44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.
This legislation passed through this House just last year after extensive Conservative filibustering, but it had to be reintroduced because it ended up dying in the Senate. I felt it particularly important to speak to this legislation because there has been a coordinated attack of misinformation and disinformation that has confused people as to exactly what this legislation would do. In my brief speech, I will touch on what this bill would do, what it would not do and some of the implications around the some of the misinformation.
Given that the media landscape has changed, our approach to it must also change to bring things into the 21st century. The online streaming bill does just that. Like we have always done for radio and television, now online streaming companies will be there to support and promote Canadian content. The bill does this by bringing online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. This act has not been amended since 1991, and that was a very different time.
The bill would also do this by requiring online streaming services that serve the Canadian market to contribute to the production of Canadian content. In the same way that they benefit from accessing the Canadian market, they should be there to invest back into it. The bill would also ensure that broadcasters would showcase more Canadian content, as well as prioritizing content from Francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators.
We have to ask ourselves why this is important. It is important because we consume media very differently in 2022 from how we did in 1991. If Canadians are anything like me, they do not have cable. If they have cable, they may use it just to watch sports these days. They probably do not listen to the radio much. They may access music through apps like Spotify, Apple Music and others. They may be watching television or movies through Netflix, Prime, YouTube or many of the other streaming services that have absolutely revolutionized the media landscape over the last two decades. In order to have a level playing field, these platforms need to be treated just the same as television and radio have been treated for decades.
Sometimes the question comes up about why we need Canadian content. Quite simply, it is because we are not American. We feel the impact and dominance of the America media and culture, and that is something that every Canadian is familiar with. We are inundated with American news, TV, movies, music and culture. The American media and entertainment industry is very much a juggernaut, with the ability to promote and broadcast its influence far and wide. In Canada, we see that.
The close and familiar nature of our cultures and histories, as well as the vast funding and institutional entrenchment of American media, have allowed it to flourish in our country, and there is no doubt that there is exceptional content coming from south of the border. However, our Canadian content creators are at a disadvantage without the same levels of inertia, funding and entrenchment that the American media have had for decades.
That is why we need to take action to ensure that Canadian culture and Canadian stories are still promoted and told. I think we would all agree that our own culture and history are distinct from those of the U.S. We have stories, ideas and creative expression that are uniquely Canadian, and it is the shared cultural fabric that helps define our national identity.
That, right there, is what this bill is really about. We have our own cultural fabric and our own Canadian identities, and we must work to protect our heritage from the influence of foreign media. It is unfortunate that this bill, which is aimed at protecting and strengthening our cultural heritage by requiring only web giants to pay into creating Canadian content, has been so mired in controversy and misinformation.
I want to take a moment to try to set the record straight on exactly what this bill does not do. This bill does not impose regulations on content that everyday Canadians post on social media. It does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content, creators, influencers or users. It does not censor or mandate specific algorithms or streaming services on social media platforms. It does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form, or create the conditions for Internet censorship.
This bill specifically carves out from the bill content created by users on social media platforms, except where that content is commercial content. That is defined by the regulator, which evaluates based on three elements, whether the content is monetized, whether it exists on another non-social media platform, and whether the content has a unique international standard code.
This measure is designed to standardize treatments of commercial content across all platforms. We have to ask ourselves why such an innocuous bill, which would support our Canadian cultural producers, would become so controversial. Who can argue with bringing our regulation into the 21st century? The answer is actually quite simple. It has been a coordinated campaign of misinformation and disinformation.
Members opposite and their party's communication apparatus have peddled misinformation claiming that the bill would silence Canadian online content creators, despite the fact that the bill explicitly excludes content creators. They have claimed that the bill would violate charter rights and limit free speech, despite its direct predecessor's having been through multiple reviews for charter compliance and the fact that the Department of Justice has found it fully compliant. Members claim that the bill would control what people can post on Facebook and Twitter, despite the fact that the bill has absolutely nothing to do with regulating online speech.
