44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. minister how distressed I am to see the hon. Minister of Health defending closure on debate on a bill that has nothing to do with his portfolio. Everything about closure offends basic democracy within Parliament.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. When I was first elected in 2011, I watched the then Conservative majority start the process of using closure on almost every bill. Sitting over there, my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I bemoaned and railed against this horrible abuse of our democratic process in Parliament. They did so only to turn around and use closure as often and then more often than the previous government did.
I do not particularly enjoy the debate on Bill C-11. It is not a battle of wits but a disinformation campaign versus facts. However, the reality is that every MP in this place has a right to debate, and closure is wrong.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 12:46:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague.
I think we have a different strategy for our arts and culture sector. Imagine if there were a movie being filmed in Quebec that generated money for the economy but that was entirely in English, with American actors and screenwriters who speak only English and write only in English. Would that support Quebec's cultural industry?
I think that is why we have a different opinion, a different understanding, than our Conservative Party colleagues do. Unless the efforts are rooted in Quebec culture, then it is not a demonstration of our culture.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I intend to vote for Bill C-11, but I would vote for it with more enthusiasm if the government had accepted the amendment from the Senate that excluded user-developed content. I wonder if the member could explain, because so far I have not had any explanation that makes sense to me, why the government has rejected that amendment from the Senate.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge for splitting his time. This is the first time in my life that I have been able to rise in this place and say to the hon. member for Abbotsford that I get to answer his rhetorical question: How could Margaret Atwood's words “creeping totalitarianism” be misconstrued?
I have been in constant contact over the last little while with one of Canada's most extraordinary authors, Margaret Atwood. She has directed me to what she would like me to say in the House to explain how her words are misconstrued.
Remarkable, is it not? This is Canada. One ends up admiring someone and reading their books. What an honour that they then become one's best friend.
I have to say that Ms. Margaret Atwood is not my best friend. However, Farley Mowat was. Through Farley, I got to be a good friend of Margaret Atwood. I have been writing to her for some time to say that she will not believe it, but she has now become the favourite author of leader of the official opposition. It is a caucus that really largely objects to the lessons taught to us through the dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale. These lessons are that, given the chance, men in power will strip women of their rights, deny them the rights to control their reproductive health—
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies must assume that I am about to give a rant about women's rights.
When Margaret Atwood's name is invoked so often with a novel that is entirely about women losing their rights in a dystopian future, where unbelievable things have happened like the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and women having to fight again for rights that were assured. That is not my theme. That just happens to be a deep irony in hearing The Handmaid's Tale invoked over and over again.
Let us get to Bill C-11. I have been talking via email with Margaret Atwood, who I am honoured to know. She does not wish to be associated with the idea that Bill C-11 is “creeping totalitarianism”. If shadowy figures were to be determining what we got to watch, that would be creeping totalitarianism.
I am just going to read what Margaret Atwood would like entered into this discussion. It is found on something called margaretatwood.substack.com. If someone wants to look for the article on a search engine, it is about featuring Canadian content without the benefit of algorithms.
It is called “Can CanCon or Can't It, Eh?” It was posted about Bill C-11 by Margaret Atwood. As she has pointed out to me a few times by email, there is no reference to “creeping totalitarianism” in this article. There are elements of what she wishes were clearer about Bill C-11. It is about the question of what is “content”, what is “creator” and what is “platform”.
To back up a bit, it is important to recognize that regulating Canadian content, whether it be The Littlest Hobo, The Beachcombers or whatever, was an important part of fending off the behemoth of U.S. Hollywood productions.
It is even more important for the culture of the incredible Québécois nation, which is so different from the anglophone Canadian culture. Quebec has a smaller audience which means that it faces an even greater threat from American culture and Hollywood.
We have had the benefit of Canadian content rules for many years. This takes them into protecting our creators from online streaming. I am going to quote Margaret Atwood because she has asked me to. She said the following:
Maybe the language used in the Bill is imprecise. “Content” is what goes inside the cheeseburger. “Creator” is who makes the cheeseburger. “Platform” is how the contents of the cheeseburger wend their way from the creator to consumer of the cheeseburger. Did the framers of Bill C-11 mean Creator or Platform, rather than Content?
And whose interests are to be served? Is all this in aid of “We need to hear our own stories?” That would be Content. But this doesn’t seem to be exactly what is meant.
I think...that the idea is to enlarge the space available to the creative folk in Canada by helping them profit fairly from their endeavours, insofar as that is possible, and to encourage the availability of platforms via which they may serve up their cheeseburgers. Is that it?
If so, the Bill C-11 writers might think of changing the wording. Substitute “creators” and possibly “platform” for “content.” For instance: in music terms—requiring a percentage of CanCon from radio broadcasters jump-started the careers of a whole generation of Canadian musicians. But they didn’t necessarily sing about Mounties and beavers. They sang about all sorts of things. CanCon in that context didn’t mean subject matter. It meant who was doing the singing. Listeners were allowed to hear the music, and then could make up their own minds about whether they liked it or not.
