Moved third reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, today I again have the pleasure to speak with you at third reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Modernizing the Broadcasting Act is a key legislative priority for the government. This bill will clarify that online streamers are subject to the act and will update the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s, or CRTC’s, tool kit to put in place a new regulatory framework.

Modernizing the law means adapting it to today’s reality and laying the groundwork for the future. This must be done in a way that takes into account today’s reality — a reality where digital technology is increasingly present in people’s lives, a reality where there are a variety of business models in the current Canadian broadcasting system. The legislation must therefore establish an up-to-date regulatory framework with clear direction, the necessary tools and the flexibility to remain relevant.

As you all know, the last major update to the Broadcasting Act dates back to 1991. As we all have seen, since 1991, there has been tremendous change in the broadcasting sector. The arrival of the internet and new digital technologies has changed the way we communicate with each other and the way we consume our culture. More recently, with the pandemic, we have seen how technology is taking a huge place in our daily lives, and it is clear that this reality will not change.

The sector has undergone change at an unprecedented pace. The majority of Canadians now turn to online streaming services to access their favourite music, their favourite movies and their favourite TV shows. Services like Netflix, Spotify, Crave, CBC Gem, club illico are household names alongside the traditional services of radio, television and cable, and these traditional services remain important, especially to certain demographics. Canadians stream 2 billion songs in a single week using services like Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music.

According to a survey conducted by l’Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, or l’ADISQ, 61% of respondents said they listen to music on online services like Spotify and Apple Music. But that does not mean online broadcasters have replaced traditional broadcasters. In that same survey, 60% of respondents noted that they use the radio as a tool for discovering music. Make no mistake; although the consumption of media has changed, it has not come close to replacing traditional broadcasting. What hasn’t changed, however, is our regulatory system, and it desperately needs to be updated.

The general director of l’ADISQ, Eve Paré, testified before us during the study undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. She said:

This situation is a concern for creators and producers, but also for the public, who are very attached to their culture. In that same survey, we learn that 73% of Quebecers believe that the government should adopt legislation so that services such as Apple Music, Spotify and YouTube also have to contribute to funding this content. In addition, 70% of those who stream music say they would like to see recommendations of French-language music from Quebec.

For several years, streaming services have had a significant impact on our broadcasting system. The reality is that satellite and cable services are losing subscribers. The broadcasting system has lost revenue, advertisers and viewership to online services.

However, despite all this, the law hasn’t changed. The government and parliamentarians have been working carefully on this bill for a long time, and the number of citizens who participated is a good indication of how important this topic is.

The Senate has done its work. Over the past several months, we’ve had important conversations. We heard from over 130 witnesses who came to talk to us about this bill. Colleagues, I thank you for the extensive work you have done. Now, we need to get the proposed online streaming act passed to support our creators, our cultural industries and all Canadians.

Bill C-11 is part of a broader set of initiatives put forward by the government to create a forward-thinking digital policy agenda, including the online news act that we talked about a few minutes ago and the government’s commitment to address online safety. Bill C-11 aligns with other acts and legislative instruments and respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also helps Canada fulfil its international commitments, such as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is important that we modernize the broadcasting framework. This is the task at hand.

It has been almost two years since Bill C-10 was introduced to modernize the Broadcasting Act, and I am before you again. In 2021, when we had Bill C-10 before us, I remarked that neither I nor the government had the intention to ram this legislation through the Senate. Well, here we are in 2023, and 20 months later you can see — some people doubted — that I was telling the truth.

Before Bill C-10, in June 2018, the Government of Canada appointed a panel to review the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative framework. That panel studied these issues for two years and published a report called Canada’s Communications Future: Time to Act. They received over 2,000 written submissions. That same year, it turns out, my colleagues and I on the Transport and Communications Committee began a study on this topic, but we deferred to the national panel’s study.

With the committee report on Bill C-11 presented to this chamber late in 2022, we have finally finished that study.

When I rose to introduce Bill C-10 to you, I noted that the bill had already received considerable input. With 112 days at committee stage at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, with over 40 meetings and close to 50 witnesses — not counting departmental briefings — the bill reflected the work done by parliamentarians and substantial input from industry and community stakeholders. Collectively, the interested parties recognize the need to modernize the act, even as their opinions may differ on the details.

As this bill reaches us today, Bill C-11 has received even more input. As tabled, the bill builds upon the work done on Bill C-10 during the last session with targeted changes to social media and some technical amendments. Parliamentarians once again had the opportunity to amend the bill during the House of Commons’ clause-by-clause study. Senators once again had the opportunity to study this bill.

As I said earlier, we have had many witnesses come before us at the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and just as promised for Bill C-10, neither I nor the government pushed to ram Bill C-11 through the Senate.

In fact, we welcomed an expansive study and heard from every single person and group that requested to testify — every single one.

Your faithful committee and I patiently and openly listened to their requests, their opinions and their concerns. We listened to professors, lawyers, cultural sectors, associations, unions, researchers, consumer groups, official language minority communities, government regulators, taxpayer federations, digital creators, traditional broadcasters, independent broadcasters, online audio streaming services, et cetera. As you can see, a lot of people gave their opinions and we’re proud of the report that was adopted.

Your committee and I listened patiently to 138 witnesses over 31 meetings totalling 67 hours and 30 minutes. We listened patiently, and when we heard the confusion and misinformation surrounding the bill, at the end of the study we then heard from government officials who put to rest many of the misconceptions that had been put on the table.

Furthermore, concerns expressed about how streaming could negatively impact the broadcasting sector are neither new nor hypothetical. However, it is important to contextualize the facts because the decision not to impose obligations on online services dates back to the previous century. At the time, those services weren’t having much of an impact on the broadcasting sector. It was important to let those innovative new services evolve.

That is obviously no longer the case. The world has changed, and the imbalance caused by lack of regulation must be fixed as soon as possible so that web giants contribute their fair share to supporting Canadian music and stories just as traditional Canadian broadcasters do.

Critics have suggested that this bill will result in foreign players withdrawing from the Canadian market. This is not the case — in fact, we have observed the opposite. These platforms — more than 75 online streaming services, including the big ones we all know — are available in Canada. More are coming and their content libraries are growing.

Online streamers compete directly with regulated broadcasters. In some cases, due to licensing, the only way Canadian consumers can view the latest and most popular series in tentpole franchises, like “Andor” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power,” is through streaming services. Even “Kim’s Convenience” and “Schitt’s Creek,” content commissioned by the CBC, is being watched by Canadians on platforms like Netflix instead of on Canadian services like Gem.

In the past, when Canadian broadcasters licensed foreign programming, these services in turn supported Canadian programming through regulatory obligations. However, streaming services are not presently required to support the broadcasting system as traditional Canadian broadcasters do. This is a problem that requires urgent action and one that the online streaming act directly addresses.

This is not a quick cash grab or punishment to those who have enjoyed success in an unregulated environment. The online streaming act is not about picking winners and losers in the landscape of Canada’s broadcasting system. It does not compromise the personal freedoms of Canadians by censoring the internet.

This is about updating our laws and regulations to revamp the framework of our broadcasting system for today and for tomorrow. It is about providing the certainty and structure for sustainable success into the future.

What it does is simple: The legislation accounts for the realities of modern broadcasting and ensures a level playing field where all commercial players materially contribute to attaining the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. This bill is asking platforms that benefit from Canadian culture to contribute to our culture.

Our chamber has an important role to play within our democratic process and has performed that role admirably. We studied its merits and aims to better understand how it will work and why it is so important. We have carefully listened to every point of view that has been presented. And ours is only one part of the process. Following this work, consultations will be held with everyone that wants to participate, and that is by design in this bill.

Many of our colleagues have raised important issues throughout the study of this bill. I hope that they will continue their engagement on these issues through the consultation process.

At a high level, the online streaming act addresses many important issues.

The online streaming act advances the interests of Canada and Canadians in several ways. Canadian broadcasters compete on an uneven regulatory playing field. Right now, Canadian broadcasters are subject to the full extent of Canadian broadcasting regulation, and online streamers are not.

The online streaming act is critical for sustaining the support ecosystem for Canadian culture, music and stories by levelling the playing field and ensuring the health of our cultural broadcasting sector. It is needed to secure sustainable investment in Canadian stories, both for TV and film; it is recognized by music stakeholders as critical to supporting and making discoverable our music and songs, in all of our languages; and it provides space within our broadcasting system for our communities that have faced systemic marginalization. Equity‑seeking groups deserve to see themselves represented onscreen and to have opportunities to fill key creative roles in Canadian productions.

As the minister said, the online streaming act is not about regulating what people post online. This has been made very clear, time and time again. Rather, it is about seeking an equitable contribution from all big streaming services that are in the business of distributing commercial content.

I’d like to highlight the word “equitable” here. As we heard during our study from both the CRTC and government officials, contributions can take any number of forms that are not necessarily monetary:

With respect to expenditure requirements, that money is never transferred. An expenditure requirement stays within the company. It’s essentially an investment obligation on their part to invest that in Canadian production, but they still retain control in the decision making over how they will do that.

