44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 28, 2022 11:00AM
- Feb/28/22 1:16:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member's constituents in Barrie for selecting an extremely good candidate in the upcoming provincial election. The mayor of Barrie, Jeff Lehman, is going to run as a Liberal candidate in the election this spring and I look forward to him representing Barrie at Queen's Park. I congratulate the people of Barrie.
I heard the Conservative House leader talk about the fact that the government House leader said that he does not trust parliamentarians to do this work, but that is not what I heard. I heard him say that it was important to remove the two parties from the chairmanship that had the most at stake in terms of what went on in the House during the debate over the course of the four or five days. I think it is a good plan if the chairs are from other parties, because it would remove what we saw there.
Why does it matter so much to have a chair? Why is it so important that the Conservatives have a chair? What do Conservatives think that will affect in the outcome?
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments that the member made and I want to thank him for his intervention. I am very relieved when I hear members trying to make suggestions as to how things could be improved in a bill. I noticed he did that while talking about the number of subscribers and how it could perhaps be tied to receiving money, not for government purposes, as this member said, but to invest back into Canadian culture. That suggestion assumes that people who are uploading content are going to be subjected to the conditions within this bill. This bill specifically states that those who upload content, so influencers or people putting their own material out there, will not be subject to the provisions within the bill.
I am curious why the Conservatives are going down the same path that we saw them go with the previous version of the bill last year.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-11 and to continue this discussion that has been going on for quite a while. It has been at least a year since a bill similar to this one was introduced in the last session of Parliament. That bill, unfortunately, did not make it past the finish line, but what we have here is an improved version of the bill we saw before, a bill that tackled some of the challenges and obstacles, rightly or wrongly, that were put forward in particular by the opposition.
I want to go back to one of the comments that was made just a few minutes ago by the Conservative member who was responding to questions. He said something very important. I think it is important because it represents a lot of the narrative that we are going to hear over the next few days.
I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.
We will hear a lot of the language that is being used. We just heard the previous member say that we do not want to allow the government to control what people watch. If anybody is going to be following this debate, I want them to pay close attention to the fact that as the debate goes on over the next few days or weeks, we will hear that language quite a bit from the Conservatives, because this is the exact language they used last time. It is language that tries to suggest to Canadians that the Government of Canada sits behind a desk and decides what people can watch and what they cannot watch. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the original bill did and what this bill is proposing to do now is not to regulate what people watch but to broaden the pool of what is available to them.
If someone has the perspective that we should be homogeneous in terms of everything that is in front of us since we live in North America, that there is no problem with being just like the United States, that we do not need our own individual identity and individual culture, then that is one thing. If that is somebody's position, although I disagree with it wholeheartedly, at least that would be the position of someone who still understands the facts. However, in fact this bill does not suggest that. What this bill does, and what I prefer, is that we provide Canadians with the opportunity to watch programming that is produced by Canadians and for Canadians as an option that someone can watch.
It is very similar to the CanCon rules that apply to radio stations. Right now, if someone in Canada has a radio station that broadcasts over FM and AM bands, they are subject to a rule that a certain amount of the content that is played during the day has to be Canadian content. I live in a border city that is not that far from Watertown, New York, and quite often we find radio stations trying to circumvent those rules. They would set up their transmission tower in Watertown, even though all of the broadcasting was happening in Kingston. It was being sent over to Watertown, New York, where it was then being broadcast from towers, and I am sure over 90% of the listenership was Canadian people because the broadcast audience was a Canadian audience in Kingston.
As the technologies develop and as we see new technologies come online and as the Internet becomes a dominant force in the consumption of content, it goes without saying that if we believe in making sure that Canadian content is in that pool of availability for those who are consuming it, we have to ensure that the Canadian content is there. That is the difference.
This is not about controlling what people see. I trust that we will have a more thorough debate on it this time around, but the rhetoric last time with Bill C-10 came down to suggesting that the federal government was trying to regulate all social media in order to determine what was put in front of people on the Internet, and that could not be further from the truth. This has always been about making sure that content is available.
What does this bill do specifically? Let me just highlight some of the important points. It brings those online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act because, as I previously mentioned, they are not. It will require online streaming services that serve Canadian markets to contribute to the production of Canadian content. This is what I was talking about. When Netflix or these other agencies are selling to Canadians, they have to invest in Canadian culture and Canadian-produced content.
Again, we might not agree with that. We might think that we are so globalized now that we can just get everything from wherever we want, and that should not matter. That of course is a position to take on this matter, but it is not the position that I take. It is not the position that the bill seeks to improve upon, because we recognize that it is extremely important that a portion of that content remains Canadian.
This also prioritizes support for content for francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ2+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators. It ensures online broadcasters will showcase more Canadian content, as I previously mentioned, and it modernizes outdated legislation to bring it into the 21st century.
