House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firearms.

Topics

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague from Drummond for his work on the committee. We were able to improve the bill, which is an important part of our work. Another important part of our work as members of Parliament is to pressure the government.

Has the government stood up to the web giants? No, not really. Some of what my colleague said is very true and relevant.

However, we have work to do. The improved version of Bill C-11 is a first step in that direction, but we need to continue our work—

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Order. We also need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 and outline my significant concerns with what the Liberal government is proposing.

I will be sharing my time tonight with my fantastic colleague, the member representing South Shore—St. Margarets.

Let us make no mistake that what is contained within the legislation is extraordinary new powers for the government, through the auspices of the CRTC, to regulate wide swaths of what Canadians can create and watch on the Internet. Moreover, I have never received a letter, email or phone call from a constituent or a content creator in Canada asking the CRTC to regulate the Internet.

A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation on this bill, and one commentator said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I was taken aback for a moment. I had to fully understand why he made that reference, but it got to the crux of the matter, which is that no matter how noble the government’s intended goals may be, this legislation will be an absolute quagmire. It gives the CRTC immense powers. It will give it the power to regulate what Canadians listen to and watch on the Internet, which has never been done before. This bill would also leave the door wide open for the CRTC to even regulate content creators sometime down the road.

Millions of Canadians are rightly alarmed about the Liberal government’s intentions. Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to regulate the Internet, and we know the government will introduce a bill in the future to determine what people can say on the Internet. A representative from YouTube who appeared at committee said, “Our concern is that Bill C-11 gives the government control over every aspect of Canadians' experience on YouTube. It does not include effective guardrails on either the powers given to the CRTC or the content to which those powers apply.”

Before I go any further, let us just step back and contemplate the size of the CRTC bureaucracy that will need to be established to undertake what Bill C-11 is trying to achieve. The sheer magnitude of the daily content being created for audiovisual services is hard to wrap one's head around. Across online platforms such as YouTube, podcast apps, websites and everything in between, thousands of hours of content are created in Canada every day. Unlike traditional broadcasters the CRTC regulates, new apps and websites are constantly being created and released to the public. Online platforms have cut out the middleman and dramatically reduced overhead costs, which in previous generations made it difficult for content creators to find an audience. As content creators have discovered, they now have the entire world with which to share their product.

Not only have we seen an extraordinary rise in content creators, but we have also seen several new online companies and platforms emerge. I, for one, welcome this innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, all done without needing tax dollars or regulations. With this in mind, for the CRTC to keep up with all the new platforms in order to regulate them would be impossible. I can imagine it now: hundreds of new CRTC employees scouring the Internet for hours and hours as they look for new platforms they intend to regulate.

Not only is it foolhardy to think the CRTC could ever figure out a way to manage this workload, but it would also be an incredible waste of taxpayers’ dollars, and for what? What are the Liberals trying to accomplish other than to create a mountain of red tape? That question gets to the core of why this legislation is short-sighted and could have disastrous consequences. What happens if the CRTC says it cannot do the job? Does it then come back to the government and ask for legislative powers to demand online platforms apply for authorization before Canadians can access their content? Not only would that be a colossal headache for companies, but many would just walk away from the Canadian market.

Here is another big question: How can the CRTC even impose its jurisdiction on companies that operate outside Canada? Unlike TV channels or radio waves, there is no limit to the number of websites or online platforms. A company might have its headquarters in Europe, its servers in Asia and its IT developers in the United States. While the CRTC might carry a big stick at home, there is no reasonable way for it to enforce its regulations on companies that do not have a single employee in Canada. These are the questions we must be asking.

It is simply impossible to regulate the Internet, as Bill C-11 would inevitably do. As I see this legislation, there will be very limited benefit for the vast majority of Canadians who create content, the Canadians who watch that content and the companies that publish that content. The real issue is, what problem is the government trying to solve? No one, particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has ever provided a solid reason for this Goliath of a bill. The ingenuity and creativity of content creators such as musicians, artists, pundits, bloggers, gamers and everyone in between have been thriving, all without needing the CRTC to regulate the platforms on which they publish.

