SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 87

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2022 11:00AM
  • Jun/13/22 4:00:08 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 501 to 507, 509 to 512, 515 to 518, and 520 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:00:23 p.m.
  • Watch
Finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.
27 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:00:23 p.m.
  • Watch
Question No. 501—
Questioner: Tom Kmiec
With regard to concessional investments, grants, or other financing provided by the government since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total value of such financing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) government program which provided the funding; and (b) what are the details of each project that received concessional financing, including for each the (i) date of the announcement, (ii) date of financing, (iii) amount of financing, (iv) vendor or project owner, (v) location, (vi) description of the project, (vii) type of financing (repayable loan, grant, etc.), (viii) summary of terms and timeline of the financing, including the payback period and amounts, if applicable, (ix) government's rationale for providing the financing, (x) internal tracking or file number?
Question No. 502—
Questioner: Tom Kmiec
With regard to the federal government financial participation in the Joint Federal/Provincial Commission into the April 2020 Nova Scotia Mass Casualty: (a) what are the total expenditures to date by the commission; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of expenditure; (c) what are the specific details of the expenditures related to the glossy mailer that was sent out, including the total expenditures and breakdown of the amount spent on (i) printing, (ii) design, (iii) mailing, (iv) other costs; and (d) what are the details of all contracts signed by the commission with a value over $1,000 including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided?
Question No. 503—
Questioner: Rick Perkins
With regard to stomach sampling of all species of seals conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in Atlantic Canada since 2017: what are the details of all sampling done by the DFO, including, for each sampling, the (i) species, (ii) gender, (iii) location, (iv) dates, (v) elapsed time between the harvest and sampling, (vi) findings?
Question No. 504—
Questioner: Mike Lake
With regard to Health Canada's application process for medical devices under the Interim Order No. 3 Respecting Importation and Sale of Medical Devices for Use in Relation to COVID-19: (a) what are the different stages each application must go through; (b) for each stage in (a), what are the (i) stated service standards, (ii) processes, if any, in place to measure and report on the department's performance as measured by the relevant service standard, (iii) the current average performance or length of time; (c) for each application for COVID-19 testing devices received but not yet authorized, what are the details, including the (i) applicant, (ii) description of the device, (iii) reference or file number, (iv) current stage, (v) timeline, including specific dates, of each stage of the application; and (d) for each application in (c) that was or still is at a stage for longer than the service standard, what is the reason for the delay?
Question No. 505—
Questioner: Mike Lake
With regard to ongoing or planned government IT projects with a budget over $1 million: what are the details of each project, including the (i) project description and summary, (ii) total budget, (iii) estimated completion date?
Question No. 506—
Questioner: Matt Jeneroux
With regard to fraud or attempted fraud being committed against the government by individuals or entities that are employed by or provide goods or services to the government, since 2017, broken down by year and department or agency, and excluding tax fraud: (a) how many instances of fraud or attempted fraud occurred; (b) what is the total financial value of the fraud; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by type of fraud (billing for services not provided, inappropriate expense claims, etc.); (d) how many instances of fraud were committed by (i) individuals employed by the government, (ii) individuals or entities contracted by the government, (iii) third parties; (e) of the individuals who were employed by the government at the time the fraud occurred, how many (i) were fired or otherwise terminated, (ii) faced discipline but were not terminated, (iii) did not face discipline; and (f) for the value of fraud that the government was a victim of, how much has been or is (i) recovered, (ii) written-off as a loss, (iii) still awaiting financial closure?
Question No. 507—
Questioner: Tom Kmiec
With regard to applications received by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by type of application: (a) how many applicants were deemed inadmissible pursuant to (i) Section 34(l)(b), (ii) Section 34(1)(c), (iii) Section 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27); and (b) broken down by each section of the act in (a), how many of the applicants who were deemed inadmissible were members of the (i) Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan or PDKI, (ii) Kurdistan Free Life Party or PJAC, (iii) Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan?
Question No. 509—
Questioner: Gerald Soroka
With regard to trips taken by ministers and their staff for government business since September 20, 2021: what are the details of each trip, including the (i) names and titles of the individuals on the trip, (ii) dates, (iii) origin, (iv) destination, (v) purpose of the trip, (vi) itinerary, including any meetings, announcements, or events attended, (vii) total travel and hospitality expenditures related to the trip, (viii) breakdown of expenditures, by type of expense (airfare, hotel, etc.)?
