Debates of Nov. 18th, 2020

Broadcasting Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

We cannot say that we have to make sure that the legislation and regulations apply to web giants if we do not allow this legislation and these regulations to apply to them. Paragraph 3(1)(a) is precisely what will allow us to ensure that Canadian laws and Canadian regulations apply to web giants.

Paragraph 3(1)(a) is not what ensures that Canadian companies have to be owned by Canadians. That was a CRTC decision in 1997. We are not changing anything with respect to ownership of Canadian companies.

What is more, Canadian companies in the field of broadcasting will still have to obtain licences from the CRTC. Beyond the current bill, there are other safeguards against foreign acquisition of Canadian companies that my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and I have to consider. There are other safeguards for that.

This paragraph allows us to apply our laws and regulations to web giants. How else could we do this?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and for introducing the bill.

I have a question that may seem a bit technical. In the wake of the Yale report, the goal is to have all stakeholders participate in the ecosystem of Quebec and Canadian cultural production.

If I access cultural content through a cable that is plugged into my TV, the provider must contribute to regional, local, Quebec and Canadian production. However, if I access the content over Wi-Fi, the Internet service provider is not required to participate.

Could someone explain that logic to me?

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

Madam Speaker, I have the Yale report right here. Members will recall that the Yale report said that service providers are in the business of infrastructure, so they should invest in infrastructure, and content providers are in the business of content, so they should invest in content. That is the gist of what the Yale report said.

I want to remind the House that for the first time in this country's history, Canada's broadcasting laws and regulations will apply to web giants. That has never been done before.

Earlier I said that this will generate nearly $1 billion a year in investments from these companies, but it is actually more than $1 billion, because if nothing is done by 2023, Canadian productions and Canadian artists will miss out on $1 billion.

On top of reversing the trend, this bill will generate more than $1 billion in investments for our artists and musicians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for bringing forward this legislation. As somebody who has worked in the broadcast industry for years, with first nations producers, television producers and others who have been marginalized by the mainstream media historically, I think it is really important that the bill comes forward.

I am wondering about the CBC. We have heard from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that it is disappointed the CBC was not included in the bill. I am wondering if there are plans to amend how the government works with the CBC or if there will be budget changes. Is anything coming up that will improve the situation for our national broadcaster?

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

Madam Speaker, the CBC/Radio-Canada is a very important institution to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The member may recall that it was our government that made a record level of investments in the CBC in our previous mandate.

After 10 years of cutbacks by the Harper government, we have every intention to implement other reforms in the coming months. We could not do this as part of the bill, but we strongly believe on this side of the House in the importance of the CBC and the role it plays in Canada. We will continue to be there for it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister not only for this outstanding legislation, but for his high sense of commitment to Canada's arts and culture community. This is reflected in the bill. He actually met with a group from one of my favourite festivals in Winnipeg, Folklorama, which spends so much energy on arts and festivals and so forth.

Could the minister provide his thoughts in regard to how the bill will not only protect our culture going forward, but provide the needed jobs in an industry that is so critical to our nation?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a very important sector. It is contributing $20 billion to Canada's GDP and 160,000 jobs across the country.

What we are doing by introducing the bill is protecting Canadian cultural sovereignty and these jobs. Of course, some American companies are coming to Canada to film series and movies, service productions. This is great, but unless we intervene, we will lose our ability to tell our own stories.

I watch series from all around the world and I really love them, but first and foremost I like to watch Canadian series and movies and listen to Canadian music. Unless something is done, Canada will become nothing more than a production service outlet for the United States of America. This government does not want that. The bill prevents that from happening and gives us back our cultural sovereignty.

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

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Infrastructure.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the minister for introducing this bill today. I am very pleased to respond on behalf of our party and to take part in the debates that will be held today, tomorrow and in the coming days.

Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, is quite important. The entire community has been waiting a long time for this bill and for the act to be amended, given the advent of the Internet and the digital players we are all familiar with. I think it is important to remember that the Broadcasting Act has not been amended in 28 years.

This bill is a response to the Yale report. Its main purpose is to subject online undertakings to the Broadcasting Act and to update Canada's broadcasting policy. I think all parties and stakeholders agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be modernized. There is also a broad consensus among many stakeholders and, I believe, the other opposition parties, about how the bill should have included web giants and social media along with a number of other elements.

