Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 181 - 210 of 224
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this important discussion about the Canada health transfer, or CHT, and funding for health care.
Our government is committed to improving the health care system so that it can meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future. Our system must adapt if it wants to provide better health care and better results at an affordable cost given the aging population, the increase in rates of chronic disease and the financial pressure resulting from new drugs and new technologies.
From the beginning of the global coronavirus pandemic, our government has been proactive, shown leadership and worked with the provinces and territories to support their efforts to deal with this crisis. More specifically, our government invested more than $19 billion to help the provinces and territories safely restart their economies. This amount includes $500 million to guarantee that health care systems will be ready to face future waves of the virus; $740 million for vulnerable Canadians, including those in long-term care and palliative care facilities, and those who receive home care, and risk having more serious cases of COVID-19; and $500 million to support and protect people struggling with mental health, addiction or homelessness.
Our government also supports virtual care services and online screening to relieve emergency services and promote physical distancing. We have invested $240 million in creating virtual care and mental health care tools in order to support the provinces and territories in this work. This investment is in addition to the $500 million from the COVID-19 response fund, which was distributed earlier this year to the provinces and territories in order to help them respond to critical needs in the health care systems and to support mitigation efforts.
This funding was provided as an ad hoc complement to the Canada health transfer, which is the primary federal funding mechanism for supporting Canada's health care system. It allows for the provision of predictable, long-term funding to the provinces and territories. In 2020-21, our government will provide nearly $42 billion in cash assistance to the provinces and the territories through the CHT. This represents on average more than 23% of planned health spending by the provincial and territorial governments. In 2020-21, the Province of Quebec will receive $9.4 billion from the CHT.
The CHT will increase each year based on economic growth, with a minimum increase of 3% per year. Over the next five years, funding for the CHT to the provinces and territories should reach more than $200 billion. These funds are allocated to the provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis, which guarantees the comparable treatment of all Canadians, regardless of where they live.
The Canada Health Act sets out the criteria and conditions the provinces and territories must meet to receive their full contribution through the CHT. With the exception of its link to the Canada Health Act, the CHT is unconditional, and gives provinces and territories the leeway to decide how best to distribute the funds in order to meet their residents’ and communities’ health care needs.
I would like to take a little time to talk about the history and evolution of the CHT. The current flexible block funding approach to the CHT differs substantially from the cost-sharing program that existed when the public health insurance plan was introduced. Before 1977, the federal government matched eligible provincial and territorial spending on doctors and hospitals at a rate of 50%. However, expenses for these items constituted only about three-quarters of the provinces’ and territories’ total health care expenses.
In other words, the cost-sharing arrangement in place before 1977 did not cover other health care expenses such as pharmaceuticals, home care, mental health services and related health care services that were beginning to represent a growing share of the provinces’ and territories’ health care expenses. As we know, these health care expenditure components increased over the years. The share of spending for doctors and hospitals decreased, and now represents less than 60% of the provinces’ and territories’ health care expenses.
Even during the first period of the cost-sharing program for eligible expenses, federal transfers never really represented 50% of spending for doctors and hospitals. They represented less than 37% of the provinces’ and territories’ total health care expenses. As the health care system evolved, all of the parties involved agreed that a more flexible funding system was required to help the provinces and territories meet their own health care priorities and not only to help foot the bill for doctors and hospitals.
When the established programs financing, or EPF, was introduced in 1977, the federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to replace the earlier equal cost-sharing program with a more flexible block- or cash-funding approach. This meant that, instead of the federal government equalizing the provinces’ and territories’ spending on doctors and hospitals, the provinces and territories received a cash transfer that they could spend on a broader range of health care priorities.
More importantly, in our context, the EPF program included a stipulation that the federal government was to permanently transfer tax room or tax points to the provinces and territories. This transfer of tax points meant that the federal government permanently reduced its tax rates, while the provinces and territories increased theirs by the same amount, which had no net impact on the taxpayer's tab. More specifically, 13.5 percentage points of the federal personal income tax and one percentage point of the federal corporate income tax were transferred to the provinces and territories. Instead of the federal government collecting taxes and transferring them to the provinces and territories, the provinces and territories could now collect these taxes themselves and spend them as they saw fit.
