44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/19/23 6:10:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read a quote into the record and get the member to respond to it.
This quote is from nothing other than the Conservative Party of Canada's election platform. Not that long ago there was a national election, and this is what the Conservative Party of Canada was telling the people of Canada:
Canada’s Conservatives will:
Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure that Canadian media outlets are fairly compensated for the sharing of their content by platforms like Google and Facebook.
That is what this legislation is all about. If the Conservatives voted in favour of the legislation, they would be able to say it was something they campaigned on in the last election.
Something has happened, once again, in the far right element of the Conservative Party. They have now taken yet another flip-flop. We talked about the price on pollution before, and we all remember that flip-flop. Here is another one.
How can the member have gone to knock on doors to talk about how this was what they were going to do? This legislation is doing what they said they were going to do, and now, not only is the member going to vote against it, but she is also spreading all sorts of misinformation about the bill? Why is that?
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:12:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting when the members opposite throw around the word “misinformation”.
It is the usual buzzword Liberals go to to sling mud in this direction without having substance over there in that direction. It is the word they go to when they think that it cannot be argued against. They think it is a nail in the coffin. They think it is trump card played. They think that, if they call something “misinformation”, they can silence the individual's voice.
Witness after witness who appeared before our committee here in the House of Commons and the Senate committee raised incredibly rich and significant concerns with this bill. For this member to state that my speech, and the concerns that were raised there, are misinformation is for him to launch an attack against those witnesses who come with a greater understanding of this legislation than he certainly has. They probably have a greater education and professional background as well, and he is choosing to silence them.
The member is choosing to call that information “misinformation” because it is made up of the quotes and the voices I have stood here to represent today. Shame on the member for trying to silence me.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Lethbridge for her brief speech. She spoke a lot about the fact that Bill C‑18 offers nothing positive for smaller media outlets, weeklies or newspapers.
Oddly enough, however, over the course of our study, the most vocal proponents of this bill were people like Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, president of La Presse, and Benoît Chartier and Sylvain Poisson of Hebdos Québec, an organization representing about 150 Quebec weeklies. There was also Paul Deegan of News Media Canada, which represents various media outlets across Canada. There was also Jad Barsoum and the folks from Quebecor, which is by no means a second-rate media organization. All of these people, who represent very small to average-sized media outlets and mega media companies, unanimously agree: Bill C‑18 is a necessity.
I have a simple yet complicated question for my colleague. I want to know whether she listened only to the version of the web giants like Google and Facebook and those who signed agreements with those companies. Did she also take the time to listen to the people from News Media Canada, Hebdos Québec, and other media outlets like La Presse and Les coops de l'information, who have been calling for a bill like Bill C-18?
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:15:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will answer with a fact. I will take the emotion out for a moment here. This legislation states that, even to be considered for CRTC approval to enter into these negotiations, a news business has to show that it has a minimum of two journalists. Many local newspapers or ethnic media newspapers do not have two journalists. That means they would not even be considered by the CRTC to qualify. When I state that local media and ethnic media will be left out in the cold, I state that as fact.
While I understand there may be a few niche outlets that could benefit from this legislation, the vast majority of local and ethnic newspapers will not benefit.
The committee heard testimony from Steve Nixon, the executive director of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association. He said that they only have four publications out of 56 that would benefit from this legislation. That leaves 52 out in the cold. It means they are unlikely to make it because of the imbalance that would be caused by this legislation.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:17:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of providing funding to community newspapers is important. In fact, New Democrats fought for it. The hon. member referenced that they have to have a minimum of two employees. I believe it was the New Democrats who fought for 1.25 or 1.5 FTEs at the request of small independent outlets. That is more than one but not quite two.
The member would know that groups, including the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, fought for this in its final iteration. They wanted this. They wanted this legislation so they could compete with the big giants.
I am wondering, as the member talks about silencing expert testimony and witnesses, what she has to say in response to the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association and the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, from her neck of the woods, which actively fought for this legislation that she is now fighting so actively against?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope the member takes the time to post my answer with his question. I would like to correct the record.
Mr. Matthew Green: Probably not.
Mrs. Rachael Thomas: He probably will not. That is what he said.
Mr. Matthew Green: I will censor it.