We do expect some services, because they may not have a big production footprint here or otherwise, that their contribution may look more like what we know now for cable and satellite companies, which is a contribution to a cultural production fund, such as the Canada Media Fund. Those revenues, though, do not go to the department. That transfer is overseen by the CRTC, and that money is remitted directly to the Canada Media Fund, for example.

We also heard from both officials and stakeholders themselves that they already contribute to our cultural entertainment sector in a variety of ways.

This debate comes at a pivotal moment. After the transformative innovations of the early internet era, we are amidst a new wave of the digital revolution. The government will ensure that new technologies work for — not against — our democratic institutions and, importantly, that they will further Canada’s cultural interests.

Our overarching objective remains to ensure continuing support for Canadian stories, music and culture in a sector that is increasingly saturated by foreign online streaming services and web giants.

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has listened carefully to various groups of stakeholders. Working together, members of this chamber have developed proposals to further improve the bill, and I am sure more amendments might come forward over the next few days. Amendments from all parties and groups were proposed and adopted. No voice was shut out. No witnesses nor any of our colleagues were not heard.

Our broadcasting regulatory framework is out of date. Its application is uneven, and this imbalance will continue to hurt our creative industries until this legislation is passed and its thoughtful processes are completed. An imbalanced system does not serve the interests of Canada nor Canadians and limits our ability to realize the cultural and broadcasting policy objectives that the Broadcasting Act is ultimately meant to protect.

The government is asking us to work together to see this bill through the legislative process in a timely fashion, in the interest of our artists, our creators and Canadians altogether. I believe we are doing precisely that, while appropriately listening, considering and providing our sober second thought.

We must update our legislation to reflect the reality of digital disruption in the sector.

Honourable senators, we are faced with an important task; righting the regulatory asymmetry between traditional and online broadcast undertakings has been delayed for far too long. I wrote in 1982 that policy initiatives at that time were designed to develop greater appreciation for Canada’s rich social, historic and cultural heritage.

The goals I wrote about at that time remain true today. The regulations of that day, however, are outdated.

The process around modernizing the Broadcasting Act has seen considerable remarkable debate and discussion. In some cases, prevailing misconceptions and fears have obscured the real issues. These misconceptions have, time and again, been discussed, analyzed and rejected.

I’m well aware of some parties’ concerns about Bill C-11. It is time to come up with solutions. We have to address these regulatory challenges right now by requiring online music and video broadcasting services to contribute to our culture just as traditional broadcasters have always done.

I would point out that, under the 1991 Broadcasting Act, traditional broadcasting companies had to be owned and controlled by Canadians and had to be licensed. They could, and still can, broadcast programs from the international market and American stations.

In exchange for participating in the Canadian broadcasting system and accessing the national market, these companies had to finance, acquire and broadcast Canadian programs. They were also required to make programs available to Canadians and contribute to the creation of Canadian programs, including programs in French.

This does not happen by accident. It was intentional, and it worked. Our broadcasting system saw an increase in demand for Canadian programs. Our creative talent flourished, and our cultural industries saw predictable investments upon which they could plan to build and grow.

However, the support system for our stories and music has been eroding as revenues shift away from traditional broadcasters to online streaming services. This puts the support system for Canadian stories and music at risk.

Honourable colleagues, a primary goal of the renewed approach to regulation is to provide sustainable support for Canadian music and stories in the years ahead. The bill aims for fair treatment of programs consumed on different platforms, regardless of how they are transmitted.

New legislation will shift away from issuing broadcasting licences to a new condition-of-service model. This provides the CRTC with a new and more flexible way to seek contributions from broadcasters and to impose other conditions, including conditions related to discoverability and showcasing of Canadian programs. The latter is particularly important for Canada’s musical artists, particularly French-speaking artists and others trying to compete in an industry dominated by heavyweights. In this framework, broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings, would be required to make financial contributions to support Canadian music, stories, creators and producers.

I’d like to address two notable themes in the bill that merit some clear and specific mention here. They are the treatment of digital-first creators and the approach to social media.

The bill is clear that digital-first creators are not considered to be broadcasting undertakings. A producer of audio-visual content that is primarily produced and intended for online distribution as user-uploaded content on a social media service will be excluded.

Some critics of the bill have suggested that 30% of digital-first creators’ revenues could be contributed to arts funding. This is simply not true. Digital-first creators will not be required to make financial contributions to support Canadian content.

Large social media services will be asked to contribute to Canadian music and storytelling if they provide commercial content, such as music and TV shows. You’ve heard many examples raised during this debate. Since digital-first creators are exempt, their revenues will not be used to calculate the contributions that social media services make to support Canadian content.

Additionally, digital-first creators will not be subject to discoverability or showcasing requirements. Again, despite what some critics of the bill have claimed, the government has heard the concerns of digital-first creators and is responding to them through a recalibrated approach to social media.

Discoverability can also come in a variety of forms, as we have heard during the study at committee. Discovery is an objective, and the CRTC will be empowered to consult with industry stakeholders to set out what discovery looks like in an online space. Whatever it looks like, digital creators will not be subject to those regulations, as they are exempt from the bill.

As the minister has said many times: platforms in, users out. I said that in my speech last year, and I am saying it in my speech again this year.

In summary, these provisions ensure that social media services contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system in a fair and equitable manner when they provide the same services as traditional broadcasters and other online streamers. At the same time, it can be done in a way that respects the rights, freedoms and choices of Canadians online.

To help understand why action is urgently needed, let’s look at the current economic reality in the sector.

Broadcasting is an important economic driver, which supports Canada’s creative industries and its evolving cultural identity.

Together, the Canadian broadcasting, film and video, and music and sound recording sectors contribute $14 billion to Canada’s GDP and create more than 160,000 jobs. I’m speaking to my colleague who is an expert in finance to clearly demonstrate how important these sectors are.

Over the past decade, the percentage of Canadians who subscribe to online broadcasters has grown from 6% to 78%. Even if we only focus on the last few years, the revenues of online streaming services have seen fast and substantial growth, while traditional broadcasters have seen steadily shrinking revenues.

This is no surprise. After all, we know that the world of broadcasting has changed. In addition to this new reality, the Canadian broadcasting sector is facing long-term structural change.

Without intervention, current trends in the market are expected to result in a decline in the production of Canadian television content. In 2020, we had already seen a $320 million drop in production compared to 2018 levels.

Sustainable, long-term support for the system is required to enable ongoing success for Canadian creators, producers and broadcasters. That is what this modernization is about. That is what the online streaming act will achieve.

The status quo is unacceptable.

Cultural policy is a main element of this legislation. Ensuring the continued viability of the Canadian broadcasting system is also about our cultural sovereignty. Culture can play a role in the process of truth-telling and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and healing.

These are some of the cultural policy issues that the Broadcasting Act addresses. It seeks to ensure that our broadcasting system is more fair and inclusive, that it will support the livelihood of Canadian artists and creators and that it will celebrate the lives of Canadians, who want to see more of themselves reflected on the screen and in song.

Real gains for Canadians are achieved through this legislation. These gains are a cornerstone for the survival of community media, local news, French language, racialized communities, third-language programming and so much more.

We have heard at committee that this legislation will give these content producers more breathing room in the space that they occupy.

We have heard from witnesses that foreign broadcasters need to play by the same rules as local broadcasters. Kevin Desjardins, President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, said it best when he testified at committee:

Canadian broadcasters are desperate for regulatory clarity and certainty. They need to know the rules they and their foreign competitors will be operating under to plan their businesses, and they need to know the rules will be fair and equitable. Canadian broadcasters are willing to compete, but they cannot do so in a system that allows increasingly dominant players to take as much as they want and only give back as much as they like.

Furthermore, this legislation also aims to ensure a space within our broadcasting system for Indigenous storytelling and Indigenous languages. Monika Ille, the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network told our committee:

There are also additional references in the bill to support Indigenous language programming. The regulatory policy section in paragraph 5(2)(a) of the Broadcasting Act will require the CRTC to take into account the different characteristics of French, English and Indigenous language broadcasting as well as the needs and interests of Indigenous peoples. This is the first time Indigenous language content has been placed on an equal footing with English and French language content in the act.

Colleagues, we are truly making progress with this act.

Honourable senators, I would like to review the process that will take place after third reading of the bill. If we pass a bill that is different from the one passed by the other place, the bill will be sent back to the House of Commons so that it can review our amendments. The House of Commons will then have the choice to accept all, some or none of our amendments. Whatever the other place decides, it will send us a message informing us of its decision.

Our objective is to agree on the same bill. Once we achieve that objective, the bill will receive royal assent. Then, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC. A policy direction is often used to tell an organization how to implement important policies. The CRTC’s policy direction will indicate the priorities for implementing the new regulatory framework.

The policy direction has two main objectives. First, it will focus on the importance of consultation and the special consideration of the needs of equity groups. Second, the policy direction will clearly indicate the areas in which regulation is necessary and the areas where caution must be exercised.

