SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 176 - Mar/30/23

Mrs. Rechie Valdez (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 1:08:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in that era also. Radio was what I had to rely on to listen to my favourite R and B and hip-hop songs: the privileged era of boom boxes, vinyl and cassette tapes. The member is so right that so much has changed. This bill would provide us with an opportunity, since 1991, to ensure that the broadcasting sector is inclusive of all Canadians. I would like the hon. member's perspective on how important it is to ensure that tech giants should pay their fair share to support the diverse and inclusive aspects of our Canadian culture.

104 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/30/23 1:09:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18 Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I share the member opposite's passion and her fondness for the nostalgia of boom boxes and cassette tapes. I still have some cassette tapes at home. My kids do not know what on earth they are. What is critical is that this is part and parcel of a broader agenda of our government and, I hope, of this Parliament in terms of what we are doing to address the presence of digital platforms in our lives. We have Bill C-11 and we have Bill C-18. We are very committed to addressing online harms and online safety. In previous Parliaments we have addressed things like electoral advertising in online spaces. Our commitment is to ensure that digital platforms that benefit from what they do in Canada and how they promote themselves or advertise in Canada, and that reap dollars from Canadian pockets, will also contribute back to Canadian communities and to the creation of Canadian content. That is a fundamental theme that informs all pieces of our legislation, and it will continue to do so.

179 words

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:10:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18 Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech is interesting, as I see that my colleague is much younger than I am, yet some of the things he talks about are from a long time ago. It is interesting that in February, for example, vinyl outsold CDs, which is a change that is happening. I have a challenge with what the member is saying. I sat on the heritage committee for Bill C-10 and Bill C-18. Bill C-18 talks about money transfer, but it does not talk about the CRTC. That is the challenge that I have with Bill C-11. The Liberals could do the monetary thing but not involve the CRTC. People understand support for artists and understand royalties or whatever they want to call it. However, why involve the CRTC? Back when Bill C-10 was passed, it was without that “user-generated” part. It was in there and the Liberals took it out. However, why do we need to involve the CRTC if they keep talking about monetary support going to the artists? The Liberals quote a lot of professional organizations that like the money, but why are they not talking about the artists themselves and a mechanism for where the money would go? In Bill C-18 they talk about where the money goes. Why do we need the CRTC? If they want the money to go to artists, why is that not what they are doing?

246 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/30/23 1:11:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two responses. One is that the CRTC is part of Canada's cultural landscape and it has been for many decades. It is a known and trusted institution. It is at arm's-length from the government and it is quasi-judicial with regard to the decisions it makes. We are reusing a known institution that we are comfortable dealing with and that Canadians are comfortable dealing with. I appreciate the member opposite's perspective, and I am actually a lot older than he thinks. I am 52 this year. However, the point is that they are also not mutually exclusive. As I have read it, the legislation dictates the need for financial requirements and obligations to be put on large online streaming platforms that are monetizing Canadian content. However, in terms of how that money is paid and where that money is paid is equally something that the CRTC could opine upon and direct the platforms with respect to it.

165 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/30/23 1:12:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of disinformation coming from Conservatives specifically. One of the narratives they like to use is that, on this side of the House, we are trying to give control to cabinet to set the algorithms that would determine what people see. However, the Conservatives are somehow assuming that every other political party in here, including the Green Party and the Bloc, are willing to go along with that plan. That sounds quite ludicrous to me. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can weigh in on it.

92 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Mar/30/23 1:13:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no hidden agenda in this bill. Algorithmic control would remain with the online streaming platforms. What is important is the notion of ensuring that a portion of the profit that online streaming platforms, particularly those from other parts of the world, are already making from Canadian content is contributing to the creation of that Canadian content. That is a win for Canadian creators. Arguably, it is probably a win for Netflix as well, because it will just have more like The Tragically Hip to put on their streaming platforms.

93 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:13:45 p.m.
Watch

I want to point out that everybody is talking about cassettes and records, but not one person mentioned anything about eight-tracks. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