Mrs. Rachael Thomas: He will censor it, he said. That is true. That is exactly what will happen.
Madam Speaker, this is your House. I will let you bring it to order.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:18:35 p.m.
- Watch
Could we allow the honourable member for Lethbridge to answer the question?
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:18:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for the NDP just stated that the NDP brought forward a motion asking that there be allowance for news outlets with 1.25 or 1.5 full-time employees to be considered. I am curious if one person would be doing the work of 1.25, 1.5 or 1.75 full-time employees. They would not. Two journalists would work that amount of time.
My point still stands. This bill is designed such that, if an outlet has fewer than two journalists, it would not be considered.
To correct the record for the member, because I am sure he would not want to mislead anyone, it was Conservatives who brought forward a motion calling for a minimum of one journalists and for an outlet to be considered based on that premise. The NDP voted against that common-sense Conservative motion asking for the consideration of outlets with only one journalist.
The NDP insisted that there be a minimum of two. Whether those are two people splitting one full-time job or two people splitting one and a half jobs, I guess that is up to the outlet. Nevertheless, there have to be two individuals for the outlet to be considered. That is just not the case in so many of these local regions.
Further to that, I will just raise that this is rather rich for the NDP members. They are socialists. They very much like to complain that people are not making enough wealth. They like to see government handouts and things of that sort. Their arguing that two journalists should split a job that is one full-time job or one and a half full-time jobs is rather concerning to me. I was advocating that there be two journalists, each with full-time wages.
302 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:20:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-51, entitled An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be deemed reported back from the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:21:36 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. minister 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): Resuming debate. The hon. member for Drummond.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is never a dull moment in the House. It truly is incredible. There is always some event or other that grabs our attention.
I am very happy Bill C‑18 has reached this stage. I am happy, but I can promise my colleagues that there are an awful lot of people at media outlets in my riding and pretty much everywhere in Quebec, not to mention everywhere across Canada, based on our conversations with stakeholders, that will let out a big sigh of relief when we finally pass Bill C‑18.
I would humbly like to dedicate my speech to the 1,300 workers in the news sector whose jobs were cut at Bell Media last week. We talked about it here in the House. I would like to spare a thought for two of them. I am sure that many of my colleagues have some in their ridings throughout Quebec and Canada.
Martin Brassard, a journalist with 35 years of experience at Bell Media, in my colleague's riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, lost his job to the cuts. Back home in Drummond, Louis‑Philippe Harnois‑Arel, a talented young journalist full of potential and promise who worked on the Bell-owned Noovo news desk, was also among those who lost their jobs because of these cuts.
Mr. Speaker, you may not have had a chance to read today's news yet, but in today's Le Devoir, Boris Proulx reports that my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood hinted that Bell's decision to cut 1,300 jobs and close six radio stations may have been part of a plan, made in cahoots with the government, to force the adoption of Bill C‑18 this week.
I wondered what kind of movie script we were playing out. Have we really got to the point where we believe that a company will fire 1,300 people just because we want to push through a bill that is long overdue and that was obviously going to pass in the coming days or weeks anyway?
Honestly, I think that is going a little overboard with the conspiracy theories. I wanted to say it. I really admire my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which we co-chair. I know that he loves the media industry and that before becoming an MP, he had a career in the media, as did I. He and I will definitely have an opportunity to talk about it again.
To provide some context, the media, and especially the news media, has been struggling for many years. Facebook and Google in particular appropriate the news stories, the news content, without paying royalties or compensation for the material produced with hard work and passion by newsrooms.
In the early 2000s, red flags were already being raised regarding the presence of the web giants, the major corporations that were taking up more and more space on the Internet. The government decided at that time to exempt them from the Broadcasting Act, to exclude them from those regulations. Perhaps the government was short-sighted. I do not want to criticize the decisions made back then, because they were based on the information available at the time, but I think the government could have shown a little more agility. The government may not have given itself sufficient freedom to re-evaluate its position over time.
For years, the news media in particular, but also the cultural industry, have been sounding the alarm and urging caution because these giants were taking up more and more space, and warning that the space taken by these giants was hurting them, eating into their revenues and putting jobs at risk.
That is exactly what has happened over time. Successive governments were warned, but no one ever bothered to lift a finger or consider whether something should be done for the news media and the cultural industry.
