44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, we both started our careers in radio, but I have to say that I started a few years before you. I know that is somewhat hard to believe.
I would like to congratulate my colleague on the progress he is making in learning French. Last year, it was much more difficult for him to speak French. He just asked me a question entirely in French and I congratulate him.
It is not a secret. We talk about it often in the House. French in general is at risk and in decline, and it must be protected. It is true for the French language in everyday life, but it applies even more so to francophone culture. We are a francophone island in the sea of North America, and we are being invaded by American culture. We must protect francophone culture as best we can, especially Quebec culture, but francophone culture across Canada also. With bills such as Bill C‑11, we can make this difference and this distinction by protecting our culture.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I joined the ranks of journalism, as well. I know it well and went on to be an online content creator and know what it can do. I am sorry I am not speaking in French. I am working on that.
I am actually really curious, because my office has received hundreds of emails opposed to Bill C-11 from very concerned people. Has his office also received the same concerns, and how does he respond to his constituents?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We would be happy to help her work on her French. We are already seeing progress with the member for Perth—Wellington.
We have also received a lot of emails from members of the public, but I have to say that, with a few exceptions, none of these emails came from Quebec. They came from western Canada. I am not here to judge others' opinions. However, I believe that an interpretation, or disinformation, really, is what is behind the concern about Bill C‑11. This bill does not contain any threat to freedom of expression, from what I understand. At the very least, it does not contain any of the threats that people mentioned in the many emails we have received.
There is widespread support for this bill in Quebec. Almost none of the emails my colleague is talking about came from Quebeckers.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am very pleased that he is back in the House of Commons. Like me, he is a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage where, for weeks, all kinds of tactics were being used.
The chair of the CRTC could not come testify because the Conservatives blocked his testimony. We finally worked around that. We saw all kinds of stalling tactics that meant that we could not do our job.
He supports Bill C-11, I support Bill C-11, and the vast majority of witnesses said the same thing. However, he also wanted us to look at each of the amendments and make this bill better.
My question is simple. Why did the Conservatives not want us to improve this very important bill?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 7:10:32 p.m.
- Watch
The member for Drummond has time for a very short reply.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a big challenge to give a brief answer. I will try nonetheless.
I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments and his question.
I cannot answer the question about the Conservatives' motives. I believe that it may be ideological obstruction. However, it must be said that these delays in the work on Bill C‑11 have consequences for more than just Bill C‑11. These stalling tactics are causing delays for important bills, such as Bill C‑18, which must soon be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. There are also consequences on other very important studies that we decided to put forward.
Unfortunately, I do not have an answer, but I would say that it has consequences for more than just Bill C‑11.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight once again to speak to the government's proposed Bill C-11. In the last Parliament, it was Bill C-10, and it certainly generated a lot of feedback and frustration from Canadians across the country. We have been witnessing that here again in the last couple of months with this bill in its current form.
I have been receiving a lot of emails and advocacy petitions from constituents, both online creators and those who consume the content. They are concerned about what this bill entails and, frankly, among several things I will get into, what it does not entail. I believe that kicking the can to the CRTC and other organizations is a slippery slope and not a good precedent, based on the precedents that have caused a lot of frustrations to build up over the years.
I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.
We are debating this motion tonight because of an attempt by the government and its NDP partners to try to jam this legislation through the House of Commons once again. I know there are still numerous witnesses who want to provide their perspectives and voices at the heritage committee and share the legitimate and reasonable concerns they have and the clarifications they wish to see that they are not getting from the government and its partner.
One of the problems we have that is typical of the Liberal-NDP strategy when it comes to legislation, which we are seeing in Bill C-5, the criminal justice reform legislation, is that if members do not support the Liberals and NDP on the bill, it means we do not care about racism. If members want an end to federal mandates and the chaos we are seeing at the borders and airports, it means the members hate vaccines and health care workers. Now, with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, if we do not support their way and their ideas, we hate content creators and arts and culture in this country. It is an either-or, a divisive approach, but it is not surprising. It is one that we see more and more.
I will repeat what I said in the last Parliament because Bill C-11, as we have it, is very similar to what we saw in Bill C-10, and a lot of the concerns we had last time are not addressed or clarified in the bill in its current form.