Question No. 510—
Questioner: Scot Davidson
With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada providing fines to companies that illegally shipped or transported waste overseas, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by year: (a) how many fines or other financial penalties were issued; and (b) what are the details of each fine or financial penalty, including for each the (i) date of the incident, (ii) date of the fine, (iii) amount of the fine, (iv) name of the company, (v) summary of the infraction, (vi) description of the illegally shipped waste, including volume?
Question No. 511—
Questioner: Michael Barrett
With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since December 1, 2021: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel?
Question No. 512—
Questioner: Michael Barrett
With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since December 1, 2021: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or estimate, (viii) amount spent of fuel?
Question No. 515—
Questioner: Eric Duncan
With regard to the government enforcement of measures related to commercial milk and dairy imports at land border crossings: (a) what specific training is provided to border agents to ensure milk and dairy imports crossing the border comply with trade agreements; (b) what is the estimated amount of milk and dairy products imported each year, broken down by point of entry where they come into Canada; (c) which points of entry have agents that specialize in milk and dairy imports; (d) for any points of entry that do not have agents who specialize in milk and dairy imports, what specific procedure is followed to ensure that any milk being imported is compliant with all trade agreements and import controls; (e) how many milk and dairy products have been imported since January 1, 2021, broken down by (i) month, (ii) program (Duty Relief Program, Import for Re-Export Program, etc.); (f) how many milk and dairy products which were not in compliance with our trade agreements, were attempted to be imported into Canada since January 1, 2021, broken down by (i) month, (ii) program; (g) of the products in (f), how many were (i) allowed into Canada, (ii) turned away at the border; (h) what is the total value of fines (i) issued, (ii) actually paid, related to commercial dairy importers arriving at land border crossings being in non-compliance; and (i) are there specific situations where border agents have been instructed to allow non-compliant milk and dairy to be allowed entry into Canada, and, if so, what were those situations?
Question No. 516—
Questioner: Eric Duncan
With regard to the government enforcement of measures related to commercial poultry imports at land border crossings: (a) what specific training is provided to border agents to ensure poultry imports crossing the border comply with trade agreements and are labelled correctly; (b) what is the estimated amount of poultry products imported each year, broken down by type of product and point of entry where they come into Canada; (c) which points of entry have agents that specialize in poultry imports; (d) for any points of entry that do not have agents who specialize in poultry, what specific procedure is followed to ensure that any poultry being imported is compliant with all trade agreements and import controls; (e) how much of each type of poultry product has been imported since January 1, 2021, broken down by (i) month, (ii) program (Duty Relief Program, Import for Re-Export Program, etc.); (f) how much of each type of poultry product which were not in compliance with trade agreements, were attempted to be imported into Canada since January 1, 2021, broken down by (i) month, (ii) program; (g) of the products in (f), how many were (i) allowed into Canada, (ii) turned away at the border; (h) what is the total value of fines (i) issued, (ii) actually paid, related to poultry importers arriving at land border crossings being in non-compliance; and (i) are there specific situations where border agents have been instructed to allow non-compliant poultry products to be allowed entry into Canada, and, if so, what were those situations?
Question No. 517—
Questioner: Warren Steinley
With regard to the current processing delays of passport applications: (a) what are the current service standards for processing times; (b) what is the government's target date for when the service standards will return to the previous acceptable processing times of five business days in person or 17 business days by mail; (c) how much did the government pay out in overtime to employees working on passport applications between March 1, 2022, and April 27, 2022; and (d) as of April 27, 2022, how many employees at each of the three departments that deal with passports (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Global Affairs Canada) are (i) on leave due to their status in relation to the vaccine attestation requirement, (ii) working from home?
Question No. 518—
Questioner: Scot Davidson
With regard to the consumption of alcohol on flights taken aboard government-owned Airbus and Challenger aircraft, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by each flight where alcohol was consumed: (a) what is the value of the alcohol consumed; (b) what was the origin and destination; (c) what was the flight date; (d) what is the breakdown of alcohol beverages consumed by specific beverage and quantity; and (e) what was the total number of passengers?
