization and amending of the Broadcasting Act. This evening, I would like to focus my remarks on the bill and what it means for the disability community and accessibility in particular.

So far, our debate on the online streaming act has largely focused on how the bill seeks to expand the legislative and regulatory broadcasting framework to include online broadcasters.

However, we must not forget that it is also about making the broadcasting system more inclusive. Ensuring that the Canadian broadcasting system serves all Canadians is an important goal.

In 2019, our government passed the Accessible Canada Act to make Canada barrier-free by January 1, 2040. This historic legislation allows the Government of Canada to take a proactive approach to the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to accessibility in sectors under federal jurisdiction across Canada, which includes broadcasting. Accessibility is part of our government's progressive digital policy agenda, which aims to create a fairer, safer and more inclusive Internet for all Canadians, including disabled Canadians.

Both the Accessible Canada Act and the Broadcasting Act have a role to play in eliminating barriers to accessibility in the broadcasting sector. They work together to remove the barriers to accessibility that people with disabilities continue to face in society on a daily basis.

With respect to the online streaming act, Bill C‑11 helps make Canada barrier-free by strengthening certain provisions of the Broadcasting Act that are designed to provide rights and protections to people with disabilities.

In this regard, the CRTC already has the power to impose accessibility requirements on traditional broadcasting services. To meet the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers, broadcasters generally need to caption 100% of their programs and meet various quality standards for captioning, including accuracy. To meet the needs of blind or partially sighted consumers, certain broadcasters are required to provide described video for appropriate programming in prime time.

The CRTC also requires cable companies and satellite services to offer persons with disabilities a trial period of at least 30 days so that they can see if the service and equipment meet their needs.

Lastly, the CRTC requires these same companies to supply their subscribers with set-top boxes and accessible remote controls when available.

The online streaming act updates the key tenets of the Broadcasting Act to strengthen the accessibility of the Canadian broadcasting system. First, it states that the system should include all Canadians, including persons with disabilities.

Second, it states that the Canadian broadcasting system must offer programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities. I want to make it clear that our bill strengthens this objective by striking “as resources become available” from the Broadcasting Act.

This is so that the availability of financial resources specifically can no longer be used to justify the existence of barriers that prevent the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Finally, the online streaming act amends the Broadcasting Act to clarify that the CRTC should regulate the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that “facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities”. The policy direction to the CRTC will reinforce this objective.

In addition to these key principles, our bill gives the CRTC the power to impose conditions of service on traditional broadcasters, such as TVA and CTV, and online broadcasters, such as Netflix and Illico, as well as cable broadcasters, such as Videotron and Rogers, to ensure programming accessibility. The CRTC will have the power to impose conditions of service that relate to the identification, prevention and removal of barriers to programming access.

The bill would also give the CRTC the power to impose monetary penalties on broadcasting services that do not comply with the regulations or orders. Conditions of service would therefore be linked to monetary penalties. As such, the CRTC would be able to impose monetary penalties on broadcasting services that do not comply with the requirement to provide closed captioning or described video.

I said earlier that the Broadcasting Act works hand in hand with the Accessible Canada Act to remove barriers to accessibility in the broadcasting sector.

Under the Accessible Canada Act, broadcasting undertakings would be required to comply with accessibility regulations and prepare and publish accessibility plans describing how they will identify, remove and prevent barriers in their operations. They would also need to prepare and publish progress reports on these plans and establish ongoing feedback processes.

The CRTC and the accessibility commissioner share responsibility for ensuring compliance with and enforcing the Accessible Canada Act in the broadcasting sector. Both bodies can impose financial penalties on broadcasting companies that do not comply with the various provisions of the law.

With the passing of the online streaming act, we have an opportunity to make the Canadian broadcasting system more accessible and inclusive and to better support Canadians who, for too long, have been marginalized because of barriers to accessibility.

To achieve this, our bill will ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system, through its programming and employment opportunities, meets the needs and interests of all Canadians, including those living with disabilities.

I thank my colleagues for their time this evening and for listening to my remarks on Bill C-11. I look forward to questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here tonight, late in the night, debating Bill C-11. I asked the member's colleague this question before, and I am going to ask him as well—

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

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the member is wearing a button he was asked to remove.

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

I am sorry.

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

Thank you.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Liberals talk about incessantly with this bill is levelling the playing field. As I iterated to the member's colleague just prior to this speech, a couple of organizations in my riding are trying to get a radio station started, and it takes, on average, three years to get approval from the CRTC to get a radio station. It seems to me that one of the things that would level the playing field would be to make it so that someone could sign up for a radio station in about the same amount of time it takes to sign up for a podcast, which is about 45 minutes, maybe less.

Would the member not agree that in levelling the playing field between heritage media forms and new media forms, we should be trying to reduce the barriers for all of them? On the Internet there is unlimited freedom. One can reach a large network. People living in northern Canada often do not have good Internet access or the capacity to get podcasts, but if we could get local radio stations fired up in about the same time it would take a podcast—

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

I will give the hon. member an opportunity to answer.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try my best to answer the query from the hon. member, if I understood it correctly.

I grew up in northern British Columbia at a time when there was no Internet, and we listened to CHTK, which was a local radio station, and a local TV station, so I know how important local radio and local TV are to rural communities from coast to coast to coast. What I will say is that it is comparing apples to oranges when we compare the Internet to radio and the transmission of radio waves in the process.

The bill we are debating tonight is a modernization of part of the Broadcasting Act. It is well needed. It would level the playing field, in terms of bringing the online streamers into the act and under regulation.

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

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to congratulate my colleague on how much his French has improved. He has made great strides in just a few months.

My question has to do with discoverability, the importance of being able to access Canadian content, francophone content. At this time, pretty much all we get on these platforms is American content.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the importance of discoverability when it comes to showcasing our culture.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for the question.

Discoverability in reference to language minorities across Canada, and how that situation may prevail, is something that I find very important. Enhancing accessibility to French-speaking programs across the country is also very important, in my humble opinion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague for his comments on what the Conservative strategy has been over the last six months. Basically, since the ban on conversion therapy got through the House, the Conservatives have refused to let any legislation through. However, as we have this debate tonight on Bill C-11, we know we have a situation where the web giants have created billions of dollars through record profiteering during the pandemic, and Canadian musicians, artists and actors are finding themselves, particularly in the case of musicians, losing 80% of their income. We have many examples of the web giants using the production and creative knowledge of Canadians to make enormous profits, but they are paying just pennies, just scraps, to Canadian artists.

Why does the member think the Conservatives are objecting so strenuously to having in place a situation where Canadian artists are actually remunerated effectively for their creations? Why are the Conservatives blocking this bill and so many other bills?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast sent us here to get work done for their benefit and to move legislation forward. I am very happy to see that the NDP is working constructively with us to do that, whether it is on this bill, Bill C-19 or other pieces of legislation.

We need to bring online streamers within the system. They benefit from access to the Canadian market, but they do not contribute to the creation of Canadian content. We need to change that, and part of Bill C-11 would do that. We also need to level the playing field, which Bill C-11 would do as well.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which follows on Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

First, as a student of journalism, media arts and technology at the Cégep de Jonquière, which I would like to give a shout-out to, then as a politics and communications student at Université de Sherbrooke and even recently as the critic for seniors, I have heard a lot about what is happening to the media and web giants like GAFAM. That is what my speech will focus on today, because my other colleagues, including the member for Drummond, have spoken at length about the importance of Bill C‑11. In my speech, I will address three points: the link between this bill and local news, the importance to seniors of protecting regional media, and the Bloc's gains in this bill.

The first part of my speech will be a plea to save regional news. For that, I will cite excerpts from Extinction de voix: plaidoyer pour la sauvegarde de l'information régionale, a book on this very subject that was written by a journalist and author from back home, Marie-Ève Martel.

First, by not requiring enough of a contribution from GAFAM and their ilk, we are helping erode regional news content. We can rail against the unfair tax treatment between the news media and the web giants and the federal government's inaction when it comes to remedying the situation. Local news outlets have been part of the socio-cultural landscape in Quebec communities for decades. Many of these outlets played an essential role in their community for years and years before closing up shop.

