44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
- May/11/22 4:06:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:20:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 431, 433, 436 and 438.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:21:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 426 to 430, 432, 434, 435 and 437 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:21:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, from my perspective of sitting in the House day after day and witnessing what is going on across the way, it would appear to me as though Conservatives are just hell-bent on ensuring that absolutely no legislation gets through.
It does not even appear to matter what the piece of legislation is. It just seems to be motivated from this place of wanting to make sure the government is unsuccessful, regardless of what the issue might be. I believe that this is why we are seeing time allocation come forward.
Can the member comment on how he sees this and on the opposition's intention in playing these games?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 6:26:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so that we can continue with the business of the House.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, according to Freedom House, an organization that has been around since before the Second World War, Canada is the fifth freest country in the world, but I am sure that the Conservatives know better than that organization does.
It is interesting. This member brought up the issue about dictatorships. I heard her talk about what Twitter was saying, but I did not hear her give her—
An hon member: I just said “authoritarian regimes”.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be able to respond. I am asking her a question.
The member told us what Twitter is saying, but she did not tell us if she agrees with what Twitter is saying. I will go back to a comment from the member for Thornhill. She said, “Canada will also become the first country to regulate online content created by people living in Canada. We will be in good company with dictators like Iran, Turkey and North Korea”. That is a bunch of manufactured outrage.
I wonder if the member can comment and answer the question of whether she agrees with the comment from Twitter and whether she agrees with the comment from the member for Thornhill. Does she believe that we will actually be similar to the countries I just listed?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, but more importantly to address the fake outrage that continues to ensue as it relates to anything that comes from the other side of the House, such as the fake outrage from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo just a few moments ago about time allocation. What the member for Hamilton Mountain was trying to say to him was that there have actually been more Conservative speakers speaking to this bill during second reading than every other party combined.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: There we go, Mr. Speaker. This has been heavily debated by Conservatives, despite the fake outrage from the member, but we continue to see it nonetheless. I have heard a number of things said in the short time we have been debating this bill this evening, and I am going to address some of them.
First of all, one of the most recent questions, and I think it was the last question from a Conservative member, was about the discoverability portion and how it would be decided to inform the CRTC. If the member reads the bill, he will know that it specifically says that it would be an open public consultative process. That is exactly how it would happen. The member should know that, because I know he has read the bill, but this goes to my point of the fake outrage.
Here is the thing. I can understand where the Conservatives are coming from right now. A year ago, they were successful when it came to generating that fake outrage. They were successful. Now, though, they are not. This issue does not have anywhere near the traction it did a year ago, because people have come to realize that maybe they were sold the wrong information when they were being told by Conservatives that their rights would be restricted.
I will go back to another thing that was falsely said in this House a few moments ago by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, when she talked about algorithms. He specifically said that—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Did I get the name not 100% accurate?
An hon. member: The gender was wrong.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: My apologies—
388 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I know the member is a he. He and I will quite often talk to each other back and forth across the House, but we use our first names, which I am not allowed to do when I am giving a speech.
Nonetheless, he referenced algorithms specifically, saying that the government would have the ability to control these algorithms that would impact what people see. If we look at page 14 of the bill, there is a whole section about restrictions and “computer algorithm or source code”. It is in the bill.
It states:
The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.
Why would members from the Conservative Party continually bring up this issue, when it is written right here in black and white in the bill? One has to wonder.
I will go back to fake outrage. The Conservatives want to generate this fake outrage because they want to stir up controversy. They want people to believe that we live in a country that is not free. Look at the almost leader of the Conservative Party of—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I hear some cheers. I know who is on the side of the member for Carleton.
Let us look at the member for Carleton. His whole campaign is focused around the idea that Canada is not a free country. I have news for my colleagues across the way. They may have heard of Freedom House. It is a bipartisan-supported organization in the United States that was started in 1941 during the Second World War. Freedom House ranks countries throughout the world with respect to the degree they are viewed as a free country. Canada is ranked fifth out of all countries in the world. We scored 40 out of 40 points when it comes to political freedom. We scored 58 out of 60 points when it comes to civil liberties. Where are they getting this? They do not have to agree with this organization that has been around since 1941 that has—
Mr. Damien Kurek: Thank goodness Alberta is here.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am hitting a nerve. The Conservatives are very concerned about this and will not stop heckling me because they do not want Canadians to believe that we live in a free country, and I cannot understand that. Why would they run an entire political organization based on the premise that Canadians are not free? It is so incredibly ludicrous, but we see it time after time. It is what the member for Carleton's entire campaign is based on. It is what the fake outrage we see, time after time, from the Conservatives is based on. It is indeed what this particular issue is to them.
This is a bill to make sure that the proper measures are in place to protect Canadian content. That is what this is about. It is about working with those web giants and the very large distributors of content to make sure they pay into the same fund that radio and TV stations and other broadcasters have had to pay into for decades, so that we can preserve Canadian content like The Tragically Hip from my riding of Kingston and the Islands. That was an incredible success story of Canada. Back in the day, bands like The Tragically Hip would not have been able to get on the radio had it not been for some of those requirements that were there, and had it not been for money that was put aside to help promote Canadian content. That is what this is about.
It alarms me to hear the Conservatives play with the importance of that cultural identity just for a tiny bit of what they perceive to be political expedience to help convince Canadians they are not free. It is absolutely crazy when we listen to the narrative that continually comes from that side of the House on issues like this.