We have been waiting for this bill for a long time. I think many of us expected the government to come up with something a little more robust that included all the things I just mentioned. I would also consider print media, which say they are in a state of emergency and are having a hard time surviving at the moment because of how advertising revenue is being divided up.

The minister explained that the Liberal Party's strategy was to split the issues up into several parts and put some of them off until later. We think that is the wrong approach and that things should have been done differently, given the urgency of the situation and the existence of some degree of consensus around moving forward in the right direction.

In principle, this bill should have addressed some of the inequities between the so-called traditional broadcasting undertakings and those that are also online. As I said, there are serious flaws. I would like to point out what is missing from this bill that should have been in it, in our view.

First of all, there is nothing in the bill to force social media companies like Facebook and Google to pay their fair share. Furthermore, this bill does not address royalty sharing by these companies for content that is delivered via their digital platforms. The bill also does not explain how digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify, Crave and others will be treated fairly compared to conventional players.

On top of that, this bill grants the CRTC all the powers to enforce the act and the rules, and we think this is short-sighted. We believe that the legislative responsibilities of MPs and Parliament are being shifted away from us and handed over to the CRTC. The minister will no doubt argue that it is difficult to amend legislation quickly and that when adjustments need to be made in the next few years, it will be much easier to have the CRTC take care of it. However, as we have seen, it is not always easy with the CRTC, and the sector does not necessarily agree with this course of action.

There are no details about guidelines for the production of Canadian content and contributions to the Canada Media Fund. That, too, is placed in the hands of the CRTC, and months will pass before it is all implemented, months in which there will be no investment in Canadian content.

There are also no particulars about a legally required percentage of French-language content. Later, I will list several organizations that are complaining about that. There is also nothing about modernizing the Copyright Act, even though many parties asked for it.

This bill will lead to additional costs for the CRTC because naturally there will be more regulations, more paperwork for businesses and more monitoring. We do not know how much all this will cost. Lastly, in the different reports, we were also expecting that the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada would be updated. There is not one word about the corporation in the bill.

This bill is being introduced because we have a duty to modernize a 28-year-old law that has not kept pace with an evolving sector and the arrival of the Internet and social media on the market. The major online platforms such as Facebook, Google, Netflix, Crave, Spotify and others are not subject to the same rules as conventional players. Thus, the Broadcasting Act was supposed to be revised to include all of them in the system, which has not been done.

This was supposed to be done with a view to systematically reiterating the will to modernize the act and to find a solution that is fair to all Canadian producers and broadcasters.

The costs associated with Bill C-10 are hard to estimate at this time because the scope of the additional powers that will be given to the CRTC is unclear. For those who are interested, the CRTC's projected budget for 2020-21 is about $71.9 million, which will mainly come from the licensing fees it collects. Naturally, this budget will have to be increased considerably to take into account the new oversight powers that the CRTC will be given. As we know, it is always the same people who pay in the end.

Bill C-10 gives the CRTC extremely broad discretion to define what is meant by an online undertaking and to require such undertakings to spend money to produce and broadcast Canadian content. For conventional broadcasters, this will take the form of a percentage of Canadian content to produce, which is about 25% to 40%, based on the information we have, and an obligation to contribute about 5% of their gross revenues to the Canada Media Fund, which subsidizes Canadian productions.

Broadcasters' contributions to the fund totalled $193 million in 2019-20. That makes it hard to understand how the minister could have come up with the $830-million or $1-billion figure he talked about in various interviews.

Neither Bill C-10 nor the minister's statements about it indicate whether online undertakings will have to make that 5% contribution, nor do they specify the Canadian content percentage they will have to comply with. Even so, the minister announced that online undertakings' additional investments in Canadian content under the act would add up to $830 million as of 2023. We have even heard amounts of up to $1 billion or thereabouts.

However, the minister has not yet responded to our request for information about how that amount was calculated. That said, I want to acknowledge that the request was made at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and that we were told the committee would get that information from the minister and his officials. I would have liked to receive it today before the debate because I think it would have been relevant, but we do not have it yet. We are still waiting for that information, and I am confident we will get it.

Based on the information they do have, affected stakeholders like Netflix are uncertain whether they will be able to abide by the new regulations. Conventional broadcasters can easily meet the content targets with sports and news programming. However, companies like Netflix are telling us that it will be hard for them, since they produce only fictional programs and documentaries and do not have that option.

