Debates of June 13th, 2022

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question touches on a very important point, which is the fact that small tight-knit towns and communities, and we all know communities like that, are going to be crushed by the weight of large corporations that continue to derive what is important to them from the economy. What is very different in small communities, whether in rural Quebec or rural Alberta, is that they value the members of their community. They value the things they do. They value what is happening around them.

It is so important that we make sure there are financial resources to support small communities. Bill C-11, by way of making sure that we force those large industries, those large multimedia Netflixes of the world, to pay their fair share would mean that small communities can continue to do that work, but we need to pass this bill first.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the vibrancy of the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

He expressed today the urgency of this bill to many people in his community. He talked about those who need it, those who support it and those who want it to move forward quicker. My question for the member is this: Are we falling behind here in the House, and if we are, why does he think that is?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that question. It is such a distinct pleasure to work with her in my caucus. She does fantastic work.

In relation to why this bill is important and the parts I spoke to, one really critical part is the fact that right now, as we speak, companies are generating income and not paying their fair share. As time goes on, Canadians continue to lose that opportunity that should be present for them now, which is terrible, when we need to ensure that we protect these communities now more than ever.

When I think about what is slowing us down, we are looking at a Parliament that is hobbling along. We are trying our hardest to make sure that important legislation hits the floor for a vote, whether at committee or here, but we are seeing long debates and filibustering at committee, which is slowing down this work for reasons I think my colleagues from the governing bench have commented on.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, before I get under way here this afternoon, I just wish to tell everyone that I am going to split my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We get the good 10 minutes at the later part of the speeches, so I will set him up for it.

I am very thankful to speak to the bill today, Bill C-11. It is the programming motion regarding the online streaming act: the successor to, or should I say the copy of, Bill C-10, which we debated here in the House of Commons. Let us step back. We really did not have any debates last June on Bill C-10. It was pushed through the House with no amendments to it.

I am really desperate on this one because I thought the government learned last June about Bill C-10 and the flaws that we moved forward now on Bill C-11. As most remember, the Liberals tried the same tactics here in the House with the deeply flawed Bill C-10. It was wrong and undemocratic then. Nothing has changed. It is still wrong and mostly undemocratic now. The Senate is not even going to deal with the bill. To say that we need to pass it in the House today is ridiculous because the Senate, at best, will not see the bill until October.

Bill C-10 drew much controversy in the previous Parliament, and I talked about that, due to the proposed infringements on free expression, and massive granting of powers to the CRTC. I have talked for over a year and a half on the CRTC, and I will have more to say on that body and the potential to open up the Internet to broader regulations in a moment, among other serious concerns that I have.

Bill C-11 is the same flawed Liberal bill that could have potentially disastrous consequences for Canadian content creators, and most importantly for consumers. Conservatives said then that Bill C-10 needed more study, and we continue to say that today with this bill, Bill C-11.

As a former broadcaster, members can believe that I completely understand how desperately the Broadcasting Act needs to be upgraded. It has been 31 years since we started. The act is indeed badly outdated. It does not address the realities of modern broadcasting and content creation, and Canadian broadcasters and creators today are struggling because of that.

We absolutely need to put foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters on a level playing field, whatever that looks like. However, the solution, I feel, is not simply to force new realities into this old and outdated structure, or to have the CRTC regulate to its heart's desire.

The CRTC is in charge of broadcasting. Seventeen months later, it still has not updated the licence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has been 17 months, and we have heard nothing. That is the CRTC's responsibility today: local licensing. We have heard nothing from chairman Ian Scott on CBC, saying, “We are busy. We are going through it.”

Seventeen months later, the public broadcaster still does not have a licence, because the CRTC is looking at it. I do not have to tell everyone in the House, all 338 of us, that we desperately want a three-digit suicide line. As of the month of June the request is a year old. We still have not got it. Why? It is because of the CRTC.

