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

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

Mr. Speaker, be it across the floor or at committee, when Bill C-11 gets there, I wonder what the coalition partners are going to ask. How are they actually going to scrutinize the bill when their partner, the Liberal government, is proposing it? In the case of Bill C-10, we did see some questioning from the NDP on that government bill, and ultimately, thankfully, Bill C-10 was defeated. I have less hope for this bill.

I have less hope for the freedoms that Canadians have relied on and expect to have in their country. After the bill passes, we will have an Internet tsar that will tell us what we can and cannot post and what content we can watch. Meanwhile, I have highlighted how problematic it is that through technology we are going to be able to do an end run around that.

What would this bill actually accomplish? I believe that in the end it is going to limit people's choices, not expand them. It will not expand a creator's ability to tell Canadian stories, and that is what needs to happen first. We will see when this bill gets to committee.

I know some members have questions for me and I am going to cede my time and allow them to ask those questions and have a proper debate. I do hope that we have a proper debate at committee, because we have heard from too many Canadians that the bill is wrong.

To the Canadians who are watching, please consider contacting your Liberal or NDP-Liberal government MP at their office and explain why this censorship bill is not right for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to hear the NDP members defending themselves on crossing the floor. I think they are going to have to defend themselves a lot, because I believe history will show the follies in the move they have made to prop up the government.

There were also problems with the last time this bill was before the House as Bill C-10. Now it is Bill C-11, but Bill C-10 was at committee. At that time, the NDP did not cross the floor, but the bill never became law, thankfully.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to take part in this important debate.

Thinking back in history about failed regimes, what did they do? In the dying days of these governments, they censor the public. They take over broadcasters. They print money. They put down protesters and stifle free speech. How that relates to this government, to this failed regime, is that I believe Bill C-11 follows in those dangerous footsteps that we have seen around the world in different parts of history when failed regimes overreach.

We even heard this after the preceding speech by the member for Thornhill. The question was about going onto Netflix and not finding Canadian content. The problem is that with VPN and different technologies, we can pretend that we are anywhere in the world, so we are trying to regulate something that cannot be regulated. Unfortunately, that is going to make an uneven playing field for some.

We all want Canadian content. We all want Canadian content to be produced to tell our stories. It has been pointed out that it is not the creators but the portal or the streaming services, but the bill unfortunately is an analogy with different parts in history when governments burned books or banned books to be sold. Authors could write all the books they wanted, but only government-approved books were sold, and in government-run stores.

This is the problem we have with the government. It is overreach. The Liberals think they can regulate everything in our lives. Many Canadians have reached out to me to say that they disagree with this approach. They disagree that we need the censorship that comes with Bill C-11. They disagree with the CRTC not reporting to Parliament, to all of us, but to the Prime Minister.

It is troubling that an order in council will clarify the instructions on the bill. That is quite frightening. Also, on the backdrop of what the last week and a bit have been, we have had the NDP prop up the government and then literally almost cross the floor to support the Liberals in their endeavours. With the floor-crossing NDP supporting the Liberals, the bill will pass.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Thornhill to speak to issues within Bill C-11, the online streaming act. It is a new name. As many will remember, in the previous Parliament my colleagues in this place spoke to the issues in a different bill: That was Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

While this new bill has a new title, the very same issues exist in this bill as did in the last. It is almost the same bill, with a different name and the same problems. Those problems were an admission of the former heritage minister: He said it was flawed. It was a flawed bill that nevertheless passed the House only for Canadians to be spared its overreach by an election the Liberals deemed the most important in history. That, of course, brought us to almost the same result, with the same bill by a different name. This bill is a near copy of the government's deeply flawed Bill C-10. It fails to address the serious concerns raised by experts and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

While we will hear members opposite claim that there is now an exemption for user-generated content, which is one of the major concerns the minister admitted was deeply flawed, the new bill would do the same thing as the old bill and would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including independent content creators earning a living from platforms such as YouTube, Spotify or even TikTok, which is a favourite of some members in the new government arrangement.

Let me be absolutely clear. Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large, foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of all Canadians. That is fundamental. We also know that 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. With this all being true, there are those who are rightfully warning that digital creators, those we celebrate as Canadian stars, could lose foreign revenue if the government forces digital platforms to promote Canadian content. That means cutting into revenue that Canadian content creators earn, which is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

The online streaming act would skew the algorithm our online platforms use to match them with viewers' personal preferences. That force-feeding of Canadian content that the government chooses, rather than what might match the viewers' preferences, is no doubt a problem: When they force people to watch something that they may not want to watch, in an effort to promote it, they might be doing the exact opposite. It would suggest that if they force content on viewers, a conclusion could very well be that the forced content is not actually popular, leading of course to potentially less promotion abroad of what was irreparably deemed unpopular by the government or the CRTC.

This is actually disadvantaging our talent, which is arguably one of our greatest exports. Yes, as many in the House know, videos that few people watch are actually harder to find. They do not pop up. They are not promoted. If people do not select the Canadian content the government decides it wants them to watch or that it has offered them, people click on something else, leading to perhaps the dreaded thumbs-down rating. This, of course, knows no boundaries, and it would be deemed less popular here and abroad. Again, the government will say it is not doing that and that it will not regulate YouTube users and TikTok users who post their content, but that is not what the bill says.

The bill would give the authority to the CRTC to regulate any content. Even if people were to take this at face value and believe it, why would the government not make that scope in the bill more clear? Why would it not make it more prescriptive? If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Hiding behind the complexity of legislation, as the minister has, should be a concern to every single Canadian who generates content that this bill would regulate and every single Canadian who watches it.