In 1977-78, the value of the transfer of tax points was equivalent to approximately 22% of the provinces' and territories' spending for doctors and hospitals, the public health insurance plan, while the health transfer represented 33%, for a total of 55%. The cash transfer represented almost 25% of the provinces' and territories' total health care spending. Until recently, this threshold, which is the reference point for the federal cash contribution, was long recognized by the provinces and territories themselves.
As I mentioned, the CHT now represents more than 23% of the provinces' and territories' health care spending. But the federal government's contribution to health care in provinces and territories is not limited to the CHT. Much of the funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the funds from the safe restart agreement, which are intended specifically for health care, will be transferred directly to the provinces and territories.
In addition to the extraordinary measures the government implemented to help the provinces, the territories and all Canadians deal with the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government has also provided significant and ongoing support for health care. These investments were made during the previous Parliament when, in August 2017, all the provinces and territories agreed on $11 billion in federal funding over 10 years to improve home care and mental health services. This new funding alone increased the federal contribution to provincial and territorial health spending by nearly 25%. The government also provides considerable direct health care funding as part of its health promotion and protection responsibility, which includes regulation. It supports public health, research and national health organizations, and delivers health care services to specific groups, such as indigenous populations. In addition to direct federal spending and provincial and territorial transfers, the government also helps individuals and companies via the tax system.
Let me close with the following.
In conclusion, our health system needs improvement in some areas. However, experience shows us that we cannot improve things just by injecting more cash. Canada spends more on health than most other countries, yet we are not getting the results Canadians need and deserve.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
In my speech, I tried to show that costs were once shared 50-50, but that this only represented part of the costs for the provinces and territories. In time, following a series of agreements between the federal government and the provinces and territories, this arrangement was changed, and the 50-50 formula that did not cover 50% of provincial costs was changed to a more flexible formula that took different factors into account when calculating the transfers.
The opposition is trying to make the House believe that we went from 50% to 23% and that the federal government disengaged from the health care system of the provinces and territories, but that is simply not true.
There is predictability built into these agreements, but COVID-19 called for targeted intervention. I believe that the Bloc Québécois would be the first to rise and oppose everything we are doing had there not been this targeted assistance to cope with COVID-19.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question. I am very happy for the opportunity to talk about the environment, since the science clearly shows that pollution costs our health care system a lot of money.
For that reason, since 2015, our government has been taking a never-before-seen approach to tackling this issue. The more we can reduce pollution in Canada, whether it be air pollution, water pollution, or pollution associated with climate change, the healthier our country, planet and people will be. On top of that, if we reduce pollution, there will be fewer demands and pressures on our public health care system across the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
I am in complete agreement with her. The transition should have started a long time ago. We did start it, but that was followed by 10 years of inaction under the Conservatives.
She is right to say that this bill is not an action plan. It is a framework bill. We presented the first component of the action plan in 2016. It was the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which all of the provinces and territories adopted. The minister also announced that this plan will be updated very soon.
I would like to address two points raised by my colleague. She believes the advisory body is insufficient. However, before entering politics, I co-chaired an advisory council on climate change for this government. The council proposed a series of measures, including purchase incentives for electric vehicles and investments in energy efficiency retrofits. A few months after our report was released, those measures were incorporated into the 2019 budget.
The hon. member also said that there is no external evaluation, yet there is an entire section on the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. This is right in his wheelhouse, since he is responsible for making sure that the government meets its objectives in various areas. Consequently, I am having a bit of difficulty understanding my colleague's questions in this respect.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
We are both concerned about climate change, which has been my pet cause for many years. I attended the first UN Conference of the Parties in 1995. All I am missing is a cane.
I am a little confused. I will quickly read out a few excerpts from the bill, including part of the preamble:
...the Government of Canada is committed to achieving and exceeding the target for 2030 set out in its nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with the Paris Agreement....
It also mentions the commissioner of the environment in subclause 24(2), which I will read out:
The [commissioner's] report may include recommendations related to improving the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's implementation of the measures with respect to climate change mitigation that it has committed to undertake....
If I understood what my colleague said, she would like to force future governments to meet targets. In a democracy, I do not see how we can force a government that has been duly elected by the people to not change its mind. As an environmentalist, I want all governments to meet the targets, and I believe that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that that happens.