The uncertain economic outlook for regional news businesses dictates the rules of the game. Economic stability seems unattainable for some. There is a high price to be paid for the dwindling number of journalistic voices out there. It is not uncommon for several small media outlets to be served by a single journalist or a barebones staff. They sometimes get content from national news outlets or other group members to pad the web edition. Televised newscasts are cut down or fleshed out with national news reports on more general topics. In some cases, any white space on the platforms is simply filled with press releases, which means that the message is not subject to a journalist's scrutiny. By using such practices, news outlets can hide the fact that they are producing increasingly less local content, as a result of having insufficient resources to produce as much coverage as they used to.

Journalism is often called the fourth estate, because it is in charge of monitoring the other three, namely the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judiciary, and reminding us of their purpose. We are governed by elected members who advocate for transparency on all fronts, at least in their speeches. In the digital age, they can now communicate with their constituents without an intermediary. Their policies should be available online with just a few clicks. Despite this so‑called transparency, the information is not necessarily more accessible than it was before. There are still many obstacles that will need to disappear before we can be said to have full access to this information.

We have to acknowledge the many barriers making regional journalists' work harder. Although these limitations and barriers are not directly contributing to the disappearance of the media, they prevent the media from fulfilling their mission, so in that sense, they are a threat on the same level as economic uncertainty.

Another equally important role the media plays, regardless of location, is oversight of political power. Elected representatives represent their constituents, so, as officers and administrators of public funds and municipal government, they are accountable for managing them. That watchdog role is one of the main reasons media outlets do what they do. Need I point out that the media took shape as political instruments centuries ago? On behalf of the people, journalists keep representatives accountable and ensure the proper functioning of local governments. That is why they are known as the fourth estate, which some elected representatives sometimes dislike.

Nevertheless, as much as journalists keep an eye on politicians, they also serve them, if only by enabling them to take the pulse of the populace. Many elected representatives rely on local news for information about problems and issues of concern to the people. The media essentially helps build local identities, serves as a catalyst for local unity, and provides a public forum for the exchange of ideas.

Regional media outlets serve as an advertising platform that gives businesses consumer visibility and, as a service, they are a powerful showcase for small and medium-sized businesses.

An American study published in May 2018 found that when local media shuts down, this has a profound impact on the local economy. The study looked at a total of 1,266 counties in the U.S. served by more than 1,500 newspapers, 291 of which disappeared between 1996 and 2015. The authors found that, since the media monitors how contracts are awarded, including by various levels of government, when the media disappears, this has a direct impact. Public spending tends to increase within a three-year period, particularly in the area of long-term borrowing for infrastructure projects.

In the communities that were studied, borrowing costs were on average 0.55% to 1.1% higher in places where there was no longer a newspaper to keep an eye on public spending.

These are just a few examples from the book to illustrate the importance of better protection.

Ms. Martel has recently written another book, Privé de sens: plaidoyer pour un meilleur accès à l'information. It is a plea for better access to information. In it, she explores Quebec's access to information system, which was set up 40 years ago and allows anyone to obtain most documents produced by public organizations. These days, the mechanisms underpinning the system are often outdated. Long wait times, astronomical fees, conflicts of interest, blatant misunderstandings, insufficient resources and redacted documents are some of the numerous and overlapping reasons given for refusing or delaying the provision of information. The book also explores the connection between access to information requests and the democratic foundations of our societies.

We must now remember that in the 20th century, Quebec's and Canada's local broadcasters had two advantages that enabled them to provide free local journalism and increased their revenues.

First, the media could offer a package of products, or a combination of genres and categories, with the profitable parts of the package subsidizing the unprofitable parts, thus ensuring the overall viability of the platform. For example, television stations used to offer all types of programs, including news, sports and others, and they used the profits to subsidize less profitable genres.

Second, radio and television stations and newspapers served as gatekeepers. They provided news that listeners, viewers and readers could not officially or easily have obtained otherwise.

The Internet changed everything. Websites and platforms took off, starting with the classified ads on Craigslist and moving on to international digital platforms, such as Google and Facebook ads, and they were soon able to compete with local media for profits. With targeted print, audio and video media being delivered digitally, the Internet enabled more competition for advertising dollars and for consumers' time and attention, including international competition for these three elements. The competition, especially from global Internet conglomerates, devastated local Canadian media.

The Quebec and Canadian radio and television broadcasting sector is in crisis. An article published by the Canadian Press on August 27, 2020, reported that the short- and medium-term outlook for private radio and television broadcasting in Canada is very bleak. It is high time to subject web giants to the Broadcasting Act by forcing them to contribute financially.

Second, the survival of local media is extremely important for seniors, as this is how they stay connected to their communities. They are worried that the web giants are not paying their fair share, which is jeopardizing the survival of local media. I got a question about this at a debate during the 2019 election campaign. I have also heard from organizations on this issue recently because of my position as critic for seniors.

Third, I have to mention that the Bloc Québécois contributed significantly to the previous version of the bill, the infamous Bill C‑10, and was able to secure the following gains: the protection and promotion of original French-language programs; the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian content, including French-language original content, in an equitable proportion; the promotion of original Canadian content in both official languages and in indigenous languages; a mandatory contribution to Canada's broadcasting system if a company is unable to make use of Canadian resources as part of its programming; the requirement for first-run French-language content, in order to ensure there are new French-language shows on Netflix, for example, and not old ones; and a sunset clause that would provide for a comprehensive review of the act every five years.

I would like to mention that the Haute‑Yamaska chamber of commerce held its 35th awards gala last weekend, and the daily newspaper La Voix de l'Est won in the category “retail business and services with more than 15 employees”, demonstrating that our local news outlets are an integral part of our economy. Mario Gariépy received the community builder award, notably for his involvement with the committee that turned La Voix de l'Est into a co-operative.

To conclude, this bill is very important to us, because Quebec culture is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's mission. Broadcasting is undoubtedly the most effective tool for disseminating our culture, and it helps define our national identity. Local artists regularly remind us of this. The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of modernizing the Broadcasting Act. We must keep pace, stop the misinformation and move forward. I was barely 10 years old in 1991, the last time this legislation was reviewed.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the most concerning parts about Bill C-11 is that the government does not have to release the policy directive to the CRTC on user-generated content, and it does not have to do it while we are debating the bill.

In fact, the expectation is that, once the bill is passed, the policy directive will be shared with the CRTC. In the absence of any knowledge of what that directive may look like, does it not concern the Bloc that this bill does not reflect what that policy directive is as we debate the bill?

We are effectively debating something that we are not sure of, in terms of what is going to happen. Is that not a concern to my hon. colleague?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hear so many things from the Conservatives.

I have to believe we will achieve something with this, especially if it is enshrined in law. I am not concerned.

I think we have proven that the bill must go ahead. The last time the Broadcasting Act was reviewed was in 1991. It is high time that we moved forward on this. In any case, all of these issues will be resolved. There has been too much misinformation. Various legal analyses have shown that the Conservatives were spreading misinformation on this issue. Enough is enough. Let us move forward.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I know the riding of Shefford very well. I want to congratulate La Voix de l'Est on the award it won, which is a well-deserved honour.

My colleague raised some good points about the bill, including the importance of supporting artists.

It is important that the bill be sent to committee so that we can ask questions and get answers. For instance, we could ask the CRTC to clarify its interpretation of the rules. All this should be done in committee, but the Conservatives consistently refuse to refer the bill to committee.

What does my colleague think of this systematic obstruction by the Conservatives, who refuse to allow us to seek answers in committee?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I began addressing this when I answered the previous question from my Conservative colleague.

I find it hard to understand. There is a lot of disinformation. Legal opinions have shown that the Conservatives' arguments are unfounded. The committee's study will address that. Furthermore, I do not understands the attacks on artists. It is said that the bill responds to the representations from artists, who have not been able to adapt and modernize. Our artists are being attacked. As I mentioned, there is also the issue of enshrinement, which would make the CRTC rules much more rigid. There are different aspects to be addressed. If we want the bill to move forward, it must be referred to a committee.

I do not understand the Conservatives' obstruction. I also do not understand why gratuitous accusations are being made against Quebec's artists.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Shefford on her speech.

I know she is passionate about journalism, the arts and culture, and I know how important this bill is to her. The previous version of the bill, Bill C‑10 was very important to her. This year's bill is all the more important because it is urgent.

Lately we have been talking a lot about the place of indigenous cultures, of first nations. People want to reinstate the space they deserve, to hear their cultures, to hear their voices. Today, I had a conversation with a representative of an Innu community who is also an artist. He said that nobody listened to them, nobody made space for them, nobody gave them ice time in the broadcasting landscape, and it is the same for digital platforms.

