44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to my hon. colleague's concerns and comments.
First, I want to address the issue of the Senate, a place I have amazing respect for, regardless of who appointed the senators. I think everything they put forward is treated with respect and consideration. We like to think they have an extra sense of maturity, and I think we should not be disrespectful in our comments, because we certainly, on this side of the House, are very respectful of any amendments that the Senate puts forward.
Second, I look at my colleague's grey hairs, of which we all have a few. I am trying to figure out whether he has children or grandchildren. I have considerable concerns about what is going on in the media when it comes to what our children are exposed to. I would think the hon. member has an equal number of concerns around some of the things we see on some of these sites.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 7:44:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the opposition day designated for Thursday, June 22, has been undesignated, and redesignated for Wednesday, June 21.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know how to respond to my hon. colleague's making comments about my hair. Maybe I should have it dyed blond; I do not know.
In terms of respect and heading to the Senate, my hon. colleague talked about maturity. I think she might be approaching that stage in life where she has her eye on the other place. We would not want the news media to put a tilted slant on her heading over there some day. If the supreme leader stays in place long enough, he has some positions to fill.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member. I enjoy my time sitting on the fisheries committee with him. Although we disagree on almost everything, we do have many good conversations, so that is good.
First, I want to quickly express my concerns about a continuation of misinformation happening; the Speaker ruled, yet we hear the member continuing to heckle in here and other members saying that it was censorship. It is completely absurd.
The other thing is that I do not understand the attention being paid to CBC, which is the only independent broadcaster in Canada. It is not the only one, but it is the only one that does not have corporations at the forefront of its work. My question to the member is does he agree—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron: Madam Speaker, is it appropriate that we have a member in the House currently heckling me, who has been asked to not heckle? She is in the corner right now, heckling, despite a Speaker's having ruled that she should not be heckling in the House.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my fellow fishery committee member's question. She talked about CBC and its independence, or whatever. Her taste in food is much better than her taste in media, because she just told me about how much she liked fried bologna and beans. Her taste in food is a lot better than her taste in media, and I think she should make that a part of her daily routine.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know this might more properly be a continuation of a point of order, but in response—
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 7:48:21 p.m.
- Watch
I have to interrupt the hon. member. There is a great deal of noise and I cannot hear the hon. member.
Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or on a question? It is a question.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out to my friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame that there are many things in the Standing Orders that are actually known as rules; they are not guidelines.
In the old days, Speakers who found somebody heckling, or violating the Standing Orders in other ways, would throw them out of the chamber for six months or more. This is not censorship; this is called decorum, and it is easy to follow the rules. One of them that I think the hon. member might want to take a look at is Standing Order 10, which says that, when the Speaker has stated a ruling, “No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.” We should cease discussing something that happened earlier in the day.
To the member's points on Bill C-18, I do not see how it would be censorship. I may think it is flawed policy, but I do not see any censorship there, and perhaps he could explain where he sees censorship as opposed to an effort to, as the member said, support legacy media.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think there is a travesty in this place, and we have a shadow minister who is shepherding this censorship bill and is being censored—
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 7:49:47 p.m.
- Watch
This has been dealt with by other chair occupants. The Speaker will return to the House with a decision on the point of order raised by the member for South Surrey—White Rock.
The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when a piece of legislation would support certain media giants that are affiliated with and support the narrative the Liberal government is putting forward, and would throw other smaller media to the curb, that would be a form of censorship. That is with respect to one part of the member's question.
As to—
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 7:50:36 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this place to speak to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, which has been returned to the House by the Senate with amendments.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to point out once again the hypocrisy of the Liberals, who imposed time allocation on this bill for a second time earlier today. If that was not egregious enough, yesterday a member of the government interrupted a member of an opposition party in the middle of their speech to give notice that it would be moving a time allocation motion on Bill C-18 today. The government then switched debate to Bill C-42, forcing that opposition member to finish their speech this afternoon. Perhaps it is understandable that the government is in such disarray as it stumbles from scandal to scandal, mismanaging its agenda in the House so poorly that it must now rely on these heavy-handed measures at the end of this session, although it can always count on the blind support of its NDP backbench to bail it out.