Once the policy direction is published, every stakeholder, including members of the public, will have at least 30 days to share their comments. Let me emphasize that we’re bringing in a regulatory process similar to those in other sectors. This means that the proposed policy direction will be published, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make comments, then the final policy direction will be published.

The CRTC will have its own public process as it develops measures for bringing into force the legislation. This will be done within limits clearly set out in the legislation and in accordance with the proposed policy direction.

To sum up, before the legislation is brought into force, the CRTC will receive a policy direction from the government. That policy direction will have two objectives: focus on the need for public consultations with members of marginalized communities and clearly highlight areas where regulation is necessary. Through hearings, members of the public will then have the opportunity to express their points of view.

Then, the final version of the policy direction will be published. The CRTC will begin to implement the legislation through its own process. That is what we heard at committee meetings.

This is what Mr. Ripley, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, communicated to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications about the process:

The way we see this playing out is that once the bill achieves Royal Assent, the CRTC at that point would begin its regulatory processes and hearings to put in place the necessary regulatory instruments to bring the online streaming platforms into the system. As for what that will look like in practice, the CRTC is skilled in this. They are used to doing these kinds of hearings. They would put up a notice and invite submissions about the forms that those would take. It would be open to all interested parties to participate in those processes, including online streaming services, the creative community here in Canada and groups representing the public interest. Then the CRTC would enter into its decision-making and publish its final decision at the end.

The online streaming bill offers many opportunities. It offers the opportunity to achieve greater diversity in perspectives, to realize and consolidate gains for many communities and to ensure inclusive support within our broadcasting sector. The Canadian broadcasting sector is very diversified. We are fortunate to have content producers who come from various communities. For example, I’m thinking of OUTtv, which offers LGBTQ+ content, or APTN, which offers Indigenous content.

The online streaming bill will provide Canadians with the opportunity to diversify the content they consume. To provide greater diversity of perspectives and inclusive support that represents and aligns with our communities, Canadians of diverse backgrounds must see a broadcasting system that reflects the importance of diversity and inclusion.

It is important to note that Bill C-11 addresses an urgent and long-standing problem, specifically the imbalances in Canadian broadcasting for equity-seeking groups that have never received this support.

Bill C-11 strengthens our broadcasting system by including an explicit broadcasting policy objective requiring that it include all Canadians.

Another strengthened objective requires that accessible and barrier-free programming be provided. Accessible and inclusive broadcasting are not an afterthought; they are foundational pillars on which to build.

In terms of diversity and inclusion, one of the goals of the bill is to put diverse and marginalized voices in the spotlight. For example, Indigenous people, racialized people, 2SLGBTQI+ communities, people with disabilities and women must be represented on screen and behind the scenes.

Historically, these voices have been under-represented in our broadcasting system. The goal is to expand content choices for all viewers and listeners who have difficulty identifying with content or finding content that reflects their reality. To that end, the broadcasting system must support and promote programs and creators from diverse communities and backgrounds.

The broadcasting system cannot be updated without ensuring that all Canadians from diverse communities and backgrounds see themselves reflected and supported. While some lament that niche markets will be lost, this is simply not true. The proposed legislation makes space for all. It cements that we are a country that not only invites diversity but encourages it and supports its creation.

Broadcasting reform can support First Nations, Inuit and Métis storytelling, music and culture. The government has listened to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The need to focus on Indigenous storytelling, narrative sovereignty and content creation is clear. Bill C-11 will see important improvements to Canada’s broadcasting system to better reflect our relationships with Indigenous peoples for the first time.

In particular, the broadcasting framework will make space, regardless of resource availability, for diverse First Nations, Métis and Inuit perspectives. Indigenous communities are ready to produce and broadcast more content. What lacked before Bill C-11 was the resources.

I quote the Co-Executive Director of the Indigenous Screen Office, Jesse Wente:

To us, the central focus should be the modernization of the definitions associated with broadcasting and broadcast undertakings, ensuring that there is equitable access and support for marginalized communities and that there be specific supports for Indigenous storytelling and Indigenous languages broadcasting. We believe new platforms, even those based outside Canada, should contribute financially to support Canadian storytelling and that there should be dedicated supports for Indigenous storytelling within that. . . .

Colleagues, this is what Bill C-11 will achieve. Bill C-11 removes the previous limitation “as resources become available for the purpose” with respect to providing programming that reflects the cultures of Canada within our broadcasting system. This is how it should be. It should always have been this way.

New technologies and platforms can aid in the revitalization of Indigenous languages. It’s heartbreaking to know that many of our Indigenous languages, such as Oneida, Cayuga and Seneca, are on the brink of extinction, according to the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger project.

Ensuring space for Indigenous peoples to have narrative sovereignty is important and will support our efforts to revitalize Indigenous languages. Modernizing the act includes changes to help Indigenous peoples tell their stories from their own viewpoints and perspectives and to see themselves represented in our broadcasting system. This bill emphasizes the importance of Indigenous-controlled broadcasting services and productions.

French language programming is also a cornerstone of our broadcasting future.

Bill C-11 strengthens original French-language content and production, which shouldn’t rely solely on dubbing and subtitling. Broadcasters, both traditional and online, must make original French-language content a priority on their platforms.

More and more people are speaking out about how foreign programming is mostly in English and there’s so much more of it than there is of original content and production in French — even though this is something francophone communities across the country really need.

Our committee heard how pleased official language minority community advocacy organizations are with the language provisions included in Bill C-11. The Executive Director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, APFC, Carol Ann Pilon, shared the following with the committee:

APFC welcomed Bill C-11’s historic focus on the Canadian audiovisual ecosystem, particularly its formal consideration of the OLMCs and the objectives it set for the broadcasting system as a whole to reflect the specific needs and interests of those communities.

I see that Senator Cormier is listening intently to this part.

Thanks to an agreement between Quebec’s main film distributor, Les Films Séville, and streaming services Netflix Canada, club illico and ICI Tou.tv, our favourite francophone films can reach new audiences and generate more revenue. More and more opportunities like these will become available to the francophone creative sector as the world tunes in to its vibrant voice.

As a senator from Quebec, I feel it’s particularly important to ensure ongoing support for Quebec’s audiovisual media sector. I really want to focus on the experience of francophones and anglophones in minority communities. Canada’s linguistic duality is heavily reliant on the country’s broadcasting system. This legislation addresses the needs and interests of minority francophone and anglophone communities across the country. They want to be identified and named in the bill as a means of ensuring their long-term growth and development.

The Broadcasting Act contains objectives for English-speaking and French-speaking minority communities. The legislation clarifies that any interpretation and application of the act must respect the federal government’s desire to enhance the vitality of these communities and to support their development, as well as ensure the recognition and use of official languages in Canadian society. The CRTC must also enhance the presentation of programs created and produced by these communities, in addition to taking into account their specific needs and interests.

The broadcasting system, including the new digital players, plays an important role in the transmission of language and culture in Canada.

Honourable senators, we must act now. Our artists are a source of inspiration, breathing life and energy into our diverse communities on a daily basis. They revitalize the spirit of our culture. They elevate and celebrate our heritage as Canadians. They make us laugh, they move us and they make us reflect on who we are. They have been there for us, and we need to stand up for them. To put it simply, the goal of the bill is to promote and protect our culture in the digital age.

It is clear that we need to modernize the Broadcasting Act. The bill has broad support across Canada’s cultural industries. Moreover, this bill is in the public interest. It is about making sure that we continue to uphold Canadian values in our society as technology and consumer habits evolve. After all, are we not citizens and people, as well as consumers and audiences?

The Minister of Canadian Heritage used to say that a day without culture would be boring, and I agree with him. The world is watching what we are doing. We are leading the way. I hope that together we will be part of the solution.

As I have explained, your committee and I have listened patiently to everyone that wished to be heard. The Canadian broadcasting and cultural sectors have also been waiting patiently. Colleagues, I believe we have been patient enough. Now is the time to act and to pass this bill. Thank you.

Would Senator Dawson take a question?

From you, always.

Senator Housakos, he has three-and-a-half minutes.

Well, maybe he’ll ask for an additional five. In the three minutes, I’ll have a very short question and a short precursor to the question.

As we all know, colleagues, digital-first creators in this country are the driving forces behind platforms. Whatever the platform is — YouTube, TikTok, Twitter — it is the digital creators who are the driving force. So, Senator Dawson, when you say — and you have said it; the government has said it — “We want platforms in, users out,” if that was the actual case, would you accept an amendment that says, in black and white, “Platforms in and users out”? In which case, if we all agree to put that black and white in the legislation, we would pass this unanimously and go on with our lives. Would you be amenable to pass and support an amendment, and put — in black and white — what you consistently have said?

We have repeated constantly during the meetings — and to the witnesses that have come in for us — that digital-first creators are not going to be controlled by the government. It might have been an interpretation that existed in the old Bill C-10. The government, when they came back with Bill C-11, made it clear — again, trying to find an amendment that says, “Platforms in and users out” sounds sexy and might sell membership cards, but it certainly doesn’t help improve the legislation.

