44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 8, 2023 02:00PM
- Mar/8/23 5:06:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 93 constituents from the Yukon in support of just transition legislation to address the climate emergency. This petition contains a number of specific policy recommendations to help us achieve the goals of transitioning to a green, equitable and inclusive economy with a substantial reduction in global emissions.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/8/23 5:07:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to draw the attention of, in this case specifically, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to the following: that the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bissonnette struck down section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which allowed parole ineligibility periods to be applied consecutively for mass murderers. As a result, a killer and some of Canada's most heinous mass murderers will have their parole ineligibility period reduced as they are now eligible to apply for parole after only 25 years.
R. v. Bissonnette, along with other examples, is an unjust decision putting the interests of some of Canada's worst criminals ahead of the rights of their victims. Recurring parole hearings can retraumatize the families and victims of mass murderers, and the Government of Canada has tools at its disposal to respond to instances like this, including invoking the notwithstanding clause. Therefore, these petitioners from Alberta and across Canada urge the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override this unjust court decision.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/8/23 5:08:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to present a petition from concerned Canadians who want to see the end of first-past-the-post voting. They very specifically, in this petition, call on this place to consider the single transferable vote as the favoured approach to bringing in proportional representation.
They point out that it is a riding-centric proportional system that could be seen as a compromise between those who want a preferential vote and those who want to see a riding-centric vote, those who want to make sure that we have in this country, at last, a fair voting system. They point out that under single transferable vote, voters would be represented by someone from a local multi-winner riding and they would be able to hear their views represented at a national and local level.
There is a great deal of detail in this petition, so in an attempt to summarize it briefly, I will underscore that the petitioners call for the implementation of a single transferable vote with multi-winner ridings that would have between three and seven members each and that there would be single-winner ridings for areas such as the territories and Labrador. They also wish to use a weighted inclusive Gregory method for the transfer of surplus votes. It is a detailed, thoughtful petition.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/8/23 5:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of over 17,000 Canadians who are demanding economic justice and ensuring that profiteering in the grocery sector is truly held to account. It reads:
Whereas:
Loblaws currently owns a grocery store within 10 km of 90% of all Canadians;
Loblaws has posted record profits while Canadians struggle to eat;
Loblaws has monopolized basic necessities that Canadians rely on;
Loblaws introduced a price freeze however have failed to live up to that promise;
The price of food is rising in Canada and more Canadians are relying on food banks to get food for their family; and
Loblaws in the middle of the pandemic cut their pandemic pay for the workers.
Therefore, the undersigned 17,000 Canadians are asking for the following:
1. Open a parliamentary investigation into Loblaws Co. for their pandemic profiteering, greedflation and continued price gouging of Canadians; and
2. Open an investigation into the monopolization of Canadian grocery stores and to create legislation to prevent this from occurring again.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/8/23 5:11:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/8/23 5:11:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments on Hon. Marc Garneau's retirement.
I was fortunate to serve as his parliamentary secretary when he was the minister of transport. It is funny, when I was appointed someone came to me and said, “Hey, you know, there are a pile of schools in this country already named after Marc Garneau.” It is unusual in this place to meet someone with such incredible history, such incredible service, who has already had schools named after him and had already been appointed to the Order of Canada before coming to this place. He engaged in a lifetime of service through the navy, as an astronaut through the Canadian Space Agency and in this place for 14 years. As was mentioned by many speakers, his absence will be felt significantly.
However, we are here today for Bill C-11, and this bill has had a long journey. In one form or another, we have been debating this bill since the fall of 2020. We have kept working hard and we never give up, because we know how important this legislation is.
Our goal has never changed. From the start, it has always been about making sure Canadian stories and music are available to Canadians. It is as simple as that. The stories and music are the beating heart of our culture, a culture we have always supported and promoted. We are not reinventing the wheel here. We would only be updating our laws to clarify that digital services and platforms have obligations to support our cultural sector.
It is kind of amazing that we would look to Canadian companies like Bell or Rogers and say that of course they have to support Canadian culture. However, some in this place would say that foreign tech giants have no such obligations.
We had an opportunity during the committee meeting to hear from Gord Sinclair of The Tragically Hip. He talked about how the Broadcasting Act helped his band, The Tragically Hip, which comes from a small town in eastern Ontario, to become well known and respected across the country. He spoke in support of the legislation so that there could be more Tragically Hips in the future.
The Broadcasting Act has helped Canadian culture to flourish and grow for more than 50 years. I mentioned The Tragically Hip, but we can think of all the bands and musicians we love, as well as the Canadian TV shows and films that have entertained us and found audiences all over the world, thanks, in part, to the Broadcasting Act. We want to ensure that the success continues to serve Canadians well, now and into the future.