However, how can we enact a law that forces something on people who have a perfectly legitimate democratic right to change their minds?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his intervention, which was very interesting and very relevant.
He talked about the importance of culture. I would like him to sum up in 30 seconds how he sees the vital connection that exists between language and culture.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.
Aside from being a means of communication, language is also an expression of our culture. It tells our stories and accompanies our dreams. Language gives us the ability to understand and help each other, and it helps us move forward.
Our sense of belonging to a community is built around a common language. Language and culture are passed on in various ways, through literature, visual arts, music, science, history, philosophy or dance. Among the main instruments of cultural transmission are television and radio. A long time ago other legislators in the House realized that and started demanding that television and radio contribute to the production of Canadian stories. Their decision was greatly beneficial to our cultural landscape.
However, the definition of television and radio has changed a lot since the last time the Broadcasting Act was updated, 30 years ago. In those days, we did not have touch screens or voice-activated devices. We were lucky if we could get the remote control to work on the first try. Nevertheless our laws remained unchanged since that distant past.
That is why I introduced Bill C-10 a few days ago. Its objective is simple: to extend the scope of the Broadcasting Act to online broadcasting services, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify, and ensure that they too contribute to the production of Canadian stories, including francophone stories. It is a matter of fairness. The web giants can no longer ignore Canada's francophones and their culture. This is particularly important because francophones and their language and culture are a minority in North America.
In order to preserve French under such circumstances, we need more than just good intentions. That is why robust legislation is so important. Bill C-10 is a way of telling francophone artists that there is no us without them. Our reform recognizes the specific challenges they are facing and addresses them directly. Their work deserves to be more well known and better funded and broadcast.
Finally, I want to talk about Montreal, a francophone city that is rich in culture and heritage. It has been my adopted home for over 30 years. From the early days of radio and television, creators have looked for ways to represent and reflect all aspects of life in Montreal in their productions.
It has been captured in such songs as Je reviendrai à Montréal by Robert Charlebois and Montréal by Ariane Moffat. On screen, the city and its inhabitants have been immortalized in documentaries such as the recent Chef en pandémie, series such as District 31 and La vie, la vie, the children's show Passe-Partout, and Montreal's distinct alleyways.
There are also those who make us laugh in French: Catherine Éthier, Eddy King, Rosalie Vaillancourt and Adib Alkhalidey. The Couscous Comedy Show stage in Montreal has launched quite a few acts now appearing on television and Apple Music.
In essence, Montreal inspires and sets the tone. It is a place where people can connect, where francophone productions around the world can collaborate. Montreal's stories, francophone stories, are there. They need to be seen and heard. Our children and grandchildren deserve to see themselves in those characters. They deserve a chance to write those stories themselves someday.
In 2016, I was honoured to be awarded the Impératif français prize for my contribution to the vitality of the language. It is not, however, my mother tongue. I learned to speak English before I learned to speak French. Switching from an English school to a French one was not without its challenges, but my mother felt that I ought to learn this beautiful language, and I have cultivated it throughout my life.
Winning the prize did not strike me as an end in itself. It was just a sign that I had to keep doing that work. Today, that commitment has brought me to my work as Minister of Canadian Heritage. Those who work to ensure the vitality of our language and our culture and to pass it on to others can count on our government to support, recognize and applaud their efforts.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
He seems to be having a hard time understanding that on this side of the House there are many proud Quebeckers to whom protecting the French language is a concern and who are working to protect it in Quebec, of course, but also from one end of the country to the other.
We are doing this through tools such as the Official Languages Act or the Broadcasting Act. I will also soon be introducing a bill on the media and web giants. We are using every tool we have to continue to protect this language and our francophone communities, whether they are in Quebec or elsewhere in the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comments.
We had the pleasure of chatting recently. New Brunswick is a wonderful province I have had the opportunity of visiting many times.
I have written three books in French, and the book fairs there were even busier than in Montreal or Quebec City. The francophone community there is active, healthy and engaged.
That is why we want to continue to work with francophones in Quebec and across Canada, especially in the member's beautiful part of the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I greatly admire my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. There are issues on which we disagree, but I do not think that the protection of French is one of them. I think that, like many others in this room, we both agree on this issue.