As I said earlier, I was in the media before switching to politics. I also worked in the private sector, always with some connection to advertising. For years, I had a front-row seat to the impact this new player in the advertising world was having on the market. For example, representatives would come to us to sell us advertising and explain that it was more profitable for us to buy advertising space from them than from the digital platforms, even though the digital platforms were offering rock-bottom prices compared to traditional media. Obviously, it was very tempting for all kinds of companies to choose the option of switching to digital media, to Google and its ilk.
Today, more than 80% of advertising revenue is generated online. The market has been cornered primarily by Google and Facebook, which, again, pay no royalties. They pay nothing to the people who produce the content. They get to monetize that content and use it to sell their advertising.
On top of that, they collect data. We know that data is even more lucrative than advertising. They are really raking it in and not leaving anything for anyone else. Journalists are slowly seeing their work picked up by digital media, and high-quality reporting by talented journalists is ending up being shared on Facebook or Google in search results. Not a penny goes back to them for that, and not a penny goes back to the media that paid to produce it.
This makes no sense to me. We urgently needed to address the calls from news media and implement legislation that would impose not specific amounts or a payment, but rather a framework for negotiations. Bill C‑18 does not tell companies that they have to pay a certain amount. What Bill C‑18 does is tell companies that they have an obligation to negotiate in good faith within the legislated framework. That is what Bill C‑18 is all about.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that this will give one party an advantage over another. It is going a bit far. I think this bill could likely be improved and it will not solve all of the problems. That is obvious. The news media have fallen so far over the past 10 or 15 years that Bill C‑18 alone is certainly not the solution. However, it is definitely a step in the right direction. We are certainly sending the right message to the web giants by telling them that they cannot cannibalize our news outlets' content and our cultural content.
It is urgent that we pass this bill and it is urgent to see what impact it will have so that we can then put measures in place to help media outlets—
1147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:30:21 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Minister of Tourism on a point of order.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent on a point of order.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is totally unacceptable what is happening right now in this debate.
We were in the middle of a debate on an essential bill, Bill C‑18, with arguments in favour and arguments against. The member for Drummond, who has been working hard on this for months, if not years, was in the process of delivering a very interesting and important speech in this debate. Then, in the middle of his speech, as though it were no big deal, the Liberal minister intervenes and ends the debate. This is completely unacceptable.
This bill was supposed to be debated all evening. Only the governing party has been able to speak in the time it was allotted, and the official opposition had a chance to speak, but this is not about chances, it is about debate and parliamentary democracy. The second opposition party had started its time, but it got barely eight out of its 20 minutes, not to mention the period for questions and comments that would have followed, when we could have enriched the debate and demonstrated its importance. Instead, the government is pulling the plug—
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:32:15 p.m.
- Watch
I understand the gist of the point of order, but this is in order and allowed.
Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the motion is deemed adopted.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:32:45 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. whip for the official opposition.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
With less than 30 minutes' notice, the government informed the official opposition that it intended to switch the business before the House this evening. We had planned on debating Bill C-18, the online news act, until midnight, because that is what the government told Canadians and members of Parliament it would do through the projected order of business, which was published on the parliamentary website.
It is the common practice of the House that the government provide accurate information on the projected order of business so that all members can plan accordingly. Of course, the government has the right to determine the business it brings to the House on any given day. It also reserves the right to change the business throughout the day. That said, it should always provide at least the professional courtesy of informing other parties of its intentions as early as possible. In this case, it would appear that this standard of professionalism was not met.
I understand that the government House leaders had difficulty managing the agenda of the House, but for the future, I think it is proper that we should expect better planning. The government is in chaos as it relates to the economy. It has been embroiled in scandals, including the latest one on the transfer of Paul Bernardo. I ask that the government House leader contain this chaos to his cabinet table and not bring this level of disorganization to the House.
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 6:34:11 p.m.
- Watch
That is duly noted.
The hon. member for Lethbridge has a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was part of leading the charge on the debate with regard to Bill C-18, the online news act, and the bill was scheduled for debate tonight. A whole host speakers from all parties were prepared to speak to it. With only a moment's notice, that debate was cut short.
I would have the House know that this has happened in the past at second reading of the bill—
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
