Debates of March 30th, 2023

Online Streaming Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to read a section of Bill C-11. It reads:

(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with

(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings

I wonder if the member can explain why the Conservatives keep talking about freedoms being taken away when the bill explicitly states that freedom of expression would be complied with.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to read proposed section 4.1, which supersedes that section. By the way, I would also encourage her to explain to her constituents and to Canadians why it is that when an opportunity was presented to the Liberal government to ensure that user-generated content was not compromised in this legislation, the Liberal government removed that amendment.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, one would say. There is something rotten in the way the Liberal government conducts its business. It pretends to be one thing and promises to be one thing, but it will be quite another matter when this legislation comes into force. People will see what the government has done.

We on the Conservative side of the the House stand for freedom. We will continue to promote the freedoms that Canadians have under the charter, and we will not have those freedoms compromised by poorly drafted, wrong-headed Liberal legislation.

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

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 30th day of March, 2023, at 10:03 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, C-43, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, and Bill C-44, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 2 in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see my hon. colleagues continue debate on a very important bill, Bill C-11. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member and my esteemed colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, beautiful Vancouver Island, a wonderful place on the Sunshine Coast area where I have many friends and where I was raised.

We are debating a very important bill that would modernize the Broadcasting Act, which has not been touched since 1991. It has generated a lot of debate and passion, but it is really important to stick to the facts of the bill at hand and not get lost in the rancour, hyperbole and, frankly, the misinformation, if I could be so direct.

I am pleased to rise today in support of the online streaming act, Bill C-11. The online streaming act seeks to update the Broadcasting Act to reflect the reality of Canada's broadcasting climate today and prepare for the future. For decades, broadcasters in Canada have shown us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. That did not happen by accident. After all, we live right next door to the world's largest exporter of culture and entertainment. I can say first-hand, having lived in the United States for over seven years at one point in my life, it does export a lot of culture and entertainment, not only here in Canada but throughout the world. There is quite a dynamism in its entertainment business, which we also have here in Canada, a very vibrant film industry and music industry.

We made a conscious decision to support our fellow Canadians, to help them share their talents and their stories with the rest of world, much like every other country does. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. It is why we have all the Canadian content we love. Whenever we see Schitt's Creek, Orphan Black and Corner Gas or hear Lisa LeBlanc, Coeur de pirate, Joni Mitchell, Céline Dion, Jessie Reyez, Mother Mother, Classified and the Arkells, it makes us proud to be Canadian. Our culture is who we are. It is our past, our present, and most definitely and definitively our future.

The last major reform, as I stated at the outset of my comments, of the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, a year after I finished high school, which is a long time ago, and before dial-up Internet was widely available in Canada. Online streaming services like Crave, Netflix, TOU.TV, Apple TV+ and Spotify have dramatically changed how we watch television and movies and listen to music.

Today, believe it or not, most Canadians are using YouTube as their primary music streaming service. I see this with my children, who are 10 and 11 years old, two of the three, who watch much on YouTube in terms of sports and entertainment. However, those online streaming platforms are not subject to the same rules as traditional broadcasting services like over-the-air television, cable and radio. This bill would ensure that everyone who benefits from the Canadian market is paying their fair share to support Canadian culture, in both official languages, as well as indigenous languages. With a population of almost 39.6 million people, our market is continuing to grow and it is a sought-after market for content producers and platforms from all over the world.

The world has changed a lot since 1991. In the last 30 years, Canadian society has evolved, and so have our values. Diversity and inclusion are important to Canadians, so they must be key elements of our cultural policy. Improving the fairness of our broadcasting system means being more inclusive, supporting the livelihoods of Canadian artists and creators and enriching the lives of Canadians who want to see more of themselves on screen and in song. Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized Canadians, women, LGBTQ2+ persons and persons with disabilities deserve to have the space in order to tell their stories to other Canadians and to the world. Frankly, Canadian stories are unique stories. They need to be told, we need to encourage that, and that is exactly what this bill would do.

These values are clearly reflected in the online streaming act. The bill presents us with an opportunity to ensure that the broadcasting sector is truly inclusive of all Canadians, including anglophones, francophones, Canadians from Black and racialized communities, Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds and socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and Canadians of all ages. It would ensure that the circumstances and aspirations of all Canadians are reflected in the broadcasting system, many for the first time in Canadian history.

I would like to share some of the important perspectives that were heard throughout the House and Senate study of the online streaming act to show just how transformative these changes could be for our country. We all know of the intense debate and scrutiny Bill C-11 has gone through in both Houses.

Culture can play a role in the process of truth-telling and reconciliation with indigenous peoples and healing. As part of our commitment to reconciliation, Bill C-11 proposes important updates to Canada's broadcasting system. The online streaming act would remove the language “as resources becomes available” about supporting indigenous culture from Canada's broadcasting policy goals. This is as it should be.