I think that our government has accomplished a lot since it took office in 2015. My predecessors at Canadian Heritage, who are here with us tonight, did a lot for CBC/Radio-Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts. We will continue to address other issues to do even more to protect francophones across the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention.
I have two questions about the criticisms of Bill C-10 on broadcasting. On the issue of percentages in the bill, the Association québécoise de la production médiatique said, “The AQPM believes that it would be hard to include percentages in the legislation and that it is better to go before the CRTC to debate better conditions to impose on online broadcasters and undertakings.” That is what independent producers are saying and that is what ADISQ, the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo says. By the way, ADISQ says it is grateful to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his team for being so receptive.
Will the Conservative Party vote in favour of Bill C-10?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Chair, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has said a number of times this evening that nothing people have been saying amounts to anything more than words and that nothing has been accomplished.
I have a question for my hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. The federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Telefilm Canada, Musicaction and the Canada Media Fund to support French music, French television series and French films, many of which have reached international audiences.
Does he see this as concrete action on the part of the federal government?
Let's also consider the $4 billion we invested in arts and culture, a significant chunk of which went to francophone artists in Quebec and across Canada.
Does my colleague see all that as concrete action in support of the French language from coast to coast to coast?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that the CBC is an autonomous Crown corporation responsible for managing its own operation while offering Canadians accurate and quality information without political interference.
The Conservatives would like to tell the CBC and journalists what to cover and how, but that is not how democracy works. Some might say that the Conservatives are delusional because they seem to find conspiracy theories wherever they look.
We need to respect journalists' independence, and we will always do so.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, William Shatner is, in fact, from the wonderful city of Montreal.
One of the interesting aspects of the bill, one could argue, is that for the first time ever, it puts an emphasis on indigenous production, whether it be with regard to music, TV or the big screen. I am wondering if my hon. colleague could help us understand how this would help reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his passionate testimonial about local media.
I myself delivered La Tuque's L'Écho when I was a boy. I also wrote for several local media outlets. However, there appears to be some confusion. Bill C-10 is about broadcasting, not the media. I publicly announced my intention to table another bill on the media and the use by Internet giants like Facebook and Google of Canadian content without appropriate compensation.
My hon. colleague is talking about the Yale report on which our bill is indeed based. It is somewhat ironic, since the former leader of my hon. colleague's party, on the day the report was published, proposed that we scrap it, so I am not sure I understand.
If the local media is so important, and I believe my hon. colleague in that regard, why is it that the Conservative Party has opposed our every effort to help Canadian media?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
moved that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.
I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
I would like to start by illustrating the situation in which we live to the House. Digital technologies have completely changed the way Canadians discover stories, how they stay informed, how they are entertained and how they learn and share with each other.
From 2011 to 2019, the number of Canadians with Netflix subscriptions has grown from one in 10 to nearly six in 10. The number of Canadians using Spotify to listen to music online has jumped from 2% in 2014 to nearly 30% in 2019. We welcome these innovations that bring so much richness to our lives and so much diverse content. However, prolonging the status quo will only further undermine our ability to tell our own Canadian stories.
If we do not react, funding for Canadian television and music production will continue to decline. What we risk in the long term is nothing less than the loss of our cultural sovereignty. The production of francophone, anglophone and indigenous works and programs will be jeopardized.
That is why we are taking action. The Broadcasting Act was enacted in 1991, before the Internet, smart phones and online platforms. Its regulatory framework is frozen in the past.
On the one hand, we have Canadian companies that play by the rules and invest in our Canadian stories. On the other, we have online broadcasters that operate outside any regulatory framework and make money off the system with no obligation to give back. No, resistance is not futile.
One system for our traditional broadcasters and a lack of for online broadcasters does not work. This outdated regulatory framework is unfair for our Canadian businesses; it threatens Canadian jobs. It undermines the ability of Canadians to tell and hear their own stories.
We are tabling this bill for three main reasons. First, the act will strengthen our cultural sovereignty. Canada is blessed with two official languages and the unique history and stories of our indigenous peoples.
We need to put mechanisms in place to ensure Canadians can tell their own stories and express their own culture, now and in the future.
