44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
The hon. member made a number of points in her speech. One of the points, as I understood it, and these are my words, is that media is at the heart of democracy. Debate is also at the heart of democracy. What did the hon. member's party do, with the help of the NDP, the party that used to stand up for debate, that used to stand against closure of debate? It has closed debate.
How is it that the member reconciles closing debate on an issue that, in her own words and her own argument, is so vital and important to Canadians?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, this is a debate. This is the second time I have been up to debate this bill. I believe our members have spoken more on this bill than anyone else in this House. I do believe it is really important to debate this bill.
Let us get it right. Let us get it passed. Let us talk about it until midnight.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member tried to take us back to 1991. I seem to remember getting my first email address sometime around then.
The Liberal government has been in power since 2015, so let us go back to there. Since then, Facebook, YouTube and Netflix still have not paid their fair share of taxes. I am just wondering if the member could explain why the government has dragged its feet on this. How much have these web giants avoided in taxes since 2015 because of the delay in the digital services tax?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the government has been trying to hold up the legislation. I believe we are trying to get it passed as quickly and as efficiently as we can.
I believe, although I am a fairly new member, that it has been more the opposition blocking the legislation from passing than anything that the government has done.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, like me, is a recovering broadcaster. There is more than one of us in the House.
Could she recall the heavy hand of the CRTC? In some of my comments earlier this evening, I said that the CRTC demonstrates a pretty light touch when it comes to regulating content, which would be far more direct and focused on conventional broadcasters and not at all on the content online. Could the member recall the CRTC really playing the heavy-handed bad guy in her days in television?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 7:44:08 p.m.
- Watch
I can also say, as a recovering broadcaster, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, thank you from the recovering broadcaster caucus.
I would say that I cannot come up with any specific examples of the CRTC being especially heavy-handed. I would rather the CRTC be helping ensure fairness in this country than leaving it to Facebook.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about discoverability. This is one of those things that is being left to the CRTC to implement based on a policy directive that the government would send after the bill is passed.
Has the member spoke to the Minister of Canadian Heritage? How would he direct the CRTC to implement discoverability through Bill C-11?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course I have spoken with the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage, but I do not have any further information. I would have to get the minister himself to answer that question.
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, like the member, I am also really looking forward to ensuring more Canadian content is accessible. Folks in my community are also asking for that.
Like her, I am also a newer member in this place. I am trying to make sense of this conversation about user-generated content, understanding exceptions to exceptions, and understanding that proposed section 4.1(2) is a bit of a concern. Could the member share her perspective on the extent to which user-generated content is not part of this bill?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, platforms are in; users are out. The CRTC has been very clear that it has no interest in regulating the cat videos put up on TikTok and Twitter. It is the platforms that would be regulated with this legislation, not the users.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, but more importantly to address the fake outrage that continues to ensue as it relates to anything that comes from the other side of the House, such as the fake outrage from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo just a few moments ago about time allocation. What the member for Hamilton Mountain was trying to say to him was that there have actually been more Conservative speakers speaking to this bill during second reading than every other party combined.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: There we go, Mr. Speaker. This has been heavily debated by Conservatives, despite the fake outrage from the member, but we continue to see it nonetheless. I have heard a number of things said in the short time we have been debating this bill this evening, and I am going to address some of them.
First of all, one of the most recent questions, and I think it was the last question from a Conservative member, was about the discoverability portion and how it would be decided to inform the CRTC. If the member reads the bill, he will know that it specifically says that it would be an open public consultative process. That is exactly how it would happen. The member should know that, because I know he has read the bill, but this goes to my point of the fake outrage.
Here is the thing. I can understand where the Conservatives are coming from right now. A year ago, they were successful when it came to generating that fake outrage. They were successful. Now, though, they are not. This issue does not have anywhere near the traction it did a year ago, because people have come to realize that maybe they were sold the wrong information when they were being told by Conservatives that their rights would be restricted.
I will go back to another thing that was falsely said in this House a few moments ago by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, when she talked about algorithms. He specifically said that—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Did I get the name not 100% accurate?
An hon. member: The gender was wrong.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: My apologies—
388 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 7:48:59 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
Let us slow it down. I know we have a lot to talk about tonight.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I know the member is a he. He and I will quite often talk to each other back and forth across the House, but we use our first names, which I am not allowed to do when I am giving a speech.
Nonetheless, he referenced algorithms specifically, saying that the government would have the ability to control these algorithms that would impact what people see. If we look at page 14 of the bill, there is a whole section about restrictions and “computer algorithm or source code”. It is in the bill.
It states:
The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.
Why would members from the Conservative Party continually bring up this issue, when it is written right here in black and white in the bill? One has to wonder.
I will go back to fake outrage. The Conservatives want to generate this fake outrage because they want to stir up controversy. They want people to believe that we live in a country that is not free. Look at the almost leader of the Conservative Party of—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I hear some cheers. I know who is on the side of the member for Carleton.
Let us look at the member for Carleton. His whole campaign is focused around the idea that Canada is not a free country. I have news for my colleagues across the way. They may have heard of Freedom House. It is a bipartisan-supported organization in the United States that was started in 1941 during the Second World War. Freedom House ranks countries throughout the world with respect to the degree they are viewed as a free country. Canada is ranked fifth out of all countries in the world. We scored 40 out of 40 points when it comes to political freedom. We scored 58 out of 60 points when it comes to civil liberties. Where are they getting this? They do not have to agree with this organization that has been around since 1941 that has—
Mr. Damien Kurek: Thank goodness Alberta is here.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am hitting a nerve. The Conservatives are very concerned about this and will not stop heckling me because they do not want Canadians to believe that we live in a free country, and I cannot understand that. Why would they run an entire political organization based on the premise that Canadians are not free? It is so incredibly ludicrous, but we see it time after time. It is what the member for Carleton's entire campaign is based on. It is what the fake outrage we see, time after time, from the Conservatives is based on. It is indeed what this particular issue is to them.