Question No. 520—
Questioner: Gary Vidal
With regard to accountability measures to ensure that funding provided through any program which provides money to any businesses, organizations, corporations, or vendors is used appropriately, and broken down by funding stream or program: (a) what specific accountability measures are in place to ensure that funds were used appropriately and for the intended purpose; (b) were audits conducted to determine the level of misuse by funding recipient, and, if so, what are the details of each audit, including the findings and what was done to monitor the level of misuse of funds; (c) what is the government's estimate on how many entities (i) received funding, (ii) used the funding appropriately, (iii) misused the funding; (d) does the government allow entities that have been found to misuse funds to still apply for government funding, either through the initial funding stream or other funding streams, and, if so, why; (e) what specific process is conducted when the government receives information, including tips, that funding is being misused; (f) how many entities that were found to have misused government funds in the past have since received, funding since January 1, 2016; (g) what are the details of all such funding received including the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) program through which funding was received, (iv) amount, (v) purpose of funding; and (h) does the government keep a central record of entities which have misused government funding in the past, and, if so, what are the details, and, if not, why not?
2095 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that it is mid‑June and we are still debating the long-awaited bill to reform the Broadcasting Act. We have been waiting for 30 years. My colleague, the member for Drummond, and his colleagues at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage almost managed to pass Bill C‑10, the first version of the current Bill C‑11, in the last Parliament. Our democracy and our work are dependent on royal assent, which was refused. We had to start over. I applaud the very useful work done during the 43th Parliament on the former Bill C‑10, which resulted in the current bill, Bill C-11, being more substantive. It has already been well-received by the creative industry. We therefore saved time. However, today, I am getting the unpleasant impression that this is the same movie over again. All that does is fuel cynicism among Canadians. I wonder if those who are dragging this out by filibustering really care at all about culture itself, its creators, its broadcasters and its audience. The audience is worried there will be no new content. They are worried about losing their content creators, who are stretched thin. That would mean losing the thing that has been giving life to modern societies, all the way back into antiquity: culture. For those watching our debates, I want to talk about the crucial steps involved in creating a finished work, or rather one that has been allowed to leave the nest. Indeed, a work is never really finished. It is a bit like raising children: We pour our love, values, time, energy and emotions into them, but there comes a time when we simply have to let them fly on their own, taking the best we have given them. A work of art is the same thing. I could talk about creating a painting, a dance, a circus show or a sculpture, or writing a novel or a play, but my world is music. Music is what I know. I know that all artistic endeavours go through essentially the same stages: research, development and creation of the idea through to final composition, preproduction, production, deciding where to release the work and how to promote it, marketing, and public performance. No matter the art or expression, there are many stages, all of them demanding. It is important to remember that, for many singers and musicians, the creative process does not end with recording their music and songs. Artists have to work on their instrument. Singers have to develop and refine their vocal technique. They have to pay a voice coach to help them manage their energy and polish their raw talent, just like professional athletes train to master their technique. It is hard work, and the best trainers are expensive. Singers also have to develop their musical ability. Many accompany themselves on an instrument or two. Those musical instruments are pretty much essential tools for setting lyrics to music. The next step is a comprehensive creative process that unites words and music. Some participate in workshops. Others are more self-taught. Still others call on the musical talents of veteran musicians. Eventually inspiration strikes. As if by magic, lyrics find their musical match, words weave their way in and out of chord progressions. That is the joy of creation. Once the song is written, or rather, the songs are written, because it takes more than one to market an artist, some fine-tuning is needed. Artists have to surround themselves with good musicians and find a producer to finance the recording of the songs, since the basic vehicle for the art of songwriting is people hearing the songs. Some will invest the money and produce it themselves. Others, a very small percentage, might be able to access a few government incentives. Most—and I emphasize that word—are their own producers and will invest their own money, or worse, go into debt to try to break into a market that has become increasingly opaque. Let us talk about the production stage. I will talk about my own experience, because it is mine, and it is the one I know best. I recorded one of my albums at my family's home in Isle-aux-Coudres. I wanted my collaborators and the musicians to be captivated by that majestic river, which I wanted to celebrate in song. I was hoping the setting would enrich their musical performance and therefore further enhance my songs. My father, who had always been a bit skeptical about this whole singing business, and who thought, like many people, that it was easy, fun and simple to make music if you had a bit of talent, was genuinely amazed at the science behind the recording process and the amount of time it requires. When he saw that it took half a day just to balance the drum and bass levels, he could hardly believe it. For a good week we worked on guitar, violin, the accordion, keyboards and vocals. We started the preproduction; we played all the songs to become familiar with them, to find the sounds and harmonies, to find the right instruments for each song. Then we were finally ready to record. Each song has its own universe. We start by recording a guiding vocal track. It is not the final vocal track, it is just