44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, that is incredibly rich coming from a minister who used to decry any closure motions when he was in opposition.
I want to point out that, from the time of Tommy Douglas to the time of Thomas Mulcair, over those 14 Parliaments, the NDP only supported closure 17 times. With today's vote, we are at over 40 times in the past two years that the NDP has supported its Liberal partners in shutting down democracy and debate in this Parliament.
That is shameful behaviour. How can the NDP members stand over there and decry and heckle me now, while they are supporting one of the most unethical and most corrupt governments that we have seen in Canadian history?
On the issue of the bill, I will just say this: The minister stands here and says he is supporting local media. The Liberal government has not supported our local community newspapers or stood up for the local content creators. By going forward with this bill, it is putting more power in the hands of Rogers, Bell and the CBC, rather than actually supporting those local content creators. They are demising our democracy in this country by shutting down freedom of the press through this bill, by cutting off the voices of those who want to be independent on the Internet. That is—
225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate input from the leader of the Green Party. I am not sure if she was here for the beginning of my comments. The bottom line is that it is important for Canadians to realize the degree to which the government is working with some opposition parties in this House in order to pass important legislation.
I indicated at the beginning of my remarks just how important our community media outlets are. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that Facebook, Google and the big giant tech companies are paying for what they are receiving and utilizing through media news outlets. We are attempting to ensure that we have healthier community news and a healthier democracy, as a direct result.
I indicated earlier that I would talk about CBC. We have a government that is committed to supporting CBC and I would love, during questions and comments, to hear some Conservative members make the commitment to support CBC Radio and CBC Television. I will not hold my breath on that point, but it sure would be nice for them to support that, if not Bill C-18.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I look on social media. I just heard the term “tinfoil hats”. That is certainly a growing theme in the House of Commons these days. Facts seem to be a thing of the past. As a long-time academic, I cherish facts.
Getting back to the debate, the Conservatives brought forward amendments that attempted to block the CBC from accessing compensation from web giants that profit from sharing CBC content. There is that kind of attack on the media. Certainly the Conservatives have a leader who constantly attacks freedom of the press. Actually, he refuses to respond to questions from the press.
I wonder if the member can explain how the Conservatives' position can possibly be fair to the CBC. I know they pick and choose whom they talk to. They do not really seem to appreciate freedom of the press. However, do they not understand that the CBC also provides important news information to Canadians?
160 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, 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, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
I rise today to speak about my concerns related to Bill C-18. This bill should be strongly opposed. We Conservatives believe that Canadian news media deserves to be fairly compensated, while the Liberals continue to fail to create effective legislation to support Canadians.
First and foremost, the Liberals claim that Bill C-18 would help smaller newspapers and media outlets. However, they fail to mention the fact that, according to the government's Parliamentary Budget Officer, more than 75% of the funding would go to large media outlets, such as the CBC. Less than 25% would be left for small media companies. The Liberal government claims to support small businesses, yet it continues to funnel tax dollars to its friends at media companies. Small news outlets' main competition is from corporations, such as the CBC.
We Conservatives proposed amendments that would level the playing field and support local and ethnic media. These amendments were rejected. The Liberals want to pick and choose their friends instead. Is $1.2 billion to the CBC not enough?
In the Senate, Senator Carignan tried to bring forth a motion to fix this. It was rejected.
According to former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies, “Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.” He said, “If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.” Do the Liberals admit that they do not like a free press? The Liberal government continues to help its elitist friends in high places and big corporations, while it forgets about the local and ethnic media outlets.
Dwayne Winseck, a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication and director of the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project for Carleton University said, “Canada's largest media conglomerates—some with revenue multiple times higher than what Google and Facebook earn in Canada—will likely be the biggest beneficiaries of the bill”.
In December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses at committee, silencing experts from dozens of independent and digital news outlets who wished to speak. Rather than focusing on Canadian experts, the government relied mainly on non-Canadian critics of the digital platforms Google and Meta to tout Liberal talking points.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage deceptively stated that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. However, he failed to mention that the same study he was referencing showed that hundreds of new news outlets had opened during the same time period.