Let me start with a positive in terms of agreement in Parliament. The Broadcasting Act was created in 1991. I do not remember it. I was about five years old at the time. Boyz II Men, Paula Abdul and Bryan Adams had some hits then, but since that original piece of legislation, a lot has changed in how Canadians create content and get it out there as well as in how they consume it.
We have the Internet, social media platforms, YouTube, Spotify, TikTok and so forth. There is an agreement that we need to have a level playing field with these large conglomerates of a foreign nature and how they do business in this country. At the same time, we also need to make sure that we protect the individual freedoms and rights of individual content creators, like those on YouTube who have been able to explode in not only the Canadian market but also the international market with the evolution of the Internet and social media platforms.
There are serious flaws, and I have a perfect example. My colleague from Perth—Wellington, the shadow minister for Canadian heritage, raised this as a perfect example today. We all want to make sure Canadian content is created and is fairly represented on Netflix, Hulu, Crave and all the different platforms. He alluded in the chamber today to this bill not creating the specific measures to clarify some of the red tape about what is Canadian content. A perfect example that was illustrated was The Handmaid's Tale. I do not agree with Margaret Atwood and a lot of her politics, but I will admire her and give her respect as an artist and an author and for what she has done over her incredible career. A proud Canadian she is.
The Handmaid's Tale, a blockbuster TV series, was filmed in part in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. One would think Margaret Atwood and filming in the province of Ontario, the GTA, would classify as Canadian content. It does not. That speaks to the need to define this content better, to set better parameters and better definitions when it comes to this. Sadly, the bill would not do that. One would think it would when we talk about the modernization that we face.
I want to specify my concerns during my time. This comes perhaps from my background before being in the House, as a mayor at the municipal level, and perhaps it is a bit affected by my experience in the past few months on the public accounts committee, which reviews Auditor General reports on programs and efficiencies and how they run.
I want to reiterate my concern with regard to the vague definitions particularly around user-generated digital content, claiming there is an exemption, but section 4.2 is there. The government says not to worry about it. The CRTC says not to worry about it. I do not think Canadians have a lot of faith in that approach to what we have.
The CRTC is a public entity, but considers itself very independent. I have a lot of frustrations with the organization that I will not get into tonight when it comes to providing Internet service to rural and remote communities. That is a speech for another night.
Particularly, what is happening is that the government's legislation is extremely vague. Conservatives have been standing up in committee and in the House, not just in this Parliament but also in the last Parliament, and I have foreseen and I am foreshadowing what I know is to come. We see it over and over again. The government says, “That is not our intention. Do not worry.” The legislation would pass and then it would go to the CRTC, after which, at some point down the road after the bill is passed, after it has come into law and been enacted, suddenly we would see algorithms or we would see content. At that point, the CRTC would say, “We are independent. There is nothing you can do. This is the law that was passed and this is the way it is interpreting it.”
The minister has tried to claim that user-generated digital content and YouTube creators, TikTok creators and Canadians who have been able to burst onto the scene, not just in this country but internationally, are free from having their content regulated. They say that they have no interest in looking at that.
If that is the case, the government should be going for what we have been advocating for: it should specifically rule it out and make it black and white. It should make it very clear so that there is not a little door poked open for the CRTC, when it is batted over there to look after, all of a sudden to decide that, in the public interest, it is going to be doing this.
This is the time for Parliament, for Conservatives, for us to stand and be on the record to say that there are amendments. There are a lot of things that need to change, but there are specific amendments at least on that. I believe that just speaks to the rushed attempt that we are seeing from the government. It speaks to the secrecy of what it is trying to do. It is trying to pass the buck over to an independent organization, one that is overly powerful in my personal view, to interpret these laws, at which point the government can later say that it was its goal but secretly it was not the government's problem but somebody else's.
It is government creep at its worst. We have seen it before. We see it at the public accounts committee, in terms of leaving it to bureaucratic organizations to organize, and the success of that.
In my time remaining tonight, I want to acknowledge some of the comments made by a Canadian YouTube creator who spoke at the Canadian heritage committee a few weeks ago, J.J. McCullough. I go back to what we could agree on: Modernization is needed for the Broadcasting Act to make sure that large companies such as Netflix pay their fair share and also create Canadian content for us to have as Canadians. J.J. McCullough noted the following, which really hit home when I heard his testimony:
The tremendous success and even worldwide fame of many Canadian YouTubers in the absence of government regulation should invite questions about the necessity of Bill C-11. An unregulated YouTube has been a 17-year experiment, and the result has been an explosion of popular Canadian content produced by Canadians of every imaginable demographic....it is important to understand that it is simply impossible to regulate a platform like YouTube without also regulating creator content.