Senator Dawson, it has nothing to do with sexy. It has to do with the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are right now independent, user-generated content producers that want some security. All we are asking for the government to do is put — in black and white — in the legislation what you are claiming. Why is there a hesitation when it comes to putting it in the legislation instead of just giving Canadians a “trust us” promise?

Again, you were at all the meetings with me. The government has always repeated that digital creators are not involved. Trying to find a creative amendment that will reach your objective — we didn’t need to do that. The bill clearly indicates that it does not apply to digital creators.

Senator Dawson, will you agree that at that same study we had at committee, the former chair of the CRTC, when he came before the committee, made it clear he has authority under the old Broadcasting Act and the current piece of legislation to force platforms to manipulate algorithms in order to get certain results when it comes to user-generated content? Is that true?

I don’t want to repeat what we did during the two-and-a-half years that we have been debating this issue in which people have been trying a little bit of fear-mongering by saying, “We are going to take away the right of people to create, and the right of people to express themselves.” This is not the objective of the bill. It never was. I don’t know how many times we have to tell you, Senator Housakos, that is not going to — I am trying to be creative, and — I know there was a strong political objective on your part — and everybody here knows that it was a very good fundraising period for you to go on television and talk about this bill — but the reality is that you have been raising issues that are not true for Canadians in that bill. I am sad to have to say that, in the last few weeks of being here, it is the first time I have seen you in such an approach — because you have always been quite transparent on what you do — but, on this bill, I don’t know why you decided to be very aggressive. As chair of the committee, you certainly did not — and we accepted every person you asked us to listen to. We accepted every digital creator that you put on our list. Every single last one of them came to committee, and we kept telling them, “Somebody told you this, but it is not true; you are not going to be controlled by this bill.” You can continue saying it again, but it is still not going to be true because you will repeat it in your speech later in the week.

Senator Dawson’s time has expired. Senator Dawson, are you asking for five more minutes?

It has already been 45 minutes, but I will ask for another 5, yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator Dawson, I’m perplexed as I listen to this badinage back and forth because it seems to me that in our committee we adopted an amendment to section 4.2(2), which I will go into in greater detail in my speech. Does it not address precisely the issue that Senator Housakos is raising?

Yes, but you did not put those cute little words into the — he wants a simple — that is the amendment you proposed and the amendment that was adopted, and will be sent to the chamber once the bill is adopted. It reaches that objective of clarifying it. We could have tried to clarify it even more, but I don’t think — if you would have used any other words — that it would have changed the attitude of the official opposition on the bill. I don’t know what else you could have done except for that amendment.

Would you not agree, Senator Dawson, that it was a problem that needed to be fixed? Senator Housakos is not wrong in that the bill did, by its language talking about revenues, appear to scope in user-generated content? Do you agree then, and will the government support the amendment that Senator Miville-Dechêne and I co-authored to make it absolutely crystal clear that user-generated content is not included?

I think the amendment as presented will be debated during this week, and you will be speaking about it later. It will be in the bill when it is sent to the House of Commons. I cannot presume — and I won’t be here anymore — what the government will do with your amendment, but it was adopted by our committee. It will be adopted, I’m quite sure, by the chamber, and we’ll see what happens after that. Trying to clarify what has already been clarified would be a little bit difficult to do.

I’m glad that Senator Simons recognizes the problem that I’ve highlighted, and she’s absolutely right. Her amendment is one step forward, but it can be a lot clearer by simply saying, “platforms in, users out” — black and white, no ambiguity — and then hopefully the government will accept it.

Senator Dawson, the reason I have had a lot of success in the opposition in terms of fundraising and getting support on this bill is because hundreds of thousands of Canadians are concerned by it. That was reflected at committee. That’s why I’ve been a little bit more aggressive than usual in fighting back on a piece of legislation. It’s because hundreds of thousands of content creators in Canada feel their livelihoods are at risk.

Senator Dawson, my last question to you is the following: Would you agree that Canadian arts and culture have never seen more growth than in the last decade? Producers, writers, actors are busier in terms of work, money produced, revenue generated and Canadian content being spread around the world. Would you agree that’s because of the digital web? Don’t you think we should unleash that rather than try to reel it in to our broadcasting world, which has clearly been failing?

That growth in Canadian culture is based on legislation that was passed here, whether in 1991 or when we created the CRTC 50 years ago. We gave ourselves the structure. Yes, they are gatekeepers, and I know you don’t like this word, but they are gatekeepers. If we have a culture —

I’m talking specifically about Quebec and francophones in Canada. If we didn’t have cultural laws such as the Broadcasting Act, if we didn’t have the CRTC and if we weren’t passing this legislation today, our culture would be weakened.

We can’t play by traditional rules because of all the changes in technology. We have to pass new legislation in order to adapt.

The amount of information received in English compared to French is completely disproportionate. We must ensure that francophone producers in particular, in Quebec and outside Quebec, are given the tools they need to protect their culture. This may not necessarily be a priority for you, but it has been for me as long as I’ve been here. It was when I was an MP, and it will be when I leave Parliament. I believe that culture must be defended through Parliament, through laws and structures that give Canadian cultural producers the opportunity not only to be protected, but to be supported so they can promote their objectives.

Those people, as you call them, support Bill C-11.

Honourable senators, I have a good deal of problems with this bill. I think it’s censorship passing as national inclusion. I’m not very savvy with the internet; I never have been. At 72 years old, I doubt if I ever will be, but I do know something about art, a little bit about creativity, so I’ll read to that point.

Honourable colleagues, there is a certain essay by Cicero called Philippic 2, which was written to expose the power of the state against freedom of speech and freedom of thought — and the power of one man, Mark Antony. It is a brilliant proclamation, and it shows Cicero at his best and bravest. It was delivered in the Roman Senate, and Cicero paid for writing it with his life. His hands were cut off and taken to Mark Antony as proof that Cicero would never write again. Cicero lived in a dangerous time.

When Vasily Grossman completed Life and Fate, his grand novel about the Battle of Stalingrad, it had to be sanctioned by the cultural section of the Central Committee, the wise Soviet think tank of art and culture. They took a year to answer and said that it was anti-Soviet. They did not accept it for publication. It is published now and it is, of course, a wonderful book, showing fascism and communism to be mirror images of one another in depravity and contempt for human liberty.

There is a great scene in that book where an elderly babushka seeing a German youth coming out of the last pocket of German defence in January of 1943 is ready to yell and spit and curse him for what he has done to her people and, seeing a 19-year-old boy, a soldier of destiny, now terrified, starving and alone, she stops and says, “Okay, here then,” and hands him a piece of bread.

Nothing in the book is more significant than that moment, for that moment shows it to be absolutely Russian and, for all mankind, absolutely universal that the way to fight such mechanized violence and hate is with simple compassion and forgiveness. That is something all too rare today in Canada and everywhere else.

I think, overall, we have lately become a land of scapegoaters and finger pointers, offering accusations and shame while believing we are a woke society. Cultural committees are based as much in bias and fear as in anything else. I’ve seen enough artistic committees to know that.

That what George Orwell says we must resist is a prison of self-censorship. This bill goes a long way to construct such a prison.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s In the First Circle was smuggled away from the Soviet Bloc as well. One of the grand scenes in it is of a novelist, a favourite of Stalin, sitting down to write a novel and saying to himself, “I will now write the truth,” but feeling in his mind Stalin’s eyes upon him, he decides that he cannot and says, “The next novel will be the real one.”

The idea of any hierarchical politico deciding what a man or woman is allowed to write to fit a proscribed national agenda is a horrid thing. I am wondering if anyone on the staff of our Minister of Canadian Heritage understands this. In Germany, it was called the National Ministry for Public Enlightenment, and every radio was run by Joseph Goebbels — complete ideological manipulation in the name of national purity.

No decree by the CRTC could, in any way, tell us what Canadian content should or should not be, or who should be allowed to bob their heads up out of the new murkiness we have created. Like Orwell’s proclamation, the very bill suggests a platform that decrees, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” And Bill C-11 certainly spells out who they might be.

I’m not speaking solely of the internet because I am too old to know it; however, this will bleed over into any performance we tend to create, and we will have government officials holding a book of rules telling us if we are Canadian enough or, worse, who can write what about whom.

I’ve faced that before. You see, I’m not Canadian enough; I never have been. I grew up in a place in the east of Canada called the Maritimes and have fought for every inch of soil in my fictional world that, for years, dismissed who I was and especially whom I wrote about. I did so without complaint, but I know who the gatekeepers are. They are still here, telling us in Bill C-11 that we have progressed, that we are more understanding and that our value system has evolved to be inclusive. This statement is a transparent endowment to those whose support they need and whom they desire to influence, but it is a terrible insult to the great writers in my country that I know.

This is not opening the gate to greatness but only to compliance. The writers I know don’t need to advance to fit an agenda, and neither do the songwriters or bloggers. When this bill mentions how we have evolved, it is simply a suggestion to comply.