Never before in the history of our country has there been more Canadian content being created and watched than there is today. For those who want to learn about cooking, follow their favourite folk band, watch a tutorial on how to plant a vegetable garden or listen to people debate politics, all one must do is search for it. Many of those Canadians are generating content or deriving income from their own hard work. Many of them now generate revenue and have even made a full-time job out of it.

According to a 2019 university report, there are an estimated 160,000 Canadian content creators on YouTube alone, including 40,000 who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels. I can only surmise that number has grown since then, and more Canadians have unplugged their cable boxes and now turn to the Internet and online content for their entertainment and news. The reason I am bringing this up is the fact that, through Bill C-11, the Liberals are giving the CRTC the power to regulate the platforms their content is uploaded on.

Internet expert Michael Geist, who has been following this legislation, said, “for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a 'program'.”

This is important because Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to write its own regulations. It would be able to determine what is considered the program, which will then fall under its purview. Due to the vague nature of the bill, no one knows what could possibly be deemed a program.

Mr. Geist also wrote about how this bill is created, stating:

[It] is a legislative pretzel, where the government twists itself around trying to regulate certain content. In particular, it says the CRTC can create regulations that treat content uploaded to social media services as programs by considering three factors:

[First,] whether the program that is uploaded to a social media service directly or indirectly generates revenue;

[Second,] if the program has been broadcast by a broadcast undertaking that is either licensed or registered with the CRTC;

[Third,] if the program has been assigned a unique identifier under an international standards system.

The Liberals can get up to say that user-generated content is exempt, but they cannot say that with any great confidence. As a parliamentarian, I am not comfortable with giving so much power to a body that is not directly accountable to Canadians. If Bill C-11 simply wanted to regulate Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime and the other large streaming services, we would be having a completely different conversation. I implore my Liberal colleagues to shelve this bill and go back to the drawing board. There are too many questions and too many concerns for it to proceed.

In closing, I want to stress how unrealistic and impractical it is to regulate the Internet. The consequences of this poorly drafted legislation would likely be to weaken consumer choice and hurt the potential of Canadian creators. I, for one, cannot and will not vote in favour of a bill that would grant the CRTC so much power. Canadians are rightly very concerned that this is overreach by the current Liberal government.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives used every tactic in the tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. At committee, all the members agreed to study the bill for 20 hours of witness testimony. However, the Conservatives did not allow that because they filibustered for seven hours. They went as far as to filibuster their own study at one point.

Why will the colleague and his colleagues not support Canada artists and creators?

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, obviously it was in my speech. With the greatest number of creators we have ever had in Canadian history today, there is no way the CRTC is going to be able to manage trying to keep track of everyone through the mechanisms that it will have to put in place to monitor every one of those thousands that are coming into blogs and Internet services every day in Canada.

Our job as the opposition is to try to bring forward good ideas. The government was exempt of that, so we have tried to hold their feet to the fire as a good opposition would. We have heard from thousands, more like millions, of Canadians who have said that the bill is inadequate.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I quite like my friend from Brandon—Souris, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

He said at the end of his speech earlier that we should not try to regulate the Internet. However, regulating the Internet is not the purpose of the bill. I am sure my colleague is well aware that if Quebec wants its culture to flourish in a sea of anglophones, it needs support. That is what the bill seeks to do: offer support to Quebec culture to enable it to compete with American commercial culture.

That is how the bill should be regarded. The objective is not to regulate the Internet or to limit freedom of expression, but rather to ensure that all forms of expression find their place on the Internet, especially French-language expression.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, this is not about culture. We all have the opportunity to express that anywhere in Canada. The bill is about regulating programming, and the government has given the CRTC the power to determine what a program is and then regulate it. I would be very worried about it if I were from Quebec. I am from Manitoba, another bilingual province. We have to be very concerned about the government interfering in the lives of creators who are putting this content out there every day. Some of them are making a very good living at it.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, it was clear after listening to the member's speech that the Conservatives simply do not want the bill in any shape or form. The member basically said it was impossible, yet Canadian arts and culture workers have been clambering for us to pass the bill because they know how beneficial it will be for them. They have struggled over the past two years, and they need this support.

We have the web giants such as Netflix and YouTube, which are making record profits yet pay no taxes in Canada. This is what the bill is about. I am wondering about the Conservatives saying that we should spend more time at it, yet they filibustered at committee and stopped witnesses from appearing. They delayed getting their amendments in. What is their game plan?