We have seen more Canadians become known. We have seen more Canadians make a living on these platforms. What the government is proposing is not that if one does not support this, one does not care about Canadian artists. We are standing up for individual content creators to say that platforms like these have given them the opportunity to make a living, to get known and to get Canadian brands, Canadian stories, Canadian music or other things we could name out there.
Our colleagues will stand up for those individual creators in making sure that we get the government to better define the very slippery slope it is on, not just with Bill C-10 in the last parliament. It is repeating the same mistake with Bill C-11.
1702 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way was talking about receiving emails from people who had concerns about the bill. I know that members in the House can say whatever they want in the House and then post it on their Facebook, Twitter and so on. I am curious if the member has had any communications in his householders on Bill C-11 and what he says to members in his community about it that is resulting in people contacting him from across Canada. The previous speaker mentioned that he gets tons of emails from across Canada, as do I, from people not in my riding, about certain legislation.
Does the member opposite feel his party is maybe playing into the fact that they are igniting this fake outrage about this piece of legislation?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, I had a petition on my social media for Canadians in my riding, particularly in my region, who were concerned about the overreach of the bill and the vague definitions. It was a slippery slope that did not go through.
It is not a fake outrage. There are many things that the government, the NDP, the Bloc and others could do to give further clarity to the definitions, give specific exemptions and eliminate proposed section 4.2 regarding individual user-created content, and they choose not to. They are fuelling the rage by not listening to those who are opposed to the bill, who have reasonable suggestions that could better define and narrow the scope of what the CRTC's mandate is in doing this. They are ignoring it, and the language of false anger on this is something that only adds to that.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this moment, since The Handmaid's Tale was mentioned, to give a shout-out to my university roommate Edie Inksetter. She is an actor and producer for The Handmaid's Tale, and that is Canadian talent.
I wanted to ask the member about the missing tax dollars that Canadians have not been able to benefit from, let us say, over the last seven years, since 2015. Could the member comment what he thinks the government and Canadian citizens are missing out on by way of fair taxes?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the NDP's intervention. It is always nice and appreciated to give a Canadian shout-out to a Canadian artist. That is appreciated.
On the revenues, as I said in my intervention, we need to make sure that companies such as Netflix, whether of a national or foreign nature doing business in Canada are paying their fair share, and also contributing to Canadian content using the revenues they have and the power they have to generate Canadian content of Canadian stories, creating Canadian jobs and so forth.
The example I laid out concerning The Handmaid's Tale speaks of how broken the idea of Canadian content is. Bill C-11 is not the solution. It does not tackle those problems appropriately, and I think it is going to leave a lot of confusion in the industry about coming into Canada and creating authentic Canadian content and jobs for actors and producers. There is also all the behind the scenes we see from a wide variety of platforms and the media viewing aspect of things. We are to be left behind.
We need better clarity on this. This bill does not do it. Just saying a title and that it is for artists does not actually mean it is going to benefit all those it says it is going to.
226 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is a tough issue for me, as an individual MP, because I do not like a motion that says we are going to fast-track all amendments, close things down and push something through on this basis, as the government is proposing to do on Bill C-11.
I am honestly still trying to decide how I will vote on the Conservative motion. I would rather we stay in this place and do it right, even if it took sitting into July. I do not know about taking until September. That is what I am struggling with right now. I also know in the previous Parliament, with Bill C-10, and in this Parliament, and I do not want to make this personal in any way, shape or form, but the tactics of the Conservative Party cannot be described as anything other than obstruction for the sake of obstruction.
I would like him to try to tell me what he thinks would happen if the government did not push this through. Would we have a chance to improve this bill and then get it passed?
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, amendments could be made that could improve the quality of the bill. I have always tried to be constructive, and many of my colleagues have been. There are areas that could provide better definitions. There are areas that perhaps, as I mentioned, could provide specific exclusions.
The reality of this is that the government bungled it in the last Parliament, in terms of the management of this bill. We are seeing this motion because of the same thing again. My understanding of this is that even if we pass it here in the House and rush through this process, the Senate said it is not going to get to it until September anyway.
