Debates of May 11th, 2022

Online Streaming Act

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

Thank you.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duly noted. The hon. member knows better.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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