It should be of great concern that the CRTC is being tasked with administering the act. It is a body already stretched to its limits in this country. A fair question to anyone supporting this bill would simply be that if the CRTC lacks the capacity to carry out its current mandate effectively, how can it be expected to take on the entire, infinite Internet? Knowing all that, the CRTC would be handed the power to develop the rules and regulations. It could make those up as it goes along, because guess what? The bill does not stipulate it.

This act would bestow on the CRTC the ability to determine its own jurisdiction without constraints, again despite it having no capacity to even do it.

Let us put that very serious issue aside for a moment and pretend the government bill does not do what it says it is going to do.

When the government sticks its nose in where it does not belong, we find ourselves up against a difficult reality that has become a recurring theme for the opposition.

If this bill is passed, Canada will become the first democratic country to enforce its Internet regulation law. Canada will also become the first country to regulate online content created by people living in Canada.

We will be in good company with dictators from countries like Iran, Turkey and North Korea when it comes to protecting personal freedoms, because the government is not comfortable with a vast, open communication space that exists outside its control.

That is control the government could potentially exert over the tens of thousands of digital first creators who have found a way to earn a living and export their talent globally. We should be celebrating these accomplishments. We should be encouraging their spirit of entrepreneurship. We absolutely should not be punishing them with the demands of this legislation under the guise of creating a “level playing field”, as the government says, “where web giants will pay their fair share”. What we would actually get is like the disappointment we get in a cereal box: We would get an Internet czar, which sounds alarming because it is alarming.

It is important to remind members of the House that the Broadcasting Act was not meant to regulate the Internet. Many will say that this modernization of an act that was put in place for radio and TV will somehow boost the Canadian arts and culture sector. To that, I say I have a bridge to sell them. It is not going to happen. That is not how it works. More regulation has never, and will never, incentivize more artistic creation, let alone more wealth and success for creators, because one thing is for certain. When the government-instructed bureaucrats pick winners and losers, there are no winners in this realm or in any other in the history of government. Having the government pick winners, based on how Canadian content is viewed or how it decides what we will watch, is an imposition on our freedom to choose what we actually want to watch. It also does not lead to more Canadian content.

Bill C-11 is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. I hope members of the House will carefully review every aspect of this bill because, as a member before me said, it is going to have grave consequences for generations to come. There is a lack of clarity in this bill on what it is going to do. Instead of promoting our Canadian creators, it actually punishes them.

I hope that members of the House will think of their rights and freedoms on the Internet before they agree with the current government's illogical pursuit to control what we see online.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I have received many concerns about this bill from many of my constituents. They are worried this bill is against the freedoms their ancestors fought and died for. In their view, Bill C-11, which is also known as the online streaming act, is an overreach that would slowly erode their freedoms and eliminate their free speech.

This bill would give the CRTC enormous powers by putting the commission in charge of regulating streaming services and video sharing sites as well as traditional broadcasters. Will the regulator be prepared to handle sweeping jurisdiction over audiovisual services around the world? Where is the evidence the CRTC has the expertise to address these issues?

Matt Hatfield, campaign director of Open Media, stated, “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.” By making the CRTC the de facto regulator of the Internet, the Liberal government's strategy poses a serious threat to innovation, competition and freedom of expression.

There are still concerns the law could apply to people using and posting content on social media. It is simply a “just trust us” approach. It is all there in the text of the new legislation, which looks remarkably like the old legislation known as Bill C-10.

While the bill numbers have changed, the purpose of Bill C-11 has not. The bill states its purpose is to add online undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings. The reason for that is so the CRTC can determine the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be Canadian programs.

Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators who need rules that do not hold back their ability to be a Canadian and a global success. The Liberals claim there is now an exemption for user-generated content, but this legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly. That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube or Spotify.

The term “web giants” is frequently used by the Liberal government when talking about Bill C-11 and broadcast reform. According to Facebook's Ad Library, at the time Bill C-11 was tabled, the Liberal Party of Canada's Facebook page spent $4,233,000 on paid ads since June 25, 2019, and the Prime Minister's Facebook page spent $2.8 million on paid ads. How does the Liberal government justify its attack on so-called web giants in speeches while it keeps putting money into Facebook to promote itself?

If this bill passes, Netflix, Prime, Apple Music or Stitcher accounts would be required to ensure the discoverability of Canadian content. What exactly are the details? Public Works and Government Services Canada's own annual report on Government of Canada advertising activities from 2020 to 2021 shows that the Liberal government spent $11.6 million on advertising on Facebook and Instagram, $3.2 million on Twitter, $2.8 million on Snapchat, $1.5 million on Linkedln, $377,000 on TikTok and $265,000 on Pinterest. Why does the Liberal government say one thing and spend taxpayers' money in another way?

Dr. Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa said, “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'.”

There are many issues with Bill C-11 for digital-first creators that are said to be given to the CRTC. It is too broad and could include every piece of content online. Most alarming 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. This bill only has downsides for digital-first creators. While the traditional media industry gets their funding doubled, the requirement for streamers to pay into the creation of Canadian content could see some services leave Canada.

Digital content creators in Canada have been successful in building platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export Canadian content to the rest of the world, not only bringing revenue from other countries back home to Canada but also hiring local taxpaying Canadian workers. These achievements should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.

Bill C-11 is presented to support the future of the broadcast industry but ignores all the global reach of Canadian digital success stories in favour of an outdated delegated broadcast model. The only thing that Bill C-11 will succeed at is falsely swaying the procedures of social platforms. This could eventually have a negative effect on Canadian content. What it will do is marginalize the people who, through their hard work and dedication, are making an impact by sharing Canadian content worldwide. YouTube's algorithm, which applies across borders, detects whether a video has been watched, ignored or turned off partway through, as well as whether it gets a thumbs-up or it is disliked. This influences how the content is promoted, not just in Canada but beyond its borders.

