44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/20/23 8:16:22 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since 2008, we have witnessed over 450 media outlets of all different forms virtually disappear. We recognize these media outlets as having value; they are important to society, to our communities and to democracy. We have legislation before us that has support virtually across the board, from local communities and larger communities to political entities, including all of those inside this House, with the exception of the Conservatives. The Conservatives refuse to recognize the value of the legislation, which is modelled after what we have seen in Australia and France.
My question for the member is this: Why does he believe everyone else is thinking it would be healthy for our communities to preserve these systems into the future? Why does it have to be the Conservatives who are right, when it appears they are dead wrong on voting against this bill?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to admit that the Liberals paint a pretty picture, and I believe that is what is happening here. The Liberals have come out and said not to worry, that they are from the government, that they are here to help and that it is going to be good. The more they keep spouting this off, the more I worry that they are actually doing exactly what we are saying the bill would do. It would not help any of our small local media producers, which they promise it would do. Once again, the Liberals are helping out their best friends in big corporations, such as the CBC, and they are the ones who are going to get the most money. Our small conglomerates that the member says were going broke in the last few years would continue to go broke through the legislation.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised some points here, yet he has not really answered the concerns of people in his constituency. When he talks about small independent media, he has not once referenced the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, which worked with the NDP to get the amendments passed that would allow for small organizations to get funding. What does the hon. member have to say to the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, which is in support of this legislation and worked with the committee in the process as a stakeholder? Now, it hears this member from Alberta shutting the association out and suggesting that somehow that it is not a legitimate stakeholder in this discussion.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, once again, they are spouting off about how great this legislation is. That is funny. I am actually talking to my news reporters and the owners of these small papers within my riding. They are telling me that this is not going to help them one bit. We have tried to put an amendment in at committee to make sure that they could be represented, but the member voted it down. Therefore, those members are the ones who are not helping small businesses and media in our communities.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love the opportunity to reply.
It is strange to me. The member talked about speaking to the owners or managers of local businesses; we would assume that they have more than one employee. What is at stake here? What he has created is this red herring and false straw man argument. The misinformation the Conservatives have been spouting all night is that these small organizations would not get help. These organizations are precisely those the legislation is supposed to help. However, when he talks about big corporations, he does not have the courage to take on Google and Facebook, which are profiting from the work of his local community without paying for it.
This is a basic question of pay equity for workers, creators and local news agencies, so I will ask him this again: Did he consult with the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, and if so, how can he reconcile the difference he has today in this debate?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member spouts off a very good argument on his behalf, yet he is one of the people sitting here saying that this legislation is going to help everyone, that it is going to be great and that we should not worry about it. He asks why we are so concerned about this. He is the one who has to go and say that it is going to help all these people who are creators, from one person who owns a paper to potentially someone who has one or two part-time employees. These are small media sources. They do not have the revenue coming in that they need to survive, and the legislation would do absolutely nothing for them.
Therefore, the legislation is not something I can support now or in the future, unless it gets changed substantially.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the well-informed constituents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and speak to the Liberals' online news censorship act.
Every single day, thousands of Canadians have their online identity stolen. Every single day, a woman has her privacy and dignity stolen by revenge porn. Every single day, the mental health crisis grows in scale, driven by social media use among teens. Online crimes run rampant. Do these Liberals care? No, they do not. Instead, their priority is propping up dying broadcasters and failing legacy media corporations.
They have already passed their online streaming censorship act. We are already beginning to see the consequences of that first stifling bill. Smaller foreign streamers are telling the CRTC they'll leave the Canadian market. These Liberals were warned this would happen. I personally warned the member for Winnipeg North what would happen if foreign-language streamers such as a Filipino streaming service blocked people living in Canada from watching their content.
Now, here we are again. Every independent voice is telling these Liberals that their plan is terrible. Their scheme to force two foreign companies to subsidize the entire Canadian media industry is obviously ridiculous. Even the legacy media have finally admitted they make millions of dollars from Google and Facebook. The legacy media even buy ads on Facebook and yet their lobbyists continue to lie, and claim that these two tech companies are profiting from their content. We know this is a lie. Facebook and Google do not profit off the dying legacy media. These companies profit off our privacy. These companies strip minor data and sell it to the highest bidder. News links generate very little profitable data. Google does not even run ads on most news searches. That is why these companies have been clear: If they are forced to choose between negotiating unlimited payments for links and blocking news links, they will choose to block news links.