Do we see where I am going on this? It is not capable today of doing anything. As for its chairman, Ian Scott, his five-year term is up and he is leaving in September. We are going to have a new chair. He or she will get a five-year term and they will have to be re-educated on what the CRTC actually delivers to the citizens of the country.

Regulating the Internet, the Pandora's box that is being opened up in this legislation, is also simply not in the best interests of Canadians. We need to make sure that we are protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. Ensuring those protections cannot start by regulating the Internet and restricting the free speech that we have in the country today.

These are issues that need further study at committee. There are dozens of important witnesses that still wish to be heard. As for one of those witnesses, it is kind of interesting to listen to everyone talking about indigenous voices, because we have not heard from the indigenous peoples television network, APTN. We have not heard from it.

The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has not come to committee to speak about what Bill C-11 would do for that network, which was started years ago because the public broadcaster did little with indigenous programming. That is why APTN started: it heard voices. In fact, I was at an event on Saturday in Saskatoon, and the Filipino community is asking about Bill C-11. The Filipino community does a half-hour televised tape show in Saskatoon on cable, and they have asked about whether they can continue if this bill passes. I had no answers for them.

This is the diversity we are hearing in our country that Bill C-11 has not answered in committee. We have not had a chance to even slice through the first level of onion to get to this bill, and now the Liberal government, as it did last year with Bill C-10, is pushing it through the House, but this time there is no excuse for it. The Senate will not even look at this bill until maybe late in September or early in October. We have all summer to deal with Bill C-11.

I remember when the government came into power, and we all remember when it came into power in 2015. It promised sunny ways and made a commitment not to use closure and time allocation as the Conservatives did in the previous government. They have forgotten that in six and a half short years. All I have heard is “Harper this,” and “Harper that”. Now, I am going to suggest that it is the member for Papineau who is shutting everything down in the House of Commons.

Now, whenever there is the slickest push-back against the Liberals' agenda, they go straight to time allocation and, today, the programming motion. I participated in the study on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, when the government passed a similar programming motion. Several legal and industry experts came before the committee and raised concerns about the legislation. They were the same concerns from 2021 that have come in 2022. As legislators, have we looked at this bill and said we have done the best we can with it? That is our job. We 338 are elected to get the best bills coming out of the House. Have we done that? We have not done that at all, and the Liberals agree with that, yet they are moving forward today.

Tomorrow we will have a full day, going through from noon to nine o'clock, with amendments, then we will push the amendments through from nine until midnight without a word we can say or object to. We proposed further witnesses and debate in the last Parliament, and Canadians deserve better on this bill. The government, however, is clearly sick of hearing about the problems with the legislation. We have gone through two heritage ministers already, and probably will a third when we come back in the fall, and shut down Bill C-11. Thankfully, Bill C-10 did not complete the legislative process because of a useless election. What is it going to be this summer?

Now, the chamber has a second chance to get this bill, Bill C-11, right. This time we have the opportunity, as members of Parliament, to give Canadians what they want out of this bill, Bill C-11.

First of all, despite claims to the contrary by the minister, Bill C-11 absolutely would leave the door open to the CRTC regulating user-generated content online. In other words, the CRTC could still, under Bill C-11, decide what Canadians can and cannot see. These powers pose a clear threat for free expression in this country, which is the most fundamental right in a democratic country. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC could regulate away free expression online.

Second is the fact that the powers the bill grants to the CRTC are so broad and wide-ranging that they empower the commission to essentially regulate any content in a manner it sees fit, and I have talked enough about the CRTC, but that second bullet should be a concern to everyone in the House of Commons.

What will happen to the foreign services that are small players in this Canadian market? Where did the Canadian market go? In a small part of the user base, we have new regulations and requirements that we can thrust upon them.

Third, the government is asking us to vote on legislation that we do not have all the pieces to. The government says it will address the problems through ministerial order, but it has not shown us what the orders will be. Bill C-11 is a flawed bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member's speeches. He has that marvellous mellifluous form of delivery and he is very engaging, but I found a big contradiction in what he said today. He talked about how the CRTC cannot seem to get anything done, yet in the same breath he said the CRTC will regulate everything in our lives.