It is also important to talk about what the bill will not do, despite the fact that I do not think that even my saying this now will change what we will hear. We are going to hear people in the chamber over the course of this debate say that it will do these things, but it will not impose regulations on content everyday Canadians post to social media. If someone uploads something to YouTube, they would not be subject to it even if they have a lot of followers, unless they are making money off it, in which case they would be similar to other businesses making money off it. There is an important point there that I will get back to in a second, because even those who do upload will not necessarily be subject to this.
It also does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users, as I said, and it will not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. I have already touched on this point, but it is important to mention it again because this is what we will hear over the course of this debate. We will hear that the Prime Minister is personally sitting behind a computer somewhere trying to set an algorithm so that people see more content that he likes.
I know we are going to hear that, because that is the rhetoric that happened with Bill C-10. I have no doubt that we will hear it again with Bill C-11, although I really hope that we do not, but if history is an indication of anything in the House, when these issues come up, Conservatives know exactly which ones are going to be the ones that they can push that will engage public reaction whether or not they are true.
I want to go back to the first comment I made when I was talking about the things it will not do, which was to impose regulations on everyday Canadians. This is important, because the member who spoke previous to me brought up the fact that if someone uploads a video or content and they are making money off it, they are subject to legislation. That is actually not true. There are three criteria, and these are “and” criteria, not “or” criteria, that need to be met in order for something to be considered commercial content. In determining whether the content is commercial content, the regulator will need to evaluate three elements. One is whether the content is monetized, which goes to the member's comment a few minutes ago. However, two other things also have to be present. One is whether the content exists on another non-social media platform, such as Spotify, the radio or TV. The other is whether the content, such as a song uploaded to YouTube, has a unique international standard music number. Those are the three items that need to happen for this legislation to apply.
The previous statement that somebody would be subject to it as long as they are making money off it is actually not the case. There are three criteria that need to be met.
I know that my time is coming to a close, but I wanted to say what this really is about. I hope that everyone will at the very least support the fundamentals of ensuring that the Canadian pool of content remains robust and available to Canadians, because if we look back at the decades that have gone by, the last 70 years or so, the Broadcasting Act, even though it did not apply to the Internet, is what made sure that the content remained available for Canadians to see.
1569 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point. I want to make sure it is known that I did not suggest that the member was saying that the government could control the algorithm. I said that I heard that last time and I expected some comments to that. This member certainly did not comment about that in his speech. I listened attentively to what he said.
His is an excellent point. My understanding is that it needs to be all three of those things. Therefore, I think that this should be one of the topics that comes up in committee, to make sure that this is the case, because it should be that way. I certainly read it to be that way and that is my interpretation. I hope that when the bill gets to committee, that can be clarified.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. I agree that this keeps coming back. Every month that goes by, more and more people are suffering as a result of this. I think it was very unfortunate the way this bill played out in the winter and spring of 2020. It inched along so slowly. We saw delay after delay and then, at the last minute, just before the House and the Senate were going to rise, the bill, Bill C-11, was voted on.
At the end of the day, I agree with the member that making sure we protect Canadian culture and Canadian content is absolutely imperative. The quicker we can get this through, the more we will be able to do that.
I know the member is from the Bloc. Quebec certainly has a strong and robust sector as it relates to film and audio in one of our official languages, but there are so many other companies throughout the rest of the country that are equally doing so in English and we need to continue to preserve that.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member raises an excellent point. I will be the first to say I do not have an answer to that. I certainly hope that the committee will look into this issue at that stage.
If what the member is suggesting goes beyond just this piece of legislation, then that is something we need to tackle because it is absolutely detrimental to Canadian culture and Canadian identity, and we need to continue to make sure that the proper funds are available for product and content that is made in Canada.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member named the minister in a derogatory form that was based on the way that he did it. You have now identified that it is inappropriate. The only course of action for him at this point is not to try to justify it but to actually apologize and withdraw the comments. Otherwise, we have to look to the House for how we deal with this situation.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to be honest. I had a really difficult time following that logic around making it easier to get on the radio. I imagine what makes it difficult to get on the radio is purchasing all of the equipment, including the antennas. Yes, I am aware that the CRTC has a lengthy application and the amount of work to fill it out. The real thing that would make it hard to get on the radio, I imagine, would be all the equipment that one needs for radio that they do not need to get on YouTube or whatnot.
Nonetheless, on this point of algorithms and the government setting up, I think it is important to point out to many Conservative members that the legislation specifically says, “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.” It is clear from the legislation that there cannot be government control over the algorithm, despite the fact that this member would suggest otherwise.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:15:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
A lot has been said this evening with respect to the various measures that Canada has put in place to help Ukraine and about coming together with the world in our response to the outrageous aggression that is coming from Russia right now, and particularly to Putin. I think it is very important to put on the record, at least from my perspective, that I do not believe the Russian people are bad. I just think that Vladimir Putin is a monster.