We need to hear from more people. Every time government officials intervene, more questions are asked. We need to hear from more witnesses and hear their ideas. I believe that public pressure will lead to better changes and a better legislative framework for this.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and bring the voice of Chatham–Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I want to thank my colleague for splitting his time with me.
I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 16. Actually, I am not pleased to speak to it, but I am honoured to have this opportunity on Motion No. 16, the programming motion on Bill C-11.
Canada is home to some of the best talent in the world. Our artists, our actors, our musicians and other creators in our arts, culture and heritage sector continue to develop incredible Canadian content on a daily basis. The development of the sector is alive and well, with young talent consistently emerging across the country. These exceptional artists and creators deserve nothing less than an even playing field and to be supported with all the tools they need to thrive in their industry. They deserve fair compensation and a competitive economic environment that enables them to continue sharing their stories through their medium of choice, whether it be television, film, music, prose, theatre, the concert hall or perhaps the fastest-growing medium, the online content on the Internet.
I can personally relate to this field, as my oldest daughter is making her way through life as an artist, teaching music, singing opera and producing opera, albeit live at this moment, and living a gig-economy lifestyle.
The last time any major changes were made to the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, over 30 years ago. Given the rapid pace at which technology has been advancing in the past decades, it is undeniable that we have seen major technological changes in that time. Unfortunately, the legislation and regulatory framework have not changed with it. The government and, consequently, the CRTC need to adjust the way Canadian arts, culture and media are treated to match these changes. What we see, however, is the government failing in its attempts to bring the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century by adapting existing policy to reflect the digital reality of our times and failing to help future-proof it for future technologies and challenges yet to come.
Let me be clear: Conservatives support a requirement for major streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney to reinvest back into the production of Canadian content in both official languages. These requirements would also incentivize these platforms to partner with independent Canadian media producers. What is crucial, however, is that Canadians who upload content to social media platforms continue to enjoy the freedom of speech and the ability to express themselves freely within the confines of the law.
Sadly, Bill C-11, much like its failed predecessor in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, would give the CRTC unprecedented powers to monitor online audiovisual content. These powers would include the ability to penalize digital content creators and platforms that do not comply with these regulations. These powers would be used and applied to Canadian content at the discretion of the CRTC, based on three criteria: whether it directly or indirectly generates revenue, whether it has in whole or in part been broadcast on a more traditional broadcasting platform, and whether it has been assigned a unique identifier under any international standard system.
As most digital content generates some kind of revenue, and given that most social media platforms have a system by which to provide a unique ID to their content, the CRTC could regulate almost all online content under this bill, including independent Canadian content creators who earn their living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. This represents a major concern about the freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach in this bill, just like Bill C-10, in how it could affect Canadians.
Canada is known as being a world leader in many fields. Contributions by Canadians have revolutionized medicine, communications, agriculture, domestic life, entertainment and much more. Experts have testified that this bill would represent an unprecedented move and that Canada would once again become a world leader, but this time in its heavy-handed practice of regulating user-generated content. Not a single other country in the world has taken this approach. This is not an area Canadians should be proud to pioneer.
Instead, what we are seeing is a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns with the approach their government is taking to their livelihoods and entertainment, respectively. This attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and restrict the free speech of Canadians was unacceptable under Bill C-10, and it is equally unacceptable now.
I want to talk about what this bill would not do. This bill would not reduce the regulatory burden faced by Canadian broadcasters, nor would it reduce the cost to Canadian broadcasters. The part II licensing fees in 2019-20 alone amounted to over $116 million. I would rather see that money go into creating new Canadian programming and content than into CRTC coffers.
In the previous version of the bill, Bill C-10, there was an exclusion for user-generated content, which was then excluded at committee. Now, in Bill C-11, the government has reintroduced an exclusion on user-generated content on social media; however, this is written in the most convoluted and bureaucratic of languages. The exclusion to the exclusion is so broad that the government, through the CRTC, could again regulate a large amount of content uploaded to social media.
What concerns me and my colleagues, and we have certainly been hearing about it from our constituents, is the impact this is going to have on our Canadian digital content creators. It is estimated that there are 28,000 full-time jobs in Canada created by content creators who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels through places like YouTube. This type of digital-first Canadian content creation is something we should be supporting instead of hindering.