That said, Netflix also told us about a problem it has that is not addressed in the bill. Netflix is still not able to fund or produce Canadian content. Allow me to explain.

Netflix's library includes the Quebec feature film The Decline, which many here are familiar with. It was filmed in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, was viewed 21 million times in the first four weeks following its released, and generated $5.3 million in investments in Quebec alone. It met six key creative requirements of the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office. However, the film could not be certified as Canadian content because it was financed and produced exclusively by Netflix.

I think this aspect is important. It employed Canadian actors, Canadian crew members and Canadian camera operators, but it was not considered Canadian content because it was all funded by Netflix. Bill C-10 offers no solution to this conundrum.

With this bill, the Prime Minister's government is granting the CRTC vast powers without including clear guidelines on things like the percentage of Canadian content required, contribution fees and expenses, French-language content requirements, and so on.

The bill even limits the oversight powers of parliamentary committees in relation to guidelines and regulations adopted by the CRTC and broadcasters' ability to appeal a decision. The message this bill sends is this: “Trust us, and you will see later.” Understandably, for us, the opposition, that is not good enough. It will take several months for the CRTC to take action, at which point parliamentarians will have only very limited oversight powers.

The bill does nothing to remedy the inequity between digital and conventional media. The regulation of social media, such as Facebook, and the sharing of the advertising revenue requested by traditional media are urgent because the longer we wait, the less there will be, which will be dangerous for our democracy.

Given its minority situation, it would have been more appropriate for the government to introduce a clear bill that set out its approach on all of these issues in concrete terms, rather than just giving the CRTC more discretion and telling us to wait and see what happens next.

I would like to talk about the matter of French in Quebec and in francophone communities. That is also important. We have seen the statements made by several organizations. The only measure to strengthen the place of French involves replacing paragraph 3(1)(k), which currently states, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as resources become available” with “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians”.

I am getting to the matter of French. I even made a few comments to the minister, and my opposition colleagues who were with me during the various briefings asked questions about quotas and benchmarks. The government tried to put us in a tight corner by saying that quotas were not a good idea, that it was unreasonable to ask for such a thing and that we should trust the CRTC.

They also said that imposing a quota was like setting a limit. That is like saying that judges lose their discretionary power when parliamentarians legislate minimum and maximum sentences. I do not believe that. Market forces always work things out. If the need is really there, people will go well beyond any minimums that might be set in order to provide protection.

Naturally, the minister did his job. He published his information on social media, mentioning only those who were happy with the bill from then on. Some organizations said it was a very good bill, a historic bill and so on, but I would like to name some others.

One of them is the Union des producteurs et productrices de cinéma du Québec, the UPPCQ, which would like to see one-third of all production and content on Netflix and other platforms be in French. The UPPCQ is worried about the future of Quebec culture as people's media habits become anglicized under the influence of online giants such as Netflix and Disney.

We know how topical the issue of French is. The Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada publicly denounced Bill 101 and whatnot, then deleted tweets and apologized. Plus, we heard the comments made by the member for Saint-Laurent. There was the whole WE Charity scandal involving a unilingual anglophone organization during the pandemic. Then there was the English-only labels during the pandemic. On top of that, the Minister of Official Languages and the Prime Minister refuse to respond to a clear request from Quebec and all opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives are calling on the government to allow Quebec to subject federally regulated businesses to Bill 101, because urgent protections are needed for French.

The people I mentioned earlier are worried about culture and identity. It is one of our greatest assets, and our country is proud to have two official languages. It gives us access to a market of 300 million francophones around the world, to share our culture, our economic expertise, and so on. I think it is normal for us on this side of the House to find it worrisome that the Liberals want to rely solely on the CRTC to protect French.

It is not just the opposition MPs saying so. Some organizations have unambiguously denounced it. Here is the title of an article for you, “Web giants still have the last laugh”. It was not an opposition MP who said that. It was political analysts. The article says:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage chose the day of the U.S. election to introduce his baby. If he was so proud, the minister surely would have chosen another time. In politics, the timing of this sort of announcement is never left to chance.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting says that the bill introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage leaves Canadian broadcasters at the mercy of foreign competition. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting believes that the legislation needs to be more precise and more exact, as we have been calling for by the way, with requirements on the percentage of local content to be broadcast. They maintain that the change enshrines the rights of the web giants into law and neglects our cultural and journalistic sovereignty. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting also condemn the prerogative given to the CRTC to deal with the web giants. Netflix and company will be able to send their lobbyists to Ottawa to negotiate secret agreements with the CRTC, which could sanction them or compel them to comply with the legislation at their discretion.