Some of those who have so evolved into the new Canada have torn away books and slashed many writers whom I have admired — an evolution of sanctimony and an advancement in quelling the voices we might disagree with. By this bill, we have entered the very realms we have fought to depose over the last 70 years. Bill C-11 might be more subtle than the German Stasi or the cultural section of the Central Committee of the former Soviet Union, but never think it is not intertwined.

The very bill suggests a favouritism brought forward by a notional knowledge of what Canada should be and what groups we are now allowed to blame.

It also suggests that there is no communication or interplay between writers of different ethnicities. That identity politics is positive because it teaches a bland society about new voices or about trauma which only certain people are allowed to say they know. It is a balkanization of freedom of expression; is so narrow-minded that it defeats the very thing it proposes and destroys the principle set forth by Terence over 2,000 years ago: “I am human, I consider nothing human alien to me.” That is, we understand because we identify, not because we are being taught a lesson.

One night, after my reading at Harbourfront Centre in Toronto, two people approached me. One was the great Irish writer Roddy Doyle, telling me he had long admired my work. The other was the First Nations writer Richard Wagamese, telling me he started writing because he was influenced by my work. Both were very kind, lived thousands of miles apart, one Irish and one First Nations. The writing had little to do with identity politics, but it did have much to do with identifying.

I do not know who would be able to tell me what Canadian content is and what it is not, but I know it won’t be in the Minister of Heritage’s power to ever tell me.

We have yet to make a great movie about hockey for God’s sake, a great movie about Juno Beach, a great movie about Dieppe or a movie about the young Canadians fighting to death in Hong Kong. Our actors, singers and writers too have gone away — because they had to for too many in power have no knowledge about these things.

We have filled the world with our talent, but not because of the Minister of Heritage.

We have spread our books and movies across the world, but it is not because of some formula. We have insulted so many of our authors, singers, actors and painters by not paying attention to them, and then claiming them when they go somewhere else. They come back to get the Order of Canada and to be feted at Rideau Hall.

Drake is known worldwide not because of the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. Thank God Drake was not up to them, or Leonard Cohen or Gordon Lightfoot either.

You see, we have gone back to the age of Cicero without even knowing. In that age, scapegoating was considered a blessing and mob action against one person was considered justice. It was Christ actually who taught us that scapegoating was a great lie and pleaded with us by his death never to return to that state.

This law will be one of scapegoating all those who do not fit into what our bureaucrats think Canada should be. Stalin, again, will be looking over our shoulder when we write.

We have come such a long way from Cicero.

Thank you very much.

Will the senator take a question?

Yes.

Senator Richards, we have heard time and again — and we heard it again from the sponsor of the bill today — how Canada needs to protect Canadian culture. Again, I’ve said this many times, I think Canadian culture has never been as strong as it is today. Our writers, producers, actors, singers — we’ve seen what modern-day platforms have done for people like The Weeknd, Justin Bieber and so many others.

Can you tell us what, if anything, is out there that requires legislation in the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada that needs to protect Canadian culture in 2023?

Thank you for the question. I don’t think very much can be in their hands because it reminds me of the story about a Czechoslovakian clown in Prague who did this little act and he was brilliant at it. He had a little cowboy hat, a lasso and he could slip through the lasso — he was an absolute magician. The state artistic community stopped him from doing that because it showed Western culture decadence. That is the kind of thing that, although extremely subtle in this bill — and I say is extremely subtle — still is an overplay toward Canadian culture that will undermine it, and that is why I spoke today on it.

There is no reason in the world why we need to do that.

Would Senator Richards take a question?

Sure.

We’re from the same province, right? I will speak in French. I don’t know if this is a sign of the differences between us.

I’d like to better understand your last argument. You’re familiar, as I am, with the New Brunswick artists who have big international careers, like Lisa LeBlanc, Les Hay Babies and David Myles. All these artists received public money, which helped them develop their art and ensure that, today, they can showcase their art anywhere in the world. What I understand from your last argument regarding this issue is that this aspect isn’t necessary for art to develop in Canada.

Senator Cormier, thank you for the question. They benefited because they were talented. They benefited because David Myles is an extremely talented songwriter and musician, and he is a dear friend of mine. They express themselves in a way that people love because they have talent and greatness, not because they’re being feted by the CRTC.

I will try to be quick here about something about what I mean. There is a great scene in Tolstoy’s War and Peace where Boris is sitting in the office of Prince Andrei and there is a lieutenant general sitting beside him who knows about the plans of Napoleon, and yet Boris is asking first because he belongs to a culture of an inner circle. The lieutenant general, who actually knows what’s going on, is left in the outer chamber.

Oftentimes, our artists who are really good, bright and brilliant are left in the outer chamber. They’re not noticed because they haven’t joined the group that facilitates money and power. That’s what I’m worried about. It happened in Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and it happens today to artists everywhere. I’m worried that this bill will further enhance that. That’s my worry. Thank you.

I have a supplementary question for Senator Richards.

Senator Richards, like me, you sat on the committee and you heard the multitude of artists and artistic organizations that came to talk to us and who weren’t afraid to express how they felt about the freedom of expression that Bill C-11 prevents them from having.

Explain to me why you have such a concern when the entire Canadian ecosystem at the professional artist level doesn’t seem to have this concern. Are they simply misguided?

They should be, senator. I’ll tell you a story about this young Mi’kmaq girl that I helped in the university. The story has never been published. She was a little girl who was asked by her mother not to play in the woods because there had been a murder there. I won’t tell you what reserve it is. She went down to the water and her mother said, “You cannot play in the water because a man drowned a woman there.” She went on the street and her mother said, “You can’t go on the street because there are too many people and too much danger.” She could only find one place to sit. This was a seven-page story, and I had tears in my eyes when I read it because it reminded me of my own granddaughter. The only place she could sit was in the basement of her house in her bedroom, and it was there where her uncle had hung himself.

That story, written by a girl from a reserve near us, was absolutely moving, but it had nothing to do with identity politics. It had to do with identifying one human heart to the other. That is what I’m afraid this CRTC bill loses in the context of the bill. That’s the reason. Thank you.

I’m sorry, Senator Richards’ time has expired. Do you want to ask a question, Senator Omidvar?

Please, if he will accept one.

Senator Richards, are you asking for five more minutes?

Yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you, Senator Richards. As someone who is desperately trying to write a book, I look to you as a role model and as someone I admire a great deal.

On this particular question, you said that talent shines regardless of the walls that are put around it, and to some extent it is true. But I want to tell you about my very good friend Deepa Mehta, who is a renowned filmmaker who has brought Oscar privileges and light to our country through her filmmaking. She would never have been discovered if it had not been for the institutional support that surrounded her, gave her grants through Telefilm and promoted her films.

Are you suggesting that someone like her, and there are many other examples of what I would call “new Canada” — I think you hark back to “old Canada” — but do you not think that there are talented people who deserve to be discovered and that in this bill and other efforts the government does precisely that?

Again, I come back to what I said before — that sooner or later talent will rise to the top. That’s all I’m saying.

Maybe I’m from “old Canada,” but I didn’t have a reading outside of New Brunswick until I wrote my fifth book. I didn’t get reviews that complimented my work until I was published in New York. So “old Canada” as it is, I struggled through all of that and I’m not one bit ashamed of it. I think a hundred other artists and poets and writers have done the same thing. We all reach our level in different ways. If the person you are talking about has reached her level in that way, that’s fine. But I don’t think the CRTC is a platform that will automatically ensure greatness of expression. As a matter of fact, I think it will probably do damage to greatness of expression.

Will Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question, please?

Senator Miville-Dechêne said that algorithms, in essence, equate to regulation, and it is the furthest thing from the truth. Algorithms, as they’re being used by platforms, are a form of computation. What algorithms do is they follow our habits, and they push up — on their algorithm system — what we want to see.

Regulation is quite the contrary. Regulation is where a group of gatekeepers — a word that is popular these days — be it the CRTC or government legislators, will determine what should be prioritized. That’s very different — algorithm compared to regulation.

Good for you.

Senator Housakos, do you have further questions?

Senator Miville-Dechêne, are you asking for five more minutes?

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Senator Housakos, you have the floor.

We all know how algorithms work. Today, if you own an iPad, a smart phone, any time you Google a particular theme, colleagues, I think you realize over the minutes that follow that you get inundated with other information regarding the topic matter that interests you. That’s how algorithms work.

If you look at all these platforms, the reason why they have been successful — and we want a piece of that success compared to our old broadcasters — is because these platforms are giving consumers what they want.

Again, I think it is very dishonest when we say — with this legislation — that somehow the algorithm platforms are already manipulated in a certain way. This legislation is calling for the manipulation of these algorithms. We have had the former chair of the CRTC come before committee, and he said it himself that he has the authority and the power to force platforms to manipulate the algorithms.

The question is there. It is crystal white. You might not like it, senator, but it is there.

If Senator Miville-Dechêne would like to answer the question.