The scale of misinformation and disinformation around the bill has been so extreme that one would be hard pressed to believe that it came about organically. If we think that there is no way that this misinformed outrage is organic, we would be right. Rather, far-right organizations like Canada Proud have been working overtime, pushing falsehoods about the bill on Canadians. This of course is the same Canada Proud that was founded by Jeff Ballingall, also known as the digital campaign director of the former leader of the official opposition in the last election, as well as that of the likely future leader of the official opposition.
It is disappointing that the official opposition works with groups such as these, which employ tactics of misinformation and in this case, clear disinformation. In doing so, it actually undermines and compromises the fabric of legitimate political discourse in Canada, while also sowing division for political gain. In this case, it means siding with foreign web giants over the Canadian cultural sector, which is resulting in that sector's being left behind, especially in light of the serious impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the sector. It is bad enough that these tactics are poisoning debate in the House and on topics at the national level, but we know this is not an isolated example.
In the last election, in fact, the Conservative candidate in my riding did a mail drop a couple of days before the election, with a nefarious-looking picture of the Prime Minister saying that we were going to remove the exemption on capital gains for principal residences. I am sure many other folks in the House could give us many other examples.
Unfortunately, I have little confidence that the official opposition is going to cease with these disingenuous tactics. It is their MO, after all, but these insidious approaches are now poisoning debate all the way down to the local level. I bring the example of Squamish Voices. Squamish Voices began as a social media Facebook page and built up a following as a faux community group by promoting themselves on Facebook and asking very innocuous questions like what someone's favourite ice cream was. Having built up a very large following, they switched into launching a very dedicated campaign of attacks and character assassination on progressive elected officials by spreading misinformation. They spent over $25,000—
1390 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:23:39 p.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would simply observe, note and call upon the constitutional requirement of quorum and question as to whether or not there is quorum in this place.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:23:53 p.m.
- Watch
Let me consult with the Table. I understood that Motion No. 11 did not have a quorum requirement.
I appreciate the point of order, but the order is specific that at 6:30, there is no quorum required.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, further to that point of order, on page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is a claim that I will quote, that “the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.”
Since Bill C-11 is currently being considered without quorum and quorum is a requirement of the Constitution, I trust the courts will take note of my interjection today in the event that Bill C-11 is challenged in a court in our country at some point.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:25:01 p.m.
- Watch
As the hon. member knows, I have to follow the points of procedure, the orders that are set before us. Motion No. 11 specified that there were no quorum calls after 6:30, but I thank the member for his intervention.
The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has one minute and 35 seconds left.
We have another point of order from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a rule of the House that members are not to be eating in the chamber, and I saw the member for Kingston and the Islands stuffing his mouth in between chortling to the people on this side of the House. I would like clarification on whether we are now allowed to eat in here.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:25:45 p.m.
- Watch
The rule is still there is no eating in here.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do want to apologize to the House. I was eating a Fig Newton when I walked in the doors, and I apologize for that. It has since been disposed of, so I cannot take it back.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
There are rules we need to follow. Unfortunately quorum is not one of them in this particular case, but not eating in the House is still a rule we should follow.
The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I promise I will get to the end of this speech.
I was talking about the example of Squamish Voices. Having built up a large following, it switched from this innocuous community group to launching personal attacks and character assassinations on progressive councillors. In fact, over $25,000 was spent on advertising to do this. Notably, its members do this behind a shroud of secrecy, by obscuring who they are and the real truth. They cannot be reached through their phone number; they cannot be reached through their email, and their web page URL does not work.
In fact, through investigative reporting and following the dots, the National Observer has found the group that is behind it. Of course, it is Canada Proud. This is not just a problem in my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. It is a problem right across the country. The network is making forays into municipal politics with anonymous pages in Vancouver, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Brampton, Georgian Bay and Terrebonne.
I feel compelled to bring this up because it is exactly what is happening in this circumstance in this House, and it needs to be called out. Unfortunately, the victims in this case happen to be Canadian cultural producers who are, of course, receiving less income because of the impact of the pandemic and because Canadians are consuming media in a different fashion. This bill needs to pass. We need to find ways to support our Canadian content creators.
I just want to mention that this year is actually the 50th anniversary of The Beachcombers, which is one of the most popular Canadian shows of all time. It included one of the first indigenous actors to be recognized in a national-level program. We need legislation like this to be able to support the future Beachcombers, which are so important for Canadian culture and which have also provided, like The Beachcombers, entertainment for communities all across the world.