Once again, it is not opposition MPs who are saying this, but the organizations that are directly impacted.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has also pointed out that this bill does not update the CBC's mandate. Bill C-10 makes no substantial changes to the CBC's mandate or governance structure. It does not put an end to political appointments to its board; it does not put an end to the political appointment of its president; it does not specify that its programming must be ad-free; and it does not clarify its obligation to produce local information and news.

The National Assembly of Quebec and Quebec are the beating heart of the French language in North America. The National Assembly asked Quebec to demand that the Government of Canada set fair and equitable quotas for original Quebec and French-language content and that they be included in the Broadcasting Act.

Clearly we are not the only ones disappointed by what is in this bill. We expected something more robust. We were expecting, and everyone agreed on this, new legislation that would modernize the Broadcasting Act, that would ensure that all stakeholders contributed equally, that would protect Canadian, Quebec and francophone content. It was expected that everyone would be contributing equally. That is not what is in the bill, though.

As the minister often points out in his speeches, there are other issues, such as hate speech on social networks and discrimination, that need to be regulated. We were surprised that these topics were not even touched on. That will come in an upcoming bill. I spoke about copyright and certain organizations. There are some urgent problems that could have been solved easily. These organizations are starving, and they were expecting these problems to be solved. Artists, writers and performers were expecting something more satisfying, but they too will have to go hungry.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage made an appearance on Tout le monde en parle to talk about his bill. Naturally, the discussion got off topic a bit. Obviously, it was not a very tough interview with Guy A. Lepage, but the minister talked about hate speech and freedom of speech.

One of the political analysts, Mathieu Bock-Côté, was one of the few who pointed out something that the minister said that was a bit disturbing. When speaking about freedom of speech, the minister said, “Our rights end where another's pain begins”.

I am mentioning this because these issues should have been worked on in conjunction with the whole issue of web giants and social media, which will come in a next step. However, there is a quite a debate going on about freedom of speech. Radio-Canada pulled an episode of La p'tite vie because it was worried certain people would be hurt. In the end, after some pressure was exerted, the episode was reinstated, and it is very funny.

We then hear the minister make this comment about freedom of expression. Where does it end, if that is what our Minister of Canadian Heritage is saying, the one who comes up with the rules and the legislation on such fundamental issues? This means that the moment another citizen is offended, everything we say has to be regulated. Does this mean that we will withdraw all comments and we can no longer allow people to express themselves freely, under the pretext that it could hurt someone? In my view, we are witnessing a shift that could undermine this freedom that we hold so dear in this country.

Let me come back to my analysis of Bill C-10, introduced in the House.

Many issues remain, such as the fact that the CRTC has vast powers, powers that should be in the hands of legislators so they can make important decisions. There is also the issue of Canadian content, which we believe should be safeguarded to ensure its presence among the players in the digital world. I would also add that French is once again being sidelined by the Liberal Party of Canada.

We will continue to examine the bill. I hope the minister will accept the various amendments that will be brought forward by all opposition parties.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say.

I would first like to point out that the party my hon. colleague represents had 10 years to tackle most of these issues while it was in power, but it did nothing. It actually reversed progress on a number of these issues.

My colleague seems to be saying that we are doing too much but that it is not enough and will cost too much, so I am a little confused. I have already answered the question about Facebook and Google, but I would like to read an excerpt from the Yale report, which the member mentioned and the former opposition leader said should be tossed in the trash the day it was released.

Here is what the Yale report says on page 146, in the recommendations section: “The actual percentage that might apply and the conditions relating to it would be a matter for the CRTC to determine after public hearings.” Those are the very same points my colleague raised.

Far from perpetuating inequity, this bill will level the playing field between traditional Canadian broadcasters and online broadcasters.

Speaking of the French language, I want to mention that I was honoured to receive the Impératif français award in 2017. I am one of the few members of Parliament to have earned this honour. French is very important to me, and this bill does even more to protect the French language. In the directive we will give the CRTC, we will ask for even more requirements relating to the French language.