That is what we are talking about here with Bill C-11. There is no world in which people who manipulate algorithms are censors. They promote content, but they do not exclude other content.
People can find the content they want, and the Internet, as many Conservative colleagues have called for, will forever be a magical space of unending opportunities. However, within that large amount of noise, in order to level the playing field, Canadians will be given a bit of a hint to find Canadian content and Canadian productions.
What is that playing field, and why does it need to be levelled? It is because Canadian writers, screenwriters, artists, actors and directors need to be able to make a living. In this debate, the economics of the cultural industry have been somewhat muddied. Yes, it is true that the industry is great for a local economy, and I have experienced this in Saanich—Gulf Islands in my hometown of Sidney.
My husband came home one day and said, “Honey, the town has lost its mind. It's only October, and they're putting up Christmas ornaments.” The next day there was fake snow. We realized there was a Hallmark Christmas film being produced on Beacon Avenue in Sidney. I was able to tell my husband that the mayor and council had not lost their minds but had struck a good business deal; that was a good thing.
That Hallmark film was using Canadian areas and space to produce something. It was good for the economy. However, my husband's daughter tells me all the time that with the U.S. productions made in Canada, the starring roles and the big money go to the U.S. actors; the Canadian actors work at what is called “at scale”. My husband's daughter is a brilliant actor named Janet Kidder, by the way, and she is in a lot of productions.
To promote Canadian artists, we need to be able to say to the big giants, whether Amazon, Disney or Hallmark, that when they come to Canada to make a film, they would find it advantageous to actually use Canadian stars. We have brilliant actors who have chosen to stay in Canada and not move to Hollywood, and they should be paid properly.
We also know that the screenwriters of Canada have had a rather catastrophic drop in the amount of work available to them as the online streaming giants have taken off. If one is a Canadian writer, one's chances of being a screenwriter have been reduced quite dramatically over the last number of years.
This data is kept by an organization to which I belong called the Writers' Union of Canada. In this place, in debate, I heard colleagues refer to the Writers' Union of Canada as if it were a trade union, so let us clear that up. There are no trade unions representing writers. Writers have two organizations: the Writers Guild of Canada and the Writers' Union of Canada. It is a voluntary association of published writers working together in kind of a little society. It could have been called a “society” or a “club”.
It is not a union. There are no arts union bosses. Those are words I heard in this place, as if the arts union bosses are going to make money. No, they are not. There are writers in this country, and many of them are not the famous writers. They are not the Farley Mowats or Margaret Atwoods, and they struggle to make ends meet. Getting a book published or writing a screenplay in Canada is not a ticket to success. If one is lucky, it is a ticket to employment insurance at some point because one managed to put together enough to get some help between jobs.
Writers in this country struggle to make ends meet. They are not represented by union bosses. There are no arts union bosses. We need Bill C-11 to be passed for those creators.
1347 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:42:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am maybe not going to make the Liberal bench, from which the question emanated, as happy as it might have been. There are reasons that this legislation has critics, and that is a big problem. I would rather vote for this bill with the Senate amendment to refuse any regulation of user-generated content, which has now been rejected.
In fact, my colleague from Kitchener Centre brought forward a similar motion before committee because we could see where this was going to lead. User-generated content should not be included in this bill. The government's position is that it is not. The Conservatives' position is that it is. I would rather the government had accepted the Senate amendment to make that really clear and nail it down because it is that little inconsistency, shall we put it, that gives rise to the volume of what I regard as incorrect statements about the bill.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague enormously and I understand why he feels he will vote against the bill.
I am very much informed by constituents, particularly in Saanich—Gulf Islands but across the country. I am very much in touch with the artist community, with writers and actors. They are begging for this to be passed because they need protection against these digital giants, the streaming enterprises of Netflix and Amazon and Disney.
That said, I agree that there is no reason that I can see, other than stubbornness, for the government not to have accepted the sensible amendments from the Senate. I hope we will continue to stay on top of this issue. In the meantime, the artists of this country need the bill.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:46:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wish Farley had not passed away before I got a chance to introduce the member. I would have loved for him to meet my friend from Nunavut.
The concern about algorithms is a real one because algorithms are being used right now to do things on social media that are referred to as “rage farming”. This is a very murky and dangerous world, and I think we need to do much more to regulate it, but in this context I am not concerned about the government using algorithms to help Canadians find Canadian content if that is what they are looking for. That is the key thing. No one is going to stop any Canadian from watching anything they want to watch. The bill is not censorship; it is clumsy. I do not like the CRTC very much either. After all, it regulated and approved Russia Today.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:52:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Saskatoon—University might consider his recent remarks and reflect that he went a bit too far when he said that things that are on the Internet should never be censored and nothing should ever be withdrawn. I am going to give him that opportunity right now.
We have seen moments where families have been shattered by mass attacks and slaughters. Families of police officers have seen their loved ones on a video posted on the Internet and the family has begged for no one to look at that. People then take that down.
Will the hon. member reconsider and withdraw his comment that everything on the Internet should be watched, people should be at liberty to see anything and there should be no moments where we withdraw postings on the Internet with the goal of rage farming—
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