332 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite in one breath said there would not be any censorship, but in the next breath went on talking about True North and Canada Proud, and how they are speaking ill of his party or his set of Liberal values. That is quite a contradiction.
More to the point on censorship, there will be smaller, non-English, foreign-language sites and stations that stream online and do not have the subscription breadth of Netflix or other major streaming companies. They do not have the subscriptions and they do not have the money, so by virtue of not being able to afford the CanCon fees, they will no longer be available to Canadians who speak those languages.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in fact, when I am talking about some of the very shady things that we are seeing happen that are poisoning discourse, I am not talking about censorship. In fact, I am talking about the exact opposite. We need to have transparency on that, on who is behind these things and why they are doing the things that they are. When we have these types of groups that are leading organized campaigns of misinformation and disinformation, it is something we should all be very concerned about. That is exactly what has been happening in Bill C-11, and that is why we need to keep calling it out.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear a little more from my colleague on the benefits that Bill C-11 will have for our artists, musicians, and people who work in television and on our miniseries, which are of exceptional quality, not only in Quebec but also in Canada.
What positive effects or outcomes can we expect? Will our creators benefit in any way?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
This bill has several advantages. Creators will be supported by the web giants, and it will be easier for people to access what creators are producing. This is very important for Quebec and for the whole country, because we are very unique and we have to do what we can to promote the full diversity of this country.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for following up on the idea of supporting Canadian content. I am glad he mentioned The Beachcombers.
I was disappointed when his colleague from Kingston and the Islands mentioned MC Hammer, because if one googles “MC Hammer Canada 1991”, the year we are talking about, all we will find is the fact that there was a big riot in my hometown of Penticton in 1991, after an MC Hammer concert, when the iconic peach concession stand was rolled into Okanagan Lake.
I am sure he was not trying to draw us down that line, but I just wanted to use this opportunity to let the member from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country expand on the idea of supporting Canadian content and how important that is.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this bill is very, very important for doing just that: being able to support Canadian content.
That was a really unfortunate connection with the example that was given earlier, but whether it is Canadian TV like The Beachcombers, whether it is Canadian film or whether it is making sure that we are able to access Canadian music online, this is really, really important, just to make sure that, as we are a small country, we are able to support our artists and creators to give them that start, to allow them to have that runway to make it big. Otherwise, we are at risk of being completely dominated by a much larger media landscape in the United States. Therefore, it is very important that we support them and it is very important, given the impact of the pandemic and the change in the way that all people around the world are consuming media.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
I cannot believe that we are talking about MC Hammer's U Can't Touch This and Molly's Reach in the same discussion.
The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is never a dull moment in this House. Even if we are close to quorum or not, it seems like things just continue to roll along in this House with the diversity of opinions. In fact, we as Conservatives value a diversity of opinions on a variety of subjects and welcome people to have different thoughts and views. In fact, we see that as a strength of our Confederation and not a weakness.
There are concerns many Canadians raise during these times and even during this debate. The concern that is elevating to the forefront is they feel there is a stifling of free expression, of free speech and even of thought, such that if they happen to think contrary to whatever the supposed latest whimsical fad of fanciful group think is, they can be labelled and therefore marginalized, called names and pushed out of the public discourse with ridicule and laughter.
However, in a healthy democracy, diverse opinions and differing points of view are welcome, and we ask them to come to the table and challenge us. An old expression says that iron sharpens iron. I think sometimes when we have differing points of view, it is a strength to the debate in this House and we can, in fact, come to better legislation. We can come to better bills that will get through and get passed and hopefully help all Canadians, as we learn to balance the differing perspectives that are in this House that reflect the viewpoints of all Canadians.
I think the content that is available to Canadians should be as diverse as Canada is. So should be the things they are allowed to view, and so should be the things they are allowed to listen to, produce or create. That is the strength of our democracy and, in fact, a hallmark of it is freedom of speech.