If I understand correctly, my hon. colleague is accusing us of not doing enough for CBC/Radio-Canada. Does this mean that the leader of the official opposition has abandoned the promise he made during the Conservative Party leadership race to defund CBC/Radio-Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the minister on the award he received. I think that is fantastic, and I say that from the heart. I think that he should go and sit next to the member for Saint-Laurent to show her the importance of such an award and of defending French everywhere. It would surely do us some good on this side of the House to see someone fiercely defending French.

That being said, I want to point out that I am not questioning his willingness to defend the French language and to ensure that his agreement includes French- and English-language Canadian content. However, I think that it could have been more robust and that it could have been included in the act. There could have been guidelines.

I would like to reiterate that it is not the member for Richmond—Arthabaska or the other members here who are saying this. It is the organizations that I mentioned and that are directly affected by this bill. I am not making anything up. I did not give my opinion. I just talked about the people who will be affected by this act.

I hope that the minister will listen to the concerns of these stakeholders and the recommendations that will be made by the opposition parties, including the Conservative Party. I hope that will make it possible for us to come up with a stronger and more substantial bill, rather than trying to avoid these topics and passing the buck to the CRTC in nine months, knowing full well that this bill fails to address a number of issues.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to show good faith.

We are pleased that there has been some movement here. This is a first step.

However, the most logical and simplest first step in my mind would be to require these companies to collect taxes. We are able to do so in Quebec. How is the federal government unable to do that?

I do not understand it. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he think that the government is once again shirking its responsibilities by delegating virtually all of the decisions to the CRTC?

Is this not just an excuse for the Liberals to come back in a year or two and say it is not their fault that our industry took a nosedive?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, which is a really beautiful region that I am very familiar with. Is it more beautiful than Richmond—Arthabaska? That could be the subject of another debate.

My colleague has asked a very pertinent question. I will refer again to the program Tout le monde en parle because I watched it. I do not watch a lot of television, but I did on that occasion because it was important and I knew that we would be debating Bill C-10 today.

I spoke earlier about hate speech, freedom and so on. The minister mentioned that he was collaborating with the Minister of Public Safety and with other departments. He skirted the issue of taxation by saying that it was in the hands of the Minister of Finance and he was not the finance minister.

It is very nice that they work with their colleagues when they see fit to do so. They form the government and they can talk amongst themselves in cabinet about how important it is.

The issue of tax inequity has been clearly stated. There are different avenues, including ensuring that everyone pays equally. We could offer to remove the GST for all digital players to make it fair. That is another way of looking at things, but at the very least we have to ensure that it is fair for everyone.

Again, this is an urgent file on which everyone agrees. Even the minister says that this might come up in the next budget. We have to keep trusting them and wait for later. By then there might be an election.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He addressed a number of very interesting points and just between him and I, as far as his interventions on CBC/Radio-Canada are concerned, I am not sure where his party stands on the public broadcaster.

I would like to ask him about something very specific. In the previous legislation, there was a direction to use Quebec and Canadian talent and resources as much as possible when there was a production of Canadian content. The request to use as many employees and resources from here at home as possible has disappeared in the current bill. That is a concern for the NDP.

I would like to know what my colleague's thoughts are on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

When we discussed this—as MPs we meet with representatives of various organizations—I was really surprised. I think I even saw the Speaker nod when I talked about the Netflix situation. I was told about cases where only Quebeckers or Canadians were hired, but the production was still not considered Canadian content.

We say that we want to go further, but why would we want to do so if we are not even able to recognize all these investments that were made?

When we speak to the stakeholders, we realize that they are ready to do their part. They do not oppose this. They tell us that they want to pay their share, that they want it to be fair. In return, they are asking for the bill to be fair, equitable and clear, that it not be arbitrary or dependent upon certain people in a regulatory body who can only be reached by certain lobbyists. We know that those who like lobbyists could meet with them.

I am concerned about the disappearance of that provision. Now it will be part of our job to talk more about that and propose amendments. We will see how the government behaves and whether it acknowledges that the bill is not perfect.

I want to reiterate to the House that everyone agrees this act needed to be reviewed. Nobody was against that, but some of us are disappointed with what the government came up with. Even so, we will give the minister a chance to show that he genuinely wants to make necessary changes when the time is right.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is about the lack of regulation on content that is going onto YouTube and Facebook. We know that a lot of misinformation has been put onto these platforms. There has been racist content and a lot of misogynist content. Would the hon. member like to see regulation on these platforms?

They are not really platforms; they are publishers. Would he like to see them treated as publishers and the content that they publish come under this act?