Senator, on the contrary, I’m the one in favour of diversity and you’re the one prepared to settle for less. Here’s my question: Why do you have so little faith in Canadians’ choices?

In the current system, they’re the ones making decisions about diversity, about what’s popular and what they want to see. You’re putting a lot of faith in CRTC bureaucrats. I myself choose to side with Canadians who will make their own choices independently. Why are you afraid of that? Why do you want to let the CRTC make those choices?

Honourable senators, I am pleased to stand today to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act, at third reading.

Our chamber and our committee have been working on this bill and its predecessor for close to two years. Introduced into our chamber in the Forty-third Parliament as Bill C-10, it died on the Order Paper in the fall of 2021 and came back to us last spring as Bill C-11.

As our Senate Transport and Communications Committee began pre-study work last June, many of us, including me, were concerned that the government’s apparent desire to pass the bill urgently might result in a truncated study process. Thankfully, that did not happen. I am grateful to everyone involved for that — to committee members for pressing hard for a serious study, and to the government representative for carrying through on his promise of a fulsome review.

We certainly had a fulsome review. Our work on the bill was as thorough as anyone could hope for. The committee held 31 meetings, heard from 138 witnesses and received 67 briefs on Bill C-11. Our witnesses included experts, government officials from several ministries, current and former chairs of the CRTC and stakeholders from across the industry, including broadcasters, digital creators, platforms, arts and cultural representatives, unions and representatives from diverse communities.

Nine committee meetings were held to conduct clause-by-clause consideration. We are told that this is a record number of such meetings ever held in the Senate. A total of 73 amendments were presented at committee and 26 were adopted. Amendments were passed covering a wide range of topics, including community broadcasting, privacy protection, Black and racialized producers, Indigenous producers, disinformation, user‑generated content, independent producers, Canadian content, French-language programming, innovation, audience recognition and CRTC processes such as requirements for hearings and reporting.

The most prominent issues in Bill C-11 that received the most attention focused on the regulation of user content and the potential intrusion into viewer or listener choices if algorithms were altered for the purpose of Canadian content discoverability. But there was so much more in this bill. The challenge of Bill C-11 for me was that almost every time I studied it, I found new issues that I felt needed to be addressed.

Let me provide some examples. Rather late in the process, I came to the realization that nowhere in the bill was there a recognition of audience interests and preferences. What Canadians wanted to see and wanted to listen to was not considered to be an element of our broadcast system. As former CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein pointed out, audience interests and preferences were simply not recognized as part of Canadian broadcasting, and they were never recognized in our broadcasting acts since the beginning of broadcast legislation.

Our history of broadcast legislation in Canada is about cultural priorities, cultural protection and producers — who they are and what they should or can produce. But how could it be that we have built a broadcast system without considering viewers and listeners as one of the integral parts of our system? It’s like having a transportation system without thinking about passengers. How can we have such a system? Who is our system for? How can we not include these people in our system?

In the end, the committee voted to accept my amendment to Bill C-11 that says that the broadcasting system must, as one of its objectives, reflect and be responsive to audience preferences and interests. In a similar vein, I was pleased that the committee also voted to recognize that innovation, specifically promoting innovation, should be a guiding principle of our broadcasting system — I’m thinking especially of my colleague Senator Deacon. That, too, had never been recognized in broadcast legislation. Imagine that: We’re talking about an area where there is huge technological change, and yet we had not considered that innovation should be considered a principle of our system.

Another example of how the bill revealed issues involved the very short, innocuous-looking clause 7(7) in Bill C-11, which began with the phrase, “for greater certainty.” This clause was easily overlooked. However, witnesses came before us and sent briefings with comments that, in their view, this was the most consequential clause in the whole bill. In contrast to existing law, which gave cabinet the power to direct the CRTC in broad policy matters, it was argued that clause 7(7) would give cabinet the power to give very specific and detailed direction to the CRTC and possibly create a two-tiered system whereby those with sufficient resources would have special access to the government to make their case.

This clause proved especially vexing for us to analyze because government officials argued that the clause would have almost no impact. There was major impact on the one hand, versus no impact at all on the other, so you can see how challenging it was to actually analyze this clause. In the end, the committee voted to remove clause 7(7). I think my colleague Senator Simons is going to talk more about this.

Bill C-11 was filled with issues like these that were not always apparent and yet proved to be extremely important.

With 31 committee meetings, 73 amendments presented and 26 accepted, it’s clear that committee members devoted much thought and effort to this work. Sober second thought was clearly achieved.

One of government’s most important roles is to respond appropriately to technological change. As radio and television technology developed as global technologies in the last century, Canadians understood that our closeness to the United States, our smaller population and the existence of two official languages would ultimately mean that Canadian voices would be lost unless we took special measures. Thus, a public broadcaster was created in 1932, and the first Canadian content regulations were legislated in 1958.

As consumer choice greatly expanded via private television networks in the 1960s, cable distribution in the 1970s and satellite in the 1980s, each of these new technologies came to be regulated under a regulatory framework, adjusted each time, while keeping fairly true to the original objectives.

The assumptions behind Bill C-11 are thus familiar. Canadian culture still needs protection, our broadcasting system is built on Canadian requirements and, therefore, the new online streaming services and technologies should also be brought under our regulatory framework. After rejecting regulation of internet broadcasting twice, in 1999 and 2009, with the rationale that tech innovation in broadcasting had to be encouraged, the government has now decided that regulation is needed.

Does Canadian culture still need to be protected from outside influences? That is a very difficult question to answer. I recently came upon an Environics Institute poll from last September, which shows that Canadians themselves are divided on that question, with 44% saying that Canadian culture needs more protection from outside influences and 47% saying we need to be more open to outside influences. However, the public is more supportive of creating a so-called level playing field, with two thirds of Canadians in a Nanos poll last May saying they support the idea that steaming services should financially contribute to creating Canadian content just like Canadian broadcasters do.

When it comes to regulating new technologies, however, we cannot assume that just because the technologies of the past were brought under this framework necessarily means that this effort will be a success. For me, that is the real conundrum of Bill C-11. Even though we have studied the thing to death, called superb witnesses and made many fine amendments, in the end, we don’t know whether this approach will work or work well. Will Canadian production increase and will diverse voices thrive, as we have heard from Senator Dawson and as has been promised, including the voices of digital creators who have expressed such concerns, or will innovation and the innovators, and new services and new technologies, be stifled by these rules?

The fact that these questions cannot be answered is not the fault of the legislation. These questions cannot be answered because we cannot predict the future. We here have done our work as best as we can and we have asked all the questions we can, but Bill C-11 represents a leap. We must take the leap or not. Each of us must judge for ourselves.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, because I have spoken at some length and at several opportunities about this bill and its precursor, Bill C-10, I will not dwell on my philosophical concerns about the purpose and nature of internet regulation. Today, I instead want to home in very specifically on some of the critical amendments we made to this bill in committee.

As you have heard, we heard from more than 130 witnesses and had hours of often-impassioned debate. What we have before us today is not the original Bill C-11 first introduced in the other place and not the bill that was sent to us as amended by our other place colleagues. What we have before us today is a significantly improved bill as amended by our committee. It includes important amendments that make the bill clearer, that stress the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of audience choice, that celebrate and bolster Canada’s cultural diversity and ones that ensure that Canadians and Canadian artists who post user-generated content to social media are not captured by the legislation.

We heard from academic and legal experts; from media corporations, large and small, foreign and domestic; and from brilliant artists and creators who are using online platforms in bold and experimental ways to tell their unique stories and share their unique visions.

We heard and we responded.

Senator Dasko successfully championed amendments that underlined the vital importance of innovation, including technical innovation, to Canada’s broadcast system. This was a welcome amendment, because it signalled that we don’t want a broadcast system that is frozen in amber but one that is responsive to technological and social change.

Senator Miville-Dechêne successfully proposed an amendment based on the advice of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This amendment seeks to protect the privacy of consumers and creators, ensuring that social media companies cannot exploit their personal information.

Senator Cormier defended amendments seeking to highlight the importance of protecting official language minority broadcasters and an essential amendment reaffirming the importance of independent producers in Canada.

Senator Clement also successfully pushed for an amendment to recognize the unique needs of Indigenous, Black and racialized groups.

Senator Wallin won our support for an amendment that underlined the importance of freedom of expression and journalistic independence. Senator Batters successfully championed an amendment that helped clarify the definitions around “community broadcasting” and the way community broadcast boards are structured. I worked in tandem with Senator Dasko to push through an amendment that relieved community broadcasters of a unique responsibility to fight disinformation.

Senators Quinn and Cormier gave us amendments to require greater transparency from the CRTC and its reporting, and Senator Downe succeeded in having us adopt an amendment to prevent the CBC from running advertorial — what’s sometimes known in the industry as native advertising or sponsored content — advertising that creates the illusion of being journalistic content when it’s actually a cleverly disguised commercial.

These were among the amendments that I believe make Bill C-11 a better bill.