What I find quite contradictory is that during this time when we are talking about Canadian creativity and Canadian content, there is a distinct effort to shut down debate and bring closure. At a time when the Liberals extended the hours of sitting so we could have more transparency, more accountable government, more debate and welcome diverse points of view, they are now expediting the process on a bill that has raised concerns with many Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
This House would be a better reflection of the concerns of Canadians by allowing those concerns to be fully vetted in this the people's House. That diversity of opinions could be welcomed on the floor of this House, but not only on the floor of this House; may it continue to be allowed, or even further allowed, to be expressed across the airwaves, online and through broadcasting.
I think what is happening is that many Canadians feel as though they are not free to express their points of view. They are feeling somewhat suppressed. They feel if they have a certain viewpoint or if they have a certain opinion, they are going to be labelled, disqualified or cancelled. I think it is a slippery slope.
This House needs to think very soberly and take its time in deliberating this piece of legislation. I think Canadians are raising rightful concerns about the fact that, while the Liberals say to trust them and that they are going to make sure it is done right and properly, the government has not instilled the confidence in people to just trust it with these types of matters.
We have seen how the Prime Minister has treated those with whom he disagrees. We have seen the efforts to continually divide, demonize and stigmatize those with whom he does not agree. When they go to express it, he gets angry, petulant and frustrated and then decides to throw the full force and weight of government and the law against those with whom he disagrees, even now as we learned today that at no point did the RCMP ever request or require such drastic measures as the Emergencies Act.
I believe the people of Canada have huge concerns in trusting the government with even more power to regulate what they can post and what they can view. Some would even go so far as to call it censorship of those who would detract from the government message of the day. Whether it is censorship indirect, it could be the back door to censorship, and I think what we need to do is be very careful and cautious.
We all love Canadian content. We want Canadian producers to do well. We, as Conservatives, believe in that.
My family is a big fan of the series Heartland. I must say that my daughters love watching it. It is a beautiful show made here in Canada. I enjoy Hockey Night in Canada. I enjoy Canadian content. I think it is wonderful. We have a great Canadian story to tell and there is nothing that gets any more intense than Canadians watching hockey or watching some of the shows they have come to adore and admire. That is great. However, we do not need some government czar censoring through the back door what content Canadians can produce, put online, listen to or view: “How terrible that someone has a different point of view than the latest fad of the whimsical group think, so let us ban that.” Canadians are genuinely concerned with this rabid push for cancel culture.
What we need to do is allow Canadians the chance to weigh this bill carefully. Let us have the debate. Let us improve the bill. Let us have all viewpoints welcome at the table. Let us stop the stereotyping, stigmatizing and demonizing of Canadians who happen to not share perhaps the priorities of the government of the day.
If it was the reverse situation and this party was on the other side of the House, I guarantee the uproar would be boisterous, loud and overwhelming. The Liberals would be saying that we are stifling debate, ramming through bills, and asking how we could be so draconian. We would hear it day in and day out.
The Liberals want longer hours in the House for debate and then they shut down debate. Why do we not allow the debate to continue? Canadians are not afraid of opposing points of view. They are not afraid of diverse opinions; in fact, they welcome them. That is our strength.
I think it is a great opportunity for us to hear the concerns of our digital producers, those who are making great Canadian content that is original and are doing it well. They have raised very legitimate concerns about this bill. Let us make sure those concerns are heard and addressed. Let us make sure that Canadian content is protected, is welcome and amplified, but at the same time that great Canadian producers can compete, do well and succeed. Canadians are right to have a bit of caution when it comes to entrusting the current government with even more unabated power.
I want to conclude with a quote from a former prime minister of old who was the architect of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker so adequately expressed it this way, and I hope his words echo in this House yet once again and resonate within each of our hearts and minds as we reflect on this bill.
He stated:
I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
When it comes to Bill C-11, let us uphold the principles of freedom of thought, expression and belief, first and foremost, and make sure that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that protection and to hear the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast.
1349 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite used the old slippery slope argument. I think it is certainly the simplest of logical arguments, as one thing leads to another, which leads to another, and so on.
The member also spoke to promoting diversity of opinion. What about artistic expression and Canadian content? The bill explicitly tries to amplify content creators from diverse backgrounds. Does this not promote the diversity of opinion that the member said this bill is trying to squash?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
