44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I began addressing this when I answered the previous question from my Conservative colleague.
I find it hard to understand. There is a lot of disinformation. Legal opinions have shown that the Conservatives' arguments are unfounded. The committee's study will address that. Furthermore, I do not understands the attacks on artists. It is said that the bill responds to the representations from artists, who have not been able to adapt and modernize. Our artists are being attacked. As I mentioned, there is also the issue of enshrinement, which would make the CRTC rules much more rigid. There are different aspects to be addressed. If we want the bill to move forward, it must be referred to a committee.
I do not understand the Conservatives' obstruction. I also do not understand why gratuitous accusations are being made against Quebec's artists.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Shefford on her speech.
I know she is passionate about journalism, the arts and culture, and I know how important this bill is to her. The previous version of the bill, Bill C‑10 was very important to her. This year's bill is all the more important because it is urgent.
Lately we have been talking a lot about the place of indigenous cultures, of first nations. People want to reinstate the space they deserve, to hear their cultures, to hear their voices. Today, I had a conversation with a representative of an Innu community who is also an artist. He said that nobody listened to them, nobody made space for them, nobody gave them ice time in the broadcasting landscape, and it is the same for digital platforms.
Does my colleague think that, without this bill, indigenous cultures, first nations cultures—which some people righteously say should be put front and centre and should take up more space—would be out of luck and forgotten no matter how many nice things we say?
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, discoverability applies to French-language content. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou pointed out in her speech that she has a hard time finding French-language content on these platforms.
This also applies to our indigenous peoples, who need visibility. Last week we had a debate on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There are all kinds of stories in the news that show how important it is to be in touch with indigenous peoples and show that they also need to be discovered.
Discoverability is not just for francophones. It is also for indigenous people and many others as well, thanks to Bill C‑11.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill, the online streaming act, which we know amends the Broadcasting Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.
At the outset, I want to state, as my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, did in his excellent remarks on this bill, my support for those sections of it that would see major international companies pay their share and invest in Canadian content. However, my remarks will focus on the impact this bill would have on the rights of all Canadians.
First, I will give a recap. When the first iteration of this bill was introduced in the last Parliament, it did not capture the attention of many Canadians. In fact, at second reading the bill was simply passed on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for review. Then, during the clause-by-clause deliberations, the Liberal members of the committee voted to remove an important safeguard of Canadians' freedom of speech. Canadians began to take notice, and started to loudly voice their opposition to this amendment and, by extension, to the bill's passage.
It bears repeating that the clause the heritage committee removed was a substantial clause that the justice department, in its opinion of the bill, made specific reference to as being necessary for the protection of the rights of Canadians.
It is baffling to me that the government, in particular the Minister of Canadian Heritage, along with his allies in the NDP and the Bloc party, could not see why millions of Canadians became opponents of this bill overnight. I believe that Canadians rightly suspected that this was not a case of the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, just having a difference of opinion, but rather knowing that Bill C-10 infringed on their fundamental rights. They did not care that it did so.
Equally troubling was how the Liberals rammed Bill C-10 through the House without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee. The many outstanding concerns that had been expressed by experts, parliamentarians and Canadians went unaddressed. In fact, the shadow minister at the time, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, made the following observation: “Weeks ago, the Trudeau Liberals secretly withdrew the section of their own bill that protects individual users’ content.”
393 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 10:20:31 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, although the member was quoting, she used the Prime Minister's last name and was referring to this Prime Minister, not a former prime minister with the same last name. Perhaps she would like to rephrase it.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 10:20:46 p.m.
- Watch
Duly noted. The hon. member knows better.
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my apologies. “Weeks ago, the Liberals secretly withdrew the section of their own bill that protects individual users' content, resulting in Canadians being subject to broad government powers to regulate their use of social media. The government went even further when it used extreme tactics that have not been used in decades to silence the opposition, keeping Canadians in the dark about their infringement on freedom of speech and ramming the bill through without proper debate.”
At this time, I need to point out the complete hypocrisy of the Liberals and NDP as we are discussing this bill late in the evening, but under time allocation. When the Liberals introduced Motion No. 11, we were told that one of the reasons they were doing so was so that more members could participate in debate on legislation. Why then did the government, with the help of the NDP, pass the time allocation motion on this important bill at second reading, limiting debate and the ability for the remaining opposition parties to hold the government to account? The answer is that this is part of a pattern of behaviour where the Prime Minister and his government run from transparency and accountability.