I will quote Jean La Rose, President of Dadan Sivunivut, “We have a unique place, and this language would better reflect Parliament's wish to recognize in legislation the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. Amendments passed in both the House and the Senate strengthened this commitment in the bill. Ultimately, this bill would create more funding and more opportunities for indigenous creators to tell their stories in the language of their choice.

Currently, programs that reflect indigenous peoples and racialized and ethnocultural communities remain few and, unfortunately, far between, and creative employment opportunities are slim. Who tells the story is as important as the story itself. Our government is committed to building a better future where Black and racialized creative voices, talent and work are celebrated, sought after and supported.

Joan Jenkinson, executive director of the Black Screen Office, told the heritage committee, “Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country. The proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will prioritize greater equity and inclusion.” This is something we should all be proud of and something we should all support.

In fact, amendments were adopted by both Houses to recognize the unique experiences of Black and racialized Canadians and incorporate their unique stories into the goals of the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-11 would also provide more opportunities for persons with disabilities to fully participate in the broadcasting system. It would update the broadcasting policy goals of Canada to ensure that our system should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests of all Canadians first, specifically including persons with disabilities for the first time in Canadian history.

It would also update the act to remove language that specifies that programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities must only be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system when the resources are available to do so.

When David Errington, president of Accessible Media Inc., appeared before the Senate committee, he told parliamentarians that “By removing that qualifying language, the government is signalling that it expects that Canadians with disabilities will be treated like all other citizens for the purposes of broadcasting policy.” Again, this is how it should be.

As members can see, this legislation would provide real opportunities for Canadians, including community media, local news, French-language productions, Black and racialized communities, third language programming, and so much more. Importantly, this legislation would also takes steps to ensure there is space within our broadcasting system for indigenous storytelling and indigenous languages.

Canada has changed greatly since 1991. It is time that our broadcasting system reflected that. It is imperative. I hope all of my colleagues, and I understand the NDP and the Bloc are in support, will join me and our caucus in supporting Bill C-11. It is time to bring our broadcasting system into the 21st century.

I look forward to questions and comments.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the member opposite could provide an answer to a question one of the independent senators had as they were going through the bill. Could he actually provide a clear definition for what the term “discoverability” means?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about the way this bill has been looked at and examined by both Houses is that it has been quite a robust discussion. I understand, from reading the notes on the bill, that many tough questions were asked, including the member opposite's question on the issue of discoverability.

What is important is that we are modernizing the Broadcasting Act for the first time since 1991. Content creators would continue to have free rein in the generation of the content they wish to produce, post online and show to users and viewers here in Canada and around the world.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the Conservatives.

They oppose Bill C‑11, saying that it would undermine freedom of expression. However, they claim to be defending Quebec, because Quebec wrote a letter in which it asked for Bill C‑11 to be passed and stated that it must be consulted when the bill will apply in the Quebec context. In other words, Quebec would be opposed, in that context, to freedom of expression but would be defended by the Conservatives. It sounds like the equivalent of a dog chasing its own tail.

Can my colleague tell me whether I have this right or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question on the importance of collaboration with all the provinces in our country. It is very important to collaborate with the province of Quebec and to collaborate further when it comes to the application of Bill C‑11.

I do not understand the Conservatives' opposition.

Like many people, I am befuddled by it. There is a lot of language being used that I am not really sure is accurate. Maybe a full briefing for members would help them to understand the importance of the bill.

This is an extremely important bill for our cultural sector.

It is very important to move forward with this bill.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge that there is a language being used about the bill that is incendiary. However, there are also fair critiques.

Could the member speak to his views? The Senate proposed an amendment that would have addressed a really key element of this bill, with respect to ensuring that user-generated content is not regulated by the CRTC. However, the governing party rejected that very reasonable, surgically prepared amendment that the Senate put a lot of thought towards.

Could he share his view and whether he agrees with that amendment not being in what we are going to be voting on this evening or being voted down?

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

Mr. Speaker, I too asked about this amendment and I received clarification that the way the bill is written and would be adopted is that user-generated content would not come under scrutiny or be under the application of the CRTC. What we are doing is modernizing the Broadcasting Act to ensure that service platforms like Netflix, Apple TV+, Crave and so forth are broadcasters under the broadcasting system.

That is why we have worked hand in hand with all senators and all parliamentarians. This bill has received hours and hours of scrutiny in both Houses. A lot of tough questions have been asked.

That is the way one produces good legislation.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to that response, he did not answer the previous question.

Why did they not include the amendment? It would have made it all clear, and there would have been much less for people to object to in this bill had they accepted that amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an esteemed member who I have worked with in years past on the finance committee. I have a great deal of respect for that member.

I will say again that my understanding, from reading the bill and speaking to the various officials, is that user-generated content is not going to be impacted at all with regard to this bill.