Does my colleague think that, without this bill, indigenous cultures, first nations cultures—which some people righteously say should be put front and centre and should take up more space—would be out of luck and forgotten no matter how many nice things we say?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, discoverability applies to French-language content. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou pointed out in her speech that she has a hard time finding French-language content on these platforms.

This also applies to our indigenous peoples, who need visibility. Last week we had a debate on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There are all kinds of stories in the news that show how important it is to be in touch with indigenous peoples and show that they also need to be discovered.

Discoverability is not just for francophones. It is also for indigenous people and many others as well, thanks to Bill C‑11.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill, the online streaming act, which we know amends the Broadcasting Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.

At the outset, I want to state, as my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, did in his excellent remarks on this bill, my support for those sections of it that would see major international companies pay their share and invest in Canadian content. However, my remarks will focus on the impact this bill would have on the rights of all Canadians.

First, I will give a recap. When the first iteration of this bill was introduced in the last Parliament, it did not capture the attention of many Canadians. In fact, at second reading the bill was simply passed on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for review. Then, during the clause-by-clause deliberations, the Liberal members of the committee voted to remove an important safeguard of Canadians' freedom of speech. Canadians began to take notice, and started to loudly voice their opposition to this amendment and, by extension, to the bill's passage.

It bears repeating that the clause the heritage committee removed was a substantial clause that the justice department, in its opinion of the bill, made specific reference to as being necessary for the protection of the rights of Canadians.

It is baffling to me that the government, in particular the Minister of Canadian Heritage, along with his allies in the NDP and the Bloc party, could not see why millions of Canadians became opponents of this bill overnight. I believe that Canadians rightly suspected that this was not a case of the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, just having a difference of opinion, but rather knowing that Bill C-10 infringed on their fundamental rights. They did not care that it did so.

Equally troubling was how the Liberals rammed Bill C-10 through the House without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee. The many outstanding concerns that had been expressed by experts, parliamentarians and Canadians went unaddressed. In fact, the shadow minister at the time, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, made the following observation: “Weeks ago, the Trudeau Liberals secretly withdrew the section of their own bill that protects individual users’ content.”

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

The hon. secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, although the member was quoting, she used the Prime Minister's last name and was referring to this Prime Minister, not a former prime minister with the same last name. Perhaps she would like to rephrase it.

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

Duly noted. The hon. member knows better.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, my apologies. “Weeks ago, the Liberals secretly withdrew the section of their own bill that protects individual users' content, resulting in Canadians being subject to broad government powers to regulate their use of social media. The government went even further when it used extreme tactics that have not been used in decades to silence the opposition, keeping Canadians in the dark about their infringement on freedom of speech and ramming the bill through without proper debate.”

At this time, I need to point out the complete hypocrisy of the Liberals and NDP as we are discussing this bill late in the evening, but under time allocation. When the Liberals introduced Motion No. 11, we were told that one of the reasons they were doing so was so that more members could participate in debate on legislation. Why then did the government, with the help of the NDP, pass the time allocation motion on this important bill at second reading, limiting debate and the ability for the remaining opposition parties to hold the government to account? The answer is that this is part of a pattern of behaviour where the Prime Minister and his government run from transparency and accountability.

Here we are: We are debating Bill C-11, which is another encroachment by the Liberals on the fundamental rights of Canadians. It is under time constraints when clearly opposition to the former bill, now packaged as Bill C-11, and its encroachment on freedom of speech, are not partisan matters. It is not just the Conservative Party and its strongest supporters who are opposed to what the Liberals are attempting. Bill C-11 is a mere copy of the Liberals' deeply flawed Bill C-10, and it fails to address the serious concerns raised by experts and Canadians.

I would like to quote from a piece published by Michael Geist on his website on February 3, and I did that just for the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is entitled, “Not ready for prime time: Why Bill C-11 leaves the door open to CRTC regulation of user-generated content”. The opening paragraph reads as follows:

The minister and his department insisted that the new Bill C-11 addressed the concerns raised with Bill C-10 and that Canadians could be assured that regulating user generated content is off the table. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the case. The new bill, now billed the Online Streaming Act, restores one exception but adds a new one, leaving the door open for CRTC regulation. Indeed, for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”.

He concludes his article on Bill C-11 with the following:

There was an opportunity to use the re-introduction of the bill to fully exclude user generated content (no other country in the world regulates content this way), limit the scope of the bill to a manageable size, and create more certainty and guidance for the CRTC. Instead, the government has left the prospect of treating Internet content as programs subject to regulation in place, envisioned the entire globe as subject to Canadian broadcast jurisdiction, increased the power of the regulator, and done little to answer many of the previously unanswered questions. The bill is not ready for prime time and still requires extensive review and further reform to get it right.

The former commissioner of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Peter Menzies, is quoted by Global News as saying the following:

The biggest difference is that it’s called Bill C-11 instead of Bill C-10.... I think they deserve a little bit of credit for acknowledging that some of the concerns that many people raised last spring did indeed have merit, but their efforts at resolving those, I think, are weak.

The campaigns director for Open Media said of Bill C-11 the following:

Treating the Internet like cable television was a bad idea last year, and it’s a bad idea now. The Online Streaming Act continues to give the CRTC the power to use sorely outdated 1980s ideas about what “Canadian” content is, to control what shows up on our online feeds and what doesn’t.

These quotes by experts give voice and detail to the many, many emails that I have received from constituents and from Canadians who oppose this erosion of their freedoms. Canadians are paying attention.

In closing, I do want to remind my colleagues of two very short quotes by a former prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who passionately defended individual liberty. He said, “Canada is free and freedom is its nationality” and “Nothing will prevent me from continuing my task of preserving at all cost our civil liberty.” I agree with the former Liberal prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I wish the current Liberal Party did as well.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that Wilfrid Laurier would be very glad to hear that of all countries in the world, Canada is ranked fifth in terms of freedom, as found by Freedom House, which is an organization that has been around since 1941. They have actually rated our political freedom as 40 out of 40, and they have rated our civil liberties freedoms as 58 out of 60. We are ranked the fifth freest country in the world.

Perhaps the member would like to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of manufactured outrage going on right now with the Conservatives trying to find a wedge issue, trying to find something to try to drum up some fear, and trying to score cheap political points. Maybe that is what is going on here.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, to me what was the most troubling part of the debate which occurred over the predecessor bill to the proposed legislation is what we have now before us. Time and time again we have seen the government's overreach into the lives of Canadians, whether it is through its values test in the Canada summer jobs attestation, its subtle willingness to undermine Canadians' freedoms by failing to adequately protect the conscience rights of medical professionals, or its inexplicable refusal to end the federal mandates.

The government's actions demonstrate to all Canadians that it is out of touch and does not care about our constitutional rights.

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

Madam Speaker, I like to start by looking at what we agree on.

I think we can all agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be amended. It dates back to 1991, the wonderful year I met my spouse.

This legislation needs to be amended, adapted and modernized not only to reflect today's realities, but also to ensure that our artists have their window of opportunity and that this window is not slammed shut by the Americans.

I would like to hear any constructive suggestions that my colleague has for amending the Broadcasting Act, and I would also like to know what she would like to see in the legislation.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. I said at the beginning of my remarks that there are parts of this bill that we do agree with. We know that Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules which do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and global successes.

As I pointed out, while the government claims there is now an exemption for user-generated content, this legislation allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly. We need to make sure that we deal with the clauses in this bill that are deeply flawed.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the comments from the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and her effort in wanting to protect freedom of speech for Canadians.

I am finding her position interesting, though, because as an indigenous person, as a person who has experienced intergenerational trauma, I tend to be quite sensitive to assimilation, direct or indirect. I feel like the member's opposition to this bill is more a way of protecting unfettered foreign assimilation by web giants like Netflix, Amazon and Disney+.

Could you comment on whether this is indeed the fact, that what you are trying to do is protect those rights?

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

Just a reminder to the hon. member that I am not the one trying to do something.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the question from my colleague.

As I said, Conservatives support the idea that large international corporations like Netflix, Disney+ and others must pay their fair share in Canada and invest in Canadian content. I would remind the members in this place that this was in our election platform.

However, where we have concerns and where we differ drastically from the NDP-Liberal government and their Bloc allies is in regard to the application of this bill to creators of online digital content.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the cultural aspect of our lives is extremely important. For years, we have had the means to allow Canadians across the country to hear the voices of other Canadians, to listen to music, to watch movies, to watch television and to experience a Canadian culture that is extremely complex and very diversified.

