44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I think that is just what I said. I am not sure what he missed in that, but I said this is a piece of legislation that is going to leave them crumbs to do what the member wants and what I want. It is not going to leave them what we think they deserve. This legislation is just not going to do it.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, Jeanette Ageson, with the Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, is quoted as saying that, with these amendments, small newsrooms that are operated by start-up entrepreneurial journalists would have been left out of opportunities to negotiate with web giants.
Can the member explain the discrepancy between the Independent Online News Publishers of Canada and how he understands this bill to be?
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the time that the member and I worked on the indigenous committee together. She brings a unique perspective, and I very much appreciated working with her on the indigenous committee.
She is exactly right in saying what the amendment did not do, which was go far enough to fix that. That is what we worked for. It was an amendment that would have given that type of production the ability to negotiate, but it has been left out because it does not qualify.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in debate in the House of Commons on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack—Hope.
I do want to take some latitude, as I have noted has been given to other members, to pay tribute to Jim Carr. I had the honour to serve as the critic for natural resources during the time Jim was the natural resources minister. I disagreed vehemently with Jim on almost all of his policies, but it was impossible to dislike him as a man. I had the opportunity to travel with him, as critics and ministers often do, and we spent more time together than I think I spent with many family members over that period of time, in places like Mexico, Rome and China. I got to see Jim shine in those scenarios.
I even got to see him dance at the opening of a Mexican playground. A Canadian mining company had opened a playground for the children in the community near its operation, and he was not invited to dance, but he took it upon himself to join in the festivities. It is a memory I will always cherish. He was a good man who loved his family, and he will be missed, not only back at home in Manitoba, but also here in the House. I want to pay tribute to him, and I think of his family and his colleagues, who have all been devastated by the news.
I will move now to Bill C-18, the online news act. We have been hearing all day about some of the issues Conservatives have with the bill, and we think it would miss the targets. It would not do what it is intended to do, and it has been a bit rich to hear members of the Liberal government and its coalition partners in the NDP talk about web giants hoovering up advertising revenue. If we go through the public disclosures of their MP expenses, we will see tens of thousands of dollars in voluntary advertising payments to Facebook, so forgive me if I think it is a bit rich to be hearing about these web giants swooping down to hoover up ad revenue when members of Parliament are feeding tens of thousands of dollars into Facebook or Meta's bottom line.
Let us not get too self righteous here about what we are talking about, because members of Parliament, when they want to communicate with their constituents, as do many Liberals and NDP members, have no problem giving money to those web giants to use their platforms to communicate with constituents.
Members do not simply give to their local papers. They do not simply give to local online news organizations. They have willingly given money from their member of Parliament budgets to Facebook and others, so let us just spare the self righteous sanctimony about the evil of Facebook, when they are voluntarily giving it tens of thousands of dollars a year out of their own budgets.
In Chilliwack—Hope we now have only one weekly newspaper in each community. There is the Hope Standard and the Chilliwack Progress, which serve those communities respectively. It used to be, when I was first elected, that there were two local newspapers in Chilliwack, the Chilliwack Times and the Chilliwack Progress, and they both published two papers a week. We are down from two organizations with two newspapers, for a total of four editions a week, to one edition per week.
However, if we ask the Chilliwack Progress's editor, he is quite bullish about its current situation. He talks about its various revenue streams, and whenever somebody calls into question the paper's longevity and whether the Chilliwack Progress will survive, he assures his readers and the people in Chilliwack that it is on a strong financial footing and that they will be just fine.
Out of those closures of some of those newspapers came innovation. Journalists who had been employed, for instance, at the Chilliwack Times took it upon themselves to gather a couple of other journalists, and they formed the Fraser Valley Current.
They put together an online news service that actually uses Twitter and Facebook to distribute its product to our community. They did particularly excellent work during the flood and mudslide events that took place in and around my community in November of last year. They were on the ground, providing detailed analysis, things that, quite frankly, a weekly newspaper just cannot do. That was born out of innovation. They did not wait for, or need, a government incentive to create this. They went out into the marketplace and have been very successful in doing so.