Here we are: We are debating Bill C-11, which is another encroachment by the Liberals on the fundamental rights of Canadians. It is under time constraints when clearly opposition to the former bill, now packaged as Bill C-11, and its encroachment on freedom of speech, are not partisan matters. It is not just the Conservative Party and its strongest supporters who are opposed to what the Liberals are attempting. Bill C-11 is a mere copy of the Liberals' deeply flawed Bill C-10, and it fails to address the serious concerns raised by experts and Canadians.
I would like to quote from a piece published by Michael Geist on his website on February 3, and I did that just for the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is entitled, “Not ready for prime time: Why Bill C-11 leaves the door open to CRTC regulation of user-generated content”. The opening paragraph reads as follows:
The minister and his department insisted that the new Bill C-11 addressed the concerns raised with Bill C-10 and that Canadians could be assured that regulating user generated content is off the table. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the case. The new bill, now billed the Online Streaming Act, restores one exception but adds a new one, leaving the door open for CRTC regulation. Indeed, for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”.
He concludes his article on Bill C-11 with the following:
There was an opportunity to use the re-introduction of the bill to fully exclude user generated content (no other country in the world regulates content this way), limit the scope of the bill to a manageable size, and create more certainty and guidance for the CRTC. Instead, the government has left the prospect of treating Internet content as programs subject to regulation in place, envisioned the entire globe as subject to Canadian broadcast jurisdiction, increased the power of the regulator, and done little to answer many of the previously unanswered questions. The bill is not ready for prime time and still requires extensive review and further reform to get it right.
The former commissioner of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Peter Menzies, is quoted by Global News as saying the following:
The biggest difference is that it’s called Bill C-11 instead of Bill C-10.... I think they deserve a little bit of credit for acknowledging that some of the concerns that many people raised last spring did indeed have merit, but their efforts at resolving those, I think, are weak.
The campaigns director for Open Media said of Bill C-11 the following:
Treating the Internet like cable television was a bad idea last year, and it’s a bad idea now. The Online Streaming Act continues to give the CRTC the power to use sorely outdated 1980s ideas about what “Canadian” content is, to control what shows up on our online feeds and what doesn’t.
These quotes by experts give voice and detail to the many, many emails that I have received from constituents and from Canadians who oppose this erosion of their freedoms. Canadians are paying attention.
In closing, I do want to remind my colleagues of two very short quotes by a former prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who passionately defended individual liberty. He said, “Canada is free and freedom is its nationality” and “Nothing will prevent me from continuing my task of preserving at all cost our civil liberty.” I agree with the former Liberal prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I wish the current Liberal Party did as well.
853 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sure that Wilfrid Laurier would be very glad to hear that of all countries in the world, Canada is ranked fifth in terms of freedom, as found by Freedom House, which is an organization that has been around since 1941. They have actually rated our political freedom as 40 out of 40, and they have rated our civil liberties freedoms as 58 out of 60. We are ranked the fifth freest country in the world.
Perhaps the member would like to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of manufactured outrage going on right now with the Conservatives trying to find a wedge issue, trying to find something to try to drum up some fear, and trying to score cheap political points. Maybe that is what is going on here.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, to me what was the most troubling part of the debate which occurred over the predecessor bill to the proposed legislation is what we have now before us. Time and time again we have seen the government's overreach into the lives of Canadians, whether it is through its values test in the Canada summer jobs attestation, its subtle willingness to undermine Canadians' freedoms by failing to adequately protect the conscience rights of medical professionals, or its inexplicable refusal to end the federal mandates.
The government's actions demonstrate to all Canadians that it is out of touch and does not care about our constitutional rights.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I like to start by looking at what we agree on.
I think we can all agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be amended. It dates back to 1991, the wonderful year I met my spouse.
This legislation needs to be amended, adapted and modernized not only to reflect today's realities, but also to ensure that our artists have their window of opportunity and that this window is not slammed shut by the Americans.
I would like to hear any constructive suggestions that my colleague has for amending the Broadcasting Act, and I would also like to know what she would like to see in the legislation.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. I said at the beginning of my remarks that there are parts of this bill that we do agree with. We know that Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules which do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and global successes.
As I pointed out, while the government claims there is now an exemption for user-generated content, this legislation allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly. We need to make sure that we deal with the clauses in this bill that are deeply flawed.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the comments from the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and her effort in wanting to protect freedom of speech for Canadians.
