SoVote

Mar/29/22 3:04:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Rural Economic Development a question about the lack of cell coverage in my riding and in other rural parts of Canada. In her answer, the Minister of Rural Economic Development talked about high-speed Internet, which is not what my question was about. I would like to give the minister another opportunity to respond. It is 2022. What is the government doing to improve cell coverage in rural Canada?

88 words

Hon. Gudie Hutchings (Minister of Rural Economic Development, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 3:05:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the universal broadband fund is just that: connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. I can advise the hon. member that we are well under way to meeting our targets of connecting 98% of Canada by 2026. There are funds available under the CRTC and other programs for cell coverage, but right now we are focused on connecting Canada. We have a plan to connect all of Canada by 2030, and that plan is working. We have agreements in place with Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and British Columbia. We are well under way.

101 words

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Mar/29/22 3:06:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Hanson Lake road in northeastern Saskatchewan is a 324-kilometre stretch of highway connecting Creighton, Denare Beach, Flin Flon and many first nations to the rest of the province. Unfortunately, there is no cell or broadband service. Not only is this extremely dangerous, but it restricts the much-needed economic growth opportunities in the region. I have written and talked to the minister on several occasions with no response. When will the government approve Saskatchewan’s application to the CRTC and give these communities what they need for both safety and success?

96 words

Hon. Gudie Hutchings (Minister of Rural Economic Development, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 3:06:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was in British Columbia and was humbled by the presentation and overview I had on the Highway of Tears, where the federal government, the provincial government and the Internet service provider have connected that terrible section of the highway in British Columbia. That is what happens when partnerships happen. That is the result when people work together, when communities, provinces, territories, indigenous groups and municipalities work together. I encourage my hon. colleague to get his province to come to the table with us. As I said earlier, we have commitments now, memorandums of understanding with Ontario, B.C.—

107 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 3:07:28 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

7 words

Ms. Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 3:07:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for months Ontarians have been eagerly awaiting an update on the status of negotiations between provincial and federal governments on a child care agreement. This has been a significant issue for people in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt because we know Ontario families have been paying some of the highest fees in the country. Could the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development please update the House on yesterday's announcement and what it will mean for families in Scarborough and across Ontario?

86 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 3:08:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce in the House that today in Canada families from coast to coast to coast will have access to affordable, quality child care. Although we have been negotiating with Ontario for months, it finally joined the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement. This means that families in Ontario will have access to reduced fees, with a 25% reduction as of April 1. This is great news for families in Ontario.

80 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Mar/29/22 3:08:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down a ruling. The government cannot just abandon its responsibilities by offloading the provision of services in French onto the provinces. While francophones in British Columbia and across Canada were rejoicing, the federal government was preparing a nasty surprise for them: The case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is unacceptable. When will the government acknowledge its mistakes and restore services in French for British Columbia's francophones?

80 words

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 3:09:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting and promoting the rights of francophone and anglophone minority communities in Canada. In this case, we asked for a stay of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision because we are concerned about the serious consequences that terminating agreements could have in British Columbia and across Canada. The stay was not granted. The deadline for giving notice of termination is today. Under the circumstances, we will not be applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

87 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Mar/29/22 3:10:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when Ottawa was shut down and Windsor suffered an illegal blockade, Windsor's response became a model on how to deal with the crisis, despite the economic damages reaching into the billions. For months I have joined residents, doctors, retailers, manufacturers, first responders and the city in asking for fair compensation for doing the right thing. COVID has burdened border communities, and the current government's lack of border policies created confusion and disruption. Ottawa and its businesses are being compensated. Will the government treat Windsor equally by covering the costs we incurred doing our part during this convoy crisis for our country?

105 words

All Topics

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 3:10:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my hon. colleague for his advocacy. Throughout the blockades we remained in close contact, along with my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I also want to take a moment to thank law enforcement for doing an exceptional job in bringing a peaceful resolution to the blockades on the Ambassador Bridge. I and other colleagues within the government will remain in touch with my colleague to ensure that Windsor recovers fully from any impacts, and I know this is work that will continue going forward.

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/29/22 3:11:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today, during oral question period, the Minister of Health, probably unintentionally, forgot to provide the House with the information about vaccine mandates that he had promised me. If you seek it, I am certain you would find unanimous consent of the House to have him table these documents.

57 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 3:11:48 p.m.
Watch

A minister does not require the approval of the House to table documents. It is up to him to do so.