Bill C-11 subjects streaming companies, such as Netflix, to the same rules as traditional Canadian broadcasters. It would force web firms to offer a set amount of Canadian content and invest heavily in Canada's cultural industries, including film, television and music. Because of our relatively small population, will they make these financial investments to create Canadian content?

The bill will also update the 1991 Broadcasting Act, which predates the Internet revolution that changed the way people watch film and video content and listen to music. The government says the bill would not regulate user-generated material and would give platforms room to decide how they promote Canadian content, yet critics warn this could lead to the regulation of people posting videos on YouTube. In 2020, Oxford Economics calculated that YouTube contributed $923 million to Canada's gross domestic product, including payments from ads alongside YouTube videos and royalty payments to music labels.

I question whether the government should even get involved in determining what constitutes Canadian content. With Bill C-11, it would seem the Liberals don't want to hear from digital-first creators and their thoughts on the destructive impact Bill C-11 will have on them if passed. If passed, Canadians could see fewer services offered, more government regulation of what we can watch or listen to online and a loss of jobs.

Bill C-10 was problematic. Its replacement, Bill C-11, is no better and should be scrapped. We Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In closing, we Conservatives will continue to bring forward amendments to protect Canadians' free speech and the livelihoods of independent content creators by carefully reviewing every aspect of Bill C-11, and we expect the Liberal government to allow the full study and review it requires.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has a very large riding that is home to many first nations with a very rich history and culture. My own riding is home to the Coast Salish people, who speak Halkomelem.

I would like to ask the member about the provisions in Bill C-11 that are going to allow first nations and indigenous people across Canada to have the ability to access broadcasting services, and probably do so in their own language, and what that is going to really mean to those individual communities. Would he not agree with me, considering the deep, rich, cultural history of his riding, that this is a very positive aspect to Bill C-11?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for that reminder.

The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage said, “once this bill has gone through the parliamentary process and received royal assent, we will make it even more clear to the regulator, through a policy directive, that this legislation does not touch users, only online streaming platforms. Platforms are in; users are out.”

I am a member of the heritage committee, so I have the privilege of speaking one on one to a lot of the stakeholders for Bill C-11. What I am hearing from members opposite is a lot of the YouTube talking points, so I am wondering why the Conservatives are so intent on supporting the web giants and not Canadian arts and culture.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I am so pleased to speak to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This bill is big, and this bill it really big news. When a lot of Canadians where I come from think of what the government does well and does not do well, it often relates to what we might watch on TV or what we might stream on the Internet, so in terms of consequences in our day-to-day lives, what we are talking about today really does matter.

It was in 1932 that the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was passed, which recognized the importance of radio broadcasting concerning educational, social and cultural development on a national level. Throughout the years, this act was revised and modernized, with the last update occurring in 1991. The world has changed over the last 30 years, especially with the rise of social media and the Internet.

Today, our current government says it is updating the act for today’s digital world to ensure that Canadian content is reflected in online programming. While there is a need to promote Canadian content and support Canadian creators, is the government truly respecting user choice, or is it trying to control what we see and hear online?

The heavy tone of all the regulations in this bill, in my opinion, is more of government oversight rather than cultural and language promotion. Why is the government telling the subject matter experts how to use their language and what stories they should be telling?

For example, under section 9.1, subsection (1)(d), the CRTC regulates:

the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres, in order to ensure the diversity of programming;

Is the government trying to tell us how many comedy, drama or horror programs that broadcasters under this act, in the age of social media and the Internet, would have to offer?

Last year, I did a survey on the previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-10. I heard from one elderly gentleman in my riding who was angry because he did not have any say over which channels he could get in a basic TV package. These are covered by the current Broadcasting Act and CRTC regulations, which would be amended by the legislation we are debating today.

In the modern era of broadcasting in Canada, more government oversight has meant fewer options for viewers. People do not want to be told what programs they have to include and pay for in their cable packages. This has led to a domination of traditional media by a few legacy giants, whose viewership continues to decline year over year as many are choosing the Internet and its vastly more diverse range of content and options.

This legislation risks causing the same reality we witnessed with cable TV, but applied to the Internet, including fewer choices, and fewer independent actors and creators. At the end of the day, is this just another attempt by the government to prop up failing legacy media?

Bill C-11 was the government’s opportunity to move into modern day concepts of broadcasting programs. The government claims it wants to modernize the Broadcasting Act of 1991, yet Bill C-11 is basically using the exact same definition of broadcasting, meaning the starting point for regulation in Canada is that all audiovisual content would be cast as programs. Had the government perhaps distinguished between conventional and on-demand broadcasters versus video sharing platforms, like was done in the European Union, there would be no need for exceptions, exemptions and exclusions, which are riddled throughout this legislation.

It is not me saying that. It is Michael Geist, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He explained that, when we start with legislation that includes everything and we try to narrow it down, we simply cannot. We end up with loopholes, undefined services, and plain and simple confusion.

Rather than clearly define what needs to be regulated as broadcasting, this bill would leave much of those decision-making powers up to the CRTC. This limitless reach of the CRTC was even identified in an internal government memo during the committee process of Bill C-10, the last iteration of this legislation. The memo stated that social media services such as YouTube and Facebook greatly expand the number of individuals and other entities than can be said to be transmitting programs over the Internet. It also highlighted the importance of limiting the power of the CRTC to regulate user-generated content.

Despite this, the government removed the exemption for user-generated content in Bill C-10. Now in Bill C-11, the government claims the exemption is back with proposed section 4.1. The government now says it listened and fixed the concerns around social media. However, when we look at proposed subsection 4.1(2), we see there is an exception to the exception, and indeed the government does allow for regulation of content uploaded to social media. How are users and content creators to know if they are the exception or the exception to the exception?

