House of Commons Hansard #91 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-11.

Topics

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-11. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

moved:

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

Liberal

Kamal Khera Liberal Brampton West, ON

moved:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 8 with the following:

“limitation, closed captioning services and described video services available to assist persons living with a visual or auditory im-”

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

moved:

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Madam Speaker, considering the current trend of the current government, I certainly do not take it for granted that I am able to stand in this place and freely deliver a speech in the House of Commons, particularly when I am critiquing government legislation.

Bill C-11 would put the CRTC in charge of regulating the Internet. That is what we are discussing today. Former CRTC commissioners and other qualified critics have spoken to this legislation and have made it clear that it is an overreach and a violation of Canadians’ right to freedom of expression.

From the beginning, I have been a vocal opponent of this bill and I have laid out my case for that. However, today I will remind Canadians and this House of the concerns I hold, shared by colleagues on this side of the House. Because of my outspoken nature on this bill, I have been ridiculed, criticized and even called names by those across the way. That has been hurtful and it has been harmful, but I have proceeded. The reason for this is that I am not elected to serve the government. I am not elected to make sure its legislation gets through. I was put here by Canadians for Canadians, and it is with them in mind that I stand in this place. It is with them in mind that I also fight against this incredibly draconian and regressive piece of legislation that attacks their charter rights as Canadians.

There are two things I wish to address today: one, the process that was followed with this legislation; and two, the content.

Let us start with the process. I would be remiss if I did not mention the travesty that took place this past Tuesday. While most Canadians were sleeping, the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage met and were forced to vote on amendments without them being read into the public record, which simply means that numbers were given and members were asked to vote. The public was unsure of what we were voting on and what it meant for them. There was zero transparency. There was no debate, no discussion and no questions. “Just shut up and vote” was the message given. The process was cloaked in secrecy and was an inexcusable assault on democracy. Having been forced through the committee, the bill is now before the House and will soon be forced on to the Senate.

Let me dive into the content of this bill. The heritage minister has been extremely misleading. He has told Canadians that more government control over Internet content will somehow promote Canadian culture and help artists. This could not be further from the truth.

My Conservative colleagues and I have met with industry experts and with digital-first creators, those who produce content for TikTok, YouTube, etc., and they have dispelled these myths. I would like to use their voices here today in order to defend their cause.

Oorbee Roy, known as Aunty Skates on TikTok, is a 47-year-old South Asian woman from Toronto. She made it clear that her success is based on freedom and not control. She said:

That I'm not the right fit is a story I've been told my whole life. I'm too brown. I'm a nerd. I'm too old. I'm female. I'm not feminine enough. I'm not the right demographic, but I've never been the right demographic. My voice has been suppressed far too many times. That's not an easy thing to do, because I have a pretty loud voice.

Somehow along the way, I discovered a platform that allows me to tell my story as I see fit in my own voice. Other people are indeed interested in my story. Somehow this tall, brown, old and somewhat-out-of-shape mom who skateboards resonates with people all over the globe. Authentic, inspiring, genuine content—that's Canadian content.

Canadian YouTuber Lilly Singh explained it best when she said, “For Canadian creators who don't fit the mainstream mould, the openness of YouTube provides the opportunity to find their niche among billions of people.” Again, freedom is what leads to success.

Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, said, “We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.” She went on to say, “If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations.... This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.”

If Bill C-11 passes through the Senate, it will not create a level playing field. Instead, many digital-first creators will be harmed as the government, through the CRTC, picks winners and losers. Not only that, but, in the name of protection, the CRTC will build a wall around digital-first creators, and this wall will actually prevent them from being able to reach a global audience, which is what they depend on for their success. We should know that our Canadian digital-first creators are amazing and they are achieving tremendous success around the world. Their success, however, will be severely thwarted by the bill.

Scott Benzie, from Digital First Canada, explained:

The bill has the intent of promoting Canadian content to Canadians. While that's admirable, most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery.... [L]ocal discovery...is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance on TikTok, Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry.

Let us talk further. Let us talk about freedom and choice, values that all Canadians hold dear. Right now, virtual codes, known as algorithms, are set up on the Internet to show Canadians more content that they love. Personal choice is honoured in this process. Bill C-11 would change that. Instead of using algorithms to give individuals more of what they want, the government will insist that YouTube and TikTok and Google use algorithms to give more of what the government wants Canadians to see. It is incredibly dictatorial. It is dangerous.

Jeanette Patell, from YouTube, explained:

Bill C-11 could deeply hurt Canadian creators and viewers [in other words, all Canadians]. For viewers who rely on us to serve them content that is relevant to their interests, artificially forcing an open platform like YouTube to recommend content based on government priorities would backfire.