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I want to—

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Order. There is a member who is trying to answer a question.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington has a point of order.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I did call out just to correct the member about the Conservatives' strong position on this matter, and its strong principles—

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The question is that we do not like disorder in the chamber, especially when another member is trying to answer a question.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I would have gladly given my time up to my colleague from Perth—Wellington to answer that question because he is absolutely right. What we are talking about here is the creation and the creators on the Internet, not the traditional types of media that we have had in Canada. This is the Internet sites that we are dealing with and the types of creation that are on there are growing and expanding. I do not know where the member gets his information, but there are more creators on the Internet today than we have every had before.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my riding, South Shore—St. Margarets, to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, the first amendments in 31 years, I believe.

I was disheartened to see how swiftly the government moved to shut down debate on this important bill. The irony is not lost on me, or probably on the House, that the government moved to stifle debate on a bill designed to control what people can see or say on the Internet. The irony continues because the heritage minister recently stated that he does not expect the Senate to rush the bill through in the other place. This raises the question as to why the government was so eager to have the bill moved through the House of Commons committee.

My colleague for Perth—Wellington noted that the minister does not expect the Senate to rubber-stamp it, but for some reason he expects the House and our 338 duly elected members of Parliament to rubber-stamp the bill. The Liberals voted closure on the second reading of the bill, a bill that would let the government prioritize what is most important for us to see on the Internet, and a bill that would put new entrepreneurs under the thumb of government regulation. This is what the witnesses who generate content on the Internet say. This is what, in committee, the head of the CRTC said. Now, I know other members may have their own opinion, but I think it was the expert, the head of the CRTC, who said that the bill would give it the power to regulate the Internet.

The Liberals did not take what they were hearing and did not like what they were hearing in committee. What did they do? They had the House of Commons put closure on the public hearings and the clause-by-clause phase under the anti-democratic Motion No. 16, which stopped what the committee was doing on the bill and forced clause-by-clause without debate. It even stopped the committee members who moved those motions from reading their motions.

Numerous times during clause-by-clause, I asked the chair, when Motion No. 16 was stated, where in that motion it said, when it talked about debate, whether or not a member could actually read their motion so people watching could find out. The Chair went further to say that he was interpreting Motion No. 16 to mean that members could not even read the motion in the debate, which was quite shocking, because the member for Vancouver Centre who chairs the heritage committee, in 2015 on another piece of legislation, said:

We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says. It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation. Everyone has accepted that public consultation should occur. Public consultations went on before [it] was set up.... We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government.

That was from the member for Vancouver Centre, who chaired this committee, so it is incredible that the Liberals continued to follow a different path during these discussions. Conservatives have raised the concerns of Canadians time and time again, but sadly the Liberals are too focused on ramming through this legislation. The NDP, of course, were reading from talking points that someone in their coalition had provided them.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the NDP House leader is fond of quoting Tommy Douglas, and I will read for him something that Tommy Douglas said: “The greatest way to defend democracy is to make it work.” Before the member joined the government, he used to understand that the House rules are made to ensure that opposition could do its duty in making democracy work by scrutinizing legislation. In hearing from a variety of witnesses on that legislation, and on proposing and discussing amendments to that legislation, since the member for New Westminster—Burnaby joined the Liberal government, he now thinks the opposition's role is to rubber-stamp legislation, as he clearly did during clause-by-clause.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby said, in 2015:

There was concern over a wide variety of community impacts as well. We have a government that brought forward a badly flawed bill last year and forced it through. Initial debates reflected very poorly on the government, so it hid the bill for a year and is now bringing it forward with closure, trying to ram it through the House with no due parliamentary consideration.

He was often a critic of tactics of closure before, but he seems to enjoy using closure now that he is part of the government.

Conservatives would have updated the Broadcasting Act while also respecting digital-first creators and those Canadians who want to excel here at home and around the world with the freedom to create and earn a living without government regulation.

Bill C-11 contains disturbing open-ended online censorship regulatory power for the government. The legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a). That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Spotify.

What does “indirectly” mean? Everything posted on the Internet has some sort of identifier and code to it, and it is on a page. Everything and everyone in the House is on a page. Opposite that, everything posted on social media has advertising beside it, so everything posted on the Internet indirectly generates revenue. That is why the CRTC chair says it can regulate all user-generated content.

