44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically about that group, but I know rural Canadians, especially in places that are sparsely populated and have a lack of connectivity services, will be severely impacted by this. They have very little opportunity to speak, and they should be able to speak as freely and as often as they want to. These regulations will complicate that whole process, so I would encourage the member to have a second look at this. What kind of impact would this mean to rural Canada? It is not good for us living in rural Canada.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there were 80 witnesses who came before committee to testify in regard to this piece of legislation. That is 80 witnesses, yet the only one Conservatives will quote is Michael Geist. Could this member quote one of the other 79 witnesses, please, just to entertain us?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, again, this is the problem, which is that they are not listening to those witnesses. How many of those—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:21:17 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to let the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa respond.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:21:17 p.m.
- Watch
Can I answer the question, Mr. Speaker?
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is the frustrating thing about this bill: No one is listening to the witnesses who gave testimony. If there were 80 of them, how many said that this is a rock-solid bill and we should approve it? Why would the government not then bring it forward for unanimous consent? This bill doing is dividing Canada, not bringing us together.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know, in a very polite way, that I will be sharing my time with my very hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, who has some very important things to tell us and all Canadians.
Before I get to the heart of the matter, I will say that I have been listening to my colleagues from the Conservative Party for a few hours now and I am seeing things that are rather fascinating and disturbing.
The first thing I find fascinating is their insistence on quoting Margaret Atwood. I would just like to remind my Conservative colleagues that Margaret Atwood is a great defender of women's rights, including the right to abortion. If they are fans of Margaret Atwood, I hope to hear them quote her soon to defend a woman's right to abortion. I am sure that they watched the series The Handmaid's Tale and they were able to learn a few lessons.
The second person they are quoting, and I think that is amazing, is George Orwell. I would just like to remind my Conservative colleagues that George Orwell was a socialist who fought in Great Britain and went to Spain to fight with the republicans against the fascists. I hope to hear them quote George Orwell often in the weeks and months to come, maybe even during the election campaign. I have some quotes for them, free of charge, if they want. It would be my pleasure.
We are talking about something that is very important for Quebec, Canada, all our regions and our communities, but also first nations: the cultural sector. It is really important for our identity, be it the Québécois nation, the Canadian nation, first nations, Métis, francophones outside Quebec, that we have the means and resources to be able to tell ourselves our own stories. It is important to have the resources to create our television programs, which describe what is happening in our communities, along with our challenges and hopes, and that we give this work to our local creators and artists who will work to be able to say, here is what is happening in Quebec, Ontario, the north, the Maritimes or British Columbia.
We have a system that was put in place years ago in which the government has a role to play in supporting our artists, creators, artisans and technicians, as does the private sector, which benefits from this cultural production. This production has value in its own right, intrinsic value, that makes us stand out from other countries and nations around the world and enables us to say that this is who we are, here are our ideals, here is what is happening in our country, here are our concerns and here are our expressions. I think it is essential to have the right legislative, regulatory and financial framework to keep that. We are also talking about thousands of jobs in almost every community across Canada, and it is extremely important to maintain this capacity to produce cultural content.
In the agreement created 30 years ago, those who supplied the pipeline needed content for it. They made money from this content. Therefore, they had to help finance the content. The cable companies at the time were the pipeline and were forced by the Broadcasting Act to contribute, in particular, to the Canada Media Fund, which helped produce Canadian television and film. This balance was a given and benefited everyone. Cable companies made a very good profit. They had certain obligations, but it made it possible to produce content in Canada, with Canadian artists who told Canadian stories. That was 30 years ago.
The problem is that cable companies are no longer the only ones in the picture. Digital broadcasters have arrived. When the act was written, the Internet did not exist.
This law must be modernized to ensure that these web giants, who are using a new medium, are also required to contribute to and support Quebec, Canadian and indigenous artists and creators.
Essentially, that is what Bill C‑11 is about. We keep saying this over and over again, and I am going to say it again, despite the Conservative fearmongering. There is something I cannot understand: If Vidéotron, Bell, Shaw and Rogers must contribute to cultural production under the bill, why would YouTube, Google, Disney+, Netflix and Apple TV be excluded? These web giants have basically been given a tax gift for the past 10 years. They have basically been told that they have the right to profit from Canadian content and cultural production without having to participate in it. It is like giving them a giant tax break that is completely unfair and unjust. I find it absolutely fascinating that the Conservatives are now saying it is okay that Google, Apple TV and Netflix do not need to pay.
The Conservatives are defending big corporations, multinationals that are making tons of money off Quebec and Canadian consumers. The Conservatives are lining up behind these web giants and these big corporations. That is what they are doing right now, using completely false pretences to scare people.
When it comes to Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11, it feels like every day is Halloween for the Conservatives. They wake up every morning and think of ways to scare Canadians. They use emotionally charged words like “dictatorship”, “censorship” and “totalitarianism”. Wow. I have to wonder whether those folks have ever even seen a CRTC decision. That is not exactly what is going on. These decisions have actually been used to promote local cultural creations. I do not see how we are becoming like North Korea because we want to promote our television programs, our films, our artists, our singers. No one is being forced to watch or listen to anything. If someone is not interested, they can simply turn off their TV, radio, iPhone or iPad screen.
Give me a break. This fearmongering is an attempt to convince people that the federal government is suddenly going to decide what Canadians will see. That is ridiculous.