Matthew Hatfield, from OpenMedia, gave a great analogy:

We would never consider a situation where the Canadian government would go to Canadian bookstores and say, “We've thought about what Canadians need, and these are the types of titles we want you to put in your front window.” However, through the discoverability requirements we have in this legislation, that seems to be what we're doing.... It's inappropriate. It's an overreach. If we're supporting Canadian content, it needs to be in ways that are respectful of and responsive to what people in Canada want.

Let us be very clear. The bill is not about protecting culture. It is about giving the government more control over public discourse, the things that we can see, post and hear online. To have a government agency regulate the dissemination of information online puts Canada in step with places like North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia.

The current chair of the CRTC, Mr. Ian Scott, has confirmed that this is the case. He has said that user-generated content, in other words our content, my content, anybody’s content, will be wrapped up in the bill, but then he goes on to say not to worry, because even though he is given those wide-sweeping powers, he will not use them and we should just trust him. If he is asking us to trust him, why not just take those provisions out of the bill?

That is exactly what these amendments would do. We are asking that those powerful provisions that allow for an abuse of power be taken out of this bill and that Canadians be respected.

The best way to promote Canadian culture is through the protection of free speech. Giving Canadians the freedom to create, express their views, and speak freely is what supports the proliferation of our rich Canadian culture. Our culture is held within the Canadian people, all of them. However, the government has grown far too comfortable with taking control.

As I come to my conclusion here, I wish to thank all of the digital-first creators who weighed in and expressed their views. I also wish to thank the industry experts and the freedom advocates who worked tirelessly to expose the danger of this legislation. I want to thank the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have had their voices heard. It is for them that I contend today.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Lethbridge for her speech, although it was a bit much for my ears at times. I want to go back to one of the complaints that the Conservatives made in committee. They complained that there was not enough time to hear from a number of witnesses. One of those witnesses was Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada, an organization that has no members but is financially supported by YouTube. Many YouTube and TikTok users came to testify. There are 160,000 YouTubers in Canada.

How many more do the Conservatives need to hear from?

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, as we went through this process at committee, there were only five meetings held in total where we heard from witnesses.

This is a piece of legislation that takes the Broadcasting Act, which is normally only applied to radio and television, and applies it to the Internet. It is a massive change to the way we do broadcasting in this country, or what is termed broadcasting.

For the committee to only have five opportunities to hear from witnesses when there were more than 100 who asked to be heard is inexcusable. There still remains more than half of our witness list who never got an opportunity to have a seat at the table and have their voices heard.

If someone were to ask how much is too much, and imply that to give more voice on this would somehow be hindering the process, I would say no to that, as this is a democracy. We want to hear from people.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)

Madam Speaker, we certainly know that this member had a lot of opportunity to speak at the committee. As a matter of fact, when the minister came to speak to the committee, this member filibustered the committee so that the minister could not even answer questions that were being asked by committee members.

I think it is quite rich for this member to get up and talk about the democratic process and how it was not able to unfold at committee, when this member used tools that she had to specifically disrupt the operations of the committee. The other committee members could actually do their work.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I just want to remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets that if he has questions or comments, he should wait until I recognize him.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, the speaker opposite is being incredibly disingenuous right now. I did filibuster at committee. I filibustered because the members opposite, the Liberal members at the table, brought forward a motion that was shutting down debate. I did not want debate to be shut down because I believe Canadians deserve to be heard.

Unfortunately, the Liberals planned it very strategically to have the minister sitting at the table at the same time, so it appeared as if I did not want to hear from the minister. Of course, Canadians who were watching know that is not true, and it is incredibly disingenuous of the member to suggest that.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. parliamentary secretary had an opportunity to ask a question. If he is thinking out loud or wants to have a discussion, he should take that outside.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the member's speech. We have seen how disinformation has undermined, in the United States from the Republican Party, the basic principles of democracy. Her comments today are so far from the truth that I find them very disturbing.

For weeks and weeks, the Conservatives filibustered the committee and blocked witnesses from appearing. Even though all the other parties had submitted amendments, the Conservatives refused to move to have amendments discussed to improve the bill. The NDP got almost a dozen amendments through because we believed in working hard to improve the bill.