Second, implementing the new Canadian audio-visual regime under the act will generate almost $1 billion in foreign investment per year in our films, television and music.
That means more quality jobs for our economy, more opportunities for our creators and talent in the production sector, for our artists, designers and authors, and for many other people who specialize in areas in which Canada is internationally renowned.
It means greater stability for the sector. These are the same people who entertained us and made us smile during the first wave of COVID-19, and who are still doing so now, during the second wave we are now in.
Third, the act aims to ensure fairness. Asking online broadcasters to shoulder their fair share of the effort is not a luxury. It is a matter of fairness.
Our government believes those who benefit from the Canadian system should contribute to it fairly. This legislation would provide stronger financing mechanisms and would give more prominence to what is produced in Canada in English, French and indigenous languages. It will encourage better representation at all levels of production for equity-seeking groups: for women, for members of the LGBTQ2 communities, for people with disabilities and for racialized Canadians, including Blacks and people of colour.
In fact, this bill provides Canadian creators and producers with the means of achieving their ambitions. It takes into account the diversity of Canadian perspectives and their contribution to our rich and unique culture. A modernized act would guarantee that Canadians of all identities and from every background are reflected in their broadcasting system and that they can take part in it and enjoy it. In short, our stories and music must have a place in the online broadcasting universe.
In a more practical manner, the bill proposes the implementation of a modern, flexible regulatory framework for the CRTC to apply fair rules to all broadcasters and ensure it has the necessary tools to do its job effectively.
We will also go a step further and will instruct the CRTC on how to use these new tools. This will happen once the bill receives royal assent, as the bill makes amendments that allow for this essential policy directive.
In our direction to the CRTC, we want the specific needs of the French language and Canadian francophones to be recognized in a digital world dominated by the English language. On this point, I would like to add that this is perfectly in line with the throne speech, which states that the government “has the responsibility to protect and promote French not only outside of Quebec, but also within Quebec.” I know that this is an important point for all members of the House and for all Canadians, since the protection and promotion of the French language are essential for everyone.
Let me get back to our direction to the CRTC. We also want to accord special consideration to indigenous communities, as well as greater recognition of their realities and contributions. Lastly, we want to focus on racialized communities to ensure that they are fairly represented in the ecosystem.
The way the regulation currently works is it establishes a minimum investment from Canadian broadcasters into our ecosystem. In effect, this creates a baseline of investment.
With the bill and this intended policy direction to the CRTC, we aim for the CRTC to add an additional mechanism on top of this baseline. We intend to ask the CRTC to implement an incentive mechanism that would encourage behaviours that are inclusive and ensure no one is left behind.
Some of the elements we would like to see being incentivized are: diversity in key creative positions, the role and place of Black Canadians in our system, the retention of our rich intellectual property in Canada and fair and transparent compensation for our musicians. 
I would like to point out that we are listening to Canadians. This bill addresses key recommendations presented by the independent expert panel in January. Urgent action was needed to bring online broadcasters into the system.
Our approach is balanced, and we have made the choice to exclude a number of areas from the new regime. User-generated content will not be regulated, news content will not be regulated and video games will be excluded. Furthermore, only broadcasters that have a significant impact in Canada will be subject to the legislation. In practice this means that only known names and brands will be subject to this legislation.
When my daughter opens an online streaming platform, I, like many other parents, want to know that she is being offered the choice to see a Canadian series with her favourite actors, like District 31 with Vincent-Guillaume Otis. I would like her to have the choice to see a documentary on the history of indigenous peoples in Canada, for example. After all, it is our history and it is up to us to tell it.
When my daughter listens to music on another platform, I want her to be presented with a list of local artists and even, why not, someone from my home region of Mauricie.
What we are proposing will allow her not only to take advantage of an international offering, but also to discover Canadian content, which could be funded by contributions from these same digital platforms.
We know how important it is to see ourselves represented in all our complexity, either on screen or in productions. With the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, our francophone, anglophone and indigenous creators, our creators with disabilities, our creators from visible minorities and the LGBTQ+ community will have the means of telling their own stories and, more importantly, of making sure they are seen and heard.
It will be beneficial for both broadcasters and the public to produce stories that resonate with us, that speak to us and that look like us as Canadians and Quebecers.