A couple of weeks ago the leader of the official opposition called the CRTC a woke organization. I could not believe it. Anything the Conservatives do not like they call “woke”. I attended CRTC hearings in a previous life, and I can say that CRTC officials are quite beige. It is a pretty square organization. They are talking nonsense on the Conservative side.
I believe that the CRTC has made good and bad decisions. There are reasons to criticize this organization, but it is a bit of a stretch to call it a far-left organization. Words have meaning, after all, and we need to be careful.
We recently celebrated the International Day of La Francophonie. One of the themes of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie is discoverability of works. We must be able to ensure that people can find songs, works, broadcasts and movies in French on Netflix. Everyone celebrated the Francophonie in the House, but when Bill C‑11 is being studied, the Conservatives forget all that. It is no longer important now.
The NDP put in the work and improved Bill C‑11 to ensure that French-language works are more readily accessible and also to provide more support for first nation and Inuit cultural productions and for community organizations that make content and news.
I realize that Bill C‑11 may not be perfect. However, this bill has all the provisions needed to guarantee freedom of expression and to support our culture, artists and artisans. That is why the NDP is proud to support it.
1306 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, he expressed pleasure at hearing Orwell quoted to him from Conservative benches, so I will maybe continue in that vein.
He was certainly my favourite novelist of the first half of the 20th century, although he did spend most of his career writing and criticizing socialism and its excesses. In 1984, the main character worked in the “Ministry of Truth” and sat in his cubicle deciding what people could see and what information they would have access to, which seems rather relevant to this debate.
We might as well be honest here with each other about what the bill does. It expands the powers of the CRTC to influence and control what people find, see, hear and post online. Could he comment on the expansion of the powers of the CRTC?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and his question. I think that we could have a debate and a discussion at some point on George Orwell's ideological and political views and his real objectives as a left-wing socialist.
To answer his question, I think that it is, in fact, essential that the CRTC has authority over digital broadcasters. That is the purpose of this exercise. It does not expand bureaucracy; there is absolutely nothing new about it.
The CRTC had authority over traditional media, television and radio. Over the past 30 years, no one has died because of that. Things still turned out okay. Now, the law needs to be modernized so that it also applies to web giants and digital broadcasters. I do not see how this creates a major problem. People will be able to watch whatever they want, when they want, as usual.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that I totally agree with what he said in his speech. It is so hard to be here and have a debate when some parties are saying that this is not true and that Bill C-11 is regressive and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Why does he think the Conservatives have become so successful on social media these days with ideas that are completely false? Bill C-11 does not in any way infringe on the right to freedom of expression.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my Green Party colleague for her question. I think it is an important one.
If we are being realistic, the Conservatives are using scare tactics for political fundraising purposes. That is what we are seeing. They are doing this for purely partisan reasons, to collect data, collect money and fill the Conservative Party coffers. They are spreading misinformation and worrying people for nothing.
In my opinion, the Conservatives are demonstrating a distinct lack of sensitivity when it comes to culture, the cultural sector and artists, when all of the artists' associations in Quebec and Canada strongly support Bill C-11, formerly Bill C-10, and think it is absolutely necessary for their future and our future as a cultural nation.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member was talking about why certain companies in Canada have to pay to support Canadian artists and bemoaning that companies from outside of Canada do not have to.
Well, the answer is quite simple. When one is headquartered in Canada, one is required to, right?
These companies are international companies. Nobody in this building is going to disagree with the fact that people should pay their fair share when it comes to that. The problem is that we have a regulatory framework that incentivizes those companies to be in other countries and not in Canada.
Would the member not agree that if we maybe took a different approach, to have a regulatory environment that would incentivize them to come to Canada rather than stay away from Canada, that might not be a better way to go?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to tell the truth, we do not really care where the companies' head offices are located. They do business in Canada. They have customers in Canada. They make profits in Canada. They need to abide by Canadian laws and be governed in such a way as to support the production of Quebec and Canadian cultural content. Period. It is as simple as that.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
[Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I said “good evening” and “thank you” in the Inuktitut language when I rose this evening. Why did I begin my speech in Inuktitut? The reason the NDP supports the bill is that we made a large number of improvements to the original bill. As members know, the NDP proposed more amendments than all the other parties.
We ensured that freedom of expression would be upheld, that the CRTC's powers would be balanced by an obligation of transparency and public consultation, and, above all, that indigenous languages and the diversity of our indigenous media would be improved. That was an essential component during this debate.
I have been listening very attentively to my Conservative colleagues tonight, and I have a couple of observations.
First, it is quite clear to me that there is not a single Conservative member of Parliament who has actually read the bill, because they are completely aside from the essential content of the bill itself. Just to—
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
I have a point of order.
The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think that it is completely disingenuous of the member opposite to be making false allegations that we perhaps have not read the bill, and I—
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:38:52 p.m.
- Watch
That is a matter for debate.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. Let us try to avoid imputing faults to other members.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am actually going to explain why it is clear to me that the Conservatives have not read the bill.
First off, the majority of their speeches have gone something like this: “Something, something, North Korea; something, something, tyranny; something, something, freedom.”
Now, the reason there is no link between these wacky Conservative speeches—
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:39:31 p.m.
- Watch
On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member forgot to mention Michael Geist. They say “Michael Geist” a lot.
17 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