At the same time, it is important to note that we have a better bill because of the process, but not thanks to the member and not thanks to Conservatives who impeded, at every step, the due consideration of the bill that was so important. We had five weeks of witnesses—

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Lethbridge has 55 seconds to respond.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record. We did not have five weeks of witnesses. That is incredibly misleading, and I would give the hon. member the opportunity to apologize to the House for misleading. We had five days.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will not apologize. We had the equivalent of five weeks of hearings. The member knows that. She should apologize for misleading the House.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The committee did not have five weeks. It had five meetings: five two-hour—

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

We are getting into debate. Therefore, I would ask members to maybe raise that during their speeches in the House or through other questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

The online streaming act would help ensure a strong place for Canadian stories and music in the digital world. It would make the online streaming platforms contribute their fair share to our culture. The bill is based on the simple premise that those who benefit from the system must contribute to it. This has been the approach in Canada for over 50 years, and the results speak for themselves. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have to invest in our culture and arts. That is why we all have the Canadian content that we love so much.

I grew up on a small, quiet street in Kingston, Ontario. Five doors down from me were the Sinclairs and across the street from them were the Bakers. Little did I know, as an eight- and nine-year-old paperboy delivering papers around the street, that every time I passed by the Bakers' house and heard this loud music coming from the basement I was actually witnessing the formation of The Tragically Hip. Later on, they became the incredibly successful band that we have all come to know and love in Canada.

Gord Sinclair, one of the members of the band, appeared before committee. I listened to his testimony at committee and would like to share it with the House because I think it is extremely important and properly illustrates why this type of legislation is very badly needed. I believe that it belongs in Hansard.

Gord said this in his statement:

My name is Gord Sinclair, and I am a member of The Tragically Hip. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

The Hip set out from Kingston, Ontario, in the mid-1980s, and our journey—

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

One witness in five weeks.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

There seem to be some conversations and some heckling. I would ask members who are heckling not to do that, and I would ask those who are having side conversations with other members to please go to the lobby and have that conversation. If they wish to come back and listen in on the conversation so they can ask questions and comments, they can do that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I am just amazed that the member for South Shore—St. Margarets is heckling me while I read the transcript of what somebody said in committee.

This is, again, from Gord Sinclair, from The Tragically Hip:

The Hip set out from Kingston, Ontario, in the mid-1980s, and our journey took us around the world and lasted over 30 years. It concluded where it began, back in Kingston, when our final concert was broadcast nationwide and viewed by a third of the population of Canada.

How did we wind up there?

Over the years, we wrote some good songs, we worked hard and we had great fans, but in the beginning we were beneficiaries of CanCon, the partnership between private broadcasters and government. This was not a handout. For us, it was a leg-up. With the help of our managers, we recorded an EP and got signed to a label and, with their help, we were able to get some airplay on radio. That gave us enough exposure across the country to take the show on the road, as so many great Canadian entertainers have done.

Canadians excel at live performance. The sheer size of the country is our greatest asset. The road is long and hard, with vast distances between gigs. You can't have a day job and aspire to be a performer in Canada. You either learn to love the life and your travelling companions or you break up. The late great Ronnie Hawkins always said that Canadians have to work 10 times as hard to get a tenth as far.

The artists who do endure have honed their talent to a very high standard. Canadian musicians are seasoned travellers. They've learned to play live and to live on the road, and that's what sets us apart. Somehow, during the years and hours of staring out the van window at granite and black spruce, you discover what it means to be a Canadian. You realize that despite its size, distinct regions and communities, there is more that binds us together in this country than separates us. The Hip wrote songs from that perspective. Many of them resonated with our fellow Canadians and enjoy enduring popularity.

Through the travel, the space, the time and the weather, the songwriter searches for meaning and what gives us a common identity. Nations create and preserve themselves through the stories they tell. Words set to rhythm and melodies are our stories. They allowed us to enjoy a long fruitful career until Gord Downie's untimely death....

Times change. In the 30 years that The Hip were performing, we went from producing vinyl records and cassettes to CDs, videos and DATs through Napster, and to iTunes and YouTube, and now to streaming and its dominant platform, Spotify. Through it all, until recently, there have been live shows to make ends meet, but people no longer buy the physical products our industry produces. In the digital age, people haven't given up on music—just the idea of paying for it. That business model is unsustainable.

We are all stakeholders of the arts, and the future has never been more dire. For years, traditional broadcasters, in partnership with the federal government, have helped develop and sustain Canadian recording artists. The Canada Music Fund provides critical support for music in this country. What will happen if that funding disappears?

Gord Downie wrote in our song Morning Moon that if “something's too cheap, somebody's paying something”. Every song ever recorded can now be streamed for less than $10 a month. The somebodies in this case will be the future you and me when we realize that we've undervalued the contribution of Canadian musicians and songwriters.

There is no better art form to preserve, promote and export our culture than music, but after two years of pandemic-induced venue closures and cancelled performances, our domestic industry is in peril. Artists must see a glimmer of hope for a career in music or they will simply give up. Where will our next Joni Mitchell come from if we abandon our young artists? Artistic development takes time. If we don't actually value something at a level necessary to sustain it, it will surely disappear.