It sounds to me as though there is a lack of coherence in the Conservative message, and I would like a comment from the member on that.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting about the CRTC. I asked a question of Bell, the owners of CTV. I asked how much it pays for American programming, because every night on television from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. there is American programming and very little Canadian content. It did not answer how much it spent on American content, although it said that when it goes to Hollywood to bid on programming in the fall, it is being challenged now by Netflix, Amazon and others. How could it be challenged in the United States by these streamers when we, all along, have gone there, filled our American basket and brought things up to Canada to produce no Canadian content?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood for his speech.

I heard a number of arguments there, and I am left puzzled by one thing.

He bases his first argument on freedom of expression. I am not sure that this is really about freedom of expression, but I would like my colleague to give the House a definition of freedom of expression.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, all of us know of discoverability. Where do we find things when we are on Facebook? What do I like, what do others like or what does the member from the Bloc like to see? Where will it be the next time we open Facebook? There are algorithms. Who is in charge of determining what we see and where it comes up? If it is Canadian content, will it automatically be in the first 10 things we look at, or will it be down in the 500?

We have issues with section 4.2. We have talked about it in the House. We also have a lot of issues with discoverability. There are many Canadians producing fabulous stuff today on YouTube, TikTok and so on. They are more than worried about where this legislation goes when it does become law, next year maybe, because a lot of the creators in this country are making a pretty good living promoting Canadian content.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, as much as I enjoy his voice and how he delivers so eloquently the point he is trying to make, I do disagree with the member. He speaks of witnesses not being able to be heard in committee. I hope the member does not intend to mislead Canadians. Let me remind the member that it is actually members of his party, the Conservatives, who filibustered at committee for the past 29 hours straight and prevented witnesses such as APTN, which the member mentioned, from actually giving testimony.

Will the member let the committee do its work and stop the filibuster?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is interesting because last week in committee, on Wednesday, the clerk gave me 20 printed submissions that we had to deal with. That tells me that as a committee we are not doing our job because these are submissions that have come through the clerk to the committee from people and organizations wanting to speak to this.

I want APTN there. I have been requesting that APTN come to committee. We need the indigenous voice on Bill C-11. We have not heard it. That is one of the flaws with this bill. We need APTN to see its future and how Bill C-11 would affect that network.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I heard a lot of things in the member's speech that I want to comment on really quickly. I heard the words “agenda”, “tactics”, “undemocratic”, Pandora's box would be opened up and there are “disastrous consequences” for consumers and creators. It seems that this is a doomsday bill.

I wonder if the member could comment on that language maybe being what is actually dangerous, and that we have a responsibility to deal in facts and reason in the House.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, while I want to thank the member for her concerns, they are not valid. We have seen in committee people like Dr. Michael Geist and former commissioners of the CRTC. They know this is a flawed bill and they are upset that it is progressing the way it has.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it should not come as a total surprise that the Liberal government would make strategic moves to limit my freedom of speech as a member of Parliament who wishes to speak to the topic of freedom of speech. It seems very ironic.

Today, we are talking about a programming motion that would cut off debate on the substance of a very important piece of legislation: Bill C-11. I am hearing from so many constituents who are deeply concerned that their freedom of expression on the Internet would be impaired by this legislation. People want the Internet to remain free. It is the new marketplace for the exchange of ideas, and people are starting to wake up to the thought that their government wants to regulate this forum, this new public square.

What is the big holdup? What is the big rush? Why, in this last week of Parliament, does the government feel that it has to push this legislation through? The big open question hovering over this legislation is whether Bill C-11 would regulate online audiovisual material uploaded to sites such as YouTube and TikTok, which is user-generated content. That is the big question that needs to be answered.