So much about how we produce, engage with and access digital content has changed with the increasing dominance of digital broadcasting. We must act to ensure that Canadian artists, storytellers and Canadian culture do not get left behind. We must act to ensure that all voices have a chance to be heard and to ensure that Canadian culture reflects the realities of our diversity.
We know how important it is to get this right. That is why, from the start, our efforts to modernize the Broadcasting Act have been a collaborative effort. We have worked with and heard from Canadians to find the right solutions. We have held public consultations; heard from key stakeholders in the industry; listened to the ideas and concerns of artists, content creators and everyday Canadians; and worked across the aisle with members of all parties to help shape this bill.
Now, as we know, only one party in Parliament has decided that it knows better than Canadian artists, creators, producers and all the workers in our cultural sector. Conservatives, unfortunately, really went out of their way to protect the interests of web giants, just like they did during the committee study of Bill C-18. When Facebook came to testify, we saw Conservatives stand and act as the PR reps for the tech giants. They did not need to hire lobbyists, since they had, for free, Conservatives standing up and supporting them. I have to tip my hat because the Conservatives were pretty good at it.
They spent hours filibustering. The Conservatives filibustered when the minister was supposed to appear at committee. They filibustered when the CRTC commissioner was supposed to appear at committee after having demanded that the CRTC commissioner appear. They filibustered during clause by clause. They even filibustered their own motions. These committees do not need lobbyists representing them. As I said, they have the Conservative Party of Canada lobbying for them.
I hear an hon. member on the other side heckling because I know he is so upset at his party for acting for companies like Meta and Google. It is the only conservative party in the world that stands with tech giant. The Republicans in the United States and conservatives in Australia or Europe do not. In those countries, political parties are united for their citizens against tech giants.
It is unfortunate that Conservatives here cannot see past partisanship and that they stand with Facebook, Google and TikTok. Shockingly enough, time after time at committee, we heard Conservative members stand and defend TikTok, defend their lobbyists, and stand with and deliver their talking points as if they were coming straight from lobbyists from TikTok. These companies do not need lobbyists; they have the Conservative Party.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge a collaborative effort by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. I want to thank everyone who made a contribution to the long development of Bill C-11. They have helped make this bill stronger and better, and they have done a great service for Canadians. I particularly want to thank our colleagues in the other place for their careful study of Bill C-11 and the amendments they proposed for consideration.
I am pleased to say that the government is fully supporting 18 of the 26 amendments brought about in the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-11. We are also accepting another two amendments with modifications. This is another testament to the truly collaborative work that has gone on.
I think it is important to highlight many of the things we can all agree on when it comes to Bill C-11 and the many ways we have all worked together to make it a better bill. In the spirit of collaboration, we should make it easier to support this motion.
I would like to turn to addressing the proposed amendments. As I said, the government has agreed to adopt 18 of them. There are only eight amendments the government respectfully disagrees with or proposes changes to. Let me take some time to explain the government's position on each of these amendments.
To begin with, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendment to the definition of a “community element”. This amendment does not refer to the broadcasting undertakings that make up the broadcasting system, and may cause interpretive issues in the application of the act.
The government also respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendments to compel online undertakings to implement methods, such as age verification, to prevent children from accessing explicit sexual material.
While we understand the importance of this issue and have forthcoming legislation on it, which I hope will address it, we oppose this amendment for the simple reason that it seeks to legislate matters in the broadcasting system that are beyond the policy intent of the bill.
To reiterate what I said from the start, our purpose with Bill C-11 is to include online services and platforms, and broadcasting systems. This amendment falls outside the scope of the bill.
Next, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendment to clause 4 limiting regulation to sound recordings uploaded by music labels for artists. We disagree here because this would affect the Governor in Council's ability to publicly consult on and issue a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to the distribution of commercial programs.
We need the flexibility to make sure that, whenever an online streamer acts as a broadcaster, they do their part to support Canada's cultural sector. That is really what this bill comes down to. It would also prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time, which ultimately is the very matter we are trying to address with the bill.
The fourth is that the government respectfully disagrees with amendment 6 because of concerns that it could limit the CRTC's ability to impose conditions respecting the proportion of programs to be broadcast that are devoted to specific genres, both for online undertakings and traditional broadcasters.
This could have the impact of reducing the diversity of programming on traditional airwaves, an outcome which goes against one of the primary policy objectives of this bill.
Regarding amendment 7, we are proposing that a change of wording be made to subsection 7(a) in order to better underscore the importance of supporting creators and to sustain and build on Canada's creative sectors.
The government also respectfully disagrees with subsection 7(b) which proposes that no factor is determinative in establishing Canadian content rules. The proposed amendment would impact the flexibility of the CRTC to determine the appropriate definition for Canadian content. Our position on this is simple; we agree with the fundamental principle that Canadian content is first and foremost made by Canadians.