The bill modernizes the Broadcasting Act. It brings platforms that we use often in our daily lives and innovation forward under the Broadcasting Act and ensures that Canadian content continues to be generated.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge for splitting his time. This is the first time in my life that I have been able to rise in this place and say to the hon. member for Abbotsford that I get to answer his rhetorical question: How could Margaret Atwood's words “creeping totalitarianism” be misconstrued?

I have been in constant contact over the last little while with one of Canada's most extraordinary authors, Margaret Atwood. She has directed me to what she would like me to say in the House to explain how her words are misconstrued.

Remarkable, is it not? This is Canada. One ends up admiring someone and reading their books. What an honour that they then become one's best friend.

I have to say that Ms. Margaret Atwood is not my best friend. However, Farley Mowat was. Through Farley, I got to be a good friend of Margaret Atwood. I have been writing to her for some time to say that she will not believe it, but she has now become the favourite author of leader of the official opposition. It is a caucus that really largely objects to the lessons taught to us through the dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale. These lessons are that, given the chance, men in power will strip women of their rights, deny them the rights to control their reproductive health—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member and her opinions, but I would challenge her to stick to the topic of the day.

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

On the same point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is just about to shut down an entire Conservative argument on this debate. What she is talking about is extremely relevant.

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

We are getting into more debate than we need to. Neither of those are really points of order.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies must assume that I am about to give a rant about women's rights.

When Margaret Atwood's name is invoked so often with a novel that is entirely about women losing their rights in a dystopian future, where unbelievable things have happened like the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and women having to fight again for rights that were assured. That is not my theme. That just happens to be a deep irony in hearing The Handmaid's Tale invoked over and over again.

Let us get to Bill C-11. I have been talking via email with Margaret Atwood, who I am honoured to know. She does not wish to be associated with the idea that Bill C-11 is “creeping totalitarianism”. If shadowy figures were to be determining what we got to watch, that would be creeping totalitarianism.

I am just going to read what Margaret Atwood would like entered into this discussion. It is found on something called margaretatwood.substack.com. If someone wants to look for the article on a search engine, it is about featuring Canadian content without the benefit of algorithms.

It is called “Can CanCon or Can't It, Eh?” It was posted about Bill C-11 by Margaret Atwood. As she has pointed out to me a few times by email, there is no reference to “creeping totalitarianism” in this article. There are elements of what she wishes were clearer about Bill C-11. It is about the question of what is “content”, what is “creator” and what is “platform”.

To back up a bit, it is important to recognize that regulating Canadian content, whether it be The Littlest Hobo, The Beachcombers or whatever, was an important part of fending off the behemoth of U.S. Hollywood productions.

It is even more important for the culture of the incredible Québécois nation, which is so different from the anglophone Canadian culture. Quebec has a smaller audience which means that it faces an even greater threat from American culture and Hollywood.

We have had the benefit of Canadian content rules for many years. This takes them into protecting our creators from online streaming. I am going to quote Margaret Atwood because she has asked me to. She said the following:

Maybe the language used in the Bill is imprecise. “Content” is what goes inside the cheeseburger. “Creator” is who makes the cheeseburger. “Platform” is how the contents of the cheeseburger wend their way from the creator to consumer of the cheeseburger. Did the framers of Bill C-11 mean Creator or Platform, rather than Content?

And whose interests are to be served? Is all this in aid of “We need to hear our own stories?” That would be Content. But this doesn’t seem to be exactly what is meant.

I think...that the idea is to enlarge the space available to the creative folk in Canada by helping them profit fairly from their endeavours, insofar as that is possible, and to encourage the availability of platforms via which they may serve up their cheeseburgers. Is that it?

If so, the Bill C-11 writers might think of changing the wording. Substitute “creators” and possibly “platform” for “content.” For instance: in music terms—requiring a percentage of CanCon from radio broadcasters jump-started the careers of a whole generation of Canadian musicians. But they didn’t necessarily sing about Mounties and beavers. They sang about all sorts of things. CanCon in that context didn’t mean subject matter. It meant who was doing the singing. Listeners were allowed to hear the music, and then could make up their own minds about whether they liked it or not.

That is what we are talking about here with Bill C-11. There is no world in which people who manipulate algorithms are censors. They promote content, but they do not exclude other content.

People can find the content they want, and the Internet, as many Conservative colleagues have called for, will forever be a magical space of unending opportunities. However, within that large amount of noise, in order to level the playing field, Canadians will be given a bit of a hint to find Canadian content and Canadian productions.

What is that playing field, and why does it need to be levelled? It is because Canadian writers, screenwriters, artists, actors and directors need to be able to make a living. In this debate, the economics of the cultural industry have been somewhat muddied. Yes, it is true that the industry is great for a local economy, and I have experienced this in Saanich—Gulf Islands in my hometown of Sidney.