Proposed subsection 4.1(2) states:

(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

Subsection 2(1) would define “affiliate” as follows:

in relation to any person, means any other person who controls that first person, or who is controlled by that first person or by a third person who also controls the first person

My tongue is already twisted; this is really complicated stuff. It seems to apply to YouTube creators and other creators, but with the vague definition and really challenging legislation to read and understand, we do not know. It is almost like the government tried to make it as complicated as possible so people would not understand the complexity of what it is trying to achieve, which we still do not know either.

Podcasts, one of the richest spaces for user online expression, would fall within CRTC power to regulate content as a program. This bill is trying to categorize, in very convoluted language, any and all Canadian content on the Internet as broadcasting. It simply is not. Foreign services that carry modest Canadian presence or services might not take so kindly to CRTC oversight. Their first response may very well be to block the Canadian market entirely, leaving many Canadians with less program choice, more expensive services, particularly with respect to access to multicultural programming, and algorithms that do not meet their needs online or respect their choices.

One of the key questions I get from constituents regarding this legislation is “Will I now be subject to CRTC regulations for what I watch and do on the Internet?” Recently, Darcy Michael, a comedian from B.C. with a large following on TikTok, expressed his concern with how the bill will affect artists in the digital space and those consuming culture online. Mr. Michael cautioned that CRTC oversight would limit creativity of independent artists and that the current system of “user-generated content exists because it works”. Algorithms right now, as I understand, reward content that is popular and it is shown to people who are likely to be interested. That is how Mr. Michael has made a lot of money and has done it as an artist. By showing Canadian content to viewers who are less likely to interact with it, we hurt its ability to reach foreign viewers and the creator's ability to make a living in the digital marketplace beyond the limited Canadian media landscape. Therefore, one of the most disconcerting issues is the financial impact this bill will have on Canadian creators, many of whom have large foreign audiences and are the real reason people know about Canadian culture in the first place.

In conclusion, there is so much to cover, but this is not the 1930s, the 1950s or the 1990s, when we would turn to the radio or television to hear the news or watch a local hockey game. This is 2022, and we are constantly facing new media platforms. We need to eliminate the uncertainty this bill creates. We need to avoid the problems this bill will create. We need to define key provisions, decide on what actually constitutes a Canadian creator, fully exclude user-generated content and limit the scope of the bill to a manageable size. It is unrealistic in the 21st century to think the government can regulate the Internet, and the consequences of doing what we are doing here today will be felt for a long time in ways that we do not understand.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud, as always, to rise in the House to speak for the incredible people of Timmins—James Bay.

We are here to talk about Bill C-11. We have to step back into the last Parliament where we had Bill C-10, which this is the update of, and what was then Bill C-11, which was supposed to be about addressing the long outstanding need to bring Canada's laws up to standard in dealing with the tech giants.

This Bill C-11 was the old Bill C-10, which should have been pretty straightforward. Who does not want Facebook to finally start paying tax? This is a company that made $117 billion in profit last year, up $31 billion in a single year, and it is not paying tax. That is what Bill C-10 was supposed to do, but then it was our modern Minister of Environment who was then the minister of heritage who turned it into a total political dumpster fire. It was so bad the Liberals had to call an election, just to get that thing off the table.

Now the Liberals have brought it back. At the time, then Bill C-11 was supposed to be the privacy bill, a pretty straightforward thing. However, that was another dumpster fire, because the Privacy Commissioner had to come out and say that the Liberal plan to update privacy rights would actually undermine basic Canadian privacy in the realm of digital technology. Particularly, the Privacy Commissioner found this American company, Clearview AI, broke Canadian law for their illegal use of images in facial recognition technology. In response, the Liberals were going to rewrite the rules so it would be easier for Clearview AI to break the law, rather than for the Privacy Commissioner to protect Canadians.

The Liberals had to call an election to erase all of that. Now the Liberals have been given, as they have so many times in the past, one more chance. The deus ex machina comes down and gives them a chance to do things all over again.

Now we are looking at this Bill C-11. I can say one thing about this Bill C-11 is that it fixed a lot of the problems with the previous dumpster fire, maybe by moving the minister, although God help the planet now that he is looking after the environment. That is just my own personal thoughts from having read his ridiculous environment plan today. What he was going to do for culture, he is now doing to our environment.

Having said that, I would say that there is a couple of key issues we need to be looking at. We need to be looking at the need for Canada's legislation to actually address the right of artists to get paid in the digital realm. For too long in Canada we sort of pat our artists on the head. We all talked about the favourite TV shows we had growing up. One of the Liberals was talking about the Polkaroo.

Arts policy should not be that we just pat our artists on the head. This is an industry. It is one of our greatest exports. We are not promoting arts as an export or promoting our artists to do the work they need to do. We saw from COVID the devastating impacts on Canada's arts industry, on theatre, on musicians and on the tech people, the highly skilled tech people who went over two years without working. We really need to address this. One of the areas where they have been so undermined is online.

Let us talk about Spotify. It is basically a criminal network in terms of robbing artists blind. The number of sales one needs to have on Spotify to pay a single bill is so ridiculous that no Canadian artist could meet it.

We have streaming services that are making record fortunes. Therefore, it is a reasonable proposition to say that they are making an enormous amount of profit and they have a market where they do not have any real competition, so some of that money, and this was always the Canadian compromise, needs to go back into the development of the arts so that we can continue to build the industry.

The one thing I have also come to realize is that what the digital realm gives us and what streaming services give us is the ability to compete with our arts internationally on a scale that we never had before, if we are actually investing. Let us not look at it in a parochial manner, like what was done with the old broadcasters, where it was one hour on prime time a week they had to have a Canadian show on. Let us actually invest so that we can do the foreign deals. Why is it I can watch an incredible detective show from Iceland on Netflix, yet people in Iceland are not seeing an incredible detective show from Canada?

