44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, the issue of trust is something we could apply back to the Conservative official opposition, because we had Conservatives pretending that somehow the bill made Canada into North Korea. We had Conservatives pretending that somehow this meant that the government would be following people on cellphones. It is all in Hansard and it is all in testimony that we have seen.
Conservatives repeatedly blocked witnesses from testifying and refused to have us consider clause-by-clause on the bill to actually improve the bill, which is where most of the witnesses were. Conservatives refused to acknowledge that the vast majority of witnesses who came forward were in favour of the bill with improvements.
The NDP went to work and we got more amendments in than any other party. We worked to improve the bill, which I will be talking about in just a moment. I would ask my colleague, whom I respect a lot, how Canadians can trust Conservatives when they have been so misleading and disinforming about the bill.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:23:55 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, please answer in 10 seconds or less.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Conservatives have not been misinforming about the bill. Conservatives want the best bill possible, and we will not apologize for fighting for that.
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as a rebuttal to my friend from the Conservative caucus, if Conservatives had wanted the best bill possible, they would not have filibustered in committee for weeks. They would not have blocked witnesses from testifying. They would not have blocked amendments to improve the bill, and they would not have been trying to obstruct at every stage of the bill. When Conservatives say they want the best bill possible and basically engage in systematic vandalism of the bill for weeks and weeks, it undermines their own credibility. There is no doubt of that.
However, that is enough on the Conservatives, at least for a moment, though I will come back a little later on in the 20 minutes accorded to me on Bill C-11 to talk about how the Conservatives basically tried to destroy a bill that would help many Canadians. That is really the essence of Bill C-11 and why this bill was important to bring forward.
Over the course of the last three years, we have seen the collapse of Canadian productions, an average decrease of 12.4% per year. That is a lot of lost jobs. What we saw in digital media was that royalties paid to Canadian creators were three times lower than those for traditional media usage. What that means is that not only are Canadians losing their jobs, but they are being paid far lower than what they should be paid. In 2020, we know that one in four people working in the cultural sector lost their jobs. At the same time, the web giants' revenues, in this case Netflix, increased by over 22% in the same year. What we have seen over the course of that time is musician's revenues falling by 79%, a reduction in production and the loss of jobs as well.
A special guest has just arrived in the House. I am not supposed to comment on who arrives in the House, but I am very happy to see our special guest with the member for Burnaby South. If the Speaker wants to rule me out of order, it is perfectly appropriate to do so. I am just thrilled to see her here in the House, I think for the first time.
We have a series of calamities that have struck our cultural producers and employees, the creative minds that bring culture to Canadians, over the last few years. We needed to ensure in Bill C-11 that we put in a place a level playing field. We know that the web giants' revenues and profits have skyrocketed over the course of the last few years. At the same time, as I mentioned, we have seen a reduction in income from virtually every sector within the cultural sphere. Our artists, creators, musicians and writers are a real benefit to Canada, and we need to make sure we have a level playing field so that they get the jobs and have the future that we all want to see. This is really important.
The context of Bill C-11 is the massive profits of the web giants, which really do not contribute anywhere near their fair share to the production of Canadian content to make sure we have in place that vital and dynamic Canadian cultural sphere. On the one hand, there are massive profits; on the other hand, there are shrinking incomes and a shrinking number of jobs in the sector. The intent of Bill C-11 was to put in place a level playing field and ensure that the web giants actually paid their fair share and made their contribution so that we can have more jobs and more vibrant cultural industries and Canadian creative talent can be set loose.
As we know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who also believes in having a level playing field, went before committee to testify on what it would mean just financially. The numbers talk and make a big difference. I will talk about what he said in his testimony, when he was finally able to testify. It is important to note that the Conservatives, who said they wanted to question him on the bill, also refused to let him in the room so they could question him on the bill. How do we square that circle? This is where the issue of Conservatives undermining Canadians' trust in them is so apparent. They were saying they have to question the minister and then refused to let him into the room so they could question the minister. It was the same way they treated the chair of the CRTC. They wanted to question him on the bill, but refused to let him into the room to answer questions about the bill.
How do we square that circle with Conservatives who have been running amok ever since they basically torpedoed their former leader? They have broken into factions that are fighting each other. That they would not allow the CRTC chair to come in and be questioned, that they would not allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to come in and be questioned on Bill C-11, does not make any sense at all to any reasonable Canadian.