Streaming is here to stay, but the platforms and ISPs must contribute to the long-term health of the arts in some way. They must look on it as an investment. Streaming is a great way for artists to have their material heard, to discover new music and to be discovered, but in an industry that has seen the majority of its revenue streams disappear, how can an artist earn a living? Streaming can help, but regulations must adapt to allow Canadian culture to flourish in the digital age....

My worry is that many will give up before they get the chance to find their voice. As much as the global market is important, Canadian artists must also reach their fellow Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In today's environment, there is a place for everyone, just as there is a place for streaming alongside traditional broadcasters and live performances.

Our potential as a creative nation is as vast as the country itself. Songwriters are our best cultural ambassadors. We are compelled to create, to express what we know and what we feel. We need partners in government and industry....

Right now, somewhere in Canada, a young artist is searching for their voice, the right bit of melody to go with the perfect words. We need your help to hear these voices.

These are the words of Gord Sinclair. To the member who was heckling me previously, and who continued to heckle me while I was reading that, I really hope for the goodness of this institution that he was not doing the same while Gord was delivering those words at committee, because that would have been extremely disrespectful.

I thought it was extremely important to read those words into Hansard so they could be part of the debate the House experiences on this issue. I am very concerned by the rhetoric I have been hearing. Unfortunately for them, I do not think this applies to Canadian discourse, but unfortunately for Conservatives, I do not quite think this manufactured outrage they are attempting for a second time has been nearly as successful as it was the first time around in the last Parliament because they just do not seem to have the traction, despite the outrage we have seen, particularly from the previous speaker.

What I do know is that musicians and individuals who are looking to preserve that Canadian culture, and who take great pride in being Canadian, need our support. Doing something strictly because we think we are going to get a little political gain out of it, but doing it at the cost of those cultural creators throughout our country, is extremely, to use her word, disingenuous of what we should be doing and how we should be properly taking care of Canadian artists.

I have no problem supporting the bill. I know the bill does not do a number of the things that were previously said. It does not impose regulations on the content everyday Canadians post on social media. It does not impose regulations on Canadian digital charter content creators, influencers or users. It does not censure content or mandate specific algorithms, as the previous member indicated, and it does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way made the comment that the bill does not give the CRTC the ability to regulate user-generated content. However, Mr. Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, came to committee, and he said that yes, in fact, they do have that ability. He said however right now they refrain from using it. He asked us to trust him, but he made it very clear that he has the power to regulate user-generated content, which is, in other words, everyday Canadian content online.

The member opposite seems to know something different. I am wondering who is telling the truth, him or the CRTC chair.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting comment. If we reflect on the words that she just used, what she said is that apparently he already has the powers. Her words were, “he has the power” to do this. I am not here to reflect on what the CRTC's current powers are, I am here to reflect on the content of the bill.

My interpretation and my reading of the content of the bill is that it does not give any of those powers this individual is referencing, although we will note she was very judicious in her words. She specifically said, “he has the power”. That would imply that he already has the ability to do that and that his comments are related to that, not what is in the bill.

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague mentioning Gord Downie, someone that I was proud to know. I have seen the growth of careers of those in bands like the Hip, and I see the crisis facing musicians today, especially after COVID and the shutdown of live venues, along with the fact that Spotify is ripping artists off dramatically. When I hear the Conservatives talk, they are saying that the bill is actually going to somehow make it impossible for us to watch a video of someone fixing their deck. I do not know what they think entertainment is, but we are talking about a powerful industry in Canada. Our artists travel the world, yet without the ability to have a sustained financial income, we are seeing more and more musicians unable to make it, along with more and more theatres, and more and more groups.

I ask my hon. colleague this: What specifically in the bill will guarantee that we start to see a revenue stream return rightfully to the artists who make the content?

Motions in AmendmentOnline Streaming ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I started off my speech by telling the story about how I lived on the street five doors down from Judge Baker's house where The Tragically Hip used to practise in the basement. As a newspaper boy, I used to listen to the noise that was coming from the basement, and I had no idea I was witnessing the formation of The Tragically Hip.

Members heard from the words of Gord Sinclair when he was at committee, which I read out in the House, when he said that, had it not been for CanCon and government investment, The Tragically Hip would have never become what it did.

Finally, regarding the member's comment about the Conservatives being worried about somebody being able to watch somebody repair a deck, I just hope that all members know that the member for Timmins—James Bay has a great YouTube channel where they can watch some of his home improvements. If I thought for a second that this bill would limit my ability to do that, I certainly would not be supporting it.