This is what we need to be doing. This is a reasonable position to take. With the profits that Facebook and Google are making, they can pay into the system. That is simple. They have unprecedented market share.

I will go to the second point, which is dealing with the tech giants. It is something I worked on in 2018. Our all-party parliamentary committee came up with numerous recommendations. I have to speak as a recovering digital utopian because there was a time when I believed that when we let all these platforms come, if we stood back and did not put any regulations on them, they would create some kind of new market promised land, but what we saw was that those dudes from Silicon Valley who were making YouTube in their parents' garage morphed into an industrial power that is bigger than anything we have ever seen.

There is a term, “kill zone of innovation”, where these companies have become so rich, so powerful and have such unprecedented corporate strength that it dwarfs anything we have ever seen in the history of capitalism, companies like Facebook. When Facebook gets a $5-billion fine, it does not even blink. It does not bother it. When the Rohingya are launching 150-billion U.K. pound lawsuit for the mass murder caused because of the exploitation of Facebook's platform, we realize we are dealing with companies that are so much beyond that they do not believe that domestic law applies to them. There has to be some level of obligation. I have worked with international parliamentarians in London, and there were meetings in Washington, trying to see how we can address the unprecedented power.

There is one thing that changed fundamentally when we saw the growth of this power. There used to be a principle that the telecoms would always tell parliamentarians, which was that we should not be blamed for what is in the content because, as they say, the pipes are dumb. We just send out the content and people choose, but people do not choose the content on Facebook and YouTube because of the algorithms. It is the algorithms that make them culpable and responsible.

I refer everyone to Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who demanded Facebook explain how many of these stolen bot pages were driving misinformation during the convoy crisis here in Ottawa. Congresswoman Maloney wrote, “Facebook’s history of amplifying toxic content, extremism, and disinformation, including from Russia and other foreign actors” is well known. It is no wonder that some members on the Conservative backbench are so defensive about this bill. My God, this is their main source of news. What are they going to do if we start dealing with bot pages that they think is something that came down from the promised land?

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to address bot accounts. We have an obligation to hold these companies to account. What does that mean? Number one, it is about algorithm accountability. I do not care what someone watches on Facebook or YouTube, that is their business, but if the algorithm is tweaked to show people what they would not otherwise see, Facebook is making decisions for them.

I would refer my colleagues to Tristan Harris, the great thinker on digital technology. He spoke to the committee in 2018 and said, “Technology is overwriting the limits of the human animal. We have a limited ability to hold a certain amount of information in our head at the same time. We have a limited ability to discern the truth. We rely on shortcuts” like thinking what that person says is true and what that person says is false. However, what he says about the algorithm is that the algorithm has seen two billion other people do the same thing, and it anticipates what they are going to do so it starts to show people content. What they have learned from the business model of Facebook and YouTube is that extremist content causes people to spend more time online. They are not watching cat videos. They are watching more and more extremist content. There is actually an effect on social interaction and on democracy. That is not part of this bill.

What the all-party committee recommended was that we needed to address the issue of algorithmic accountability and we needed to address the issue of the privacy rights of citizens to use online networks without being tracked by surveillance capitalism. With this bill, we need to ensure that these tech giants, which are making unprecedented amounts of money, actually put some money back into the system so that we can create an arts sector that can compete worldwide.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that Bill C‑11 will be passed as soon as possible.

I applaud the work that our colleague from Drummond did in committee. I am very happy that Bill C‑10, now Bill C‑11, is before the House today.

I do not understand why anyone would oppose this bill. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act is archaic and toothless.

Francophone cultural content is in decline, and all our broadcasters are losing momentum. I believe we must act to resist the web giants of the world. Personally, I find this very important.

My question for the member who spoke is this: If this bill passes, it will go to committee. How much time will it take for the CRTC to implement the changes?

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

Madam Speaker, I know this hon. member has been quite passionate and quite involved in commenting on Bill C-11 from the onset and even in the prior session of Parliament before the last election. I applaud the hon. member for Lethbridge for their due diligence and work on this issue, because they have been there commenting from the beginning and asking tough questions to our government.

From looking at the research I have done on the bill and from the work that I have done, I know the bill explicitly excludes all user-created content on social media platforms and streaming services, and—

The House resumed 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.

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

Madam Speaker, if the hon. members wish to do a point of order on relevance, I would encourage them to do so. I will always speak to our government's record and how it is benefiting Canadians.

When I look at Bill C-11, I see the last time changes were made to the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, and I think about where I was as an individual in 1991 and what environment we operated in. I was beginning my first year of undergrad in university at Simon Fraser University. At that time, we did not even have email accounts. We were just given email accounts of some sort and were figuring out what was going on with this new technology. I think print was still pretty big as well. Fast-forward from then, and obviously we see there have been a number of changes in media and in what the Internet has created and we see the obvious metamorphosis that has happened in society. It is great to have been a witness to that and a participant in it.

I see today how that is impacting the lives of Canadian families, including my two older daughters, who are nine and almost 11. They receive their content and watch TV through Disney+, Prime, Netflix and YouTube, and all of their friends and cohorts receive and watch their content through online streaming. If I asked them if they knew the traditional media channels of ABC, CBS or NBC on the U.S. side, or CTV, Global and CBC on the Canadian side, I think my daughters would know the channels of Disney+, Crave and so forth much better because they receive so much content on them.

That is why it is so important that we as a government not only focus on Bill C-11, but, again, focus on achievements like a national early learning and day care plan and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and focus on what I would say is a Broadcasting Act that brings us into the modern age. We know that legislation is always a work in progress and it has to be adaptable, but we also know that in the world we live in, the government tends to be sort of reactive in the sense that technology and changes in the world will move in a much faster fashion than sometimes government can respond to. That is a natural thing. It is a natural thing that we need to now respond to what is happening online.