the one that will guide the musicians. Then we record one by one and we record the final vocals and the vocal harmonies that support and enhance the whole work. We do all that for the 10 or 12 songs that will be part of the album that we hope will be the best one of our lives. Is that it? No, far from it. Then each song needs to be mixed, because all these sounds need to have a pleasant balance and appropriate audio to make it pleasing to the ear, which will drive the rest. After the mixing, is it done? No, not at all; then comes the mastering, what we call matriçage in French. We need a master in the art to ensure that every volume is appropriate for the different broadcasting forms, either the radio, headphones or outdoor broadcasts, at low decibel levels or high decibel levels. It is an art and it is expensive. Is it done? No, not yet. The next step is to find a graphic artist who will be able to showcase the entire work and create an attractive presentation for a CD booklet, the cover for a vinyl record, which is my favourite medium, or the visual accompaniment for the music on streaming platforms. Now is it done? No, not yet. The artist still has to get their music out there by hiring a manager or an agent, as the case may be, to promote the album to various broadcasters and promoters. It is of course imperative to create a show in order to bring the work to life. Then the process starts all over again: looking for a venue, a sound technician, a lighting technician and a stage manager, finding some available musicians and putting on a show. If, and only if, the work is a success with the public will the artist earn a little income from the process. I have to emphasize that, regardless of the artist's popularity, it is only if streaming platforms have copyright and reproduction rights obligations that all these efforts and the financial risk taking will be compensated with a small amount of royalties. That is what creating involves. Creators are resilient, patient and firmly convinced that their works play an important, not to say fundamental, role in the social universe of the community. The last time that I rose in the House to speak to Bill C‑11 was 34 days ago. According to the former minister of Canadian heritage and current Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for every month that goes by without passing this bill, creators lose roughly $70 million. Using cross-multiplication, we can calculate that the creative industry has lost a little over $78 million since my last speech. Since the beginning of this Parliament, our culture and its content creators have been deprived of $1.33 billion. We cannot wait any longer to pass Bill C‑11. The survival of our artists, the very essence of our cultural past and future, has been hijacked by these political squabbles. We need to stop treating creators like drones that create art to entertain us. Yes, they do entertain us, but that is their job. It is a demanding job that requires a lot of discipline and courage. It is also, above all, how they earn their living.
1475 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:11:17 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, my colleague made a very impassioned speech. The artist and creator within her truly shone through. Just today, newspapers reported that artists and creators are still calling for this bill to be passed urgently. I would like to hear my colleague speak to this again to explain to some of our colleagues why this bill is so urgently needed.
61 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:11:50 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, it is the same sense of urgency that would be felt by anyone who is invested in a project and is desperately waiting to reap the rewards. I believe that every economic exercise requires a return on investment. What content creators are hoping for with this law is a fair return on their investment. They are not getting one at the moment, but many countries around the world have implemented a revenue requirement for content creators on digital platforms.
81 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:12:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her passionate statement as well. Does the member think this bill does enough to support indigenous issues?
26 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:13:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, absolutely, there is plenty of consideration for first nations' works in this legislation. This is about broadcasting content via television and radio. The Bloc Québécois, through my colleague from Drummond, has worked very hard to ensure that French-language content and first nations' works are protected.
52 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:13:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, could my hon. colleague comment on some of the rhetoric we are hearing from the Conservative bench with regard to censorship and the fear being imposed on Canadians? Could the member comment on that?
36 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:13:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her constructive question, which gives me an opportunity to speak to this point. Witnesses in committee demonstrated that there is no risk of censorship in this bill. These are just political tactics to slow down our work in the House, and I find that fundamentally unacceptable. I sincerely hope that creators will finally have access to a decent income. That is an important part of this legislation and something I hope we will obtain as soon as possible.
86 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:14:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is an urgent matter for actors, creators, producers, and film and theatre directors, but I have a problem with one section of Bill C‑11 that I would like to change at committee. I think it would be better to have more days in July so we have enough time to do a proper study and give the creative sector what it needs as soon as possible. What does my colleague think about putting in some more time here so we can do a good job on Bill C‑11?
104 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. We worked on Bill C‑10. We consulted the entire creative industry, all the groups, all the associations. In the end, we failed because the Senate blocked it. We started over with Bill C‑11, which is more fleshed out. We tweaked a few details to keep everyone happy. We have been working on this for two years. An extra month will not change anything. Everyone has been consulted, everyone agrees and everyone is eagerly awaiting this. Everyone in the creative industry is waiting.