An earlier draft of this legislation, because this is the second time it is before the House, was Bill C-10 from the last Parliament. It was clearly offside, flawed legislation, although the minister at that time said he wanted to make it crystal clear that the “content that people upload on social media won’t be considered as programming under the Act”. That is as clear as the minister had wanted it to be, or thought it was, and this legislation, I am sure, would have proceeded through the normal debate and legislative process, would have passed both Houses of Parliament and today would be law. However, it was flawed, it was poorly thought out and it got bogged down in the Senate. The backlash from social media users, amateur content producers and social media sites was swift and very harsh.

As an aside, I feel compelled to note, as we are thinking about why there is a big rush, that a year ago this could have been put through the House, but the Prime Minister saw that his popularity numbers were up a bit in the middle of a pandemic and decided to call an election. Then everything fell off the table. This very important piece of legislation fell off the order table and was basically put right back to square one. However, there was one positive outcome from the election that nobody wanted and was a waste of $610 million, and it is this: Bill C-10 fell off the order table.

We were optimistic that with a new minister, new Parliament and an opportunity to start afresh, we would see a substantially revised and improved piece of legislation, but bad ideas rarely die in the Liberal Party. The bill came back pretty much the way it was before, and things are getting bogged down again. Now the Liberals are saying that it is all the fault of the official opposition; we are obstructing the bill. Well, if they come here with good legislation, we will help them pass it through the House. Now, instead, they have to rush it through.

This is the biggest revision to the Broadcasting Act in 30 years. Many voices need to be heard. Many people have expressed themselves publicly. They need to come to committee and we need to listen to what they have to say, but sadly that is not going to happen because of this programming motion.

I do want to give credit where credit is due, and there are some good pieces in this bill. The government says that it wants to level the playing field and we the Conservatives support that. As the member of Parliament for Langley, where there is a big and burgeoning movie industry, I have heard from a lot of stakeholders, and they are telling me that there are good pieces to this legislation.

I have a quote from somebody who wrote to my office just the other day. He is a producer in the movie industry. He said:

Please pass on to Tako my sincerest thanks for making the time and listening to my feedback related to building a strong film industry in Langley and Canada. It was a great meeting. I appreciate Tako's thoughtful commitment to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, and to the benefits such work will have for Canada's film workers and production companies.

That is positive. They are positive comments. He goes on to say, “I am concerned about unintended consequences and protecting the freedom of expression within user generated content.” Even from somebody who is generally supportive of Bill C-11, these concerns are being expressed, and they need to be listened to.

I will concede this: The government's intentions were good, namely to promote Canadian content on the Internet, as we have grown accustomed to on legacy media platforms. It was good for them, so why is it not good for the Internet? That is a very important question to ask. However, I am reminded of Napoleon's famous quote: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. I think that is what we have today. We have legislation that is written incompetently.

This is what Ms. Morghan Fortier, CEO of Skyship Entertainment, told the heritage committee on May 24: “Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate”. She is one of Canada's leading experts in the field.

Matt Hatfield, the campaign manager of OpenMedia, at the same meeting of the heritage committee, said this: “We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed at the front of our bookstores, but that's exactly what the discoverability provision...of Bill C-11 is currently doing.” He calls that unacceptable.

The minister says they are all wrong, they are misreading Bill C-11 and they are misunderstanding it. He says that is not what the intention is. Law professor Michael Geist, who has been quoted here a few times, is trying to reconcile the difference of opinion between what the minister thinks Bill C-11 means and what many other experts think it means or what the consequences of it are going to be. In response to the minister's comments, Professor Geist said this: “While this is true in the sense that users are not regulated like platforms due to an exception in the bill, the truth is the bill regulates indirectly what it cannot do directly.” Therein lies the problem.

The minister further tries to explain or attempts to clarify what this bill means. I was not at the meeting, but I did read about it. He said he is focusing now on commercial user content. That is what will be regulated. When he was pressed on what “commercial” means, as there is no definition, he said it is tied to whether the person uploading to social media is earning revenues.