This bill is part of a larger process. Our government is committed to ensuring greater equity among all Canadians.
The web giants are raking in billions of dollars from our content and our economy. Some of these companies are the most powerful in the world, and they operate outside any regulatory framework.
Time is up. There are no more free rides. It is about fairness. It is about everyone doing their fair share.
We are, in fact, starting to see this across the world. The European Union has adopted new rules on streamers resulting in increased investment, jobs, choice of content and ability to assert one's own cultural sovereignty. The United States has launched legal proceedings against Google for abusing its dominant market position. Australia is tackling a threat that journalism is facing, through a mandatory code of conduct targeted at Facebook and Google. As well, several other countries, including Canada, are concerned about misinformation, online hate and web giants' blatant inability to self-regulate. Voluntary self-regulation does not work.
I will remind the House that most, if not all, of these initiatives have garnered support across the political spectrum around the world. There should not be a left-right divide on these issues. Divisions only benefit large multi-billion dollar companies, not our constituents. That is why I am urging all members of the House to work together constructively and ensure that this important bill passes through second reading hastily, so that the committee can start doing its important work to amend, improve and move forward.
Let us show the world that Canada is united and standing up for itself.
Today, by proposing that we modernize the Broadcasting Act, we are standing up for our culture and forging ahead with essential reforms. We are standing up for Canadian companies and creators by saying that everyone who profits from the system must contribute to the system. We are also standing up for Canadians and Quebecers. We are standing up for indigenous peoples, who have been under-represented for far too long. We are standing up for artists, musicians, directors and producers across the country who want to create their art in French.
These same Canadians, Quebecers and indigenous people want, and expect, to see themselves in the programs they choose to listen to and watch. They expect their stories to be told in their own language and to reflect Canada’s diversity and the rich culture of indigenous peoples.
The Broadcasting Act enacted in 1991 served our society well, but it came into force before the digital era and is ill adapted to today’s reality, a fact we can no longer ignore.
Our regulatory agency, the CRTC, also has few tools in its kit to ensure that the broadcasting ecosystem continues to serve Canadians. It is dealing with a media landscape that has changed considerably in the past 30 years. By introducing this bill, our government is meeting a pressing need, namely to adapt Canada’s legislative framework to today’s digital reality.
In the mandate letter the Prime Minister gave me, modernizing the Broadcasting Act is my primary responsibility. In fact, the Prime Minister asked me to examine “how best to support Canadian [stories] in English and French”. He asked me to “introduce legislation by the end of 2020 that will take appropriate measures to ensure that all content providers, including internet giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian [stories] in their catalogues, contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both Official Languages, promote [Canadian stories] and make [them] easily accessible on their platforms”, while also considering “additional cultural and linguistic communities.”
The bill our government tabled in the House on November 3 is a direct response to this mandate. It aims to update this important act to ensure the sustainability and vitality of our Canadian series, films and music, as well as of the people who make them and broadcast them.
I hope that the members of the House now understand that, on the one hand, we have Canadian companies that play by the rules and invest in Canadian culture, while, on the other hand, we have online broadcasters that take advantage of the system without any obligation to contribute to it. Having one regime for conventional broadcasters and another for online broadcasters does not work.
That is why we are proposing amendments to the act to support Canadian creators and independent Canadian producers: to ensure the viability of Canadian broadcasting and to protect Canada's cultural sovereignty.
The purpose of the bill is to level the playing field and ensure funding for Canadian stories and Canadian talent. It would allow us to give a higher profile to what is produced in Canada in English, French and indigenous languages, and encourage better representation of racialized Canadians, women and equity-seeking groups at all levels of production.
This bill would truly empower Canadian creators and producers. It reflects the diversity of Canadian perspectives. A modernized act would affirm and strengthen our francophone, anglophone, indigenous and Black identities, as well as all of our country's diversity by helping us to tell stories that speak to our experiences and values.
Bear in mind that we are imposing a number of guardrails. As I said earlier, user-generated content, news content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation could be imposed. This keeps the nature of the Internet as it is. It simply asks companies that generate large revenues in Canada to contribute in a fair manner.