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

Madam Speaker, it is very simple. The answer is yes.

That is not covered in this bill though. There is nothing in it that would regulate social media or platforms like YouTube.

We would have liked to talk about it. As the minister rightly said, we need to find a way to avoid hate speech, conspiracies that may exist in some cases and the dissemination of misinformation. Unfortunately, we will not even be able to propose amendments to improve the bill on that score because that aspect is just not addressed.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-10, the first of the long-awaited bills from our heritage minister.

The Liberal government has been working on this bill for five years. We have gone through five years, three ministers, a media crisis, a cultural industry in jeopardy, a Yale report and, just to take things to another level, a pandemic that has finished off many players in this industry that we all enjoy.

When the Yale report was released, the minister said that he would not wait for a bill to intervene and that he was going to make changes via regulation. We are here today to talk about a bill that will change the CRTC's regulatory powers.

Members will understand my lukewarm reaction to this bill. All that for this? Even some important industry players, a few of whom my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska spoke about earlier, reacted enthusiastically at first but then tempered their views a few days later and recognized that there were still a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up before this bill passes muster.

When someone takes that long to bake a cake, people expect it to be covered in icing and nicely decorated.

Here is a little history lesson. In 1929, the government of Louis-Alexandre Taschereau enacted a broadcasting act for Quebec, the first of its kind in Canada. Three years later, on May 26, 1932, the Bennett government here in Ottawa passed the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, the first of its kind. The act created a broadcasting regulatory body, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, which was to regulate and control all Canadian broadcasting and establish a national service.

At the time, speaking right here in the House, Prime Minister Bennett stressed the idea of complete Canadian control over broadcasting as well as the benefits of public versus private ownership. The act also stated that the airwaves were a public asset and that the government had a duty and a role to play in monitoring their use. From the very beginning, it was understood that broadcasting, the people's primary means of communication, should be under Canadian control. Quebec had realized that three years earlier, but that happens a lot. We can come back to that later.

This year, we had reason to expect a major overhaul of the act because, as we have heard repeatedly, it has not been altered substantially since 1991.

Here is another little reminder to provide some context. Back in 1991, we were recording our music on little cassette tapes and programming our VCRs to record L'Or du temps, Entre chien et loup or Les Filles de Caleb, at least in Quebec. The current House Leader of the Official Opposition was a journalist at TQS in Quebec at the time, and the winner of album of the year at the ADISQ gala was Gerry Boulet's Rendez-vous doux.

That provides some perspective and serves to remind us how long this act has been in need of reform. I agree that an overhaul was urgently needed.

I think that Bill C-10 provides a very interesting foundation on which something solid and lasting could be built to respond to today's broadcasting reality. However, urgent action is needed. This is according to the Yale report, and Ms. Yale herself, not me.

This bill needs far too much work for it to be fast-tracked. While this may be urgent, we will not rush the work, and we will not cut corners. The world of broadcasting is extremely complex and has transformed radically over the past 30 years.

I have another little story to share. In the early 2000s, a senior CRTC executive said that it would be pointless to pass legislation for online broadcasting because no one would ever watch TV on their phone. Today, who does not have a mobile device they use to watch videos, news clips and sometimes entire shows?

That was 20 years ago. Just imagine the challenges we will face in the next 10, 20 or 30 years in the broadcasting industry. Today, it is important to demonstrate vision, but also prudence, when making decisions about Bill C-10, because we may have to live with the consequences for a long time.

I think that everyone basically agrees that many elements are missing from this bill. We expected something more substantial.

I will not repeat everything that my colleagues have already said, but I will list some of the missing elements that I am particularly concerned about, especially when it comes to the issue of hate speech and the dissemination of fake news. The purpose of a bill is not necessarily to tell the CRTC how to do things, but to clearly state the government's intent. When the CRTC enforces the regulations, it will have to keep in mind the intent of the legislation it is using and have a clear understanding of it.

I think it would have been a good idea to incorporate into the legislation an obligation for online broadcasters to put safeguards in place against hate speech and against the ever-popular fake news. Right now, content sharing platforms are subject to the law, but when these platforms allow users to upload content, those users can continue to spread material that we would do well to regulate.