But there were also two other key amendments I wish to discuss at further length today. As mentioned by Senator Dasko, the first involves the change to subclause 7(7). Several expert witnesses, including Monica Auer, Executive Director of the Forum for Research Policy in Communications; Robert Armstrong, a broadcasting consultant, economist and former CRTC manager; and Ian Scott, who was, at the time, head of the CRTC, testified before our committee about their concerns that subclause 7(7) of the bill could give new and unprecedented powers to cabinet to intervene in independent CRTC decisions. As Dr. Armstrong put it in his testimony before us:

In this sense, Bill C-11 reduces enormously — potentially — the powers that the CRTC has and hands them over to the Government of Canada. . . .

He continued:

If you look in detail at what the government is giving itself through this particular clause, it’s giving itself a whole series of very detailed opportunities to, in my view, interfere with the normal functioning of the CRTC. . . .

In the face of those concerns, raised by multiple independent experts, we agreed as a committee to completely delete subclause 7(7) in its entirely and to maintain the CRTC’s independence from the potential for government micromanagement.

But I think the biggest and most critical amendment we made was to a vexing part of the bill, subclause 4.2(2), which I like to call the “exception to the exception” clause. In the wake of some of the controversy around Bill C-10, the Minister of Canadian Heritage promised that Bill C-11 would not pertain to nor capture users of social media but only big streamers who were analogous to traditional broadcasters. Indeed, that is what clause 4.1 (1) of the bill says — that the act does not apply to a program that is uploaded to a social media service by a user of that service.

Unfortunately, clause 4.2 (2) of the bill, as it came to our committee, undid that assurance by giving the CRTC the power to scope in a program uploaded to a social media service if it directly or indirectly generates revenues. That exception-to-the-exception clause rightly worried all kinds of small and not-so-small independent producers who use services such as YouTube and TikTok to distribute their programming, though they retain the copyright.

At the same time, the government insisted it couldn’t simply exempt all social media platforms from Bill C-11 because some large commercial broadcasters and large record labels were using services such as YouTube and Facebook to release or re-release commercial content. If we exempted social media entirely, we were told, it would give YouTube an unfair market advantage over a music streaming service such as Spotify or Amazon’s Prime Video when it came to the release of music by major record labels. It could also allow commercial broadcasters to do an end run around Canadian content, or CanCon, rules and regulations that they would potentially be subject to on other platforms.

So after extensive consultation with a wide variety of francophone and anglophone stakeholders and legal experts from music producers to digital creators to academics, Senator Miville-Dechêne and I, at our offices, came up with an amendment that we believe — and that the majority of our committee members believe — will help to address this knotty problem.

Our amendment to clause 4.2 (2) removes all mention of revenues, whether direct or indirect. Instead, it focuses on whether or not a piece of content has already been broadcast on a conventional commercial service and/or whether it has a unique identifier number that is assigned to commercial recordings. In other words, our amendment would mean that if a broadcaster such as Rogers or CBC reposted a baseball game or a news documentary to YouTube or Facebook, such a rebroadcast would still be captured by the provisions of Bill C-11.

Our amendment would also ensure that if a major record label such as Sony released a new single or album on YouTube, that posting would be treated in a way that was akin to the release of a song on Spotify, Amazon or TIDAL. At the same time, digital creators, including commercially successful ones, would be properly and clearly exempted from Bill C-11 even if they uploaded their comedy, music, animation, film or TV episodes to YouTube, TikTok, Instagram or some other social media platform we cannot yet predict or imagine.

In other words, my friends, the bill now says, “platforms in, users out.”

I’m sorry that not everybody is here to hear me say those words, but it says, “platforms in, users out.” Is it sexy? Well, my idea of what’s sexy may not be your idea of what’s sexy, but I think Senator Miville-Dechêne and I have given a very nice workaround to a problem.

Is it a perfect solution? Well, no, it probably isn’t. Public policy perfection is hard to come by at the best of times and even more so when you have so many competing cultural, social, economic and political interests at play. But I believe — and I think our committee, in balance, believes — that this is a workable compromise — one that the government should not just accept but embrace.

As you will doubtless recall, I have been quite critical of Bill C-11 since its inception and somewhat dubious of any government’s capacity or obligation to curate what Canadians can see and hear. There are still things in this bill that I believe to be philosophically wrong-headed, but to compare this bill to the draconian regimes of Hitler and Stalin is a grievous insult to the memories of all who suffered and died at their hands, including members of my family. However, I believe that our committee’s amendments have made substantive and substantial improvements to the legislation and address several of its deepest flaws.

Thus today, colleagues, I commend our revised version of Bill C-11 to you. I invite you to accept it as amended and, in so doing, to send to the government the clear message that it is this bill — as amended — that has earned your support. Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Honourable senators, I rise today — with substantial trepidation, given the speakers that I’m following — to speak on Bill C-11, the online streaming act. I would first like to commend our colleagues on the Senate Transport and Communications Committee, who navigated through often competing amendments to meaningfully improve the bill that arrived in the chamber. The diligence that they demonstrated really reinforced the role of the Senate as the chamber of sober second thought.

I have thought a little bit about the fact that maybe we could consider a thorough review process in future and learn some lessons from this process as to how not to have it be quite so arduous, long and drawn-out. Nonetheless, I think our chamber has done tremendous work on this bill.

I want to focus my remarks on two points as these resulting amendments are considered both here and in the other place, as regulations are developed to implement the final legislation, and on the drafting of future legislation intended to improve the prosperity of Canadians as we rapidly evolve in this global digital economy.

First, let’s ensure that we are enabling both incumbents and new entrants, be they individual creators or companies, to earn increasing amounts of recurring revenue for the purposes of creating sustained wealth and prosperity for Canadians. The principle needs to be that we are focusing on Canadian intellectual property and exploiting that globally.

Second, let’s begin to develop some regulatory agility as we enable Canadian companies and innovators — in this case, those in the audiovisual and creative sectors. Let’s make sure that they can become increasingly globally competitive as technologies and business models continue to evolve from today.

I do not have a magic bullet that will offer instant, simplistic solutions — like a great little line I heard a few times a moment ago. But I am absolutely certain that focusing on these two priorities will help to ultimately uncover important and actionable opportunities that will benefit Canadians over time.

Let me speak to my first point, and that is the need to intensely focus on creating the conditions necessary to generate recurring revenue from Canadian-owned intellectual property. One of the objectives of this bill is to “serve the needs and interests of all Canadians . . .” through “its programming and the employment opportunities . . . .”

In my second reading speech on the previous iteration of this bill — Bill C-10 in the last Parliament — I asked the Transport Committee to consider how we can ensure that our regulatory frameworks and other policy tools ultimately incentivize the creation of content and assets that generate recurring revenue for Canadians. Colleagues, you’ve heard me speak in this chamber about the importance of commercializing intellectual property here in Canada. If we want to turn our knowledge and creativity into jobs, opportunities and prosperity, a top priority must be to own in Canada and globally commercialize from Canada the highly creative assets that are globally competitive. If we do not succeed, we risk becoming a branch-plant economy where we just rent Canadian talent to foreign entities. As a result, our talent is paid only once to create high-value assets that generate recurring revenues for others instead of paying Canadian talent to create Canadian-owned assets that generate recurring income for Canadians into the future.

This challenge was echoed by several witnesses in the committee during the study of the bill. Michael MacMillan, co‑founder and CEO of Blue Ant Media, said:

My firm view is that an “eligible Canadian program” is a program produced by Canadians. . . . where the copyright and the use right are owned by Canadians?

Mr. Justin Rebelo, Director at the Canadian Association of Film Distributors & Exporters, also added that, “It is important that Canada does not become a solely service production industry and our system protects ownership . . . .”

Similarly, Howard Law, former director of local media unions at Unifor, wrote in a blog post that:

. . . unless independent Canadian producers retain full rights to exploit and profit from their best creations . . . they will become CanCon sub-contractors in their own land . . . .

This is a daunting risk and a crucial priority. That’s why I’m pleased to see an amendment in the bill that directs the CRTC to consider, in the regulatory development process, whether Canadians would benefit fairly from the use of Canadian programs, including copyright and other rights. This provision could provide regulators with an opportunity to apply a pro-competitive lens in the development of regulations to ensure that anti-competitive practices are considered and managed, including in licensing and distribution deals.

As a related point, it is very promising that the new CRTC chair has a strong background in competition law and policy and in fighting for pro-competitive markets. Ms. Vicky Eatrides has committed to growing the CRTC’s capacity to manage its responsibilities in an increasingly dynamic digital landscape and to applying her pro-competitive background at the CRTC. I’m hopeful that her presence also signals that there will be increased coordination between the CRTC, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Competition Bureau, something that is already delivering benefits in other jurisdictions.

I won’t lament the fact that these changes are long overdue. I will just offer that any further delays will hand this new chair even greater challenges than she faces today. I wish Ms. Eatrides success as she strives to unlock the tremendous social and economic opportunities that reside in this sector for Canadians.

Now to my second point: We must be willing to iterate if we are to compete in a rapidly evolving global digital economy.