Another change we are proposing is to amendment 9(b) concerning public hearings. Here the government suggests the deletion of subsection 2.1, which calls for a public hearing to be held after a proposed regulation or order is published. The CRTC consults interested parties before a regulation is developed, not afterwards. Requiring a second public hearing after decisions are taken by the CRTC during regulatory proceedings would entail unnecessary delays in the administration of the act.
Finally, the government respectfully disagrees with amendment 11, which seeks to prohibit the CBC from broadcasting an advertisement or announcement on behalf of an advertiser that is designed to resemble journalistic programming. Here, again, our reasons for disagreement go back to the core objectives of the bill. The issue addressed by the amendment falls outside the scope of Bill C-11 and its policy intent, including online undertakings in the broadcasting system.
I have outlined the government's position with respect to the excellent and thorough work completed by our esteemed colleagues in the other place. We have agreed to the majority of the proposed amendments, and we disagree on just eight points. Overall, I see the collaborative efforts that have brought us here, and they were of great success.
We have arrived at this point, just shy of the finish line, thanks to the contributions and hard work of parliamentarians, public servants, industry experts, content creators and Canadians. Now is not the time to abandon the commitment to collaboration. We will continue to listen.
Should this bill receive royal assent, the Governor in Council would issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how the new legislative framework should be applied. This would require a notice period of at least 30 days, during which stakeholders and other interested persons may provide comments, concerns and recommendations regarding policy direction.
The CRTC would hold its own public processes prior to implementing the new broadcasting regulatory framework. This would provide a further opportunity for all stakeholders, including radio broadcasters, online streamers, distributors, artists, producers and industry groups to provide input.
As members can see, we will now continue to move forward together. We will ensure Canadian artists and storytellers thrive and prosper well into the digital age and that the beat of Canada's diverse culture is heard loud and clear, everywhere for everyone.
1989 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the House:
agrees with amendments 1(a)(ii), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d)(i), 2(e), 4, 5, 7(b)(i), 8, 9(a), 10 and 12 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(a)(i) because the amendment does not refer to broadcasting undertakings that comprise components of the broadcasting system which may cause interpretative issues in the application of the Act;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 2(d)(ii) because the amendment seeks to legislate matters in the broadcasting system that are beyond the policy intent of the bill, the purpose of which is to include online undertakings, undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet, in the broadcasting system;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because this would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 6 because it could limit the CRTC’s ability to impose conditions respecting the proportion of programs to be broadcast that are devoted to specific genres both for online undertakings and traditional broadcasters, thus reducing the diversity of programming;
proposes that amendment 7(a) be amended to read as follows:
“(a) On page 18, replace lines 29 to 34 with the following:
“(a) whether Canadians, including independent producers, have a right or interest in relation to a program, including copyright, that allows them to control and benefit in a significant and equitable manner from the exploitation of the program;””;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 7(b)(ii) because the principle that Canadian programs are first and foremost content made by Canadians is, and has been, at the centre of the definition of Canadian programs for decades, and this amendment would remove the ability for the CRTC to ensure that that remains the case;
proposes that amendment 9(b) be amended by deleting subsection 18(2.1) because the obligation to hold a public hearing both before and after decisions are taken by the CRTC will entail unnecessary delays in the administration of the Act;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because the amendment seeks to legislate matters in the broadcasting system that are beyond the policy intent of the bill, the purpose of which is to include online undertakings, undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet, in the broadcasting system, and because further study is required on how best to position our national public broadcaster to meet the needs and expectations of Canadians.
492 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that this is about making sure that Canadians are able to tell their stories and that culture is preserved.
Other lines that have been used in the past include that a level playing field is created. Yet, what we know is that there are these digital first creators or YouTubers, TikTokers, people on Instagram who are able to garner an audience for themselves based on showing off their talent, not just to Canada but to the world. These individuals are enjoying tremendous success.
This bill would actually stifle them. That is what they have reported. I am curious: what about their stories? What about indigenous creators? What about Black creators? What about those individuals who have gone above and beyond to use new media to successfully garner a global audience?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, digital creators are creators. They are artists. This is at the heart of what we are doing.
It is a bit unfortunate that this entire debate seems to suggest that these people are excluded from who the government wants to see succeed. We want everyone to succeed. We want all artists to succeed.
We are just asking some of the largest companies in the world, which the hon. member mentioned are YouTube and TikTok, to contribute to Canadian culture. We would ask the same of any large Canadian company. Would we not ask the same of one of the largest companies from the United States or a major company from China? We would not ask them to contribute to Canadian culture?
It is truly shocking that we have gone through this debate and that the hon. member and the Conservatives would just highlight the talking points from the web giants.
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his speech. I also want to thank him for the very collaborative work we are doing at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We went through some tough times, battled some strong headwinds during our study of Bill C‑11. I congratulate him on his hard work.