I am finding her position interesting, though, because as an indigenous person, as a person who has experienced intergenerational trauma, I tend to be quite sensitive to assimilation, direct or indirect. I feel like the member's opposition to this bill is more a way of protecting unfettered foreign assimilation by web giants like Netflix, Amazon and Disney+.
Could you comment on whether this is indeed the fact, that what you are trying to do is protect those rights?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 10:32:05 p.m.
- Watch
Just a reminder to the hon. member that I am not the one trying to do something.
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the question from my colleague.
As I said, Conservatives support the idea that large international corporations like Netflix, Disney+ and others must pay their fair share in Canada and invest in Canadian content. I would remind the members in this place that this was in our election platform.
However, where we have concerns and where we differ drastically from the NDP-Liberal government and their Bloc allies is in regard to the application of this bill to creators of online digital content.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the cultural aspect of our lives is extremely important. For years, we have had the means to allow Canadians across the country to hear the voices of other Canadians, to listen to music, to watch movies, to watch television and to experience a Canadian culture that is extremely complex and very diversified.
When I think of Quebec culture, for example, I remember the first time I listened to Robert Charlebois, on a Sunday evening, because we could listen to French radio at home, in New Westminster, British Columbia. He was the first Quebec artist who forged my understanding of the diversity of Quebec's cultural life.
What artists are telling us is that there is currently a real imbalance in the system. Consequently, as talented as they may be, artists cannot fully reap the benefits of all their potential, as artists, to create and to promote our cultural life and to make it so complex and so profound.
That is really the message tonight. Our artists across the country are saying there is something wrong with the system. We have web giants, these massive companies, that are foreign-owned and the Conservatives support them to the detriment of Canadians and Canadian artists. These companies make these enormous profits while paying scraps to Canadian artists.
As we know, the reality is when we are talking about the word “censorship”, we are throwing it around so loosely when it comes to Bill C-11, and I will come back to that in just a moment. The reality is the censorship that takes place now with the web giants is the algorithms that withhold Canadian content from Canadians. Even Canadians trying to access that content cannot do it because of the algorithms that are not shared or not transparent that censors what Canadians can see and what Canadians can hear. That is the reality.
As members well know, other countries are putting forward legislation so that these web giants, these massive foreign-owned corporations, that pay no taxes in Canada and do not show the responsibility they should be showing in Canada, actually have to be transparent on the algorithms that control what people see, what people watch and what people can hear.
The idea that we put in place an update to the Broadcasting Act makes sense, because it establishes a level playing field so we do not see the situation we are seeing now. We see that Canadians musicians have lost 80% of their income as more and more of their product goes online and they get paid less and less by the massive web giants that are supported, for reasons I do not understand, by some members of this House.
As that happens, it is important for Canadian MPs to step up and try to level the playing field. Musicians losing 80% of their income should be something that all members of Parliament should be concerned about. About $3 billion has been taken out of musicians' pockets. That should be something that all Canadians are concerned about.
I talked earlier about listening, for the first time, late one evening in New Westminster, British Columbia, to a Quebec artist, Robert Charlebois, and understanding the incredible depth of Québécois culture. When I was growing up, I was able to listen to Rush, Gordon Lightfoot and Bachman-Turner Overdrive and so many other Canadian artists that would not have been able to get into the market if the American record companies and the American broadcasters had told Canadians what they could or could not listen to. That is the reality here.
When we have foreign companies deciding what Canadians can watch and listen to, we need to establish a level playing field so our Canadian artists can shine through.
The Conservatives, who are opposed to this legislation moving forward, even to get answers on it, should understand that not one of them has quoted a Canadian artist or musician tonight. They cannot, because artist associations, everyone from the Canadian Independent Music Association to ACTRA, are all very supportive of the legislation. What, then, should we be doing tonight in this debate?
My Conservative colleagues, and I have respect for them, have said that they simply do not want this legislation to move forward, just as they have been saying for months that they do not want any other legislation to move forward. We have seen it with Bill C-8. Teachers were asking for their tax credit and the Conservatives said they would not pass it. We have seen it with Bill C-19 and dental care, which the NDP pushed forward. For the first time, there was an affordable housing platform, and the Conservatives said they did not want that to move forward either.