When I think of Quebec culture, for example, I remember the first time I listened to Robert Charlebois, on a Sunday evening, because we could listen to French radio at home, in New Westminster, British Columbia. He was the first Quebec artist who forged my understanding of the diversity of Quebec's cultural life.

What artists are telling us is that there is currently a real imbalance in the system. Consequently, as talented as they may be, artists cannot fully reap the benefits of all their potential, as artists, to create and to promote our cultural life and to make it so complex and so profound.

That is really the message tonight. Our artists across the country are saying there is something wrong with the system. We have web giants, these massive companies, that are foreign-owned and the Conservatives support them to the detriment of Canadians and Canadian artists. These companies make these enormous profits while paying scraps to Canadian artists.

As we know, the reality is when we are talking about the word “censorship”, we are throwing it around so loosely when it comes to Bill C-11, and I will come back to that in just a moment. The reality is the censorship that takes place now with the web giants is the algorithms that withhold Canadian content from Canadians. Even Canadians trying to access that content cannot do it because of the algorithms that are not shared or not transparent that censors what Canadians can see and what Canadians can hear. That is the reality.

As members well know, other countries are putting forward legislation so that these web giants, these massive foreign-owned corporations, that pay no taxes in Canada and do not show the responsibility they should be showing in Canada, actually have to be transparent on the algorithms that control what people see, what people watch and what people can hear.

The idea that we put in place an update to the Broadcasting Act makes sense, because it establishes a level playing field so we do not see the situation we are seeing now. We see that Canadians musicians have lost 80% of their income as more and more of their product goes online and they get paid less and less by the massive web giants that are supported, for reasons I do not understand, by some members of this House.

As that happens, it is important for Canadian MPs to step up and try to level the playing field. Musicians losing 80% of their income should be something that all members of Parliament should be concerned about. About $3 billion has been taken out of musicians' pockets. That should be something that all Canadians are concerned about.

I talked earlier about listening, for the first time, late one evening in New Westminster, British Columbia, to a Quebec artist, Robert Charlebois, and understanding the incredible depth of Québécois culture. When I was growing up, I was able to listen to Rush, Gordon Lightfoot and Bachman-Turner Overdrive and so many other Canadian artists that would not have been able to get into the market if the American record companies and the American broadcasters had told Canadians what they could or could not listen to. That is the reality here.

When we have foreign companies deciding what Canadians can watch and listen to, we need to establish a level playing field so our Canadian artists can shine through.

The Conservatives, who are opposed to this legislation moving forward, even to get answers on it, should understand that not one of them has quoted a Canadian artist or musician tonight. They cannot, because artist associations, everyone from the Canadian Independent Music Association to ACTRA, are all very supportive of the legislation. What, then, should we be doing tonight in this debate?

My Conservative colleagues, and I have respect for them, have said that they simply do not want this legislation to move forward, just as they have been saying for months that they do not want any other legislation to move forward. We have seen it with Bill C-8. Teachers were asking for their tax credit and the Conservatives said they would not pass it. We have seen it with Bill C-19 and dental care, which the NDP pushed forward. For the first time, there was an affordable housing platform, and the Conservatives said they did not want that to move forward either.

On Bill C-11, as we have heard in the debate tonight, the Conservatives have talked about three concerns. First off, they reference a bill that no longer exists and say they did not like it. That is fair enough, but that is not the bill we are debating. Then they talk about a bill that may be coming in a year or so that deals with online harms, and they say they do not like that bill either. Well, that debate will be in a year.

Then they say, about this bill, that they believe in a level playing field, but they have some questions. At the same time, however, they do not want this bill to go to committee, where we can get answers to the questions they have asked. Some of the questions they have asked around the CRTC are legitimate. How it defines its powers is a legitimate question, and I have that question too.

We would love to have the bill come to committee, because the committee, as part of our legislative process, is the place where we get answers to questions. We could sit here to midnight every single night, but we are not going to get the ministry and the CRTC to answer our questions until the bill gets to committee.

This is where it becomes passing strange. We have had debate now for a number of days. We should be referring the bill to committee. If Conservative members do not want to vote for the bill they do not have to vote for it. However, for them to say they are going to stop any member of Parliament from getting the answers they are asking around the bill by refusing to have it go to committee does not make any sense at all.

It is also not respectful to the artists from coast to coast to coast who have been asking for years to have a level playing field. They have been asking for years for us, as members of Parliament, to play our role and establish a level playing field to allow them, finally, to have some presence in the online world so that Canadian content can shine and the web giants will not decide what Canadians get to see and hear.

This is really the challenge this evening. We will be sitting until midnight, but the Conservatives will say they want to keep sitting and sitting and will say the same things. As I mentioned earlier, they have debated a past bill that no longer exists and a future bill that may or may not exist, and on this bill, they say they have questions.

We should all agree that the way to get answers to those questions is to refer the bill to committee and allow the heritage committee to sit down and get answers from the minister and the CRTC. In that way, we could respond to our legislative role, which is to make sure that as we pass this legislation, it is done in the most effective way possible and actually does what it purports to do: level the playing field for Canadian artists so that our musicians, actors and all of the Canadian cultural and artistic sphere can shine.

We know that when there is a level playing field, it is not the web giants deciding what Canadians can see and hear. When there is a level playing field, Canadian artists will shine. My message to the Conservatives is to let Canadian artists shine. Let us get answers to the bill. Let us get this bill to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives seem to be having a hard time understanding that those who control the distribution network have the opportunity to promote their own product. They do not understand this concept when we talk about culture, but when we talk about oil and pipelines, they understand the distribution system. That speaks volumes.

Does the member not agree that the only thing Bill C‑11 does, in reality, is require online distribution networks to offer a wider range of viewpoints and products and that ultimately, this will improve democracy here in Canada?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think this allows for greater balance in the distribution network and more opportunities for Canadians to hear and see Canadian artists. That is why the entire artistic community in Canada says that we must move forward with this bill.

So far, I have received roughly 8,000 letters in favour of this bill and two dozen against. The letters of opposition came from people who were still talking about a future bill, a bit like the Conservatives, who are saying this evening that in a year or two there may be another bill. That will be the time for another debate.

For now, Canadian artists want us to bring in a system that stops disadvantaging them for once. I think we need to listen to them and move forward with this bill by sending it to committee.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP always used to be a party of principle, standing up for Canadians' rights, freedoms and civil liberties. However, since its new common-law relationship with the Liberals, it seems as though it has abandoned some of those principles and is willfully choosing to overlook the aspects of this bill that would provide undue censorship and give the CRTC power that we are not used to experiencing.

The member has completely mis-characterized the Conservatives. We believe that there should be a level playing field, especially for Canadian artists, and we believe that big web giants should be paying their fair share, absolutely.

We have seen how the Liberals have abused Canadians' civil liberties and violated their constitutional rights and charter rights through the Public Health Agency of Canada by allowing it to track all Canadians and Quebeckers on their cellphones. Is the member not concerned that the Liberals will also do that with this bill?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have respect for the member for Provencher, but he has just proven my point. The Conservatives are not debating Bill C-11. In fact, many of the Conservatives who have intervened tonight patently have not read the bill. They do not know what is in the bill, so they are debating everything else. They are debating cellphone technology. Are they kidding me? This is exactly the problem. The Conservatives want to sit until midnight, but they want to talk about cellphones. They want to talk about anything but the bill.

On behalf of Canadian artists from coast to coast to coast, I say this to the member for Provencher and all other Conservative MPs: Let us get the bill to committee. Let us get the legitimate questions answered. Let us stop talking about cellphones and all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with Bill C-11.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that you are doing an excellent job. Respectfully, our colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby just gave a speech and we would have liked to have asked him some questions.

Just two questions were asked. Perhaps the questions and the answers were a bit long, but I would have liked for a third party to at least have the opportunity to ask a question. I wanted to mention this for future consideration.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think if you sought it, there would be unanimous consent to give the member for Drummond a question. I really want to hear what he has to say.

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

Apparently, we cannot, even through unanimous consent.

I understand the hon. member's point. I was keeping a close eye on the clock to leave time for a third question, but there just was not enough time. I am very sorry.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in my home to speak tonight to this bill. It pains me to have to do this, as it is another attempt by the Liberals to restrict Canadians’ speech.