I want to read one quote about the support this bill has received, because I think it is exciting, it is relevant and it does bring certain aspects of the Broadcasting Act into modernity. It is from eOne Canada:

“We're excited about the Online Streaming Act, which we see as an opportunity to increase investment in Canadian content and in turn help grow Canada's creative sector and domestic talent pool even further. The strength of Canada's film and TV sector today is a direct result of both public supports and private-public partnerships formalized over many decades, and a modernized act is the logical next step. We encourage all parties to collaborate to pass Bill C-11 as soon as possible.”

When we talk about Bill C-11, we are talking about modernization. I have always been a proponent of modernizing, whether it is in our tax structure or our regulatory burdens. I actually called for that in an op-ed a few weeks ago, and this is part of that mantra. This is part of that tangent where we look at whether the acts we utilize are impacting various industries, and the Broadcasting Act is one of them.

I want to take this time to recognize the powerful impact that Canadian cultural policies have had and continue to have on creative content production in Canada and what I would call our cultural sovereignty. We know that Europeans, if I can use them as an example, protect their cultural content. We know how much they revere their cultural content and how proud they are. Bill C-11, which would amend the Broadcasting Act, takes us down that path. It ensures that we put in value, that we march with our heads up and are very proud of what our Canadian creators from coast to coast do and that they receive the support they need.

The digital age has continued to transform Canada and how Canadians share their stories and consume content in an open and dynamic global marketplace, in addition to traditional television and radio. Most Canadians access their favourite songs, films and television shows through online streaming services like Netflix, Spotify, Crave, Disney+ and many others. It is time that these services are required to contribute to Canadian stories in the same way that Canadian broadcasters always have.

Our government is advancing an important digital policy agenda aiming to help create a fairer, safer and more competitive Internet for all Canadians. The online streaming act builds upon the economic and social benefits of the Broadcasting Act. It ensures the sustainability of the Canadian broadcasting system. It continues to support an ecosystem where public, private and community elements work together to contribute to the creation and exhibition of Canadian programming, and it ushers in a new era of broadcasting.

The online streaming act follows on our promise to safeguard our cultural sovereignty and support our creators and creative industries. We want to continue supporting Canadian creators and showcasing their stories on screen and in song. We want to continue supporting their livelihoods and inspiring future Canadians of all backgrounds in this beautiful, diverse and inclusive country we get to call home by allowing them to see themselves reflected on all platforms, including online. Those are some of our objectives with the online streaming act.

We have listened to stakeholders, experts, professionals, parliamentarians and many Canadians and taken note of their needs, interests and preoccupations. Following royal assent of the online streaming act, our government will issue a policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to indicate our priorities when it comes to putting in place the new regulatory regime. The policy direction has two primary goals. First, it will focus on the importance of consultation and special consideration of the needs of equity-seeking groups. Second, the direction will make clear areas where regulation is needed, as well as areas where flexibility should be exercised. That is very important, as we move forward with Bill C-11, for the primary goals and the focus areas.

We will continue to consult, as the government has done since day one in 2015 when we formed a majority government, and work with all Canadians and all stakeholders. We will also, of course, ensure the regulation is flexible, while meeting the goals of the amendments to the Broadcasting Act that are brought through Bill C-11.

It is my pleasure to speak in more detail about our government’s plan for a policy direction and the steps after the royal assent of the online streaming act.

If Bill C-11 is adopted, the Minister of Canadian Heritage intends to ask the Governor in Council to issue a policy direction to the CRTC to guide its implementation of the online streaming act. A policy direction is an opportunity to clarify the government's policy intent on certain issues regarding social media platforms and digital first creators. It will also provide a level of flexibility that ensures any necessary changes can be made quickly in the future when needed.

It is so important to have legislation and acts in place that react to the changes of the day so that we can look at and make the changes we need to understand the technology and how it is changing, not only in the workplace but in this situation with online media platforms and how they are changing a sector. We can point to how changes have come forth to many industries we operate in. I remember that when I first started working on Wall Street in New York city, we had a thing called a PalmPilot. We had it by our desk and we used to tap it for our schedule. Within a year or so, that became totally irrelevant. Then we would be contacted using a thing called a BlackBerry pager. Again, the technology changed so quickly. Therefore, we, as a government in this realm, are amending this section of the Broadcasting Act of 1991 to bring it up to speed.

It will also provide a level of flexibility that ensures any necessary changes can be made quickly in the future when needed. For instance, a policy direction to the CRTC will make it clear that the content of digital first creators who create content only for social media platforms should be excluded. Of course, individual users of social media will never be treated as broadcasters under the online streaming act, and only some commercial content carried on social media platforms could trigger obligations on that platform. A policy direction will clarify that the content of digital first creators will not be part of the commercial content that can trigger obligations for platforms.

This means that the content of digital first creators will not be included in the calculation of the social media platform's revenues for the purposes of financial contributions. Content from digital first creators will not face any obligations related to showcasing and discoverability. Canada's digital first creators have told us that they do not want to be part of this new regime, and we have listened.

The policy direction will also specify the government's intent when it comes to video games, and gaming is a very big industry in Canada, whether it is in Vancouver, Montreal or here in Ontario. I will repeat again that video games are not to be regulated.

The policy direction will also allow our government to signal important priorities to the CRTC, including with respect to such topics as advancing reconciliation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people; combatting racism; fostering diversity and inclusion; accessibility; official languages; adaptation to our new digital realities; and more.