What we are proposing will not impact consumers' choices. It will not limit what any of those streamers can showcase in Canada and it will not impose a price increase. Foreign platforms will benefit from proposing local content that resonates with their subscribers.
These will be stories presented from their perspective and in their own language, or stories that will introduce them to the experiences of their fellow Canadians. This initiative will bring people together and promote social cohesion.
In these increasingly polarized times, having varied content that reflects our different experiences and perspectives across the country, through our shared stories, helps us to understand one another and to listen. Whether the perspective is from an indigenous person, a Black person, a person with a disability or a woman, we all have something to learn from each other.
Through their creative work, artists truly have a way to make us reflect, understand and feel what others feel. Global platforms will invest in local content and, by the same token, will allow our local content a greater reach globally.
This legislation will also generate investment in Canada and create jobs: two important drivers for reopening creative industries and ensuring their sustainability. This is no small feat when we consider that the broadcasting, audio-visual, music and interactive media sectors contribute $20.4 billion to Canada’s GDP and represent more than 160,000 jobs.
I would like to conclude by saying that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, is the result of a collective effort. It is the result of a considerable amount of work by my colleagues, the public service, a vast array of stakeholders and the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.
I would like to thank the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry for establishing the review panel, and for putting forward the notion that every participant in the Canadian broadcasting system has to contribute to the creation, production and promotion of Canadian stories.
I would also like to thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for making this bill a legislative priority for our government.
Last, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this important file.
With this bill, we are taking a step in the right direction. Our government has opted for a step-by-step, targeted approach to modernize the Canadian broadcasting system quickly and appropriately. We recognize that the work is not over. Other measures will come, particularly regarding the important role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the various funding mechanisms for the audio-visual production sector.
This is a bill about jobs, investing in Canada, equity and what it means, at the very core, to be Canadian. If members do not agree with all of the bill, or if members do not believe in our cultural sovereignty and that we as Canadians, as francophones, as first nations, as Métis and as Inuit are different, they can still support the bill for the jobs it will create.
However, let me reiterate that resistance is not futile. If jobs and investment in the cultural sector are not what members believe in for the future of our country, they should support this bill for its much-needed equity and fairness. We need to re-establish the fact that everyone, including web giants, must contribute to our society.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for his question.
As I said several times, this bill is a first step in this venture of implementing a regulatory framework on the web giants' various operations. I am the first to admit that there is still work to be done. Bill C-10 goes after web giants in the field of broadcasting and streaming music. I committed to introducing another bill that will specifically target the web giants that my colleague just mentioned.
We are working with the governments of Australia and France, which are also in the process of putting these types of regulations in place.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
We cannot say that we have to make sure that the legislation and regulations apply to web giants if we do not allow this legislation and these regulations to apply to them. Paragraph 3(1)(a) is precisely what will allow us to ensure that Canadian laws and Canadian regulations apply to web giants.
Paragraph 3(1)(a) is not what ensures that Canadian companies have to be owned by Canadians. That was a CRTC decision in 1997. We are not changing anything with respect to ownership of Canadian companies.
What is more, Canadian companies in the field of broadcasting will still have to obtain licences from the CRTC. Beyond the current bill, there are other safeguards against foreign acquisition of Canadian companies that my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and I have to consider. There are other safeguards for that.
This paragraph allows us to apply our laws and regulations to web giants. How else could we do this?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I have the Yale report right here. Members will recall that the Yale report said that service providers are in the business of infrastructure, so they should invest in infrastructure, and content providers are in the business of content, so they should invest in content. That is the gist of what the Yale report said.
I want to remind the House that for the first time in this country's history, Canada's broadcasting laws and regulations will apply to web giants. That has never been done before.
Earlier I said that this will generate nearly $1 billion a year in investments from these companies, but it is actually more than $1 billion, because if nothing is done by 2023, Canadian productions and Canadian artists will miss out on $1 billion.
On top of reversing the trend, this bill will generate more than $1 billion in investments for our artists and musicians.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, the CBC/Radio-Canada is a very important institution to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The member may recall that it was our government that made a record level of investments in the CBC in our previous mandate.