When he was grilled on how much revenue that is, he was not answering. Either he does not know or he has not thought about it yet. Better yet, I think he is going to delegate that to the CRTC to decide, so he can let someone else decide and let someone else take the heat. That is unacceptable. The Liberals are in government. They need to write laws that are going to make sense, that are going to work and that are based on what experts are telling us.

Here is where we are. We have poorly thought-out legislation, objections from many stakeholders, a summer recess looming and the government wanting to rush things through so it can say it has accomplished something. We also have a programming motion that is going to cut off further debate. We have today for all amendments to be submitted by midnight and have one day for clause-by-clause scrutiny. Then June 14 is for voting on all amendments and we will have a final vote by the end of the week.

This is important legislation and there are voices that still need to be heard. We need to hear them. This needs to go back to committee for further study.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member, and his colleague previously as well, reference why we should be concerned. He says this is about content on the Internet and that there are concerns about regulating content on the Internet. My comment is that if everything we once viewed on traditional television and heard on the radio is now moving to being heard and watched on the Internet, we need to apply the same rules to those platforms. They should not be able to get away with doing whatever they like. They should contribute to our content creators.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question and I am grateful to have received it.

Many experts are saying that the Internet is different and that the people who wrote this legislation clearly do not understand how the Internet works. I have a further quote from Michael Geist. He says:

...regulating user-generated content in this manner is entirely unworkable, a risk to net neutrality and a threat to freedom of expression. For example, the European Union...distinguishes between streaming services such as Netflix and video-sharing services such as TikTok or YouTube, with no equivalent regulations such as those found in Bill C-10 for user-generated content.

They are completely different platforms and that is not how the Internet works. This is what we are hearing from the experts.

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

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

The Conservatives are very concerned about freedom of expression on social media. The member also said in his speech that the bill is identical to the previous one. That is not true. Several improvements have been made, including to clause 4.1, which ensures that social media creators, users and influencers are exempt from the law, thereby alleviating the concern that was raised last time about freedom of expression.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. Why maintain that argument when the clause has been amended?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will read another quote from Professor Geist about exactly that point on proposed section 4.1. I recognize that Bill C-11 is improved, at least to an extent, with the inclusion of the wording in proposed section 4.1, but this is what the professor says: “While this is true in the sense that users are not regulated like platforms due to an exception in the bill, the truth is the bill regulates indirectly what it cannot do directly.”

It has not really solved the problem. There is still something that needs to be addressed. I would again reflect on what the professor had to say about going to the European Union and taking a look at what it did. It did things right, at least in his eyes. Our committee needs to look at this further to make sure that it reflects the modern usage of Internet autonomy.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, a constituent of mine, Alexis Utatnaq, wrote to me supporting the passing of Bill C-11. She said that it was long overdue and that an update needed to be made. She also said to me, “I am proud of our cultural productions and want to make sure Parliamentarians pass C-11”.

Does the member intend to put an end to this injustice, or rather protect the profits of web giants, which would ultimately lead to less cultural indigenous content if the bill is not passed?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives recognize that there is some good in this legislation. We would be happy to support that if the bill did not have these other problems, which are well known and the Liberals knew about. They had an opportunity to repair them properly, but they have not done that. They did half the job, not the whole job.

I have a burgeoning movie industry in my riding. People, particularly smaller producers, are saying they want to see the playing field levelled. They are dealing with big American producers, and they want to be in a better position to negotiate. I recognize that.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight about Motion No. 16 in support of Bill C-11 and about the importance of getting this piece of legislation through the House as quickly as possible.

The online streaming act is a crucial step in fostering a more inclusive Canada. Online streaming is quickly becoming the most important way in which Canadians consume audio and audiovisual content. Media have a big impact on how we see the world and how we see each other.

Canadians, creators, producers and broadcasters have been waiting for this legislation for many years. The last major reform to this legislation was in 1991, the year I graduated from high school, and as members can see from the colour of my hair, this was quite a while ago.