When I think about diversity and inclusion in my area of York Region, I think about how we have Telelatino, which has been a long-time ethnic broadcaster in Ontario and throughout the country. When I talk to the principals at that entity, which is a mix of Spanish and Italian broadcasting, they are obviously here and doing things in Canada and participating with the government and agencies. I want to give a shout-out to Aldo and the entire team at Telelatino, TLN, for the great work they do in promoting not only Canadian content but content from various parts of the world and bringing it to our homes on a daily basis.

The draft policy direction will be prepared in the months to come and published upon royal assent of the online streaming act. It will reflect relevant legislative amendments adopted during the parliamentary review of Bill C-11 and the important feedback the government continues to receive. In the last session of Parliament, I sat on three committees and I know how important the role of committees is in allowing members the opportunity to provide feedback to strengthen legislation from the government of the day to make it better, more flexible, more efficient and more reflective of industry and stakeholders. “Better is always possible” is what we say at committee. I know all my hon. colleagues do a wonderful job in providing feedback and bringing their views to the legislation that is a brought forth, and that will include Bill C-11.

Once the direction is published, all stakeholders, including members of the public, will have an opportunity to provide additional feedback. A summary of their feedback will be published prior to the issuance of the final direction.

I listened intently to some of my hon. colleagues from the official opposition prior to my opportunity to rise and speak. I listened intently to some conspiracy theories, if I can use that term, being bandied about by some of the official opposition members, and I encourage them to submit this feedback into this feedback loop. A summary of their feedback could be taken in and published. If they would like to say that, it would be great, because I am still scratching my head about where with some of the stuff that is spouted forth comes from. I will try to understand it even better, but I am just not sure if I can.

The policy direction will provide the CRTC with the guidance to move forward quickly on the implementation of the new legislation and may even provide direction on the timelines for implementation of key elements of the regime.

I really need to speak to this point, because inherent in this act is obviously a policy direction or directive that would guide the CRTC in moving forward. The feedback mechanism would be in place to ensure that the online streaming act and the amendments to the Broadcasting Act really hit the nail perfectly and get that right. We are getting this right. We are moving in the right way.

We have listened to concerns of Canadians, we have listened to concerns of stakeholders, and we have listened to the feedback from stakeholders. That is what the right thing to do is as a government. It is to listen, to sit down and to talk to all viewpoints within industry, whether it is directed by ourselves or by the consumers, and we know that changes have to be made. I go back to 1991, the last time changes were brought forward, and I think of how the world has changed since 1991 for all of us, and hopefully in a positive manner.

In my humble conclusion, I want to repeat that the online streaming act would work to ensure that no matter how Canadians access their content, they should be able to see themselves in stories and songs that reflect their experience and their communities. When I think about that, I ask what it is to be Canadian today, as we all come from various backgrounds and various parts of this country. With the cultural content we consume, we need to obviously take a step back and always think about what Canadian content is and how we provide for it and finance it and assist it. We know other countries around the world assist their cultural industries, and the tourism side as well, to a great degree.

Whether it is Spotify, Crave, Disney+, Amazon Prime or Netflix, I think we pay for all of them in my household. We know there has to be a contribution here for the benefit of Canadian content. We know how valuable Canadian content is and we need Canadian content creators to have the opportunity to make sure the stories and histories that everyday Canadians see and hear are told. That is so important.

Before I finish up, I will say that members can rest assured of our commitment to carry out consistent and thorough consultations with everyone who has a stake in the implementation of this bill, including members of the official opposition, whom I have been reading some very interesting things about these days. This commitment will extend to the implementation and the subsequent policy direction to the CRTC.

I wish to thank members for their ears today and for hearing my thoughts on Bill C-11. I would like to say that this is part of our government's record of moving forward on a number of initiatives. That is what governments are elected to do, and it was great to see the national early learning and day care plan come to fruition yesterday. Today it is the emissions reductions plan, which is substantive, and today we are also debating Bill C-11, the modernization of our Broadcasting Act, and bringing over-the-top or online platforms into the modern age here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin talking about Bill C-11, I note that it is a great day today because we learned the date the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be be delivering the budget to the House, which is April 7. I look forward to the next steps in moving our country forward. Not only have we recovered all the jobs we lost and created more than we had prepandemic, but our economy is actually larger than it was prepandemic. We will continue doing what is right for Canadians, not only those lovely Canadians who live in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, but Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is always great to rise in the House, and it is a privilege and honour to serve the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It is also great to see a government that is delivering for Canadians, not only here in Bill C-11, the online streaming act, but also with the environment minister, jointly with the Prime Minister, unveiling the emissions reductions plan, in beautiful Vancouver on the west coast, for how we will meet our targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and how we will get to net zero by 2050. I encourage all parties to look at that because it has something to do with the agenda, much like Bill C-11, the online streaming act, is a part of that agenda.

It is also much like yesterday when, joined by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, our government brought forward a national day care and early learning child care plan. I think that is something to be celebrated. I know that when we enrol my youngest daughter, Leia, in day care in October, we will benefit from it personally. That is real change. That is what we call a promise made, a promise kept.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the constituents of the beautiful riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who value freedom and diversity of thought.

Recently, there has been an outbreak of diversity of thought among my Liberal colleagues. I know that can be scary for some of them. To reassure them, I will heed the call to unity and try to lower the temperature on this very important debate about Bill C-11, which is the online streaming act.

This may disappoint my biggest fan, the member for Winnipeg North, but he will be delighted to learn that I have saved a special section just for him. When a similar bill was first introduced last Parliament, I went on my Facebook Live show, The GNN, and described it as a serious threat to freedom of expression. I stood in the House and described it as a serious threat to freedom of expression.

The media, to be fair, and much of the public shrugged off these concerns. As outlined in my first speech, this bill would have little effect on popular mainstream expression, other than to make it more expensive. The threat to freedom of expression with this bill comes from the impact it would have on smaller, less popular minority expressions. It was only when the government members of the committee, in a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc, removed the legislated safeguards on user-generated content that everyone online became aware of the threat this legislation posed.