After 10 years of cutbacks by the Harper government, we have every intention to implement other reforms in the coming months. We could not do this as part of the bill, but we strongly believe on this side of the House in the importance of the CBC and the role it plays in Canada. We will continue to be there for it.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a very important sector. It is contributing $20 billion to Canada's GDP and 160,000 jobs across the country.
What we are doing by introducing the bill is protecting Canadian cultural sovereignty and these jobs. Of course, some American companies are coming to Canada to film series and movies, service productions. This is great, but unless we intervene, we will lose our ability to tell our own stories.
I watch series from all around the world and I really love them, but first and foremost I like to watch Canadian series and movies and listen to Canadian music. Unless something is done, Canada will become nothing more than a production service outlet for the United States of America. This government does not want that. The bill prevents that from happening and gives us back our cultural sovereignty.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say.
I would first like to point out that the party my hon. colleague represents had 10 years to tackle most of these issues while it was in power, but it did nothing. It actually reversed progress on a number of these issues.
My colleague seems to be saying that we are doing too much but that it is not enough and will cost too much, so I am a little confused. I have already answered the question about Facebook and Google, but I would like to read an excerpt from the Yale report, which the member mentioned and the former opposition leader said should be tossed in the trash the day it was released.
Here is what the Yale report says on page 146, in the recommendations section: “The actual percentage that might apply and the conditions relating to it would be a matter for the CRTC to determine after public hearings.” Those are the very same points my colleague raised.
Far from perpetuating inequity, this bill will level the playing field between traditional Canadian broadcasters and online broadcasters.
Speaking of the French language, I want to mention that I was honoured to receive the Impératif français award in 2017. I am one of the few members of Parliament to have earned this honour. French is very important to me, and this bill does even more to protect the French language. In the directive we will give the CRTC, we will ask for even more requirements relating to the French language.
If I understand correctly, my hon. colleague is accusing us of not doing enough for CBC/Radio-Canada. Does this mean that the leader of the official opposition has abandoned the promise he made during the Conservative Party leadership race to defund CBC/Radio-Canada?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Drummond for his speech. I have some questions for him.
He said that francophone producers and artists across Quebec and Canada had thrived because of the protections we put in place. Here is one of my questions for him: Where are these measures in the current act? I do not see any.
All of the measures he is alluding to came from the CRTC. The government gave directives to the CRTC which led to protections for francophone culture in Quebec and across the country. That is what was reported in the Yale report, which the member supported at the time, saying it was good work. However, the Yale report, which he quoted earlier, says that it is up to the CRTC to determine these things and that it is not in the act.
The member said that some groups had been very enthusiastic in the beginning but then changed their minds. I will not name them all, but here are a few: the Association québécoise de la production médiatique; the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, or ADISQ; the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française; the Canadian Independent Music Association, or CIMA; the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, or ACTRA; Unifor; the Fonds de solidarité FTQ; and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN.
I have here a press release issued yesterday by independent producers titled “Broadcasting bill: the AQPM refutes the Bloc Québécois's allegations”—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Last week, we introduced a bill that seeks to reform Canada's Broadcasting Act for the first time in 30 years.
That law will significantly impact and benefit Canadian culture. My colleague is well aware of that, because we consulted him many times regarding the introduction of the bill, which will enable us to provide an additional $1 billion in funding so that we can tell our stories in French in Quebec and Canada, as well as English and indigenous languages. That is a first for our country—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that our government has provided Canada's arts, culture and sports sector with over $4 billion since the pandemic hit.
According to a recent survey, almost 78% of artists are very happy with what the federal government has done. Of course we can do more and will do more. The broadcasting bill is not about taxation, it is about broadcasting.
We will keep working to improve the system in this country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As recently as Tuesday, our government, the first in the country's history, decided to take on the web giants and have them contribute to the same degree as Canadian companies in the area of culture, audiovisual production and music.
The web giants will invest over $800 million more in Canadian culture each year.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, first, who would want to work for Facebook when they can work for the wonderful ministry of Canadian Heritage?
Second, we are doing today what no government has done before. We are forcing web giants to do their fair share when it comes to Canadian stories, Canadian artists and Canadian musicians, which only a handful of countries in the world have done. This will lead to close to $1 billion of more investment in our Canadian stories and in our Canadian artists.
Results: 181 - 210 of 224 | Page: 7 of 8

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data