We have heard from creators across Canada who are concerned that government-approved Canadian content is going to be put ahead of independent Canadian content. More to this, Canadians also want to see Canadians telling Canadian stories, but what is not clear is how the CRTC is going to adjust the criteria to ensure that real Canadian stories are being told.
Our artists deserve an even playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, as technology evolves and carries on into the future and as we move further and further into the digital reality and online spaces. We need them to tell our stories, whether through music, movies, television or online content. Without that, part of our history will be lost.
I think we can all agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated to reflect our current technology growth, but the last thing we want is Canada to fall further behind or to pass a law that would detrimentally affect our artists.
We need to support our Canadians artists in all the various forms and mediums they use to tell their stories. Our young talent continues to develop and contribute to our national culture. It is part of our role as elected officials to pave the way for the next generation's success. We should not be passing bills that disrupt the creation of new content. We need to help innovation happen. Innovation happens every day here in Canada through many venues, and we need to enable our creators to benefit from and export our talent around the globe.
Our artists, musicians and creators are deeply invested in the future of the industry and the future of this particular piece of legislation. These creators and artists deserve to be treated fairly and to have the tools they need for success, and they need to be heard at committee; dozens have yet to be heard.
We have been there for Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by asking the tough questions, both here in this chamber and at committee. We carefully reviewed every aspect of the bill and expected the Liberal government to make the adjustments necessary by adopting amendments that were brought forward to protect Canadians' free speech and the livelihoods of independent content creators.
Proposed section 4.2 and any provision that enables the inclusion of user-generated content need to be removed. There needs to be a clear definition of “discovery”, and there needs to be an update to clearly articulate what Canadian content is. What is the definition of it? Very importantly, the policy directive to the CRTC on how this whole legislation will be implemented needs to be made public.
We have been clear in our position on the bill. We will not be supporting the bill until we are confident that Canadians do not need to be concerned about their rights and freedoms on the Internet. Our concerns have not yet been addressed, and I will not be supporting this motion to ram through Bill C-11 at committee, as the Liberals have done at every stage of the bill.
1523 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one really critical aspect about why we are debating this today is the fact that, especially when it comes to witnesses, they have not been able to get the time in committee. Much of that time has been occupied by filibusters: 29 hours.
Can the member explain to all the witnesses, particularly those who have not had an opportunity to speak to the bill, why the Conservatives continue their filibuster?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this legislation has not been updated for 31 years. There was an attempted update in the last Parliament, and the very same flaws that we saw in Bill C-10 are being brought again to this chamber and again to this committee. Why were adjustments not made?
We have seen time allocation moved at every stage of this bill, rather than the genuine debate that I think my colleague in the NDP is seeking. We want to hear from the witnesses and have that debate. Why is every stage being rammed through?
That would be my response.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member this. He has referred to Bill C-10, so we know that similar legislation came to this House of Commons before. As well, in Bill C-11, there have been improvements made, so there has been ample opportunity for the Conservative members to read the bill and understand the bill.
I am wondering if we can get to the amendment stage, the clause-by-clause stage of the bill, and whether the member has some actual amendments to propose.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I actually articulated the specific areas that needed addressing. Those same areas were articulated and brought forward with Bill C-10, and again there were closure motions rather than serious dialogue around those changes. That is what we experienced.
I do not sit on that committee. I cannot speak specifics to that, but I certainly can speak to which motions need to be clarified in the overall content. That has been known by this chamber and has been known by the people who have been reaching out to me on my social media since Bill C-10 was introduced.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was a great presentation.
When we are looking at doing something so significant, I am curious to know why there is a rush. As somebody who comes from a journalism background and who also was an online content creator, I know how important it is to make sure things are done properly.
What would be the ramifications of not rushing it through and making sure it is done well as opposed to done fast?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I guess my immediate response goes back to how one backs up a double-wheeled wagon. The fastest way to back up a double-wheeled wagon is to do it very slowly. Those from a farming background will know that, because if it is rammed through, it will have to be done again. That takes more time and more effort, with more acrimony and things like that.
I would say we need to take the time to do it once and do it right. There have been those opportunities; there just does not seem to be a willingness to address the very thorny issues, the tough ones. Much of this bill is actually supported by all sides of this House. Let us go with those, but let us work at those issues that we do not have agreement on yet, issues that we are all hearing about from our constituents, the concerns around free speech and around the ability to have that not unduly censored or directed.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