Our job is to question, to get answers, to push and to prod. The Conservatives just wanted to talk to themselves, make big grandiose speeches and pontificate, but they did not want us to ask the questions that demanded the answers that Canadians needed to see around Bill C-11. However, we finally managed to get the minister into the room, no thanks to Conservatives who were disruptive, vandalizing and trying every possible way to disrupt the proceedings.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage came in and gave us the figure to the question we were asking: What is the estimated net benefit to the Canadian cultural sector, the net transfer from the web giants who have made these massive profits over the last few years to Canadian cultural industries, in terms of employment, higher incomes and making sure that there is prosperity in Canada? The figure is $1 billion, which is how much Bill C-11 would transfer from the web giants, which largely take it out of the country. There is some production that is done in Canada, but not nearly as much as there would be with a level playing field.
Instead of that money leaving the country, it would stay here in Canada and create Canadian jobs. It would create jobs in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby and our leader's riding of Burnaby South, which is Hollywood north, as members know. It is really the heart and soul of the Canadian production sector. This will mean more jobs for Canadians in our ridings and in ridings right across the country.
It means a future for our young people, even the young people who are here on their first visit to the House of Commons, to actually get engaged as future film editors, as film producers or in a whole myriad of other cultural sectors. It really would guarantee the future. If we think of $1 billion a year over the next 20 years, then we are talking about $20 billion for those children who were born this year. In 20 years when they are out in the job market, there will be jobs for them. This is the kind of investment that pays off over the next couple of decades and that, of course, is also vitally important.
What happened to the bill in committee? What did the NDP do? What was our approach? As members know, our leader, the member for Burnaby South, said that we are here to do work and to improve the lives of Canadians, and that is what the confidence and supply agreement is all about. It is pushing for dental care, which we have never had in this country and which so many Canadian families desperately need. It is pushing for affordable housing at a time of massive crises in affordable housing, after decades of Liberal and Conservative governments doing absolutely nothing about affordable housing. Finally, we have the kinds of investments that will actually make a difference in Canadians' lives.
As well, we have talked about and pushed for Canadian pharmacare to be adopted next year. Under the confidence and supply agreement, this is a vital component. Members will recall that just 15 months ago the Liberals and Conservatives combined in that cruel coalition to vote down the Canada pharmacare act that would have 10 million Canadian families actually get the medication that their doctors prescribed. The Liberals and Conservatives got together and said, “We're going to say no to pharmacare.” However, under the confidence and supply agreement, with the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus, we now have an obligation by the Liberal government to adopt the Canada pharmacare act next year.
On a just transition, we have seen the impacts of climate change. We know what that will mean for young people who, in 20 years, will become adults. If we do not put in place a just transition, if we do not fight back against climate change, it will have a profound impact on their lives.
These are all the things that are in the confidence and supply agreement. These are the things that we pushed for, because we believe in working hard to make Canadians' lives better.
How does that philosophy translate to Bill C-11?
We went to committee with the idea of improving Bill C-11. The vast majority of witnesses who came forward said this is a good bill and is a needed bill, but there are areas of improvement.
The NDP is the effective opposition and no one doubts that. We are the ones who get things done. We are the worker bees of Parliament. We are not like the Conservatives. If we were like the Conservatives, we would be going around in circles and pontificating. What we do is get things done. I understand some of the Conservatives are sensitive to that, but that is okay. They can watch and learn from us so they can be more effective in their roles.
As an effective opposition, we came forward with five areas where we wanted to improve the bill. Madam Speaker, as your eyes indicate, you are interested in hearing more, so let me tell you about those five areas.
First, we know that in broadcasting there are barriers for marginalized Canadians. What we sought, fought for, pushed for and succeeded in doing was changing Bill C-11 so that it now reflects that broadcasters have an obligation to open doors and make sure there is a place for Black and racialized Canadians and their stories. For indigenous people, indigenous cultures and indigenous languages, that is now also an obligation. We are opening those doors to Canadians who have not been heard from. When we look at those accomplishments, they are major improvements to the bill.
As to Canadians with disabilities, members know full well that Canadians with disabilities are the most marginalized Canadians. Half of the people who have to go to food banks to put food on the table are Canadians with disabilities. They are half of those who are homeless in this country, and there is a growing number of homeless. That is why we pushed so hard for affordable housing investments on the scale that is needed to ensure that Canadians have a roof over their heads at night. Half of those people have disabilities.