We have to act now. I urge all members of this House to focus on the important nature of this bill, which is to provide greater support to Canadian artists and creators from all communities and backgrounds. It is therefore essential that we move forward quickly with Bill C-11 so that our Canadian broadcasting system can thrive in the digital age.

It is great that many of my colleagues in the opposition understand the urgency of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have taken every opportunity to delay and block us from moving forward on our study of the legislation, and I will speak more about that a little later in my speech.

Our objective is to have diverse and representative voices in the broadcasting sector, including in online streaming services. In this way, we create the space for Canadians from official language minority communities, racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages to tell those stories.

Over the years, the Broadcasting Act and the regulatory system it created have helped ensure that stories created by and for Canadians continue to be created and appreciated by Canadians. That will remain its main objective.

Bill C‑11 will put today's viewing and listening audiences, including the diverse and marginalized voices that have historically been under-represented in the broadcasting system, in the spotlight. Bill C‑11 recognizes that some communities have had very little choice in terms of content, be it created by them or for them or in a way that accurately reflects their reality.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about how the online streaming act would help ensure that Canada's broadcasting system will appropriately reflect and support diverse audiences, creators and artists, and this is to the benefit of all of us. Our broadcasting system has aspired to embody the important Canadian values of fairness, respect and inclusion. Canadian audiences have always been diverse, and we have seen the broadcasting system evolve to better serve their needs and represent all Canadians.

It is because of these values that we have had broadcasting in French and English right from the start.

It is those same values that underpin the extension of television broadcasting services, first to underserved rural and remote communities, then to the north, and then through the introduction of closed-captioning in the 1980s.

The values of fairness, respect and inclusion are behind the move to offer broadcasting choices in languages other than French and English and to remove some barriers to broadcasting these services on radio and television.

These values have been the basis for creating a more representative and inclusive production sector through contributions from the Canada Media Fund. Public funds further support efforts to promote diverse Canadian creators, including spaces like the Vancouver Asian Film Festival and organizations like the Black Screen Office.

These values have made us leaders on the world stage with respect to children's programming focused on diversity and inclusion. Our children can watch the wonderful stories of Teepee Time on APTN or Chevalier héroïque on TFO.

However, as the world sees growing ignorance and racism, including the rise of xenophobia, we know that more needs to be done. There remains a gap. There is a gap between the reality of the Canada we live in and the diverse and inclusive Canada we strive for.

In 2020, approximately 63% of Canada's Black population reported experiencing discrimination five years prior to the beginning of the pandemic or during the pandemic, nearly double the proportion of the white population at 32%. Discrimination does harm. It is associated with adverse impacts on social and psychological outcomes, including less trust in public institutions such as Parliament, our justice system, police and schools.

I would like to share a quote from Joan Jenkinson, the executive director of the Black Screen Office, in her appearance at the heritage committee study of Bill C-11. It really captures exactly why this bill is so important.

She stated:

Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country.

Through broadcasting we can make space for different stories to be told, and those stories need to be told. Representation matters. Canadians should be able to see more of themselves reflected in the media they stream in a way that honours their identities. Canadians have the right to share these stories in a way that is culturally relevant and appropriate.

Our broadcasting system must continue to meet the needs of different groups and be inclusive for all Canadians. However, at a time when digital services have become more and more predominant, we must support the development of the work of these artists and creators. It is also extremely important that their projects receive fair contributions that take systemic barriers into account.

We want the future Atom Egoyans, Robert Lantoses, Sandra Ohs, Xavier Dolans, Ivan Reitmans and Nia Vardaloses of this world to find the support they need to tell their stories. To truly have the diversity and representation that we are proud of in Canada, it must be built into the broadcasting system.

What are we doing now? Broadcasting is about cultural policy. Canadian culture is not monotonous, static or monolithic; it is a living, breathing, dynamic element of who we are. We need an audiovisual sector that reflects that we are bold, dynamic and inclusive.