After criticizing digital platforms for not disclosing the details of existing agreements with news outlets, the Liberal and NDP MPs on the committee rejected a proposal brought forward by Conservatives to require greater transparency. Now they have brought on time allocation to silence Canadians' concerns. The Liberal-NDP government has no interest in listening to these concerns. It wants to silence anyone with opposing views.
Furthermore, Bill C-18 poses a grave threat to privacy rights. The bill includes provisions that would expand the government's surveillance capabilities, allowing it to collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data without sufficient oversight. This erosion of privacy is deeply troubling. We should have the right to live our lives free from unwarranted surveillance and invasion of our private affairs.
By giving authorities unchecked powers to collect and analyze our personal data, this bill would put our privacy at risk and set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives. Just like Bill C-11, Bill C-18 would infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Conservatives believe in the importance of a free and independent press. This bill would have significant implications for journalistic independence. Bill C-18 would empower the CRTC to obtain any information it considers necessary, including confidential information from news organizations. Conservative MPs brought forward amendments to guarantee the freedom of the press, but they were voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Bloc Québécois.
Another concern is that Bill C-18 would impact small businesses and start-ups. The bill would introduce stringent regulations and compliance requirements that would disproportionately burden smaller online platforms. This would create a significant barrier to entry for entrepreneurs, stifling innovation and competition. We must foster an environment that nurtures small businesses and start-ups, as they are often the driving force behind economic growth and job creation.
By favouring large corporations, the bill threatens to consolidate power in the hands of a few, reducing consumer choice and limiting opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship. The bill would enable the CRTC to pick winners and losers among media; to no one's surprise, the Liberals' friends are going to be picked as winners. Conservatives brought forward motions to fix this. They were rejected.
Many experts feel that the bill is on a path to destroying Canadian media. They agree that the bill has deep flaws, which would lead to millions of dollars in lost revenue. This would set back media by years, and the projected losses that would be incurred because of Bill C-18 are greater than the funding and the tax credits.
The Liberals have extended the eligibility to foreign news outlets, and they have the audacity to claim that this will help Canadians. Broadcasters who are licensed by the CRTC but do not produce news are eligible.
From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Katherine Tai has warned that Bill C-18 would have serious trade implications for Canada. In a recent press release, a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy stated the following: “We have...concerns it could impact digital streaming services and discriminate against U.S. businesses”. The U.S. has warned of trade retaliation, which would likely be equivalent to whatever the U.S. believed U.S.-based digital news intermediaries had lost as a result of Bill C-18. According to the PBO, this would be $300 million-plus. The Liberals have found a way to give Canadian taxpayer dollars to American companies, while at the same time, making trade relations with the United States worse.
Any government intervention into the free press must be carefully considered, as there is a potential to warp outcomes, stifle innovation, determine winners and losers, and compromise journalistic independence. In its current form, Bill C-18, the online news act, fails this test, according to the independent online news publishers of Canada.
Furthermore, the vague and ambiguous language used in Bill C-18 raises concerns about potential abuse of power. The broad definitions and discretionary powers granted to government agencies leave room for arbitrary decision-making and selective enforcement. This undermines principles of fairness and due process, which are crucial to the functioning of a just society. We must demand legislation that is clear and specific, while respecting the rights of individuals and the rule of law. The Liberals intentionally used vague language to deceive Canadians so that they can interpret the wording in a way that will allow them to give more and more help and funding to their friends.
The legislation before us fails to address the needs of Canadian media outlets. Conservatives have brought forward amendments to fix these issues, but the Liberal-NDP coalition, along with the Bloc, voted them down.
Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians, stand up for small businesses and push back against the Liberal government giving money to its friends. Canada needs more common-sense legislation without ambiguous words. We need legislation that uses strong wording that can be easily interpreted.
In conclusion, Bill C-18 represents a disregard for small businesses, as well as the principles of fairness and due process. The bill would help neither those struggling to survive nor those trying to enter the marketplace. We oppose the bill and demand a more balanced and thoughtful approach that respects our fundamental rights and effectively addresses—
1341 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