For Canadians with disabilities to tell their stories, broadcasters and online companies will now need to open that place up. These Canadians have been marginalized for so long, and it is a major achievement in improving Bill C-11. It is a major improvement that we will see in the coming years. That $1 billion in investments can now go to Black and racialized Canadians, indigenous people, indigenous voices, indigenous culture and indigenous languages. Canadians with disabilities will be able to tell their stories and make their own productions. That was a major component of the amendments the NDP brought forward.
The second is community broadcasting. We are seeing a disturbing growth of hate. We have seen this with more racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia. All of these toxic forms of hate are being amplified often by social media sources and algorithms that remain in a black box unbeknownst to us and not transparent at all. These companies are not accountable.
We are seeing more and more of that hate and division. We have seen that in the United States with the Republicans. We saw this in Canada with the so-called “freedom convoy”. I appreciate many Conservative MPs and feel their work is important, but some Conservative MPs, to my immense chagrin and sadness, embraced the so-called “freedom convoy”, even though we saw symbols of hate manifest throughout, such as Nazi flags, flags of vile and violent slavery and slogans that were Islamophobic and anti-Semitic. The convoy wanted to overthrow the government. That was their announced aim. These are things that should not be embraced by any elected official. We should all push back against hate.
However, as we are seeing, part of the antidote to that hate is more enhanced community broadcasting. The second group of amendments that the NDP brought forward and succeeded in passing were amendments that enhance our community broadcasting capabilities, including our radio, TV and online broadcasting, so that people in communities can talk to each other and communities can talk among themselves to build solidarity and build an antidote to the hate and division we are seeing manifest in so many quarters.
This is a fundamentally important series of amendments as well. What they do is turn things back on the community, where we love our neighbours and work with our neighbours, unlike the fear and intolerance we are seeing now with the American Republicans and their wacky campaigns of hate, which unfortunately and disturbingly we see sometimes here in Canada as well. We should never forget that we have seen the most despicable, racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic violence in this country, and we need to constantly stand against that. The second series of amendments is the antidote to that hate by putting the emphasis on community broadcasting, which has been eroded so much over the past couple of decades.
The third and fourth series of amendments touched on the issue of ensuring freedom of expression at all times and making sure that was in the bill, and ensuring at the same time that there is enhanced accountability for the CRTC, because we believe that is important. Those amendments go together in a very real sense. Freedom of expression, as reinforced, will be the direction to the CRTC, as freedom of expression is paramount. At the same time, the CRTC has an obligation, with more accountability mechanisms as well. Those are the third and fourth components of what the NDP brought forward.
The fifth is ensuring Canadian jobs and ensuring the protection and promotion of Canadian intellectual property. We need to make sure that Canadian cultural creators, the creators we are all very impressed with, whether they are musicians, actors, actresses or filmmakers, remain in every sphere of the cultural industries we have. We must have in place provisions to ensure Canadian employment and the protection of Canadian intellectual property. That was the fifth and last series of amendments we brought forward to make sure this bill was stronger.
We supported the principle of the bill; there is no doubt about that, but we believed in enhancing it. That is why we worked hard to build those amendments in the five categories I mentioned to ensure that we had the best possible Bill C-11.
I will come back for a moment to talk a bit about how the Conservatives handled this whole process, because it saddens me.
Our responsibility in the House of Commons is to come forward and, yes, at times oppose legislation. There is no doubt. I remember speaking in the House for 14 hours in a filibuster to block the mean-spirited, ugly, destructive Harper budget of 2012. I stood in the House for 14 hours to stop that budget because of what it would do to destroy the environment and really the livelihoods of people. There was this transfer of wealth to the banks and the very wealthy. All of the provisions of these Harper budgets provided for overseas tax havens that today, as members well know, amount to $25 billion a year of tax money that could be supporting families, seniors, students and people with disabilities and ensuring affordable housing, all of those elements. Yes, we could say the Liberal government had not done much until the confidence and supply agreement and that now things are going to start moving, which is great, but the Harper government was deplorable in all of these areas. There was no accountability at all.
For Bill C-11, if the Conservatives had chosen to say they were going to block the transfer to a level playing field, they could have. Instead, they were very destructive and very unhelpful, filibustering, blocking witnesses and doing everything that I think most Canadians would say parliamentarians should not be doing when their work is to scrutinize and make sure that legislation is better when it comes out of the House than when it came in.
I am pleased to say that the NDP did do that. I am pleased to say that we stuck to our principle of improving the bill. At third reading, it is undoubtedly much improved from second reading for all the reasons I just mentioned. We are proud of that work. As an effective opposition, our job is to block legislation when it is bad, but when it is good and when Canadians agree, we must make sure legislation is better coming out than when it was coming in.