Moving on to the bill, this bill will require digital platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay Canadian media outlets for sharing their news content. Digital giants will have six months to negotiate private deals to compensate Canadian media outlets before being required to enter into arbitration. The proposed legislation will also create a framework for the arbitration process.
This is yet another ill-conceived bill from the NDP-Liberal government. Subject matter experts have raised numerous questions and concerns about it, including the impact it will have on news media, the Internet in Canada and the benefit or lack thereof to Canadian media.
Some questions remain unanswered: Why was the CRTC selected to be the regulator? Does the CRTC have the knowledge and expertise capacity to do the job properly? Does the CRTC have the capacity to enforce the regulations once they are created? The answers to these questions and others are impossible to know, because they will stem from the regulations that will follow if this bill is passed into law.
Essentially, what the government is asking of us is to grant them these new powers and just trust that it will be fair in its application. It is a ridiculous thing to ask for. The government has been chronically plagued with introducing deeply flawed and deliberately vague legislation, leaving the details to be fleshed out by the bureaucrats through regulation, which does not get the kind of public scrutiny that bills do through a debate in this place.
It is not only that: The government has also been chronically plagued with scandals and cover-ups. How can it be trusted to do the right thing when it has shown time and time again that it is prepared to abuse its position of power to help out its friends?
The fact that the CRTC, which is a government entity, will decide which news outlets qualify under this legislation is effectively a form of indirect funding. This bill allows the CRTC to pick winners and losers by determining which news businesses are included and will get to bargain for compensation and which news outlets will be left in the cold. Conservatives proposed amendments to level the playing field but were voted down by the other parties. While the government may suggest that the CRTC is independent, I am not reassured. The WE Charity scandal came out of a supposedly independent process. The SNC-Lavalin scandal came out of that same supposedly independent process. For the Liberal government, an independent process is independent in name only.
Another flaw in the conception of this bill is the idea that hyperlinks possess monetary value. While 99.9% of Canadians may not be aware of it, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011 dealt with this very issue. In the case of Crookes v. Newton, the Supreme Court stated clearly in their decision that hyperlinks are akin to footnotes. Since footnotes do not carry a monetary value when used in publications, why should hyperlinks? Although access to the information behind the link is much faster than having to look up the reference in a footnote, the two are considered to operate in the same way.
The Supreme Court was quite clear in their findings on this case. Experts are asking why the government is ignoring the Supreme Court in this matter and whether it planning on challenging this decision from over a decade ago. How does it reconcile what is in this bill with the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2011?
Another flaw in thinking that links have monetary value is that often publishers and sellers are paying to feature their links at the top of search engines or to boost their outreach on Facebook. It is interesting that when organizations are paying to feature their links on these sites more prominently, the government now turns around and says that it is the one that should be getting paid.
Initiating this “link tax”, as it has been called, can open the door to other issues, such as the ability of larger organizations to take less money per link than smaller organizations, making the larger organizations a more attractive partner for big corporations. That raises the question of how smaller websites will be able to compete.
The reality of media marketing is that organizations pay money to push links to their sites on platforms like Google and Facebook all the time. They spend quite a bit of money to do this. This boosting of their links is essentially an advertisement for their respective websites. Does providing access to these sites not boost user engagement with their articles? If Google or Facebook were taking the articles of Canadian news outlets and republishing them as their own, then we would have a real issue, but it is an issue that can already be addressed through existing laws and legislation. However, that is not the issue at hand. Anyone who has used Google would know that search engines do not republish articles in this way. If I were to search for an article, I would need to click through to the article in order to access the content behind it.