I would like to reiterate what so many content creators and their stakeholders have expressed in opposition to Bill C-11 and its predecessor, Bill C-10. No matter what the Liberals claim, this bill is a near carbon copy of Bill C-10 and represents a direct assault on the free speech of every Canadian. That simple fact outweighs any supposed benefit of the legislation, which is why I feel it needs to be stopped.

I had previously spoken on Bill C-10 in the last Parliament. That was before the Liberals decided to vote against aspects of their own legislation in order to target the free expression of average Canadian content creators. At the time, I spoke about the shortcomings of the bill and how it does not succeed in making the changes to our broadcasting system that are needed to ensure that who we are, what we say and how we say it within Canada and to the world are available going forward.

The pandemic amplified that need. We have all spent more time indoors during the pandemic, and without a doubt, more time with family in front of a TV and computer screens cemented the fact that our media landscape has changed forever. 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. Looking at this bill in its present form, I think the Liberals fully understand this new reality. That is why they felt the need to take it in the concerning direction that we see today.

As background, Bill C-11 would give sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet, with no clear guidelines for how that power will be used. That is significant. Despite claims that this bill exempts user-generated content, the Liberals still plan to allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue “directly or indirectly”. That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. In fact, YouTube has been critical of attempts to force-feed Canadian content that Canadians might choose not to watch. Ninety per cent of Canadian YouTubers' revenue comes from beyond Canada. A video’s poor performance within our borders will translate into reduced distribution around the world, threatening an industry that contributes $923 million to Canada's GDP.

This is not a surprising element of the bill. In the last Parliament, the Liberals voted against the section of Bill C-10 that would have at least partially exempted individual users who upload videos to social media sites like YouTube and Facebook from CRTC regulation. They have given the CRTC the power to regulate the content Canadians upload on social media and the social media sites that allow them to publish that content, just like the programming on a licensed television station like CTV or Global.

At the time, the minister also mentioned that the CRTC could impose discoverability regulations on individuals who have a large enough following online. This would put Canadian content at even greater risk, especially the content that the minister or the Prime Minister does not like. The government does not like the fact that Canadians have the freedom to create, criticize and comment online free of government censorship.

The government’s fear of the average content creator is evident through its past actions to curtail debate in the committee. Our Conservative opposition does not oppose elements of legislation without putting forward common-sense amendments. At the heritage committee, members proposed an amendment to Bill C-10 that would have limited regulation to online undertakings with more than $50 million a year in revenue and 250,000 subscribers in Canada. In effect, this amendment would have only applied to large streaming services. This approach was rejected outright, so there is a disconnect here.

Then the Liberals went to the unprecedented length to gag our work in committee. In a move not seen in over 20 years, the Prime Minister and his minister placed time allocation on the work of the committee to properly vet each clause of the bill and hear expert testimony on its effect. This is what they are saying they want in committee now.

Sadly, the Liberals have also shown disrespect for the House and for the fundamental rights and freedoms we have all been elected to defend. The latest motion, Motion No. 11, gives the NDP-Liberal government the power to extend debate daily, without notice, until midnight, while giving it a pass on having to participate and giving the Prime Minister the ability to arbitrarily shut down the House until the fall if he feels that his power is being threatened by the truth revealed in this place.

Over and over again, they have come dangerously close to being exposed for using disinformation to convince Canadians that they have their backs and are motivated by concern for the safety of Canadians, so why would Canadians trust them with this latest version of their anti-speech bill?

On this side of the House, we will not permit them to run roughshod over Canadians’ rights and freedoms without a challenge. I would like to reiterate the concerns of some of Canada’s leading experts on the digital economy and our media landscape, because we want to hear from the people who are the experts, right?

Well, Michael Geist serves as the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. He has said that, despite the government’s claim, it simply is not the case that Internet regulation is off the table with C-11. According to Geist, “everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a ‘program.’”

He has warned that Bill C-11 actually goes beyond Bill C-10 in empowering the CRTC to control user-generated content.

He says, “As Bill C-10 made its way through the legislative process, new provisions were added to limit the scope of CRTC orders and regulations over online undertakings and user generated content.... Those limits have been removed from Bill C-11, which once again opens the door to a far more aggressive CRTC regulatory approach.”

I would also like to reiterate what Mr. Geist said last year. He said, “We would never dream of saying the CRTC would or should regulate things like our own letters or our blog posts, but this is a core expression for millions of Canadians, and we are saying that it is treated as a program like any other, and subject to regulation.”

To Geist, it is clear that Bill C-11 aims to pick winners and losers in the competitive digital marketplace of ideas. No other country in the world regulates content in the way that this bill is proposing. The government missed a golden opportunity to listen to what Canadians had to say. While they could have fully excluded user-generated content and put strict limits on the CRTC’s power, they chose not to, and that is a concern.

Peter Menzies is another expert well known to the government as the former vice-chair of the CRTC. According to Mr. Menzies, the biggest difference between Bill C-11 and last year’s Bill C-10 is the bill number. He says that the Liberals “continue to believe that the internet is broadcasting, and I don’t think they really understand what it is”.

Well, either they do not understand, or maybe they are so concerned that they are trying to limit that. His input on the debate has justified many of the fears that my colleagues and I have with regard to the practical effect of Bill C-11.

As with so many other bills, and this is important, the Liberals are choosing to throw up their hands and empower the unelected CRTC with defining social media and deciding whether uploaded content passes its smell test. That should not be its job.

Canadians could attempt to hold the CRTC accountable for its decisions if there were public records of its meetings, but according to Menzies, no minutes of their meetings are kept. As a former commissioner, Mr. Menzies knows the mandate of the CRTC better than most anyone. The CRTC does manage speech. In his words:

From the moment the Royal Commission on Broadcasting was established...the regulation and licensing of Canada’s publicly-owned radio waves...has been about who owns it and what speech it will approve to be used upon it....

The CRTC governs what type of music is made, and by who, and when it is played, along with how many hours a week must be designated for “spoken word,” news, “deejay banter” and advertising. It decides what is and isn’t a montage, and it makes sure that if you are a religious broadcaster, you have to give 20 hours per week to people who don’t share your faith.

The CRTC is not a transparent body, whose natural instinct is to regulate and shape speech to align with its definition. The CRTC and the Liberals should not be defining what the public wants in this new digital age.

Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters and championing Canadian arts and culture. We have made that clear. However, we do so without compromising Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms. There is a poison pill here.

This bill is flawed in many ways. It is clear that the Liberals are caught between their own hunger to control thought and speech, and their inability to grasp the sheer scope of the media landscape that grows by the day.

Bill C-11 is clearly an effort to stifle inconvenient speech in a digital world that the Liberals do not control. They do not want Canadians to make informed choices for themselves, and they do not want to protect their freedom to create content that showcases the best our amazing country has to offer—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, there is almost no part of that speech that is true. It is completely fabricated.

The member spent a lot of time talking about user-generated content, like many members from the Conservative Party have, but there are several sections of the bill that seek to make sure that user-generated content is protected, including proposed subsections 2(2.1), 2(2.2) and 2(2.3); proposed section 3(a); proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2; and proposed subsection 4.3(3).

To the point of the member for Yorkton—Melville, has the member actually read the bill, and is she aware of those sections that attempt to make sure we protect user-generated content?

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the government has had to backtrack and then come forward again, and it puts little poison pills into its bills that are not acceptable to Canadians.

Canadians are very aware that the government is afraid of average people expressing their views and sharing their creative work. Controlling speech in the new world of communication is a means to protect the platforms the government currently rewards and communicates its ideology through.

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

Madam Speaker, I give up. I am sick and tired of this. After listening to the Conservatives talk for three hours, I will surrender to their arguments. If Parliament adopts Bill C‑11, Canada will become a dictatorship, the thought police will be out, no one will be able to publish anything, no artists will be able to release their music on Spotify, no filmmakers will be able to get views, we will be terrorized into submission, and freedom of expression will disappear. That will be it. Way to go, the Conservatives got me. I am tired of this.

All of that said, we still need to help artists. We need to protect them.

As I mentioned earlier, Pierre Lapointe was paid $500 for one million plays. That is unacceptable and we must do something about it.

What does my Conservatives colleague suggest we do about this?

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

Madam Speaker, I said in my speech, and this is the truth, I absolutely support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, and championing Canadian arts and culture. There are multiple ways to do that, and having the CRTC have the authority that it is being given without clarity and without checks and balances is not in favour of our own Canadian arts and culture.