Our government's strong commitment to inclusivity is demonstrated through ongoing initiatives, including budget 2021, which provided $60 million in new funding over three years specifically for the Canada Media Fund to increase support for people from equity-deserving groups working in the Canadian audiovisual industry. These resources help the CMF to realize its equity inclusion strategy and deliver on its mandate to enable a diversity of voices.

On top of this, the COVID‑19 recovery fund extended the previous third-language COVID relief allocation through the CMF for another two years to provide further supports for independent television production in languages other than English and French.

Our budget commitments and mandate letters clearly show that our government continues to prioritize diversity and inclusion.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is currently working with the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion to provide racialized artists and journalists the support needed for their productions, adequate investment to support local journalism in underserved communities, and new funding to provide diverse communities with the tools needed to tell their own stories and to promote the diversity of voices in the arts, culture and media.

With the growth of streaming services that provide unlimited content, we must ensure that the values of equity, respect and inclusion are given even more space in the regulation of the Canadian broadcasting system.

That is why Bill C-11 underscores the need for diversity, inclusion and representation.

The online streaming act amends the Broadcasting Act to make the broadcasting sector more inclusive for all Canadians. It enhances the objective of the law whereby the broadcasting system should

serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples within that society

This objective will broaden access to the system and provide programming for these communities that speaks to their needs and interests regardless of their preferred broadcasting medium. As before, the government intends to direct the CRTC to support and promote programming and creators from diverse communities and backgrounds. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over the airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped to ensure that Canada's broadcasting system provides programming for, about and by persons from diverse communities.

I want to reflect again on the importance of understanding this. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped. Essentially, we are making sure that the channel on which this content is sent to Canadians is equalized, because right now it is not.

I would like to speak a bit about Motion No. 16 and the procedures.

I get a lot of questions from citizens in my riding who say they do not understand, a vote came up, this happened or I heard this, and they ask why this is happening. I will be honest. I have been here almost seven years now and I am a bit of a procedural geek. I really like procedure, so I read the Standing Orders often. I have read Bosc and Gagnon and Beauchesne's. I like reading more and more about the procedures. When I explain to citizens who write to me how things work in the House procedurally, often at the end of the conversation people say they did not realize that. In a perfect world, these little procedural tactics, which I am assuming everyone uses when they are in opposition, would be known to people.

Let us think about procedure. This piece of legislation was introduced in early 2022. It was in a previous government and brought back. Members voted to send it to committee at second reading. The majority in the House agreed that it should go to committee. At committee, committee members agreed that they would allow 20 hours of witness testimony on this bill before reporting it back to the House. This was agreed upon by the members in the committee.

Seven hours of that time were then spent filibustering by the Conservatives. It is a procedural tactic that is used, I guess, by all opposition members at committee and so on. However, that prevented part of the CRTC from presenting. It also prevented the minister from testifying and answering questions. Right now, the committee cannot even get to clause-by-clause to bring forward amendments by the opposition.

I understand full well that the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP may want to propose amendments to the bill. However, we cannot even get to that stage because the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage are obstructing the process.

We cannot learn, talk or debate about these amendments or the concerns people say they have, because the reality is that they are being blocked by their own members. The Conservatives are actually blocking their own motions.

I have been listening to the debate in the House today and I have heard from my colleagues. I come from Quebec.

In Quebec, our artists are incredible. Artists want the bill to move forward. It is urgent.

What I heard today is people saying, “Look, we like it. We've heard. We know that this piece of legislation is important. We need it to move forward.” On the other side, I heard the Conservatives saying that we need more time to debate it, but they had seven additional hours at committee with which they filibustered, when they could have been hearing from additional witnesses who they thought were necessary. It is kind of chicken-and-egg. Did they want to debate and hear from more witnesses, or did they want to filibuster?

We have a thing called parliamentary privilege here in the House, which means that I can stand up in the House and I can say whatever I want, because I have parliamentary privilege. I can say that this bill is doing x, y and z when I know it is not.