When Canadians do an Internet search or look at videos on YouTube or TikTok, the Liberal government, in this bill, would require that those platforms prioritize Canadian content to the top of the list of what people see. The CRTC would pick the winners and losers of what Canadians can see. It would determine whether the cat video one wants to see has sufficient Canadian content. Is the cat Canadian? Is the videographer Canadian? Was it filmed in Canada? That is how the CRTC would impact what one can see on the Internet.

It is horse feathers that this bill would not give the government the power to regulate all user-generated content, as the minister claims. The Liberal government rules will drive what one sees on the first page, and not what is most popular. Most people do not go past the first page. This bill forces platforms to develop algorithms to choose what cat video comes first on search pages. This is why this bill is so dangerous, but the NDP-Liberal government thinks if it moves we should regulate it: “Hi, we are here from Ottawa and we are here to intrude on people's lives.”

Liberals say to trust them, yet they refuse to release the directive that is required to give to the CRTC. That is the trust they ask of us. They say that it is not their intention and not to worry. If they want that trust, then they should make the CRTC directive public now, before the bill passes. What is the government hiding?

The minister has tried to claim that user-generated digital content and YouTube creators, TikTok creators and Canadians who have been able to burst onto the scene not just in this country but internationally, are free from having that content regulated. The government says it has no interest in looking at that. If that were true, the government should have made it clear by voting for our amendments in committee. It refused to pass amendments that would remove the government's and the CRTC's ability to regulate user-generated content indirectly. To me, that says it all. By refusing to do that, by defeating the amendments that would prevent the government from regulating indirect revenue and user-generated content when supposedly the government was open to amendments in committee, it admits the bill has that power.

The NDP-Liberal government only wants to see its ideas on the Internet, and no one else's. The bill is another dagger, in my view, to our democracy. I would urge all members to please vote against this at third reading.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

London North Centre Ontario

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Madam Speaker, in thinking back to Progressive Conservative governments of the past, they very much championed the idea that television corporations or radio corporations, for example, would have an obligation to support Canadian content. The world has changed very much since the last time the Broadcasting Act was updated in 1991. Streaming services play a fundamental role and are even more important than radio and television in terms of story creation.

Why not ask those streaming services to support the creation of Canadian content? That is my question to the member. That is the fundamental aim of this bill.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, the ability of Canadian artists to develop their programs, music or content has not been hindered by not being regulated. The other day, the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke at length about one quote from The Tragically Hip saying how it could not have burst onto the scene without the use of this bill. It managed to burst onto the scene without this, and so did Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Alessia Cara, the Weeknd and Carly Rae Jepsen. They were all discovered on the Internet without the help of the CRTC or the Liberal government.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech. I had the pleasure of sitting with him during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, and we had a lot of fun. It was probably the most entertaining part of the study, I must say.

Having said that, in his speech, he talked about how the legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate content such as user-generated content, which I think is an unfounded statement. I am wondering how many opinions he would have needed to hear to convince him that there is no infringement on freedom of expression or on user-generated content. Clearly, I am talking about opinions that were contrary to the few that were presented by the witnesses invited by the Conservatives. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this. I know he did not attend all the committee meetings, but I think he has a pretty good idea of our work.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, I also enjoyed our time sitting next to each other during the long hours into the evening on clause-by-clause. We had a lot of fun joking back and forth. That is part of the fun we can have sometimes in this place, regardless of the party.

In answer to the member's question, I do not think there is an actual number, but there were dozens more witnesses we were trying to hear from. I do not think the committee ever settled that 20 hours would be the limit. In fact, committees often change the number of witnesses once they are into the committee and say they should hear from more people. We thought we should perhaps hear from a few more witnesses to get a more balanced approach so we could have more discussion about the amendments that were being proposed in clause-by-clause.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, it is pretty rich to hear the Conservatives quoting Tommy Douglas, especially when it comes to time allocation: Under the Harper government, the Conservatives used time allocation over 100 times. I encourage my Conservative colleague to reflect on the words of Tommy Douglas when he said, “The greatest way to defend democracy is to make it work.” What we have seen from the Conservative caucus is obstructionist tactics, delays, repeated points of order and attempts to slow down legislation, not to try and make democracy work.