Members will not be surprised to hear that I think that the way the issue of French is addressed in this bill is pathetic. For example, it could have included slightly more rigorous, more sincere protections. Take, for example, clause 9.1, which states that the CRTC may impose conditions regarding the proportion of Canadian content and the discoverability of Canadian programs. I have no problem with that, but how hard would it have been to say the same thing about a fair proportion of French-language content? As Cicero said, “Quid enim Bonum est, Bonum canem felem”, which is Latin for “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”. Well, it may actually have been the centurion Crismus Bonus who said that in Asterix the Gaul, but never mind.

Another element that is missing from the bill is thresholds for investment in Canadian and French-language content. If the government does not give the CRTC parameters for specific expectations regarding contributions to content production, the CRTC will end up having to negotiate with companies or groups of companies. Given the weight that giants like Netflix can bring to bear on such negotiations, we can expect to see agreements that benefit some companies disproportionately at the expense of Canadian companies like Bell, Videotron and the rest, which currently have to invest 30% of their revenue in Canadian production.

Are they likely to tell the CRTC they want Netflix to pay more? Quite the opposite: they will lobby for equal treatment, which is perfectly reasonable. However, they too will demand the most advantageous treatment possible, which may be problematic because we want the system to benefit content creators, artists, and the francophone and Canadian cultural industry.

That section is important, because the future of the entire industry could be jeopardized if this protection is not put into law. I also agree that there is not a word about the CBC's mandate. The Yale report suggested a review of the Broadcasting Act as well as the mandate of our public broadcaster. Bill C-10 contains nothing on that.

A number of measures could have been taken. For example, the funding could have been reviewed, and funding parameters could have been set to avoid relying on advertising revenue, especially for educational programming. Funding over five years could have been introduced, with a renewal at the end of year four, to ensure greater predictability. The CBC licence renewal hearings will be held in just a few weeks or months from now. This would have been an excellent opportunity, which the government is passing up, much like leaving a $100 bill lying on the sidewalk because they are too tired to pick it up. I do not think it would have taken much effort.

Our regional news media are also complaining. In August, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, sounded the alarm when it released data from a study indicating that, if nothing was done, 737 private radio stations could shut down in the next few months. In the next 18 months, up to 150 stations could close their doors. Private radio stations account for more than 2,000 jobs across the country. As the CAB clearly stated in its report, the broadcasting industry needs the government's help and regulations to ensure a more equitable and sustainable future. I do not know if the government got the message, but the answer is nowhere to be found in Bill C-10.

One of the most important measures that protects Canada's broadcasting market is paragraph 3(1)(a) of the act, which states that businesses must be effectively owned and controlled by Canadian interests. This requirement would be removed from the act on the grounds that it cannot apply to online broadcasters.

Since a legislative overhaul is justified by the growing presence of these online broadcasters in our market, it is reasonable to want to loosen the provision, but getting rid of it entirely is a leap I am not willing to take. Instead of making an exception for online businesses by taking into account the fact that they are often foreign businesses, the government has decided to eliminate nearly 90 years of Canadian ownership from the legislation.

In the Yale report, recommendation 53 states that the landscape of Canadian broadcasting should “consist of Canadian-owned and -controlled companies alongside foreign companies”. The wording was there. It was a good recommendation and it could have been used in Bill C-10. Opening the door to foreign acquisition of broadcasting companies is handing over the keys of our culture to someone who does not care one iota about it.

The absence of clear protection of francophone and Quebec culture has me deeply concerned. Quebec's cultural industry developed thanks to the protection measures put in place to preserve the place that the French language has in our anglophone ocean. It did not settle for the place it was given, but took advantage of the importance it was given to develop, diversify and shine around the world.

Francophone artists and artisans been able to learn a living from their art, but on top of that, our industry has been so strong that artists from all around the world, both francophones and anglophones, have chosen to settle in Quebec. That is a direct result of the hard work of our organizations and representatives from the music, entertainment, theatre, arts, film and television industries.

Shows that were created in Quebec have found audiences around the world. Take, for example, shows like Un gars, une fille, Les beaux malaises or 30 Vies, and then you have directors like Denis Villeneuve, Jean-Marc Vallée and Xavier Dolan. There are too many to name.

We need to protect the French language, especially now, because with the influx of money from digital platforms, producers will be tempted to create English content, since that market is much more lucrative. That is also a major argument in support of the Bloc Québécois's request to enshrine in law the requirement that 40% of money spent on Canadian productions be used to create French-language content.