Now the Minister of Canadian Heritage huffs and puffs about his chest. That it is just a bluff. Hearing the minister speak like that, I can understand why some of his critics think that he is incompetent. In fact, the government knows exactly what it is doing. It is called the Liberal coin flip. If it is heads, the Liberals win; if it is tails, Canadians lose. If Google and Facebook win, it is tails and Canadians lose. If Google and Facebook comply with the extortion, the legacy media become beholden to the Liberals' continuing in power. If Google and Facebook reject the extortion and block links, fewer Canadians will learn the truth about the government's corruption and incompetence. Heads they win; tails we lose.
However, it does not have to be this way. There is a third option. Facebook and Google could respect our democracy by seeking a solution in the courts. The legislation would require negotiation on a commercial basis. The news media representatives have now admitted they receive significant commercial benefit from links shared by Google and Facebook. Google and Facebook provide these commercial benefits to the news media industry free of charge.
It is clear from the Liberals' desperate talking points that this bill has no relationship with reality. It is based on the big lie first pushed by Rupert Murdoch's Australian media companies. This bill would never withstand judicial scrutiny. Facebook and Google have a choice: They can block news links and make Canadian democracy worse off or they can use their considerable resources to fight this law in court. Facebook and Google must keep the news links working, refuse to pay the blackmail and demonstrate they care more about the fundamental principles that the Internet was built on, which is the free flow of information.
If Google and Facebook refuse to fight this and they just give up on Canadians and proceed with blocking news, then the Prime Minister wins and Canadians lose.
How many Canadians learned about blackface from a Facebook post? How many Canadians have googled the words “Communist interference” and “Liberal Party” in order to keep up with the latest news leaks?
The government would be all too happy to see fewer news stories online. Failing that, it would settle for bringing the legacy media under the control of government. This bill would give the CRTC the power to demand any information from news media. At the recent convention, Liberal Party members cheerfully passed a policy to force news media to disclose their sources. Who is going to risk blowing the whistle on the government if the CRTC can demand any news media outlet reveal their identity?
The government claims it needs to force Google and Facebook to subsidize the entire Canadian media industry in order to save Canadians from the scourge of misinformation. Meanwhile, the minister of public endangerment is a one-man misinformation man. He claimed that police asked for the Emergencies Act. He claimed he was not banning hunting rifles while seeking to ban thousands of them. He claimed the secret Communist police stations had been shut down. The current government is the greatest source of misinformation in our society today. Now the Liberals want to bring news media under their control.
At its core, the government is confused. It has confused the fundamental right of a free press with the corporate interests of a news media industry. The survival of any one particular newspaper or broadcaster is of no importance to our democracy. What is important is the freedom for any Canadian to publish. Bill C-18 threatens that freedom. If Google and Facebook give in to the extortion, then the larger established legacy media will be given an unfair competitive advantage over any media not willing to get into bed with the CRTC and—
973 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
It being 8:29 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-18 now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 8:30:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 21, after the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C‑42 at third reading stage.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to important legislation that we are hoping to pass. The good news about this legislation is that it does not matter which political party in the House members are in, because I understand there is a very good chance this legislation will pass unanimously. I am not too sure about the Green Party. I am assuming it will support the bill. It may be iffy, but we will have to wait and see.
The good news is that at least the Conservatives are onside, along with the New Democrats, the Bloc and obviously the governing party. I see that as a positive thing. At the end of the day, we are sending a very strong message that I like to think the federal government is taking strong leadership on.
When we think of the Canada Business Corporations Act and the impact it can have in building confidence, both in our economy and in the public on the whole issue of trust in corporations, I see it as a win-win for everyone. There are very serious issues that we need to face in government, but it is not just the national government. That is why I emphasize that the federal government is talking about the Canada Business Corporations Act. As members of the House will know, it is not just the federal government that is responsible for all corporations and businesses in Canada. From a numbers perspective, the provinces and territories have more corporations and businesses that, hopefully, at some point in the future, will also fall under—
270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 8:34:04 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was in the middle of my speech and just learned the reason I was summarily cut off, censored, from speaking to the online censorship bill.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my point of order is that they added all the times that the opposition coalition members were granted points of order to count against my time.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member knows full well that this was the time allocated for the debate on Bill C-18, and that was the end of it.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member was not censored. The time was limited on debate, and that was it. That was the end of debate on Bill C-18. That was it. There is no point of order.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 8:35:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised, we have seen this time and time again. It seems like the Conservative Party does not want to go by the Standing Orders and the rules of this House. I am beginning to take these points of orders as being a direct attack on the Speaker and the Speaker's ability to rule over this House.
In these last remaining hours, I would ask that we please continue, knowing that no party in this House is above the Standing Orders of this House.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