3022 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:44:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, can the NDP House leader confirm that he agreed with the government to extend hours without the constitutional requirement of—
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:44:39 p.m.
- Watch
I remind the member that this has been dealt with. As the Chair has previously pointed out, the motion adopted on May 2 simply states that a minister must have the agreement of another House leader. It does not require that the parties to the agreement communicate it to the House. In making the request, the minister implicitly acknowledged that there is an agreement. There is a long-standing principle that we take a member at their word. There is therefore no reason to doubt the existence of an agreement at this time.
Is there a question for the hon. member?
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has a point of order.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:45:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question. Of course, we want to sit here until midnight and work. We are here—
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:45:25 p.m.
- Watch
I ruled that there is no answering the question.
The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague's support for this bill. It explicitly excludes all user-created content on social media platforms and streaming services. These exclusions mean that experiences for users creating, posting and interacting with other user-generated content will not be impacted whatsoever.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks of the Conservatives, who have been misleading Canadians regarding this bill.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am going to fully answer the previous question, though, for the minute that I am given, because I think it is important. Why—
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:46:09 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to interrupt the hon. member. I did rule on this. There is no need to answer any question, because it has been ruled on by the Speaker.
I would like the hon. member to please answer the question from the hon. member for Mississauga—Malton.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:46:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, we wanted to sit until midnight. Yes, I approved it.
On the other question on the importance of how—
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:46:33 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has a point of order.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:46:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when my colleague asked a question, you ruled her out of order and then there was no follow-up question. Now you have ruled the member opposite out of order for responding in the manner he did, yet he is still answering the question.
I suggest, if you are treating the two sides equally, that he should stand down and we should get to the next question, please.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:46:53 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has a point. I ruled that there would be no answer to the question. The object of this is to debate the bill. The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton has asked a specific question on the bill and I would like the hon. member to perhaps withdraw the answer.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it and answer the second question, which of course is a good one.
The Conservatives have been wild in their disinformation on this issue, and unbelievably so. I thought at first it was because members had not read the bill. Then I realized something. We were giving answers in the House about these things and the minister, of course, was responding, and members of the committee who had read the bill were responding. I realized then that this was not about reading the bill or understanding the bill. It was really about talking to a very narrow base that they want to misinform.
I imagine they were fundraising off of it. I imagine that is why they were being so wildly and deliberately inaccurate. However, I find it sad in a parliamentary context. As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to get the information and deliver to Canadians information that is accurate. The Conservatives have failed now for months to do that in some areas, particularly most egregiously around Bill C-11, where the disinformation is so unbelievably bad that—
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 8:48:31 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I sometimes like listening to the member when he gives a speech. I thank him for his speech here, but it was really about criticizing Her Majesty's loyal opposition for its role in trying to point out what might be deficiencies in this bill. Some of those deficiencies are fairly obvious.
I can tell the member that I have received more requests from constituents of mine, who have read the bill, regarding what is wrong with it, including on things like exceptions, exemptions, exemptions to exceptions and all kinds of language. There is nothing here that lets people really understand how things will be ruled on going forward.
As opposed to trying to blame Her Majesty's official opposition and saying to look at the bill itself, can we hear what the member has to say about what is good about this bill? So far, he has given us nothing that is good about this bill.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is wild disinformation again. I spoke for 20 minutes, and 17 and a half of those minutes were on the bill itself and the NDP amendments. That is wild disinformation. The Conservatives cannot even calculate with a stopwatch, when 17 and a half minutes are given to what is good in the bill and the amendments that the NDP brought forward. I even talked about confidence and supply.
Yes, I took a couple minutes to talk about what was deplorable conduct from the Conservatives, and there is simply no way to excuse it. What the Conservatives did in blocking witnesses from answering questions and blocking people from getting information was simply deplorable. That does not even make sense. I cannot understand why the Conservatives acted the way they did.
There are many good things in the bill, which is why almost all of my speech, which did last 20 minutes, was on both the importance of the bill and the importance of the significant NDP amendments that have improved this bill.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do think we made improvements to the bill. Even one Green Party amendment managed to get in. It was quite a nice change from Bill C-12, the climate accountability act, on which all of my amendments were killed by the NDP-Liberal deal.
I really regret asking this, but I have not had a chance in this session and we are about to rise for the summer, so I will ask my hon. friend, since he has pointed to the confidence and supply agreement, why the NDP decided that dental care was enough and that proportional representation or significant climate improvements would not be included.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