Believing that the CRTC will protect French-language content on online distribution platforms is like believing in unicorns. The CRTC is already under enormous pressure from various lobbies. I cannot imagine what will happen when billionaire multinationals deploy their weapons of mass seduction to make their case before them. Our domestic cultural organizations will never be able to hold their own, and we will lose out.

The Broadcasting Act must set much clearer and more precise parameters for the CRTC without necessarily taking away its flexibility within those parameters. That is the distinction to make. We are not talking about interfering; we are simply talking about expressing expectations clearly so they are easy to understand. The government needs to take this all too rare opportunity to review the act much more seriously than it is doing now.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Drummond for his speech. I have some questions for him.

He said that francophone producers and artists across Quebec and Canada had thrived because of the protections we put in place. Here is one of my questions for him: Where are these measures in the current act? I do not see any.

All of the measures he is alluding to came from the CRTC. The government gave directives to the CRTC which led to protections for francophone culture in Quebec and across the country. That is what was reported in the Yale report, which the member supported at the time, saying it was good work. However, the Yale report, which he quoted earlier, says that it is up to the CRTC to determine these things and that it is not in the act.

The member said that some groups had been very enthusiastic in the beginning but then changed their minds. I will not name them all, but here are a few: the Association québécoise de la production médiatique; the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, or ADISQ; the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française; the Canadian Independent Music Association, or CIMA; the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, or ACTRA; Unifor; the Fonds de solidarité FTQ; and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN.

I have here a press release issued yesterday by independent producers titled “Broadcasting bill: the AQPM refutes the Bloc Québécois's allegations”—

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

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the minister and I should go out for a drink together. We clearly need to set the record straight.

I admire and commend his passion because I know that this file is extremely important to him. I am well aware of everything he had to navigate to get to Bill C-10. I would like to come back to something I was saying about the first question he asked.

He talked about measures that were put in place. I would like to elaborate on that point by talking about the tireless battle that Quebec's cultural industry has fought to preserve the French fact and Quebec culture in the vast North American anglophone ocean.

It is thanks to the countless representations of organizations before the CRTC—when radios and other agencies tried to relax the rules on music quotas, for example—it is thanks to their constant fight and the fact that they never gave up that we managed to develop a rather vibrant cultural economy and industry that, beyond Quebec culture, attracts artists from all over and now shines abroad.

To answer the minister's question, the game changer has been the arrival of digital content providers. It is not in the current Broadcasting Act because it was not needed before. However, the arrival of digital content providers has changed the entire market. It is altogether different. That is why we need clear measures that must be clearly articulated so the CRTC knows where the government wants to go with this.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, along the same lines, I would nevertheless like to congratulate my colleague from Drummond, who reminded us that it was a Conservative prime minister who first thought of legislating broadcasting in Canada.

However, as part of the discussion, he clearly stated in his speech that there is a fundamental link between language and culture. What he deplores about Bill C-10 is that it does not address the importance of preserving Quebec and French-Canadian culture in this new environment.

Is that not a fundamental flaw of the bill? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for that question. I relish the opportunity to elaborate.

I do think there is a flaw and I do think there is a case for this being enshrined in legislation. Anyone following the news may have noticed that the riding of Saint-Laurent has had a rough go of it this week, but I am not trying to pile on. This would be a good opportunity to show that the French language and Quebec culture are important and to put measures in the bill that acknowledge the distinction and acknowledge the value. The bill should ensure that the language and the culture are preserved and protected so they can continue to flourish.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his very interesting speech.

The NDP is concerned about the definition of online undertakings. The purpose of Bill C-10 is to place the web and Internet under the CRTC's authority, but we have some doubts about subsection 31.1(2), because some undertakings and some tools, such as Chromecast or the Roku interface, might not have a licence or might have an exemption and would not be included.

Does my colleague not agree that the government should clarify the definition of “online undertaking” to be sure that it covers all existing technologies as well as future technologies?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

I think there are a lot of surprises and new things that we will have to deal with with the arrival and invasion of digital technologies. As I mentioned in my speech, I think we need to proceed with caution and be very careful about the decisions that we make today because they will most likely have an impact on the next 10 to 20 years.

When we talk about ownership and the permission this will give to online undertakings to come and set up shop on our territory, we need to find ways to regulate that, to ensure that the regulations apply to all of these undertakings, not just the ones that generate a certain amount of revenue. Every undertaking that broadcasts in Canada, whatever the content may be, must be subject to the same regulations as the others.