Fundamentally, Canadians understand that if the government has the power to regulate, promote or demote their online expression, then that expression is no longer free.

My Liberal colleagues will raise a hue and cry, and claim the Prime Minister does not want to censor Canadians' cat videos. That is true. The Prime Minister does not want to censor cat videos; he wants to tax them. The Prime Minister wants to tax Canadian and foreign artists not covered by the current Broadcasting Act. He wants to tax them and give that money to the powerful media and cultural lobbies. Of course, arts groups that profit off this bill support it. It is the artists who do not have a powerful lobby organization who pay this new CanCon levy.

This legislation proposes to take money from digital artists and redistribute it to the government's preferred analog artists. This is just as the government takes income tax dollars from new media journalists and gives them back to the horse-and-buggy media.

The government really wants to tax Netflix, but does not say it wants to tax Netflix. In order to pull off this tax without saying “tax policy”, the government is changing the very meaning of broadcasting. This takes us to the heart of the problem. The Broadcasting Act, by its very nature, places restrictions on Canadians' right to freedom of expression.

I want to repeat this in order to be absolutely clear. The Broadcasting Act is designed to limit and regulate freedom of expression. The reason it has not been struck down for violating the charter is because those limits are reasonable.

My constituents know I will defend their freedom no matter what, but they understand there can be reasonable limits. The Broadcasting Act is an example of this. It places limits on Canadians' freedom to broadcast their expression. The reason for this is the technology. If all Canadians with electricity and an antenna were able to broadcast their individual expression on whichever electromagnetic frequency they chose, everyone would cancel one another out and no one would be heard.

By the nature of the technology, the freedom of one person to use a particular frequency impacts the freedom of everybody else to use that frequency. Broadcasting technology, by its nature, requires broadcasting regulation. Without broadcasting technology using limited public air waves, the federal government has no legal right to regulate the content that carries expression from Canadians or to Canadians.

Our predecessors knew that having control of Canadians' expression over public airwaves was something best kept at arm's length from cabinet, so they set up the CRTC. The Broadcasting Act regulates expression. It is baked into the legislation. It is what the CRTC does. Streaming is not broadcasting. The freedom of one Canadian to stream content does not limit the freedom of any other Canadian to stream other content.

As we much appreciate Canadian authors and Canadian painters, we do not legislate the content of book stores or art galleries to promote their expression over foreign expression. It is not because a foreign author or painter has freedom of expression, but it is because Canadians do.

We cannot pass legislation that limits or restricts Canadians' access to artistic expression. We cannot pass legislation to regulate any expression that does not infringe on the rights of other Canadians' expression. If the House proceeds with this fundamentally flawed legislation, it will be infringing on the rights of Canadians. Most Canadians will not notice the infringement beyond paying higher streaming bills. Netflix and Disney can afford to hire Canadian lawyers and lobbyists and have lunch with the chair of the CRTC. They will be fine.

Majority expression in a democracy is rarely threatened. It is the minority expression that suffers. For example, what about the foreign-language streaming services? Take the streaming service TFC, which is based in the Philippines. It streams thousands of movies and televisions show in Tagalog, and TFC accepts Canadian credit cards. The riding of Winnipeg North has 20,000 people who speak Tagalog at home. The member for Winnipeg North may want to be absolutely certain this legislation will not cause the TFC to block the Canadian Internet from accessing its service. TFC may have no choice.

Under this legislation, TFC would need to either produce Tagalog-language movies and shows in Canada or pay into a fund to support English, French or indigenous movies and shows. Netflix is already producing movies and shows here. Netflix can afford to spread its CanCon levy across five million subscribers. Can TFC afford to spread its CanCon levy across 20,000 constituents in Winnipeg North or, more importantly, can the Tagalog community in Winnipeg North afford the CanCon levy?

That CanCon levy has to come from somewhere. It can come out of the pockets of hard-working immigrants in Liberal ridings, or it can come at the expense of writers, actors, musicians, costumers and set designers in the Philippines. How does this possibly sit well with my colleagues across the aisle? It just cannot be the cultural special interest groups, who do a lot more than just sip champagne at galas in order to keep the Liberals in power at election time, so it must be about the money. It always is.

The fact is that the bill would exempt user-generated content unless it makes money. It strongly suggests that it is just a tax grab, with a side order of censorship, but in the interest of promoting listening among parties, I want to acknowledge that for some of my colleagues, in particular those from Quebec, this bill is about protecting Canadian and Québécois culture. Quebec is an island of French in a sea of North American English. In the age of broadcasting, Canadians mostly tolerated CanCon rules as the bargain for protecting Canadian culture. In the age of the Internet, we do not live next door to the United States. We live next door to everyone online. We have to turn our cultural policy inside out. We have to stop protecting our culture from the world and start promoting it to the world.

My colleagues have not noticed that the world wants more Canada, and I am not just talking about the maple leaf flying in the streets of capitals across the world as a symbol of freedom. While Canadians have been binge-watching Lupin and Squid Game, people from Albania to Zimbabwe have been streaming Kim's Convenience and Schitt's Creek. Canadians are expressing themselves. This legislation threatens that expression. That threat falls primarily on minority expression, and it is what the Broadcasting Act does.

This legislation is regressive protectionism. It looks backward and inward. The members opposite still cannot see the risk this bill poses to their constituents before they vote, so they should go out and speak to them; not to the lobbyists or the special interest groups. They should ask their constituents how much they spend each month and what they would be forced to give up if the price went up by 10% or 20%.

I plan to vote against Bill C-11, because I have listened to what my constituents are saying. I hope my Liberal colleagues will listen to the minority-language voices in their ridings, because they have just as much right to expression in their language as they do.