I have children of my own who are very engaged in this field and, believe me, I understand the dynamics. However, this bill has issues and needs to be incredibly improved, if not scrapped and started over. I know there is frustration with the fact that the CRTC has not been improved for many years, but the issue is that this is not the correct bill. That is what happens: The government brings forward a statement that reflects what it wants people to understand it is moving towards, and there are many other elements to the bills it brings forward that end up causing great—

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

We have to continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about average Canadians.

My niece, who is a musician, plays in a band called The County Line with her partner, Hayden. I would not call her average. I would say she is above average. She just posted that her first concert, after two years, is going to be on May 14. For two years, she has not earned revenue as a musician. In the meantime, Netflix's revenue has gone up 22%.

We heard the member's speech, and we heard the member before her trying to say that this was going to help the government track people's cell phones. Clearly, if anyone read the bill, there is no way the government could track people's cell phones. It is not in the bill. I am deeply concerned about the Conservatives not bringing forward real solutions.

If the Conservatives actually support our artists in Canada and want to stop the economic leakage, what is it that they want to see change? Why are they continuing to be the gatekeepers for the big web giants?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not believe I heard that in my colleague's statements, and I do not believe that is what was being said. It is around the frustrations that Canadians do not have confidence in the government doing things that are actually appropriate in regard to their freedoms.

The second thing is that I totally agree with having the big providers pay their fair share, that needs to be done. I have young people as well who are involved. There are many young people who are finding ways to become very proficient and profitable online. We have to give them those freedoms as well.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to apologize to the interpreters. I have done that three times tonight and I know that can create a loud ringing when the headset is too close to the microphone. Through you to the interpretation services, I apologize.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in the House. I rise today to add my concerns to those of my colleagues around Bill C-11.

For those who have been following the process closely, Bill C-11 has several working titles around Parliament Hill. To some here in the House, it is just a reintroduced Bill C-10 from the last session of Parliament, with one change and one exception making that change irrelevant. To others, this bill is known as “how to save the future of broadcast” despite the fact that broadcasters such as Rogers and Bell, for example, have never publicly mentioned that their future relies on this act. My colleague for Perth—Wellington would call it the “groundhog day act”, because the challenges that existed in this bill when it was introduced as Bill C-10 are here again in Bill C-11. Let me explain.

Bill C-11 aims to regulate online streaming, online news and online safety. Those are admirable goals, but Canadians understand and expect that large, foreign-owned streamers ought not to be given advantages over the regulated Canadian broadcasting sector. Large foreign streamers should pay their fair share. On the face of it, this bill simply updates regulations in an industry that has moved faster than regulations ever could.

However, if there is one thing that we have learned from the Liberal government, it is that it is never able to resist the allure of power at any cost. It takes power, controls the narrative, silences its opposition and never accounts for its actions. We have seen this before. The Prime Minister just could not resist the urge to silence his opposition, going as far as to use the Emergencies Act, although it was unnecessary, and he and his government are never accountable for their actions. That is why we, as the opposition, need to be extreme in our diligence to ensure that the government cannot be given powers that could be misused.

Why is that necessary? It is because the Liberal government has proved that it has the audacity to use these powers and then not be accountable for their use. With that said, for my colleague across the way, Dr. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where he holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law and is a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. He is clearly a highly esteemed legal voice on this issue, unlike my colleague across the way, and he has had nothing flattering to say about the government's proposed Bill C-11. As we know, the government does not meet with those who have the courage to hold opposing opinions.

First, there is the question of regulating user-generated content, referred to in this bill as “content uploaded to a social media service”. Have colleagues ever thought about how broad that is: “content uploaded to a social media service”? Based on that definition alone, every member in this House should take pause. By that definition, the Facebook post that I put out this morning puts me within the same regulatory framework as the major players.

The Liberals on the other side have tried to make the argument that there are exclusions in the act, but the devil is always in the details with their legislation, meaning that the exception indicates that users would not be regulated like broadcasters, but their content could be treated as a program subject to CRTC regulation. These regulations include discoverability requirements that would allow the CRTC to require platforms to prioritize certain content and effectively deprioritize other content. The problem is not that they do not have protections looking out for individual users; it is that we know that even in the context that this should protect Canadians, it is not enough to keep the Liberal government from overreaching.

Second, in addition to the continued regulation of some Internet content as programs under CRTC rules, the remarkable scope of the bill also remains unchanged. In fact, there was a 10-page memo that set out what the government could regulate with this new bill: podcasts, audiobooks, sports streaming services and niche video streaming services, just to name a few.

In fact, as Professor Geist explains, and here it comes:

The potential scope for regulation is virtually limitless since any audio-visual service anywhere with Canadian subscribers or users is caught by the rules. Bill C-11 maintains the same approach with no specific thresholds or guidance. In other words, the entire audio-visual world is fair game and it will be up to the CRTC to decide whether to exempt some services from regulation.

Did we just feel a shiver go across this room? Canadians did. Just the thought of having the government-appointed body of Liberal friends in charge of deciding who they want to regulate without legislative guidance, now that is scary.

The uncertainty found in former Bill C-10 is also largely unchanged in Bill C-11. Bill C-11 tries to include some criteria for defining key provisions, such as the user-generated content exception and what constitutes a Canadian creator. How do Canadians feel about vague ways to identify who will be covered under provisions in this bill or what items are left unidentified?

For example, key terms like “social media”, used 12 times in the bill, are undefined. Unfortunately, this is lazy Liberal legislation, or maybe that is what they want us to think. This is their second attempt at this bill and I think they still have it wrong. They have left the door wide open for government regulators to cross lines of government overreach leaving us with only the hope that no government would have the audacity to stoop so low. In thinking that, we are underestimating what the government is willing to do with its power.

When opening the debate on Bill C-11, the minister asked us to “imagine a day without art and culture, no music, no movies, no television or books. It would be really boring.” This bill asks us different questions. It asks us to imagine a day when the Government of Canada decides which music, what television shows or what books are acceptable and how they should be distributed and regulated, with no clear guidelines of what they actually are. It asks us to trust the government by giving them the power to broadly regulate with their word that although they could use it to silence opinions opposed to theirs, they assure us that they would not.

I have considered that world and I have found that the Liberal government needs no extra powers to silence the viewpoints of Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I just cannot believe that the Conservative member concluded his speech by saying that the Liberal government wants to use this legislation to silence its opposition. That is the most ludicrous thing one could say in the House, that somehow the government is trying to use legislation like this, like we live in some kind of dictatorship—

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

Yeah, we do.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

They are saying yes. Maybe I stand corrected and they genuinely think we live in a dictatorship. I guess I have nothing else to say about that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have lots to say about that, because Canadians do feel we have lost our democracy in this country. The bill is just another example of the slide of democracy. What my statement was is that the Liberal government needs no extra powers to silence the viewpoints of Canadians. That is how Canadians feel. We are not the only ones opposed to this. Look around. Look at the people in this country who are media experts who are saying this is a dangerous bill put together by a dangerous government that is drunk on its own power. Let us look at that. That is exactly what the bill is about.

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

Madam Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear my colleague, whom I truly respect, say that this is lazy legislation. All of the parties took several months to negotiate, propose and table amendments, both during the previous Parliament and now.

In terms of discoverability and content, yes, the CRTC will have to decide how content is handled, but it will not deal in specifics. It will not tell users what they can do.

Am I to understand that my colleague has no problem with the fact that nearly all the content we see on social media is American?

Does this mean that he believes that English-language Canadian content and American content are the same thing, and that we have no need to see more original Canadian content?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reason I said it is lazy Liberal legislation is because this is the government's second kick at the can. It had serious opposition the first time around. The bill was turfed because of the election, so it had an opportunity to fix what Canadians said needed to be fixed, and it really did not. That is what I mean by lazy legislation.

With respect to content, of course I think Canadians deserve to have a choice in the content we see, which includes Canadian content. I do not see how this bill improves that. We cannot rely on the CRTC to completely regulate everything that is not legislated for it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, through you, I would like to ask the member this. Bill C-11 states clearly that both the act and the CRTC shall implement the act, “in a manner consistent with the freedom of expression”.