We have talked about the various things that have been put in place, whether it is sanctions, money that has flowed to Ukraine or the personnel sent over as part of Operation Reassurance. What we know from the history over the last decade or so of Canada's involvement is that there has been an opportunity to really help Ukrainian people prepare for what has unfortunately come to pass.
What I want to talk about in the short amount of time I have is the incredible resolve that we have seen from the Ukrainian people. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman talked in his speech about the manner in which Ukrainian people were responding to what is going on. He compared it to the manner in which we are witnessing Russian troops engaging.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman specifically said when someone is under a dictatorship and they are being told what to do, they are never going to have the same resolve as those who are fighting for something they believe in and that they are so passionately pursuing.
It reminds me of when I was on the defence committee and travelled to Ukraine as part of a study we were doing on Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was there as well. He would remember that at one point we went to meet with the new police chief of Kyiv. We met him in the centre of town, and he could not have been more than 35 or 37 years old. It was remarkable to listen to this young individual talk about the future of Ukraine.
Indeed, what we know is that in 2014, the revolution that took place was led by future generations. It was led by the youth. It was a youth movement that changed the course of Ukraine back in 2014. What we heard from this young police chief is that things were done differently in the past.
Remnants of the former Soviet Union still existed in Ukraine, and they literally had to fire almost every police officer who was over the age of 40 just because they did things differently, and that is not the future that the younger generations wanted. They knew what they were going for. They knew how to chase after it. They knew it had to be done.
If we want to talk about the resolve of the Ukrainian people versus the resolve of those who are under a dictatorship, look no further than one of the former presidents of Ukraine, Yanukovych, who was president during the uprising. What did he do? He fled the country as a result of a youth revolution. He literally got up and left because of what was going on.
We can compare that to the president of Ukraine today, President Zelensky. He will not go anywhere. He is steadfast in his commitment to staying with his people and staying in Ukraine to see this through to the end. Nothing can show the difference that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about in his speech more than the approach by the two different presidents, one who was a puppet of Putin and one who is for the people.
I genuinely believe that regardless of what happens, regardless of the wars that are fought today, the battles that might be won or lost today, at the end of the day the Ukrainian people are going to get what they want. They are going to get this freedom because they have been fighting for it for a long time and they have the resolve to see this through to the end. It is clear that they will win their freedoms at the end of the day, regardless of these temporary impositions that Putin is putting in the way.
745 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:20:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands answered this very well through her question, which basically indicated that even if Canada was to try to take on that role it would be a long time in the making. It is not something that is going to be able to correct and help immediately.
Regarding dependence on a nation like Russia, in particular for Europe, should we be doing what we can to assist in ensuring that does not happen? Yes, absolutely. We can also do what we are doing now, which is putting tough sanctions on Russia to make sure Putin is crippled to the point where he is unable to do anything globally. We know that the economy is so dependent on the global movement and interchange of goods and services. If we can bring him to his knees in this regard, we certainly would be doing the world a favour and, in my opinion, helping Europe as well.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:22:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, there are two things. The first is we certainly have put in place, and I am sure the member is aware of it, various different measures for those who are already here to make sure their stays are extended, whether it is a student visa or people who are travelling, to ensure they do not have to go back to Ukraine right now.
To the point the member and others have been bringing up today about visas, I have not given it much thought yet. Personally when I think about it, yes it makes a lot of sense. I also know these decisions are made by weighing a whole host of different variables. I have not heard the other side of it, but the question being asked is a good one and it warrants discussion. If it is one way we can assist and it proves to be a safe and effective way, then I personally would not have anything against it.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:24:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it certainly is encouraging to see people who are standing up and protesting in a country where we know things can happen to those who are very loud and vocal about their opinions. They are still doing it, so that is all the more inspirational.
What can we be doing? We can be giving them the tools to make sure their voices are heard. We can be communicating through various technologies we have today to make sure the right information is coming forward.
When President Zelensky specifically spoke to the Russian people in Russian, that was incredible, but we know that is not going to be played on RT, Russia Today. We need to make sure we are doing our part to get messages like that in front of the Russian people, because they are being oppressed. The manner in which they are being pushed down is the exact same thing Putin wants to do to Ukrainians. Whatever we can do to make sure that message gets through is something we should be doing.
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:34:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, given the discussion that has been going on about Canadian oil and gas and the member's comments about it, I am wondering if she can give me her perspective on what she thinks is more realistic. Would it be a pipeline, which is supposedly now four times as much as it was before, being built to provide sustainable, carbon-based fuel to Europe, or a transition towards more renewables and electrification? What is more realistic?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