33 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:13:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11 Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, you stole my thunder. I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which, as we know, amends the Broadcasting Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts. I want to start by recognizing my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, who has done incredible work to bring to light the facts about the impacts this bill would have not only on the rights of Canadians but also on content creators here in Canada. I will be splitting my time with member for Calgary Nose Hill. This is an immense bill, as it would affect not only online streaming but also user-generated content online, including on social media. Let us review. The first iteration of this bill, Bill C-10, was introduced in 2020. The government claimed that the purpose of it was to modernize the Broadcasting Act and to make large online streaming services meet Canadian content requirements and to bring them in line with TV and radio stations. We have heard that again here. In its original version, the former bill, Bill C-10, included an exemption for programs that users uploaded onto their social media or “user-generated content”. During the committee’s study, the Liberals voted to remove this exemption from their own bill and refused to allow the Conservatives to reintroduce it. The bill died on the Order Paper when the 2021 election was called, but was reintroduced by the government in this Parliament. Here is what it did. Bill C-11 would create a new category of web media called “online undertakings” and would give the CRTC the same power to regulate them and would require them to invest in Canadian content, even though they would not be required to apply for licences. While the government put the exemption back in this new version, it went on to also include an exemption to the exemption, which made it effectively meaningless. Unfortunately, this is another bill that the government seeks to pass that would dictate to industries what is best for them, rather than listening to the experts and stakeholders. Numerous experts such as law professors and former CRTC commissioners believe that this bill would threaten the right to free speech. As we know, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to free speech, which can only be exercised effectively if one has the ability to be heard. Law Professor Michael Geist explains this: To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content (including algorithmic outcomes). The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act. The government wants to give bureaucrats living in Ottawa the sole discretion of determining what content should be considered Canadian and what should be shown to Canadians at large. Setting aside concerns regarding free speech for a moment, this bill would also threaten the livelihood of individual content creators, artists and influencers who earn their living through the videos they post on social media and the advertising revenues that they generate. By their testimony, many fear they will not qualify under the CRTC’s rules promoting certified content. They are also afraid of the effects of regulation on their international audiences. Canadian creators do not need the Canadian media industry to intercede for them to succeed. Canadians are already punching above their weight, and there are many success stories. The reason we have so many Canadian success stories is that we allow the creativity of Canadian creators to flourish. We do not throttle it with excessive bureaucracy or red tape. In the current landscape, content creators rise to the top through the merit of their content. The Internet offers infinite opportunity for new creators to reach audiences worldwide, allowing small creators to build up audiences through their own creativity and determination. The bill would seek to stifle that freedom, only allowing those creators that the government deems worthy to be seen. Instead of one’s search bar directing one to the content one is looking for, it would direct one to the content that the government has approved and wants one to see. This would be yet another case of government gatekeepers picking winners and losers based on their own arbitrary criteria. It is important to note that the Senate made approximately 29, mostly minor, amendments to Bill C-11. This is why it is back before the House of Commons. The most significant amendment proposed would attempt to narrow the scope for social media regulation by adding discretionary criteria that appear to encourage the CRTC to focus on regulating professional audiovisual content rather than amateur user uploads. While this makes the bill less bad, given that the criteria are discretionary, they do not change the powers of the CRTC to regulate social media or its discoverability powers. Besides that, the heritage minister has already indicated that the Liberal government will reject this amendment. We should make no mistake: Homegrown talent and creative content here in Canada will no longer succeed based on merit. Content will be subject to a set of criteria that bureaucrats in Ottawa will use to determine its level of Canadianness, resulting in traditional art forms being favoured over new creative content. Over 40,000 content creators affiliated with Digital First Canada signed letters calling for the discoverability rules in Bill C-11 to be removed. Since the bill was introduced in its first iteration as Bill C-10, I have heard from many constituents who do not want the government dictating the content that they are allowed to see. They have written to me and expressed their shock and dismay at the government's attempt to control speech and online content. They want the ability to find their favourite creators and enjoy the content that appeals to them. They do not want to see the favourite content of an Ottawa bureaucrat. For all the Liberals’ claims, Canadians understand that if this bill passes—

1114 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:21:35 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/30/23 1:21:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the point of order that I raised with you about an hour ago. Since then, the Leader of the Opposition has gone, once again, and retweeted the same video. In it, he says that the Liberals are speaking out in the House of Commons, right now, trying to censor this video and get it banned from the Internet. I think the Leader of the Opposition is treating the procedure and the common practices that we have in the House callously. I think that, in your consideration and forthcoming judgment, you should consider this new information as well.

105 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:22:22 p.m.
Watch

Thank you for the input. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is rising on a point of order.

19 words

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:22:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are going to put forward a bill that would censor the Internet, they are going to wear it and get called out on it. We are not going to sit quietly back, as the opposition, and allow them to pass a bill like this that would censor what Canadians see. If they are doing this, Liberals should be prepared to wear it.

67 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:22:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Windsor West is rising on, I believe, the same point of order.

16 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Mar/30/23 1:22:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious, though, that one cannot use one's technology here in the chamber while it is sitting. It is a well-established practice that we have had, and any disrespect for that has always been corrected. Unfortunately, we are in real time right now, and it is obviously more complicated. I am hoping that perhaps this will be expedited, at least as to whether the allegation is accurate. I do not know. I have not seen the video just yet, but I understand that it is pretty serious. If it is in real time, happening right now, it is just going to create more egregious debate in the House of Commons. That is unfortunate. If it is true, then that should also be reflected because there is an attempt on the outside to do what one cannot do on the inside.

147 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:23:31 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on the same point of order.

14 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 1:23:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear: It is a violation of a rule if the mace is on the table and one is taking a picture or a video. Traditionally, in the past, when the issue has been raised, we have often seen the Speaker call for an immediate deletion. It has nothing to do with censorship. It is 100% about rules inside the House. The leader of the official opposition is blatantly disobeying a rule. He should be deleting it, not because of censorship but because he should be respecting the procedures of the House of Commons. I would ask, and suggest, that he be called upon to delete the video that is in direct conflict with our rules.

121 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:24:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just think this is such a classic example of an attempt by the government to censor what a member is saying on this very debate. It is very ironic that we have a government talking about it not being about censorship while attempting to censor a member of this House.

53 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/30/23 1:24:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the rules and procedures of this House are not up for debate. It is not about trying to censor anything; it is about respecting the rules. If Conservatives want to change the rules so the Leader of the Opposition can film a video in here while the mace is on the table, they should bring forward a motion to change the rules. We have rules in this House; they need to be respected. We are blatantly seeing support for that coming from the other side. Like the parliamentary secretary said before me, the Speaker needs to review this matter, report back to the House immediately and take the necessary actions against the Leader of the Opposition regarding this matter.

121 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Mar/30/23 1:25:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just think it is interesting that the government, which has been in breach of ethics laws, is raising this point of order. How many ethics laws has the party been in breach of over the last number of years—

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:25:44 p.m.
Watch

I believe we are now delving into debate. The only thing I can say at this point is that we are not supposed to take pictures or videos while we are in the chamber. However, I am in the chair right now and cannot review that. I know the Chair is looking at it, and maybe the Speaker is looking at it. We will hopefully come back with a response as soon as we possibly can. Continuing debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

87 words