Does the member not agree that section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides the necessary guidance to allow for Canadian freedom of expression?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, the charter guarantees freedom of expression. While the act states that the CRTC has that opportunity, given the history of the current government and its involvement in trying to regulate what Canadians can say and do, I do not have enough confidence that this bill will improve what is going on online.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, one part of the bill I appreciate is how it can legitimize the role of community broadcasters in media. It is the section that defines a community element. One example in my community is Midtown Radio, whose focus is on supporting KW musicians and audio creators. I am hopeful that in committee this language can be improved, and I am curious. What does the member think about this?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that the language is inadequate currently. I am not on the heritage committee and do not propose to understand exactly what the right language would be, but it is certainly something that we would be looking at improving to ensure that the language is adjusted to reflect that issue.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This bill seeks to awkwardly apply the same content regulation framework we see for radio and television onto online streaming and video platforms. Last year, the Liberals passed Bill C-10 in the House of Commons without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee to address many outstanding concerns from experts and parliamentarians over how this legislation affects Canadians' rights and freedoms on the Internet.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage claims that the bill's purpose is to target only large online streamers. The problem is this is not what the bill says. In fact, proposed subsection 4.2(2) says that in making regulations, the commission shall consider:

(a) the extent to which a program, uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service, directly or indirectly generates revenues;

To be clear, any content that generates any revenue could be regulated. On this point, Michael Geist said:

The tone for the government’s communication on Bill C-11 was established from the very beginning. In the very first speech from [the minister] in the House of Commons, he stated “the proposed amendments in the online streaming act regarding social media would not apply to content uploaded by users or to the users themselves.”

This is not completely true, though, as content uploaded by users who may benefit commercially from their uploads can be regulated under proposed section 4.2.

Mr. Geist said:

Not only does the law have few limits with respect to which services are regulated, it is similarly over-broad with respect to what is regulated, featuring definitions that loop all audio-visual content into the law by treating all audio-visual content as a “program” subject to potential regulation.

Bill C-11 essentially defines broadcasting as any transmission of programs and audiovisual content for reception by the public. Mr. Geist also said:

[F]or all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”.

He also said:

The kind of speech that many Canadians engage in on these platforms is just basic, fundamental freedom of expression that does not require, and should not be subject to, any sort of regulation or regulatory oversight by a broadcast regulator.

The bill would give the CRTC wide latitude to decide how to implement its new powers and there are legitimate concerns about regulatory overreach. One of the fundamental tenets of our free and democratic society is the need to separate political direction from the independence of the media. We see that in oppressive regimes like Russia and others that maintain a firm grip over what people see and do not see.

That is why I am so concerned about this bill and in particular section 7 and how it is expanded under Bill C-11. This section says that cabinet could tell the CRTC how to regulate online platforms. The section modifies cabinet's power to issue directives of general application on broad policy matters. The section would not only allow cabinet to issue general directions on broad policy matters, but would also allow cabinet to direct the CRTC on specifics, such as the definition of a Canadian program. It would shift the final authority for regulation from an independent authority to politicians and cabinet.

Just today in question period the Prime Minister refused to answer what direction the government would in fact give the CRTC for the implementation of this bill. That is a concern in and of itself, given the fact that debate is about to end in a few minutes on this bill and presumably we will be voting on it very shortly. The government says the goal of Bill C-11 is increasing the share of Canadian content consumed online by Canadians, yet the reality is that lots of Canadian content is already uploaded and shared every day, albeit in a disorderly manner. However, most Canadians have come to see social media and the Internet as an inherently disorderly place. In fact, it is what many Canadians appreciate about the Internet and social media. It is the sense of randomness and orderly chaos to the content they consume.

This legislation must be considered very carefully. We live in a society that values freedom of speech, thought and expression. These values are entrenched constitutional rights. By allowing the CRTC to impose a revenue test, any new online creator must now contend with the regulatory quagmire of rules, regulations and whim-of-government regulation for fear of being offside the fiat of the CRTC.

This test alone would have the exact opposite effect of encouraging Canadian content. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be a chill on new creators.

Former vice-chair of the CRTC Peter Menzies stated, “Overall, the big problem still is that [the Liberals] continue to believe that the internet is broadcasting, and I don’t think they really understand what it is”. Under the previous bill, Bill C-10, there was originally an exception, in proposed section 4.1, that would have allowed those who generated content on social media sites to be excluded. However, at committee, government members removed that exclusion, opening up user-generated content to regulation.

Further complicating the matter in Bill C-11, the Liberals added an exclusion to the exclusion, in proposed section 4.2, mainly regarding the revenue exception I have already mentioned. This exclusion to the exclusion is so broad that the government, through the CRTC, could once again regulate wide swaths of content uploaded to social media.

Canadians are rightfully concerned that an unaccountable government agency would be enforcing and controlling what people see and do not see on social media sites. Although the goal of promoting Canadian arts and culture is one I believe in, the government will never be able to be an honest broker, as it will always choose to highlight the content and media it subjectively enjoys. The incentive structure will change. The word will get out that if people want to get celebrated and promoted, they will need to share the government's subjective view of what is Canadian. Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules that do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and global successes.

Honestly, when it comes to social media and other online platforms, Canadians' main concerns are not about where their content is created; rather, their concerns are more personal. Canadians consistently express frustration that the current regulatory framework allows for the easy and near constant sale of their personal information. What Canadians want is to take back control over their lives and their personal information.

Let me offer a constructive suggestion, if members will entertain a thought experiment. Suppose I am an Uber driver and I have a great reputation as a driver. I want to open an Airbnb apartment, but I have no reviews on that, which means it is going to be hard. What if I could port my reputation from one application to another? If we make reputations portable and free-existing, that would allow me to own my own reputation, instead of some social media giant. It could be regulated in a way similar to how we currently regulate intellectual property.

I know this idea is imperfect; it is more of a rough sketch of a solution. My point is that Canadians are way more concerned about control of their personal information online and reputation portability than they are about the already pleasantly abundant supply of Canadian content. The truth is that Bill C-11 is nothing but a solution looking for a problem. Instead, why not solve real problems? Canadians should control the valuable data they generate, and the government should focus on issues that truly preoccupy everyday Canadians.

For this reason, I cannot support this legislation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, in his closing remarks, the member said the government should be focusing on issues that Canadians are concerned about, basically suggesting that the promotion of Canadian content and the preservation of Canadian cultural identity are not important. If I heard him correctly, he was basically saying that he does not see the value, in this place, of talking about how we can continue to promote and preserve Canadian culture.

That is what he said. Could he confirm that?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what speech the hon. member was listening to, but I certainly did not say anything like that.

I do want to say something else. I found it interesting that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby earlier talked about how it is impossible to find Canadian content online. I did a quick Google search for Canadians who became famous by posting online, and the first site that came up was an article that talks about five super famous Canadian singers who got their start on YouTube. I do not know if the member across the way who just asked the question has ever heard of Justin Bieber, but he posted a YouTube video in 2007. If this law had been in existence then, Justin Bieber would be paying royalties, would not pass the revenue test under proposed section 4.2 and would be brought under the regulation of the CRTC. Do members know who else became famous—

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

We need time for more questions.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, Russia and Canada are fighting the same fight. It is not me saying it, I have heard it from people on the Conservative benches. Some people compare this bill and its threat of dictatorship to the disinformation campaign in Russia. That is serious. That is going pretty far.

My colleague talked about violating freedom of expression and pointed to one of the committee witnesses as an example. What does he make of the Department of Justice's legal analysis, which states that this threat to freedom of expression is untrue? What does my colleague make of all the groups of Quebec artists and all the Quebec media calling for a modernization of the act, insisting that we move forward and not leave things hanging? What do we do with them?

He talks about—

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

Order. I will give the member a chance to respond.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Internet and platforms like YouTube have been a godsend for Canadian artists and creators. There are so many of them who are famous and successful today, and they are doing Canada proud on the national stage. We have Justin Bieber, Carly Rae Jepsen, Shawn Mendes, Alessia Cara and The Weeknd. I just did a quick Google search. I am sure I could find many others, including many from Quebec.

I am saying, as I said during my speech, Bill C-11 is a solution looking for a problem.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made it very clear that this bill needs to be examined and analyzed properly. We have the Liberals, the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc who all want to do that. We actually want to get it to committee, but the Conservatives do not want to contribute anything to improve this legislation. We know the Conservatives have been the gatekeepers for the super-wealthy and big oil.

I do not know why they are sacrificing Canada's cultural workers and broadcasters at the expense of the big web giants. They are now the gatekeepers for the big web giants.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is very rich coming from a member who just voted to cut off debate on this bill in this House. It is very rich when he says that we want to analyze the bill. Of course we want to analyze the bill. We would like to keep putting up speakers, but the government members have cut us off. Unfortunately, at midnight, debate on this bill is going to end. It is very unfortunate that the member has taken away the ability of parliamentarians to properly analyze the bill in this House the way it should be.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time tonight. For those watching, it is 11:32 p.m. here in Ottawa. The bill that we are debating is Bill C-11, in case folks out there have not picked up on that already.