We also have the Fraser Valley News, which is an online organization run, as far as I know, by one journalist who used to work, for many years, in different radio newsrooms right across the country, as most radio news people do. They move around from small town to small town, covering small community events that are ignored by the bigger publications. Don Lehn had the final layoff from the local radio station when it was cutting back on its news services, and he took it upon himself to create the Fraser Valley News, which continues today. Again, he has a business model that seeks online ad revenue, etc. He did not need Bill C-18 to succeed.
We have Fraser Valley Today, which is another online news organization that has come out of when other newspapers have left the town and there is a void. When the newsrooms were cut from the local radio station, there was a void, and it was filled by journalists who wanted to provide a service to our community.
That innovation, the unique business model they have sought out, has been one that has worked for them. My fear was echoed by Jen Gerson at the committee, when she said this about the bill:
[I]t is predicated on a lie. The bill adopts a very ancient complaint of newspaper publishers that aggregation-based news websites and social media networks are unduly profiting by “publishing” our content. However, we know this isn't true. In fact, the value proposition runs in exactly the opposite direction. We publishers are the ones who benefit when a user posts a link to our content on Facebook, Twitter and the like. This free distribution drives traffic to our websites, which we can then try to monetize through subscriptions and advertising.
She went on to say:
I suspect that what we see here is a form of rent-seeking behaviour in which struggling media corporations are using every last iota of their dwindling financial and social capital to lobby for subsidies and regulations like Bill C-18.
I fear that Bill C-18 is going to backfire spectacularly, undermining the very problems it is trying to fix.
Peter Menzies, a former CRTC commissioner, said:
Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.
He went on:
If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.
He continued:
Bill C-18 is as likely to kill journalism in Canada as it is to save it. The very prospect of it is already perverting news coverage and undermining trust, the commodity upon which the industry depends most. Bill C-18 will permanently entrench the industry's dependency not on the loyalty of citizens, readers and viewers, but upon the good graces of politicians and the ability of offshore, quasi-monopoly tech companies to remain profitable.
Those are some of the people who have been directly involved in the industry. Jen Gerson used to be involved in the traditional news model and has moved to an online subscriber model. She recognizes that this independence and this business model are what work for her, and that organizations who say they need a subsidy model are in fact distorting that market and are going to be competing with her and her organization, which has gone out into the market to seek innovative solutions.
There are local journalists who are struggling, but I think we need to encourage them to use the tools that are available and, quite frankly, to take a look at some of the entities that have succeeded in this market and are innovating and adapting to changes in the way we consume our news.
1416 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, advertising on Facebook and advertising in community newspapers, both of which I do, has not compromised in any way my wanting to see this bill pass. The Conservatives who advertise on Facebook take the position, after a reversal, that they no longer support the government's bringing in legislation to ensure that companies like Facebook, YouTube and Google are obligated to support media here in Canada.
I wonder how members of the Conservative Party can justify flipping their position from the last general election, now telling Canadians that this bill is bad for them, when in fact the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals and I believe the Greens—
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 5:27:44 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the fact that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc support the bill gives me confidence that our opposing it is the right position to take. Quite frankly, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals supported the amendments to Bill C-21 until very recently when they started to hear from their constituents.
What I pointed out was the hypocrisy of Liberal and NDP members standing in this place and talking about this magical hoovering up. I kept hearing that the tech giants are hoovering up all of this advertising revenue when no one was forcing Liberal and NDP members of Parliament to give Facebook and Google money from their members' operating budgets to pay for advertising. That was the part I was pointing out. There is a hypocrisy in crying about that and at the same time feeding the problem.
I will take no lessons from the member on this matter. It is a position that we do not support, and we will be happy to oppose this bill.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as a proud journalist for almost 25 years and having worked for Charles Clark newspaper in High River, I would say that journalists face, much like politicians nowadays, a lack of public trust. We saw that with the Liberal bailout of the media several years ago, and I know many of my constituents are questioning the integrity of journalists.