21 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 3:12:22 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:12, pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Call in the members.

47 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 3:25:51 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 3:27:20 p.m.
Watch

The Chair would like to make a statement regarding the recent use of certain language that may be deemed inflammatory. Members are regularly reminded of the importance of conducting themselves in a civil manner. While views can be expressed forcefully and even passionately, they must remain focussed on the subject matter at hand. Members must always be mindful of avoiding statements that attack or demean the character of other members. We are all here as elected representatives and each of us is entitled to respect. Personal inflammatory language has no place in our debates. It is also true that, as parliamentarians, we possess an exceptional degree of freedom of speech. As Speaker Milliken observed in a ruling of April 17, 2007, members must “use their freedom of speech in a responsible fashion and...exercise moderation in their choice of language.” The use of inflammatory and provocative statements is contrary to the respect owed to all members. Accordingly, the Chair reminds members to be mindful of the language they use in debate, with respect to their colleagues, in order to maintain proper civility and respect in our proceedings. I thank the members for their attention.

196 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 3:29:14 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

21 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

Mar/29/22 3:29:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. History seems to be repeating itself. Canadians will recall, but here we are again. Having debated Bill C-10 last spring, we are now debating its replacement, Bill C-11. The new heritage minister will try to tell Canadians that he has fixed the problems that existed in the former legislation. However, this is an extremely misleading statement. My time is short, so I am going to cut to the chase. The government claims that the bill is about support for Canadian culture and levelling the playing field. I would like to see Canadian culture promoted and celebrated, so let us explore that for a moment. I have two questions. First, is the bill about meeting Canadians where they are at in the 21st century and celebrating the amazing work being done by digital first creators to produce Canadian content and enhance culture in their very own unique way, or is the bill about the government imposing its definition of Canadian content in order to fulfill a government-driven agenda? Second, will the bill truly level the playing field, or will it be used as a cash grab in which those who have worked hard to expand their viewership and generate revenue are forced to subsidize the traditional media industry, which is producing content for which there is little to no demand? I realize that these questions make the government uncomfortable, but they must be asked in order to understand this legislation. My grandparents were not required to subsidize horse and buggies when cars became an alternative. Society moved forward in an innovative way, because it just made sense. In effect, Bill C-11 would put in place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which will govern how easily creators, those who post, are able to make their content accessible online to those of us who view it. In other words, it would impact what Canadians can and cannot access. It would be an act of censorship. The Internet is a vast, infinite and magical space where all Canadians, no matter their background, are able to post and engage. In the new public square where we engage with one another, we do it through writing, audio and visual arts. For many Canadians, socializing online is the new norm. If passed, Bill C-11 will thwart our freedom in this new space. Again, the minister will try to tell us that all the problems have been fixed. He will point to convoluted parts of the bill in order to try to prove his point, but here is the thing: If the minister is telling the truth and has nothing to hide, why is the bill not crystal clear? Why is the Liberal government choosing to use muddy language by placing exceptions within exceptions in order to confuse people? There are many flaws in Bill C-11, but I will focus on three of them today: the first is the overabundance of power that it would place in the hands of the CRTC, otherwise known as the “Internet czar”; the second is its negative impact on creators; and the third is how it negatively impacts viewers. If passed, the bill will give the Internet czar, the CRTC, almost unlimited power in order to regulate the Internet. Talk about an attack on freedom. The CRTC could have been given very specific, very narrow guidelines, but the government chose to give it free rein to amend, to exempt, to include. The Liberals claim that bringing more government intervention, and this is an interesting one, will boost Canadian culture, but that is not true. I mean, tell me a time in history where more red tape and regulation has increased innovation, incentivized artistic creation and brought about prosperity? Members cannot, because it does not, ever. Let us talk about creators. One of the biggest complaints that we heard from digital first creators last time was that the bill would regulate their content online. Members can think of TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, podcasts, YouTube and, yes, even cat videos. Now, the minister will claim once again that he fixed it by adding section 4.1(1) back into the bill, but the problem is that section 4.1(1) is immediately followed by subsection 4.1(2), which creates exceptions that nullify 4.1(1). It is pretzel logic. It is confusing and purposefully muddy. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He seems qualified. He has pointed out that, under the act, digital first creators can be described as broadcasters and therefore forced to comply with the CRTC regulations. In other words, essentially any audiovisual material could be brought under the scope of this bill, not just large streaming platforms, but even individuals who use music. The member opposite actually even clarified this earlier in her own speech. This means that TikTok videos, which essentially always use music, and YouTube videos, which mostly use music, will in fact be captured under this legislation. This means creators, right off the top of their revenue, will have to pay 30% into an art fund. They have to pay in, but they do not get to pull out. It also means that the content of digital first creators will be assessed based on how Canadian it is. The CRTC, the Internet czar, will of course make the conclusion. That material will then be promoted or demoted accordingly. The minister will try to tell Canadians that what I am saying is not true, that only big companies, such as Netflix and Disney, will be caught by this legislation, but if that is the case, I would again ask the government to clarify that and to say it outright. It does not. The bill does not. It is purposefully muddy. Let me talk about the negative impact that the bill will have on viewers, members, me and Canadians. Imagine going on YouTube to look for videos on Black voices but being shown instead a bunch of videos on hockey in Canada, having never searched for hockey before, and all of a sudden those are the videos that are being fed to you. That would be extremely frustrating. What we are talking about here is discoverability. It is the use of algorithms to make some content accessible and other content not. It bumps it up or down. Sometimes it can be found on page 1. Sometimes it is found on page 53. Currently YouTube carries material based on a person's individual preference. It bumps it to the top of the page if a person likes it, if maybe they have watched similar videos in the past. This legislation would force content, so-called Canadian content, in front of the eyeballs of Canadians at the expense of showing them the content they actually really want. It totally disrespects and disregards Canadians' freedom, choice and desire to watch certain things over others, all because the government has an agenda. Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch. That desire, that free will, should be respected. I have not even addressed the problem with the definition of CanCon, which is absolutely ludicrous. Let us talk about that for a moment. CanCon, or Canadian content, is that content that the government would actually be putting at the top of the page. A bilingual Canadian sitting in his Montreal condo producing YouTube videos about maple syrup and hockey, all while using the Canadian national anthem in the background of his video, would still not get counted as Canadian content. Can members imagine that? In fact, based on the definition of CanCon, the only ones who will receive the government's stamp of approval are members of the traditional media. The CRTC will define who is in and who is out, who gets noticed and who does not, who gets to be on page one and who has to get bumped to page 53. An individual's preferences are inconsequential, and the government would now decide. In Canada, we are punching above our weight in what creators are able to produce. It is absolutely jaw-dropping. They literally share their talent with the world. It is incredible. Lilly Singh, a famous YouTuber, has pointed out, “creators who have built their careers on the Internet need to be consulted on these decisions.” She went on to say, “In trying to do what seems like a good thing - highlighting great Canadian-made content - you can unintentionally destroy a thriving creative ecosystem.” Morghan Fortier of Skyship Entertainment is so eloquent when he put it this way, “In Canada, digital content creators have built a successful thriving industry on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export a huge amount of Canadian content to the rest of the world.... They've done this through their entrepreneurial spirit, their hard work and largely without government interference or assistance. “This achievement should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.” Bill C-11 is presented as a means to support the future of the broadcast industry, but it completely ignores the global reach of Canada's digital success stories in favour of an antiquated regionalized broadcast model. Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital first creators. It is a direct attack on our choice as viewers. It is actually a direct attack on the advancement of arts and culture in Canada in the 21st century. The bill needs to die 1,000 deaths.

1616 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 3:39:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I have an example in which this precise measure made a huge difference. These were the Canadian content regulations that applied to radio, starting in the early seventies. The Canadian music industry was nowhere back then, but as a broadcaster I was required to play 30% Canadian content. In the beginning, it was horrible, but in no time we had an amazing amount of great Canadian content. I do not think we need those measures anymore because the content is there. It is good. Would she not agree that this is a perfect example of a measure that actually led to a very strong, well-respected worldwide industry?

110 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Mar/29/22 3:40:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I love the question. It is such a good question, and Canadians are really going to appreciate it as well. The Broadcasting Act in the 1970s was created in order to regulate television and radio because there was a limited sphere available. In other words, there were only a certain number of radio channels. Rather than give them all to Canadian English media, they also wanted to make sure that some were given to French media. That seems appropriate, because we are a bilingual country. When we are dealing with a finite resource in order to spread it around, absolutely that is appropriate. However, we are now talking about the Internet: this vast, magical, infinite space where any Canadian from any background with any language, any religion and any ethnicity can create a site, post on YouTube and have a TikTok account. Why is the government regulating them?

150 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 48