I think the question that we are really asking tonight is whether we can trust the Prime Minister and the government.

Let us not answer that question quite yet. It seems like the NDP and the Bloc want to completely trust whatever the government is going to do. It is kind of a marked shift from where the NDP used to be. The NDP used to be critics of the government. Now, again, it is carrying the water of the government. It is different. My hope is that it would be a true servant in opposition again.

The question is whether we can trust the Prime Minister and the government. We are talking about Bill C-11, but I will give a bit of preamble.

Everybody remembers the values attestation for the summer jobs program: this is where the Prime Minister said, if one is going to be from a certain faith-based group or has a certain belief, there is no need to sign up for the summer student jobs program.

This is a government that proves that it makes value judgments and decides who the winners and the losers are. Again, my question is: can we trust the government?

How is it relevant to Bill C-11?

For some in the NDP, who said that we had not read the bill, I have it right here. It is marked up quite a bit. I marked up Bill C-10: the previous iteration of the act. I was former chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. We studied these kinds of issues at length.

As to the key section that the member across the way in the Liberal party mentioned, it is kind of interesting. We all heard it. He mentioned different clauses in the bill but he missed the real key one, and that is proposed section 4.2.

He forgot to mention that one, which is a pretty key category, so let me read through it.

4.1(1) This Act does not apply in respect of a program that is uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.

If it just stopped there, we would probably say that it sounds pretty good, but it goes on.

(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program (a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or (b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.‍2.

What many experts have said about that particular section is that it is an exemption a truck could drive through.

This is the concern for us, and this is why we are debating until 12 o'clock at night. It is because of that particular section. What it essentially does is that that user-content that is supposed to be exempted from this oversight is now included. That is massive.

We talk about TikTok videos. We talk about YouTube videos. They are all now under the purview of the CRTC and the arm of the Prime Minister, of shutting down free debate and free speech in this country. That is the potential that it has. Can we trust him? Can we trust the government? Again, do not answer the question quite yet.

I will go through some quotes because, again, the member across the way has not heard enough quotes tonight, but I will read some out.

These are from some experts who have appeared at committee in the House of Commons and are well-respected witnesses.

The idea that the CRTC can—or should—regulate the global Internet, in an age when market intervention should be sharply decreasing, is unworkable and counterproductive, falsely pitting the industry against itself.

This is not really a glowing quote on Bill C-11 from a person who has got some pretty good credentials: Dr. Irene S. Berkowitz, senior policy fellow at Ryerson University, who is a pretty significant individual.

It is really hard to hear in here, on both sides, actually. I had to say it.

My next quote is from Scott Benzie, managing director of Digital First Canada:

Bill C-11 still has many issues for Digital First Creators, the 'sandbox' that is said to be given to the CRTC is too broad and could include every piece of content online.

Now members should listen to this:

Most concerning though is that there is still room in the bill for the government to force platforms to put “approved” Canadian content ahead of independent Canadian content and artificially manipulate the algorithms. Even in the best case scenario this bill only has downsides for Digital First Creators while the traditional media industry gets their funding doubled.

Again, that is Scott Benzie, managing director of Digital First Canada.

It is not just Michael Geist who is speaking against this bill. There are many who are concerned about this. It is much broader in the community.

Here is another quote from Scott:

That exemption, clause 4.2(2)(a), is far too vague. It's far too broad. There are no guidelines. It basically includes the entire Internet.

I mentioned that exemption, proposed section 4.2, but the Liberal member failed to mention it.

Again, we wish the NDP down the way would be in opposition with us and fight some of these bills. It would be nice if the NDP members read the bill and actually understood some of the problems with it, and stood with us instead of criticizing us. That is all we have heard tonight, criticism from fellow opposition parties. It is really strange. Anyway, I digress. I know time is a-wasting.

I have one last quote that I will mention tonight. The question that is hanging out there for everybody to answer has not been answered yet. This is from Andrew Coyne, a columnist from The Globe and Mail. I would not say he is a Conservative. He is not Michael Geist either. Michael Geist is very reputable, and I will say I have heard him testify. He is a very reputable individual. For the Liberal Party to completely disparage this witness does not say too much about the party across the way. Here is the final quote:

This bill would assign a wide latitude to regulate, well, the Internet: not just the big audio and video streaming services like Spotify or Netflix, but any number of other services, from podcasts to audiobooks to news channels, and not just those based in Canada but anywhere in the world.

He goes on to say that this is surely the far greater concern. Whether the users of these services are subject to regulation in their capacity as content posters, and insofar as the services are compelled to give greater prominence to certain content, its users can hardly be unaffected.

I do not know if the member across the way heard how significant that one phrase was: “to give greater prominence to certain content”. One thing that we have learned, and I have another former chair of the access to information committee sitting behind me, is that that concerns us greatly. We have seen examples of big tech throttling up and throttling down certain social media accounts. We were the ones who subpoenaed Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to appear at our committee, because of our concerns around their misuse of personal data.

What the government is now asking is, “Hey, look, big tech, we actually want to take over. We want to do that job.” Again, can it be trusted? Will it be trusted?

I will finish this quote.

To the extent that the services are [compelled] to give greater prominence to certain content, their users can hardly be unaffected. They are [certainly] subject to regulation, as are consumers.

I would just say that our concerns are very warranted. It is not just the Conservative Party across the way. It is the many experts we have heard from tonight. Again, I started with a question: “Can we trust the Prime Minister and the government?” I would say tonight that the answer is a firm “No.” That is why we need to oppose Bill C-11.

I would just commend my colleagues for staying up for hours at night to do the good work of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, holding the government to account.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for referencing somebody other than Michael Geist. It took the Conservatives only until 11:35 p.m., 20 minutes before the debate is to be over, to do that. I greatly appreciate that.

More to the point, the member started to go down the road of algorithms again. I heard him talk about that, like many Conservatives did. I do not know if the member has read the bill, but he should refer to page 14 of the bill, which specifically speaks to algorithms, “computer algorithm or source code”. It says:

The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)‍(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.

It is written in the bill that the commission does not have the authority to do that. Why do this member and all Conservative members continue to get up and say the same thing over and over?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we have fought for on this side is algorithmic accountability and looking through the dark curtain of big tech to see how it is throttling up and down certain social media accounts.

Again, what this member fails to mention, and I have not heard him refer to it yet tonight, is proposed section 4.2. He may want to check it out, because it is the exemption that would allow a truck to drive through what he just said. It would allow for all that to happen. I challenge the member to read it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really liked my Conservative colleague's speech. I also liked the fact that he quoted experts other than Michael Geist. That was refreshing.

He mentioned Scott Benzie, the director of Digital First Canada, whom I had the opportunity to meet in committee. He appeared before the committee to speak to Bill C-11 when we were talking about something else, so it was not exactly the right place, but I was still curious to meet him.

I asked him to tell me a bit about his organization. He is a very nice man who really had some genuine concerns to share. I asked him how many members his organization had. He said it had none, because he was in the process of creating it. I found that interesting. I asked him if he was registered as a lobbyist as part of our meeting. He said he was not.

More research may be in order before people start citing experts, who are nonetheless very interesting. Mr. Benzie met with people from Quebec's production and cultural sectors and his horizons were certainly broadened. I think that the conversation with him may have been different without such pointed questions to guide the answers.

If we level the playing field by easing the burden for traditional broadcasting companies and by not regulating online undertakings, then how does my Conservative colleague propose that we protect Quebec and Canadian culture from the American giants?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not totally sure what the question was, but witnesses appear. One thing I appreciate at the House of Commons and our committees is that we have not only experts with Ph.D.s, but also regular folks who come here to testify. They are just as legitimate as other witnesses, and they are able to speak to some of their concerns around the bill.

Again, Bill C-11's threat is real, and I hope the House will vote against it.

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

It being 11:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

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

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important Canadians know exactly how everybody voted on this, so I will request a recorded division, please.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Thursday, May 12, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

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

The hon. President of the Treasury Board moves that the House do now adjourn. Pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, the motion is deemed adopted.

It being 11:47 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, 2022, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:47 p.m.)

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, 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, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-11.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #87

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #88

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #89

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)