Obviously, when we are working on a bill as important as Bill C‑11, which will have a huge impact on Quebec's and Canada's broadcasting systems and cultural industries, all kinds of stakeholders want to have their say at various stages of the process. Just recently, the Government of Quebec spoke up to say that it has a few demands. There are things that are important to the Government of Quebec. I believe the parliamentary secretary is aware of some of those demands.
I would like to know if the order the minister issues to the CRTC will address the demands laid out by the Government of Quebec.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to also thank the hon. member for his work on this file.
We heard from many witnesses across the board, from Quebec and the rest of Canada, about how important this legislation is, with the vast majority of them telling us how important it is to expedite this bill and get it through.
We will work with provinces, including the Province of Quebec. I know the minister understands the issue and, as always, he will work with the Government of Quebec and with other provincial leaders. It is something that he regularly does and will continue to do going forward.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of my real concerns is the recent report that Google is blocking the news of Canadian new wires in order to put pressure on the government. This company has successfully avoided regulation for years, yet Google's subsidiary, YouTube, has been tied to massive vaccine disinformation in Brazil, anti-refugee violence in Germany and huge levels of violence in Myanmar and Sri Lanka through the algorithms that are pushing disinformation. I am concerned that we have Google's YouTube, which is the biggest news broadcaster in the world, pumping conspiracy, threat and violence through the algorithms, yet they would dare to block Canadian news services as a way of threatening our government.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on whether Google has made this threat to the Canadian government and what we are going to do in response.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about what Google is doing. It is taking a page out of Facebook's playbook when Australia attempted to provide regulation in the digital sphere. It thought that it could intimidate Australians to back down, but they did not.
Unfortunately, the difference between here and Australia is that political parties were united. It has been wonderful to work with the Bloc and the NDP on this. However, it is disappointing, because the Conservatives in Australia fought for Australians, and the Conservatives here are fighting for the tech giants.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is difficult to catch up here, as we are, looking at the government's response to changes made to Bill C-11 in the Senate. However, I am going through this carefully, and it seems there are a couple of places where the government has rejected an amendment that came from the Senate, because as suggested here, it is beyond the scope of the bill.
My experience is, in cases where the government thinks it is beyond the scope of the bill, that an objection would be put before a clause-by-clause process in the other place, and that would usually stop it from going forward. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary could explain how this is, and explain whether the government would reconsider if these amendments are truly beyond the scope or if it has any discretion to accept these amendments at this point.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure what went through during the clause-by-clause debate on those particular amendments.
We are not saying they are bad ideas. They are just outside the scope of this particular legislation. The minister has said that we have, for example, online safety legislation forthcoming. Perhaps some of these proposals could be put forward in that legislation in a comprehensive way, through the appropriate scope and the appropriate legislation, but they are well outside the scope of this particular bill.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his hard work on this bill. It has been an extraordinary voyage. I, like most Canadians, feel as if these massive companies, like Google, Apple and Facebook, have way too much power. They have way too much control over what we see. I am concerned, and I think a lot of my constituents are too.
I listened to my colleague's speech as he referenced the fact that Conservatives in other countries and other politicians around the country have found a way to come together for a common purpose to ensure these massive, extraordinarily successful organizations pay their fair share. I would like to provide my colleague and friend with an opportunity to talk about that kind of collaboration, where we have seen that collaboration elsewhere and how we are going to stand up for Canadians to make sure our culture and creations are preserved.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, The hon. member for Lethbridge talks about the success stories of digital creators, and there are many, but we heard through evidence that the vast majority of Canadians make nothing, despite the fact that they have enough followers to monetized on these sites. We just want there to be greater success for these stories. We want Canadians to have that opportunity. We want a level playing field in these discussions.
It would be shocking, if the hon. members from the Conservative Party rose and said Bell Media should have no obligations to Canada or Rogers Communications should have no obligations to Canada. However, when it comes to a foreign company, like TikTok or Google, the Conservatives say those companies do not have to have anything, even though billions of dollars are being made on Canadians.
It is truly unfortunate. We have seen, in Australia, in Europe and in the United States, bipartisan and multipartisan efforts. It is disappointing that we do not have the Conservative Party onside here.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague has said that the Conservatives are taking the side of tech giants. However, there are legal experts, as well as other experts in the field, including former CRTC commissioners, who have serious concerns with Bill C-11. Who is really misleading Canadians? Is it that member of Parliament, those legal experts or the former CRTC commissioners?
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is clear the hon. member did not pay any attention to what went on during the debate. We had numerous experts, and the vast majority of them were in favour of this bill. The Conservatives cannot call one expert and one former CRTC commissioner and say everyone is against the bill by hearing from those two people. There were dozens of witnesses who were in support of this: creators and artists.
It is unfortunate the Conservatives will just parrot the talking points of Facebook and Google.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