This bill is not about the users and the creators. This is about the platform. This is making sure that whatever platforms someone is using, whether it be YouTube, Amazon Prime or Netflix, they are following the same rules as the airwaves or television and they are contributing to Canadian content. This is not someone uploading a cat video. Trust me, I love cat videos. I can watch them all day. After a day here in the chamber, I love a good cat video. We are not going after the cat video creators. That is not what we are doing. What we are saying is that the big broadcasting companies that are using the Internet and livestreaming need to pay their fair share and they also need to contribute to our culture.

I know I have a few minutes left, but I have to get this in there. I have a couple of colleagues who know that I am a new grandma. I am a first-time grandmother and I got to see my grandson on the weekend. He is seven weeks old. Of course, I am asking them how to calm a crying baby. It has been a while since I had a crying baby in the house. They said he likes to listen to this music that is on YouTube, called CoComelon. Anyway, it is singing and it is on YouTube. It is funny, but to get the baby to stop crying I am playing CoComelon so that he can hear the music that he really likes. We sing along with it.

However, YouTube is not contributing to our cultural content or to our industry, and it needs to. I want to make sure that my grandchild can hear music and watch television and shows, whatever way he streams it, because I am assuming things will change in another 15 years when he is older, and that he will also be able to see Canadian content that is reflective of our Canada, with indigenous voices and racialized voices, the real reflection of Canada.

For our two official languages, it is important to support our cultural industry in Quebec. For that reason, I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C‑11.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on being a new grandmother.

However, I question some of the things the member was talking about, namely how important the bill has been for the government. Last time it was talked about was about a year ago, and it was so important that the Liberals had to have an election in the middle of it. Not only that, but from the time the election was concluded, on September 20, the government waited four months before it introduced this bill.

Remember, this is so important that we need to do it urgently. The bill is so important that the member is talking about Conservatives debating it for seven hours, yet the government could wait four months after the election before introducing it. It is sort of shameful on my side when you are saying how dare we put this through. When you say that we need to end this immediately and close all debate, I am sorry but I am a little miffed and kind of not believing everything that is going on. Please, could you address that for me?

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

I would remind members to bring everything through the Chair when asking questions of members.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this piece of legislation was reintroduced in the 44th Parliament. Now, the election happened on September 20, and the House resumed in December. As the member opposite knows, the House also breaks for Christmas at the end of December until the end of January. The bill was then introduced in February, so it was actually reintroduced within the first six weeks of sitting of the new legislature, and it was brought forward because it is so important.

Members across the aisle know how important the bill is, and many have said that they are going to support it. While the member mentions that he feels there was a delay of four months, when we look at the legislative calendar or the actual sitting calendar, it was actually reintroduced quite quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate her on becoming a grandmother. That is a joy and beautiful gift in life.

We can also collectively offer a beautiful gift by passing Bill C‑11. There is certainly room for improvement. That said, it makes changes to the Broadcasting Act, which does not happen every year. This bill needs vision.

We could have used more time. I can understand moving motions to have time for a report. I think that will be done tomorrow, according to this morning's motion. It is not a lot of time. That said, sometimes perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, I think that perfect is what should govern us.

My colleague wants the majority of the House to pass Bill C‑11. If she had an argument to convince those who are hesitating, what would it be?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

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

It does not help the debate when members rise in the House and say that this bill is not going to let people create content for YouTube or other platforms, even though they know that is not true.

It is not true that creators and users will be penalized for creating their content. This bill targets every mechanism for communicating that content, including TV, radio, the Internet and big players like Netflix and Amazon. The bill aims to ensure that they all abide by the same laws and invest in our culture, our artists and our creators.

There is no reason to be wary of this bill. Its purpose is not to target individuals sharing their projects and demonstrating how to do things on Pinterest. Its purpose is to get the big players like Netflix and Amazon Prime to play by the same rules as TV and radio.