When the bill was reintroduced in revised form this session, the policy objective seemed clear. The government sought to continue its intentional strategy to protect Canadian cultural sovereignty within our broadcasting system, but now including the online sphere.

As the bill progressed, however, this objective was challenged. Many concerns were raised about this legislation by different stakeholders in the creative and audiovisual sectors, including online content creators. Many of these concerns look to have been addressed through amendments. Only time will tell their fate once they get sent back to the other place.

Industries globally must constantly innovate if they are to compete in an increasingly digitally porous world. In this global context, government needs to be a catalyst, empowering the innovation that will drive long-term competitiveness. While some progress has been made, Canada is well behind her peers in legislative and regulatory modernization and in the development of pro-competitive policies. Sadly, we have an abundance of 30-year-old legislation that requires updating.

Given this context, it is ironic that this legislation aims to incorporate new online innovations into a regulatory system that is burdened by a broadcast legacy. For example, the rapid shift towards direct-to-consumer content delivery models has revolutionized business models and forced traditional broadcasters to adapt in order to stay competitive.

Consequently, this bill is attempting to bring the disruptors into a legacy regulatory system full of those who were disrupted. This was an odd choice when compared to building an agile system that is fit for the digital era.

In fact, leading experts such as Michael Geist, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, shares the view that using policy instruments like broadcasting regulations for online streaming and undertakings should be the exception, not the rule.

Nevertheless, I am glad to see an amendment that will require the CRTC to ensure that our broadcasting system will promote innovation and adapt to technological changes. In this regard, it is my hope that officials can look to best-in-class global standards as models to strengthen the agility of new regulations in our broadcasting system so that we keep up and, perhaps, at some point, start to lead in the world.

Even so, creating a modern broadcasting system that will “serve the needs and interests of . . . Canadians” — a primary objective of this bill — and does so in this rapidly evolving digital era requires swift action not only in modernizing our regulatory system but also in incentivizing market-based approaches that enable Canadian incumbents and new entrants to thrive in both domestic and global creative markets.

Some of these incentives are already in place. For example, federal and provincial tax credits have made Canada an attractive destination for film and TV production. As a result, some Canadian creators — including BIPOC filmmakers — have benefitted from these program supports. However, these supply-side incentives also need to be coupled with actions to stimulate increased demand for Canadian content in these sectors, both domestically and globally. Slow action on this means we risk losing more innovative production companies like Tangent Animation, a Canadian-owned animation studio based in Toronto and Winnipeg that unexpectedly shut down in 2021, leaving about 400 people out of jobs.

Colleagues, our country is at a critical juncture. We must find ways to become the disruptors, not the disrupted. The CRTC has a lot of work to do so we have the conditions for creators to earn recurring revenues and to build a culture that is agile enough to take advantage of changes globally and not be disrupted by them.

We all want an independent, thriving, competitive audiovisual and creative industry that helps to secure our collective prosperity for future generations to come. I support this amended bill as a step in that journey down this all-important road.

Thank you, colleagues.

Honourable senators, I rise today to propose an amendment to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill has been amended at committee, but I still think there is plenty of room for improvement.

A principal issue related to this bill is the question of to whom this legislation would apply.

The government has repeatedly stated that there is no intent to apply this legislation to small players. Yet, there are no boundaries in the legislation to ensure that that intention is respected and this does not happen.

The Senate Transport and Communications Committee heard from numerous witnesses who clearly stated that the bill had to incorporate a revenue threshold in order to ensure that the legislation focuses on services that are truly of consequence in the digital marketplace, rather than capturing user-generated content.

Tim Denton, Chair of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, said that any online service that earns less than $150 million in Canada annually should be excluded from the act and “. . . from any regulation or obligation to contribute to Canadian content production . . . .”

As it stands now, it may surprise many of you to learn that neither charities nor religious organizations are exempt from regulation under this legislation, and proposed subclause 2(2.3) does not shelter the online activities of individuals, whether professional or amateur.

I know that some colleagues believe and will argue that social media is now exempt based on the amendment from our colleague Senator Miville-Dechene adopted at committee. However, I, and many stakeholders, are still of the mind that this amendment doesn’t go far enough because of the wide discretionary power it still affords the CRTC in deciding what is or isn’t scoped into this legislation.

As Mr. Denton said, social media platforms are far from the only places on the internet where entities and individuals may transmit audio or audiovisual content. Individual and community websites abound with such content. Neither subclause 2(2.3) nor clause 4.1 addresses the much broader regulatory reach of Bill C-11.

Konrad von Finckenstein, former chair of the CRTC, addressed another aspect of this. He noted that vesting in the commission such large powers with such vague parameters will prove extremely onerous for the CRTC. Every single stakeholder will come forward with specific requests for exemptions of conditions and argue they fall within the vast powers given to the CRTC.

Mr. von Finckenstein said that one cannot forget that the CRTC is a court of record that identifies issues, either on its own or via petitions; seeks input from affected parties and stakeholders; holds hearings, live or on paper; and then issues a decision.

All that has to be done in accordance with due process and can be judicially appealed.

Consequently, narrowing the powers will allow the CRTC to make good, timely and targeted decisions. The goal, of course, is to protect and strengthen Canadian broadcasting and foster Canadian production. Hence, the legislation should target only large streamers who can meaningfully compete with established broadcasters.

Isn’t that what the government keeps telling us is the point of this legislation? To target streamers who behave like broadcasters?

Small innovative internet players should be able to give their innovative drives full rein to contribute to the overall productivity of the Canadian economy.

Professor Michael Geist also told our committee:

I believe there is a clear need for thresholds and limitations in the legislation itself. Without it, services may regard the regulatory uncertainty — which the House committee heard will take years to sort out — to block Canada, leading to less choice and higher consumer costs.

This aspect is key. The full ramifications of this bill will take years to sort out as the CRTC goes through its regulatory processes. That means years of uncertainty for smaller players. It is that uncertainty they cannot afford.

Here I would like to quote Matthew Hatfield, the Campaigns Director of OpenMedia, who said, “It’s nonsensical for Bill C-11 to place obligations on platforms with a few thousand Canadian subscribers . . . .”

He also said:

It would be a very cruel consequence of this bill for diasporic Canadian communities to be cut off from the invaluable cultural lifeline provided by foreign streaming services.

Colleagues, I cannot stress enough how vital it is that we recognize the uncertainty this is creating for ordinary players. As Monica Auer, Executive Director of Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, told our committee, “. . . Bill C-11 is not coherent and not readily understood.”

The bill leaves creators guessing, and we should not be putting them in that position.

I would also like to reference what smaller creators told our committee, specifically Justin Tomchuk, an independent filmmaker who told our committee on September 27 that Bill C-11, as currently drafted:

. . . makes it clear that my business will fall under the call of the CRTC’s directives, as I derive direct and indirect income through my artistic efforts.

Scott Benzie, Managing Director or Digital First Canada, told the committee on September 28:

Our ask is simple: [The bill] needs clarity into what is in and what is out, because it currently includes the entire internet. Something this critical cannot be left to the CRTC to wade through.

Morghan Fortier, Co-Owner and Chief Executive Officer of Skyship Entertainment, said:

What keeps me up at night about this bill is the potential to gate content that is deemed not Canadian, either entering into the country or within the country. With retaliation from other countries, should this type of a law pass through, we’re done. I don’t mean my company. I mean we don’t need to talk about this bill anymore because it’s over. That will affect regionalized content creators, small content creators and larger content creators.

Frédéric Bastien Forrest, animator and content creator, told our committee on October 4:

My take on this is that it is scary. We have the feeling that the politicians behind this law are well intentioned and they want to promote our culture, which is great, but the side effects of the law could break stuff.

Oorbee Roy, content creator and skateboarder, also expressed her fears about how a small undertaking like hers could be impacted by CRTC regulation. She noted the arduous process that she and other creators face in registering their material as Canadian content.

I know that some senators will say that the Canadian content provisions were amended in committee. However, colleagues, there is no guarantee that that particular amendment will be accepted by the government. I submit that we need this very modest amendment I am proposing, and that the government will have difficulty saying “no” to it.

At committee, the government majority rejected the threshold of $150 million proposed by Mr. Denton. We were told by government officials that with a $150 million threshold some platforms, such as CBC Gem, might be excluded from regulation. But the committee then went on to reject the $100 million threshold proposed by Mr. von Finkenstein, and then it inexplicably rejected even lower thresholds of $50 million and $25 million.

So, colleagues, what I am proposing today is a threshold that would truly only exempt the very smallest of players. This threshold of $10 million is one fifteenth the amount recommended by Mr. Denton and the Internet Society, and one tenth the amount recommended by Mr. von Finkenstein.

Colleagues, I believe we have an obligation to respond to what an overwhelming number of witnesses have told us. The “just trust us” approach is bringing little comfort to the Canadians whose livelihoods depend on whether they will be subject to regulation as a result of this bill.

I hope you will support this amendment to establish greater certainty for ordinary Canadians.