On Bill C-11, as we have heard in the debate tonight, the Conservatives have talked about three concerns. First off, they reference a bill that no longer exists and say they did not like it. That is fair enough, but that is not the bill we are debating. Then they talk about a bill that may be coming in a year or so that deals with online harms, and they say they do not like that bill either. Well, that debate will be in a year.
Then they say, about this bill, that they believe in a level playing field, but they have some questions. At the same time, however, they do not want this bill to go to committee, where we can get answers to the questions they have asked. Some of the questions they have asked around the CRTC are legitimate. How it defines its powers is a legitimate question, and I have that question too.
We would love to have the bill come to committee, because the committee, as part of our legislative process, is the place where we get answers to questions. We could sit here to midnight every single night, but we are not going to get the ministry and the CRTC to answer our questions until the bill gets to committee.
This is where it becomes passing strange. We have had debate now for a number of days. We should be referring the bill to committee. If Conservative members do not want to vote for the bill they do not have to vote for it. However, for them to say they are going to stop any member of Parliament from getting the answers they are asking around the bill by refusing to have it go to committee does not make any sense at all.
It is also not respectful to the artists from coast to coast to coast who have been asking for years to have a level playing field. They have been asking for years for us, as members of Parliament, to play our role and establish a level playing field to allow them, finally, to have some presence in the online world so that Canadian content can shine and the web giants will not decide what Canadians get to see and hear.
This is really the challenge this evening. We will be sitting until midnight, but the Conservatives will say they want to keep sitting and sitting and will say the same things. As I mentioned earlier, they have debated a past bill that no longer exists and a future bill that may or may not exist, and on this bill, they say they have questions.
We should all agree that the way to get answers to those questions is to refer the bill to committee and allow the heritage committee to sit down and get answers from the minister and the CRTC. In that way, we could respond to our legislative role, which is to make sure that as we pass this legislation, it is done in the most effective way possible and actually does what it purports to do: level the playing field for Canadian artists so that our musicians, actors and all of the Canadian cultural and artistic sphere can shine.
We know that when there is a level playing field, it is not the web giants deciding what Canadians can see and hear. When there is a level playing field, Canadian artists will shine. My message to the Conservatives is to let Canadian artists shine. Let us get answers to the bill. Let us get this bill to committee.
1410 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives seem to be having a hard time understanding that those who control the distribution network have the opportunity to promote their own product. They do not understand this concept when we talk about culture, but when we talk about oil and pipelines, they understand the distribution system. That speaks volumes.
Does the member not agree that the only thing Bill C‑11 does, in reality, is require online distribution networks to offer a wider range of viewpoints and products and that ultimately, this will improve democracy here in Canada?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think this allows for greater balance in the distribution network and more opportunities for Canadians to hear and see Canadian artists. That is why the entire artistic community in Canada says that we must move forward with this bill.
So far, I have received roughly 8,000 letters in favour of this bill and two dozen against. The letters of opposition came from people who were still talking about a future bill, a bit like the Conservatives, who are saying this evening that in a year or two there may be another bill. That will be the time for another debate.
For now, Canadian artists want us to bring in a system that stops disadvantaging them for once. I think we need to listen to them and move forward with this bill by sending it to committee.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the NDP always used to be a party of principle, standing up for Canadians' rights, freedoms and civil liberties. However, since its new common-law relationship with the Liberals, it seems as though it has abandoned some of those principles and is willfully choosing to overlook the aspects of this bill that would provide undue censorship and give the CRTC power that we are not used to experiencing.
The member has completely mis-characterized the Conservatives. We believe that there should be a level playing field, especially for Canadian artists, and we believe that big web giants should be paying their fair share, absolutely.
We have seen how the Liberals have abused Canadians' civil liberties and violated their constitutional rights and charter rights through the Public Health Agency of Canada by allowing it to track all Canadians and Quebeckers on their cellphones. Is the member not concerned that the Liberals will also do that with this bill?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have respect for the member for Provencher, but he has just proven my point. The Conservatives are not debating Bill C-11. In fact, many of the Conservatives who have intervened tonight patently have not read the bill. They do not know what is in the bill, so they are debating everything else. They are debating cellphone technology. Are they kidding me? This is exactly the problem. The Conservatives want to sit until midnight, but they want to talk about cellphones. They want to talk about anything but the bill.
On behalf of Canadian artists from coast to coast to coast, I say this to the member for Provencher and all other Conservative MPs: Let us get the bill to committee. Let us get the legitimate questions answered. Let us stop talking about cellphones and all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with Bill C-11.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