I encourage my colleagues to think about that.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the quote. The NDP used to remember what it was like to be in opposition, but now it seems to speak for government. The tools that the opposition has for democratic discourse are limited relative to members of the NDP-Liberal government trying to ram things through. We had to use every tool in our arsenal, which is limited in—

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brampton Centre.

I am pleased to rise today to share my support for Bill C-11, the online streaming act. The overarching goal of the act is to ensure that online streamers contribute in an equitable but flexible way to the creation of Canadian content, just as our broadcasting system has done for decades. I want to talk about why this bill is fundamentally important when it comes to our music sector.

Online streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music have dramatically changed how we listen to music. Today, most Canadians use YouTube as their primary music streaming service; however, these online streamers are not subject to the same rules as traditional broadcasting services such as over-the-air television, cable and radio. Right now, our system is not supporting Canadian musicians and creators the way it should.

The music sector is important to Canadian society. It includes a wide array of artists, including songwriters, composers, performers and arrangers. Agents, producers, record labels and many others also support their work. The music production and sound recording industry accounts for over $625 million to Canada's GDP and almost 10,000 jobs. Through their music and lyrics, Canada's musicians help create relationships and memories, initiate important social discussions and forge a collective national identity and values. Music allows us to share our country, our culture and our ideas throughout the world.

For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. This is by no accident. We choose to be different from the cultural juggernaut of the United States. We care about our cultural sovereignty. We believe our diversity should be celebrated. Our culture is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, our present and our future. It is how we tell our stories to each other.

As a condition of their licences, radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. It is why we have all the great Canadian content we love. Whenever we hear Charlotte Cardin, Coeur de Pirate, Joni Mitchell, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Great Big Sea, the Arkells and The PropheC from Calgary Skyview, it makes us proud to be Canadian.

Since the early 2000s, the music industry has navigated a landscape that has been proudly changed by new distribution models offered by online platforms. We have also seen the music industry evolve from selling music on physical media to digital sales and downloads and, most recently, the increasing popularity of online streaming. Online streaming has had positive impacts for Canadian consumers and certain artists.

Online broadcasters make music readily accessible to Canadians wherever they have an Internet connection available. They can access a variety of music and playlists tailored to their pace and interests. Streaming has also allowed a number of artists to be discovered and has bolstered their careers in other countries. Ruth B. is just one notable example of a Canadian artist who has achieved great international success after being discovered online.

However, the upheaval caused by digital platforms has also had significant consequences for our broadcasters and musical artists. Currently, online platforms have no regulatory requirements to support Canadian music. As more and more Canadians listen to online platforms and the revenues of traditional broadcasters drop, so too does the funding and support for Canadian musical artists. We need to fix this now.

We have heard, loud and clear, from Canadian music producers that passing Bill C-11 is critical to the industry. I want to share a quote from SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada:

Canadian creators need support to continue to develop Canadian music in the world of streaming, and Canada must be a place for emerging music creators, where songwriters and composers can create, grow and thrive.

It continues:

The tabling of the Online Streaming Act on February 2, 2022, is an important first step to make it easier for Canadian audiences to find and engage with Canadian creators, giving our music a place in the world of streaming.

The chair of the board of the Canadian Independent Music Association told us that:

The most tangible way to get our artists heard in Canada and around the world is to ensure that we have awesome Canadian artists, supported by strong Canadian owned independent music companies that can compete in the global music market.... I welcome all initiatives that help make our companies stronger and our artists thrive.

That is why we are here. On this side of the House, we want to see our artists thrive. Bill C-11 seeks to update our broadcasting framework so that online platforms would be required to support Canadian music and artists, just as traditional broadcasters currently do. Bill C-11 would ensure that our musical artists would continue to contribute to Canadian culture and be able to make a living from their music. This bill is a part of our wider commitment to supporting artists in Canada and strengthening our arts and culture sector.

In conclusion, this bill realizes the importance of investing in Canadian music. Bill C-11 creates a competitive and sustainable broadcasting system while supporting music. The modernized and fair regulatory framework that it proposes would support Canadian artists and broadcasters.

I ask the hon. members of the House to support this bill. We owe it to the next generation of Canadian music talent.

Bill C‑21—Notice of Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:35 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.