I know the Conservatives are champing at the bit to ask me a question. Perhaps one of them can identify somebody other than Michael Geist, who they quote time after time in the House. Can they can quote somebody else, or make reference to somebody who also feels the same way, and can honestly speak to this issue in the same way?
When we talk about ensuring that we put the right measures in place, we are really talking about ensuring that the cultural identity of Canada exists in perpetuity: It exists into the future, so that future generations can celebrate the same success stories of small artists and small bands that had the opportunity to grow and prosper in our country, and not neighbouring countries that have 10 times the population and can be quite overbearing and dominate us from a cultural perspective, from time to time. That is what this is all about. That is the whole purpose.
I know the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells was talking earlier about MAPL, and having to identify with two of four areas of Canadian content. That is where those ideas came from, back in the day. That is what was intended to help preserve Canadian content.
When we look at amending the legislation, we are talking about amending legislation that has not been touched since 1991. I was in grade 10 in 1991, maybe grade 11. What was a popular song then? MC Hammer, I think, was the big artist at the time. That is the last time this legislation was updated. MC Hammer was wearing his big, baggy pants, dancing around in music videos on MuchMusic.
If anyone suggests for a second that there is no need to update this legislation because things have changed, it is a new world now and things are different, I can only imagine what people were saying back then, in the early nineties. I wonder if there are the same arguments coming forward: that TV and radio are dominant now, and we are never going to be able to affect it. It is such a defeatist attitude to have, and it is an attitude that we are seeing time after time from the other side, specifically as it relates to this particular issue.
I am very much in support of protecting and promoting Canadian culture. That is what this bill would do, and I look forward to this bill going to committee so that we can continue to improve it, get it back to the House and pass it.
1116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is great. Why have they not brought any of those names up before? There is only one name that keeps coming up over and over again in the House. It is the only name that they keep referencing.
I am really glad that the member was able to pick up his bill kit from the whip's desk at the back, come out here and read a bunch of names to me, but I would suggest to him that he start using those names, and that some of the members start quoting other references and sources.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I regret that when I gave the example, the first one to come to my head was MC Hammer. I should have thought of a Canadian artist, and I apologize for that.
The member is absolutely correct. The CRTC has been able to do this in the past. There is no reason to assume that the CRTC has not been able to do this in the past. As a matter of fact, when the Conservatives get up to criticize the CRTC, as they do with this side of the House and with cabinet in particular, they just start attacking individuals, such as the Chair, or saying this person was going out for beers with that person, rather than actually trying to ever get to the heart of the substance. It is what they do repeatedly. They just attack individuals. They see that as somehow a path to being successful in politics, and I would argue that it is not.
To the member's point, the CRTC is extremely capable of doing this. I have faith the CRTC can do this. It does have experience, having done this for several decades. I do not know why anybody would assume it was not going to have the same ability to do it moving into the future.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact answer to that. I hope that question comes up in committee, because it is a very good question. We should have some kind of timeline as to when that would happen. I encourage the member, or her representatives on the committee, to make sure the point is brought up. I am unaware if she is on the committee. It is a very valid question.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do want to apologize to the House. I was eating a Fig Newton when I walked in the doors, and I apologize for that. It has since been disposed of, so I cannot take it back.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there, but perhaps I will just stick to one point. At the beginning of his speech, the member talked about Bill C-10, and if I heard him correctly, he said, “Thankfully, Conservative MPs defeated the bill.” That is not what happened to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 actually passed this House and went to the Senate.
Is the member trying to take credit for the fact that it did not pass through Parliament? That is what he is trying to say. It just goes to the continued manufactured outrage that comes from Conservatives as though they have somehow saved Canadians from the injustices that the Liberal Party is trying to impose upon them just because of some grandiose thinking. The member is trying to take credit for the fact that the Senate was not able to deal with Bill C-10. It is remarkable.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, although the member was quoting, she used the Prime Minister's last name and was referring to this Prime Minister, not a former prime minister with the same last name. Perhaps she would like to rephrase it.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sure that Wilfrid Laurier would be very glad to hear that of all countries in the world, Canada is ranked fifth in terms of freedom, as found by Freedom House, which is an organization that has been around since 1941. They have actually rated our political freedom as 40 out of 40, and they have rated our civil liberties freedoms as 58 out of 60. We are ranked the fifth freest country in the world.
Perhaps the member would like to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of manufactured outrage going on right now with the Conservatives trying to find a wedge issue, trying to find something to try to drum up some fear, and trying to score cheap political points. Maybe that is what is going on here.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is almost no part of that speech that is true. It is completely fabricated.
The member spent a lot of time talking about user-generated content, like many members from the Conservative Party have, but there are several sections of the bill that seek to make sure that user-generated content is protected, including proposed subsections 2(2.1), 2(2.2) and 2(2.3); proposed section 3(a); proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2; and proposed subsection 4.3(3).
To the point of the member for Yorkton—Melville, has the member actually read the bill, and is she aware of those sections that attempt to make sure we protect user-generated content?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to apologize to the interpreters. I have done that three times tonight and I know that can create a loud ringing when the headset is too close to the microphone. Through you to the interpretation services, I apologize.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 11:13:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just cannot believe that the Conservative member concluded his speech by saying that the Liberal government wants to use this legislation to silence its opposition. That is the most ludicrous thing one could say in the House, that somehow the government is trying to use legislation like this, like we live in some kind of dictatorship—
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