When there are government subsidies or government bailouts of the free press, what impact is that having on community trust when it comes to Canadian journalism?
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I cannot put it better than the Independent Online News Publishers of Canada, which said:
Any government intervention into the free press, however well-intentioned, must be carefully considered, as there is a potential to warp outcomes, stifle innovation, determine winners and losers, and compromise journalistic independence.
In its current form, Bill C-18...fails this test.
I agree.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with the passing of the Hon. Jim Carr in mind, I would like to begin by offering my condolences to our colleague's family and friends. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish all members of the House a happy holiday season.
Getting back to my colleague's speech, it is important to remember that Meta, the company that owns Facebook, generated $193 million in sales in Canada in 2021 from journalistic content. In Canada, Facebook makes between 35 and 58 times more money from the media than it pays to the media.
Facebook and Google should be forced to share those revenues, and the Conservatives know what “triple, triple, triple” means, so as to ensure that the media wins.
Would my colleague comment on that?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I have said, Bill C-18 would, in our view, threaten the independence of local media. It would not allow single-journalist outfits, like those I mentioned in my riding, to qualify. Therefore, we cannot support it.
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to allow us to extend Government Orders to deal with this issue, if the debate has collapsed, so that we can have a vote to possibly pass it with a division.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion.
All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 5:32:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
It being 5:33 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 5:33:55 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material), be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House as a representative of the amazing people of North Okanagan—Shuswap to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
This may be the last time this bill is debated in the House, and I am compelled to thank the many Canadians who have helped progress this important legislation forward.
At the outset, I must thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who was central to the conception and drafting of this bill. The hon. member possesses a keen sense of how we can and should improve Canada's laws. I thank the member for his work on the bill.
I must also thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who has worked with us to move Bill C-291 through the process. I know that she strongly supports increased protection of children and support for victims of crime, and I thank her for assisting in today's debate.
It was only 26 days ago that the House debated this bill at second reading, and I thank all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their timely and thoughtful examination and support of this bill. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for proposing amendments to the bill to ensure that it captured exploitation and aligned with the definition in the Criminal Code. I also thank members of the justice committee and Department of Justice officials for their examinations of the bill at committee.
I would further like to thank the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Ratanak International and the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation for supporting this bill. I thank them for the difficult but essential work they do every day to fight abuse and exploitation of children.
I thank the hundreds of Canadians who signed e-petition 4154 calling on the House to pass this bill.
I believe we also owe thanks to the staff and officials who allow our work and debates to occur. I send my thanks to the office of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, the Private Members' Business office, journals branch, Parliamentary interpretation and the interpretation bureau, and all of the House of Commons and parliamentary personnel who work with us every day.
I also extend my thanks to law enforcement and judicial personnel who deal with child sexual abuse exploitation in their daily roles and hope that this bill will help in their work of increasing safety for children. I thank them all.
As I stated in previous debates, child sexual abuse material is a growing problem in Canada, and Canadians look to us, their elected representatives, to take the steps, big and small, that are required to deal with problems like the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. This bill is a meaningful step that we are taking together, and I thank hon. members from all parties in supporting it. Together, we are serving Canadians.
There has been discussion between all parties and to my knowledge there was agreement to allow the debate to collapse today by keeping our speeches short so that Bill C-291 can be voted on tomorrow, moving it one step closer to calling child sexual abuse and exploitation material what it really is.
607 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material), as amended, be concurred in.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, whenever a member comes up with a private member's bill, it is always encouraging to see it get through to third reading.
I understand that there still are a number of members who would like to speak to the legislation. At the end of the day, there will be a great deal of sympathy towards seeing the change that is being proposed in the legislation before us. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of recognizing members who have been very supportive of the name change itself?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the support has truly been across all parties.
There has been discussion that members would limit their speaking time today so that we could move this bill as swiftly as possible to the Senate for its consideration, so that we can hopefully, very quickly, have this bill receive royal assent and move into legislation so that it can start to do the work that it is meant to do as proposed by my fellow member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