This is a bill to make sure that the proper measures are in place to protect Canadian content. That is what this is about. It is about working with those web giants and the very large distributors of content to make sure they pay into the same fund that radio and TV stations and other broadcasters have had to pay into for decades, so that we can preserve Canadian content like The Tragically Hip from my riding of Kingston and the Islands. That was an incredible success story of Canada. Back in the day, bands like The Tragically Hip would not have been able to get on the radio had it not been for some of those requirements that were there, and had it not been for money that was put aside to help promote Canadian content. That is what this is about.
It alarms me to hear the Conservatives play with the importance of that cultural identity just for a tiny bit of what they perceive to be political expedience to help convince Canadians they are not free. It is absolutely crazy when we listen to the narrative that continually comes from that side of the House on issues like this.
I know the Conservatives are champing at the bit to ask me a question. Perhaps one of them can identify somebody other than Michael Geist, who they quote time after time in the House. Can they can quote somebody else, or make reference to somebody who also feels the same way, and can honestly speak to this issue in the same way?
When we talk about ensuring that we put the right measures in place, we are really talking about ensuring that the cultural identity of Canada exists in perpetuity: It exists into the future, so that future generations can celebrate the same success stories of small artists and small bands that had the opportunity to grow and prosper in our country, and not neighbouring countries that have 10 times the population and can be quite overbearing and dominate us from a cultural perspective, from time to time. That is what this is all about. That is the whole purpose.
I know the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells was talking earlier about MAPL, and having to identify with two of four areas of Canadian content. That is where those ideas came from, back in the day. That is what was intended to help preserve Canadian content.
When we look at amending the legislation, we are talking about amending legislation that has not been touched since 1991. I was in grade 10 in 1991, maybe grade 11. What was a popular song then? MC Hammer, I think, was the big artist at the time. That is the last time this legislation was updated. MC Hammer was wearing his big, baggy pants, dancing around in music videos on MuchMusic.
If anyone suggests for a second that there is no need to update this legislation because things have changed, it is a new world now and things are different, I can only imagine what people were saying back then, in the early nineties. I wonder if there are the same arguments coming forward: that TV and radio are dominant now, and we are never going to be able to affect it. It is such a defeatist attitude to have, and it is an attitude that we are seeing time after time from the other side, specifically as it relates to this particular issue.
I am very much in support of protecting and promoting Canadian culture. That is what this bill would do, and I look forward to this bill going to committee so that we can continue to improve it, get it back to the House and pass it.
1116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am never one to back down from a challenge. The member challenged us to find individuals who might have something to say against this bill, other than Dr. Geist. Andrew Coyne, the columnist for The Globe and Mail; Dr. Irene Berkowitz, senior policy fellow at Ryerson University; Matt Hatfield, campaigns director at OpenMedia; Peter Menzies, former CRTC chair; Monica Auer, the executive director of Forum for Research and Policy in Communications; Scott Benzie, managing director of Digital First Canada; Oorbee Roy, digital content creator, and actually a witness at the Canadian heritage committee; and Darcy Michael, at committee and a digital content creator as well, all spoke against it, as did Morghan Fortier, Skyship Entertainment for YouTube. Those are just a few that my friend across the way seems to have forgotten.
Not only do Michael Geist, and we on this side of the House, oppose this bill, but millions of Canadians across this country oppose it, as well.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is great. Why have they not brought any of those names up before? There is only one name that keeps coming up over and over again in the House. It is the only name that they keep referencing.
I am really glad that the member was able to pick up his bill kit from the whip's desk at the back, come out here and read a bunch of names to me, but I would suggest to him that he start using those names, and that some of the members start quoting other references and sources.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.
I just want clarify that, in 1991, people in Quebec were listening to L'amour existe encore by Céline Dion.
I also want to remind the member that, at the time, Céline Dion was enjoying great success, but there were also people like Caroline Desbiens who, even though she may not have been a superstar, was also succeeding, and that the CRTC made it possible to manage all those fine people.
I have a question for my colleague. Why are our Conservative neighbours questioning whether the CRTC will be able to do its job when the legislation comes into force when the CRTC has always been able to do its job?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I regret that when I gave the example, the first one to come to my head was MC Hammer. I should have thought of a Canadian artist, and I apologize for that.
The member is absolutely correct. The CRTC has been able to do this in the past. There is no reason to assume that the CRTC has not been able to do this in the past. As a matter of fact, when the Conservatives get up to criticize the CRTC, as they do with this side of the House and with cabinet in particular, they just start attacking individuals, such as the Chair, or saying this person was going out for beers with that person, rather than actually trying to ever get to the heart of the substance. It is what they do repeatedly. They just attack individuals. They see that as somehow a path to being successful in politics, and I would argue that it is not.
To the member's point, the CRTC is extremely capable of doing this. I have faith the CRTC can do this. It does have experience, having done this for several decades. I do not know why anybody would assume it was not going to have the same ability to do it moving into the future.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, it is great the member made such a great statement about the importance of ensuring Canadian cultural content. What the bill does not specify, though, is how long it would take to make sure that large companies like Netflix pay their fair share.
I wonder if the member could share with us if the government will be transparent and make sure some of these profits are being shared with the public, as well as on which date they will be made to pay their fair share.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact answer to that. I hope that question comes up in committee, because it is a very good question. We should have some kind of timeline as to when that would happen. I encourage the member, or her representatives on the committee, to make sure the point is brought up. I am unaware if she is on the committee. It is a very valid question.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