Another deep concern with this legislation is that the CBC would be the largest beneficiary of the provisions in this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the majority of the money—three-quarters of it, to be exact—would go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell, with less than a quarter left for newspapers. After the larger newspaper businesses take their share, very little, if any, would be left for local and ethnic media.
Canadians already give over $1 billion to the CBC each year. If the purpose of this bill, as the government purports, is to support smaller domestic media sources, why include the CBC? Again, Conservatives proposed an amendment to exclude the CBC so that more money would go to local and independent news sources, but it was voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Bloc.
In conclusion, I am very concerned that rather than helping Canadian news outlets, this bill would harm them by restricting their reach, as I have mentioned. Independent media are foundational to Canadian democracy. Experts in the field have raised the concern that this legislation would negatively impact this principle in Canada. When the government creates criteria for access to funds, even media organizations may self-censor to ensure they qualify. This could lead to Canadians having less information, fewer options and an unbalanced media field.
Once again, I am unable to vote for this bill in its current form.
1308 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is somewhat disappointing and disheartening when we see the type of support that is out there for this legislation.
I will use something that was brought up earlier as an example. We can look at the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association or the media outlets, or we can look at the amount of concern that Canadians have with regard to media and the important role that the media play in some of the foundations of our democracy, and then we can look at what is happening inside the House.
We have the NDP recognizing that the bill is good. We have the Bloc recognizing that the bill is good. We have members of the Green Party recognizing that the bill is good. Obviously the Liberals recognize that the bill is good. We used to have the Conservative Party, under a different leader in the last election, saying that the bill, in essence, was good. In fact, it was in the Conservative election platform.
Could the member explain to Canadians why, under this current right-wing leadership of the party today, the Conservatives cannot support good legislation that is modelled after Australia's and France's, something they incorporated into their own election platform?
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my speech I outlined a number of concerns that we have with this bill. I hope that the hon. member was listening to it.
Conservatives are not saying that addressing the issue that the bill is trying to address is completely without merit, but rather that this legislation is not the right solution for the problem. Once again, it is deeply flawed.
The NDP-Liberal coalition is not really looking for fair solutions. It is only seeking more centralized power and bureaucracy in Ottawa through this piece of legislation.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, in 2020, $9.7 billion of online advertising revenue was generated. Out of that $9.7 billion, Google and Facebook benefited, receiving 80% of this revenue.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she could explain why her party consistently neglects to protect small start-up independent online publishers and news media outlets in Canada over online giants like Google and Facebook.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the answer is quite simple: This bill will not do that. Although there are a few small publications that will benefit from Bill C-18, the vast majority of local and ethnic media will not.
During the study of this bill at committee, Steve Nixon, the executive director of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, made this point. He said that only four out of the 56 publications will benefit from this legislation.
The PBO has stated, as I mentioned in my speech, that 75% of the money will go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell. This government does not want to help small publications, and neither does that member's party.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, the Conservatives are against the idea of CBC/Radio-Canada and other public media outlets benefiting from this because they are publicly funded businesses. They also said that smaller media outlets would not benefit.
The legislation could be amended to provide more support to smaller media outlets. Would my colleague agree that multinationals like Google, Meta and others need to be regulated and that, otherwise, they will stifle smaller media outlets and traditional media?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's observations about the CBC and small media outlets, as well as about Google and Facebook.
The bottom line here is that the CBC does not need any additional support from Canadians, contrary to what some members might believe. It already receives over $1 billion a year from taxpayers. I, for one, question if Canadians are getting value for those tax dollars that are being spent.
If the purpose is to support smaller domestic media outlets, this bill will not do that, and we do not need to give more money to the CBC.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my riding there are 13 weekly newspapers. The NDP voted against a number of them receiving it because one person is the proprietor, owner and reporter. The NDP voted against our amendment to support small local media in my riding.
I think the MP from Saskatchewan would probably respond, as it is similar in her riding, but the NDP voted against that.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