My husband came home one day and said, “Honey, the town has lost its mind. It's only October, and they're putting up Christmas ornaments.” The next day there was fake snow. We realized there was a Hallmark Christmas film being produced on Beacon Avenue in Sidney. I was able to tell my husband that the mayor and council had not lost their minds but had struck a good business deal; that was a good thing.

That Hallmark film was using Canadian areas and space to produce something. It was good for the economy. However, my husband's daughter tells me all the time that with the U.S. productions made in Canada, the starring roles and the big money go to the U.S. actors; the Canadian actors work at what is called “at scale”. My husband's daughter is a brilliant actor named Janet Kidder, by the way, and she is in a lot of productions.

To promote Canadian artists, we need to be able to say to the big giants, whether Amazon, Disney or Hallmark, that when they come to Canada to make a film, they would find it advantageous to actually use Canadian stars. We have brilliant actors who have chosen to stay in Canada and not move to Hollywood, and they should be paid properly.

We also know that the screenwriters of Canada have had a rather catastrophic drop in the amount of work available to them as the online streaming giants have taken off. If one is a Canadian writer, one's chances of being a screenwriter have been reduced quite dramatically over the last number of years.

This data is kept by an organization to which I belong called the Writers' Union of Canada. In this place, in debate, I heard colleagues refer to the Writers' Union of Canada as if it were a trade union, so let us clear that up. There are no trade unions representing writers. Writers have two organizations: the Writers Guild of Canada and the Writers' Union of Canada. It is a voluntary association of published writers working together in kind of a little society. It could have been called a “society” or a “club”.

It is not a union. There are no arts union bosses. Those are words I heard in this place, as if the arts union bosses are going to make money. No, they are not. There are writers in this country, and many of them are not the famous writers. They are not the Farley Mowats or Margaret Atwoods, and they struggle to make ends meet. Getting a book published or writing a screenplay in Canada is not a ticket to success. If one is lucky, it is a ticket to employment insurance at some point because one managed to put together enough to get some help between jobs.

Writers in this country struggle to make ends meet. They are not represented by union bosses. There are no arts union bosses. We need Bill C-11 to be passed for those creators.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the member put into proper context one of Canada's much-loved authors. It is important. The type of misinformation we are seeing on the legislation is causing a great deal of anxiety for many Canadians, where they feel they will lose their freedom to express themselves on the Internet or upload a simple post to Facebook. The Conservatives have been supporting that misinformation. Reflecting on the quote she read, can the member provide her thoughts on how it is unhealthy for society in general when there is that type of misinformation being talked about from elected officials?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am maybe not going to make the Liberal bench, from which the question emanated, as happy as it might have been. There are reasons that this legislation has critics, and that is a big problem. I would rather vote for this bill with the Senate amendment to refuse any regulation of user-generated content, which has now been rejected.

In fact, my colleague from Kitchener Centre brought forward a similar motion before committee because we could see where this was going to lead. User-generated content should not be included in this bill. The government's position is that it is not. The Conservatives' position is that it is. I would rather the government had accepted the Senate amendment to make that really clear and nail it down because it is that little inconsistency, shall we put it, that gives rise to the volume of what I regard as incorrect statements about the bill.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way referred to this earlier when a member of the Liberal Party was talking about Bill C-11. She said that she still had a problem that user-generated content perhaps was not exempted as promised and that was the problem she had with the bill. Her Green Party colleague also said that he was concerned about this, that user-generated content was perhaps caught up in Bill C-11, and yet they said they are still going to support the bill despite their concerns.

It is not just Conservatives who are voicing their concerns about this issue. There are many issues going back to Bill C-10, when this was brought up by the current environment minister almost four years ago. This is an issue that Canadians are rightfully worried about. It would give possible control to the government to decide what CRTC can show or what it can prevent people from seeing on the Internet. Until that is laid to rest, we need to oppose the bill.

What would the member do with the concerns I have brought up?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague enormously and I understand why he feels he will vote against the bill.

I am very much informed by constituents, particularly in Saanich—Gulf Islands but across the country. I am very much in touch with the artist community, with writers and actors. They are begging for this to be passed because they need protection against these digital giants, the streaming enterprises of Netflix and Amazon and Disney.

That said, I agree that there is no reason that I can see, other than stubbornness, for the government not to have accepted the sensible amendments from the Senate. I hope we will continue to stay on top of this issue. In the meantime, the artists of this country need the bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, although I am not a Farley Mowat fan, I do want to say there are other great authors like Aviaq Johnston, Tanya Talaga, Waubgeshig Rice, Thomas King and Drew Hayden Taylor. I think they are great authors as well.

However, I want to ask about the member's interpretation of the concerns continually being raised about algorithms and what this bill says about algorithms.