97 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, this is the second time I am rising in the House to speak to this bill. I also spoke when Bill C-10 was introduced and first debated. I have been very interested in this subject for many years. I would like to share an experience I had before I was elected. I was a legislative assistant to my predecessor, the well-known Quebec and Canadian politician Clifford Lincoln, who, at the time I worked for him, was the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the 1990s. Mr. Lincoln is a visionary. He wanted the committee to undertake a fairly thorough, wide-ranging study of the Canadian broadcasting system. The study was spread over several meetings, over several weeks and months. In the end, the committee produced a huge document, an extraordinary tome, on Canada's broadcasting system. I think it was even used in some post-secondary courses, because it essentially became the bible on our broadcasting system. We realized, even then, that the system was changing very quickly with the new technologies. The committee hired two researchers on contract for the adviser: an academic from the Université de Montréal and an academic from the University of Calgary. I remember that one of the academics, who was an expert, said that in a few years, everyone would be their own documentary filmmaker. He said we would have a device that we could use to film all sorts of things and create our own videos and our own high-quality films, real documentaries of everyday life. In fact, that is where we are now. The broadcasting system has changed extremely quickly. This bill is essential if we want to adapt to new realities, and we need to adapt urgently. Franco-Canadian and Quebec culture are under constant pressure—obviously we all know that, it has been said in the House—by the cultural machine that exists for the most part in the United States. It is well funded, very powerful and it attracts a wide audience on a regular basis. That means there is enormous pressure on Canadian culture, including Quebec culture. When the Conservatives constantly challenge this bill and, before that, Bill C‑10, they are not doing any favours to those who want to protect and promote Canadian and Quebec culture. By dragging their feet, the Conservatives, in my opinion, are harming our Canadian creators, including our Quebec creators. We keep hearing from the Conservative opposition that Bill C-11 is a form of censorship and citizen control by the government, and that Canadians will somehow have their freedom of thought limited by seeing a streaming service menu with a smattering of Canadian works visible on it. I ask members to think back to the 1970s, when the federal government created the MAPL system for radio. Suddenly, we had to listen to a minimum percentage of Canadian music on the radio. Imagine: a kind of music dictatorship. The boost to Canadian musical performances was significant after the MAPL system was instituted. By the 1990s, Canadian music artists dominated the charts around the world in multiple categories. Actually, by the 1990s, Canadian women music artists dominated the global market. Alanis Morissette, Shania Twain and Diana Krall come to mind. We do not hear the Conservatives referring to the introduction of the MAPL system as the dark age of radio censorship by the Liberal Pierre Trudeau government. After all, unlike today, there was a limited of number of musical outlets available to access music then. There were no Internet-based music platforms, only a finite number of radio stations owned by corporations, not listeners. Why did the Conservatives at the time not cry “censorship” or “lack of free choice”? Why did they not say, “We cannot choose what we want to listen to”, “There are no alternative sources”, “There is a limited number of radio stations”, or “If we want to listen to something else, we have to pay at the music store, which is a form of taxation”? Why did the Conservatives not say, “Stop telling us what to listen to on the radio”? They never asked, “Why will these Liberals in Ottawa not let us listen to what we want?”, or “Why do we have to listen to The Band, The Guess Who, Susan Jacks, Robert Charlebois, Ian and Sylvia, and Michel Pagliaro, alongside the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan and so on?” Do members know why? It is because the Conservatives had moderate and reasonable leaders in those days, such as Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. Do members know why the Conservatives do not object to CanCon in radio today? It is because they know Canadians love their Canadian music and Canadian music artists, and to attack Canadian music would be unpopular, even among the members of their base. To say the government would be censoring the Internet through Bill C-11 is laughable. No, it is actually preposterous. Such talk creates unfounded fears, and it alarms Canadians for no reason. To say one can censor the Internet today is akin to standing next to Niagara Falls and saying that one can stop the massive and endless flow of cascading water. There is as much chance of the government being able to censor the Internet as there is of me capturing air with my hand, so let us stop the hyperbole and let us stop the antics. They are not worthy of this place. I received an email from a constituent the other day who strongly opposes Bill C-11. They were obviously on the Conservative Party blast email list. I could tell by some of the themes that kept coming up. I wrote back to explain the facts about the bill, including the reference to charter guarantees in the body of the bill, so I think I will take a moment to read some of these charter guarantees. It says this quite clearly in the bill: 10.‍1 For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.‍1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings. It is here in black and white. It is in the law. We can tell the opposition not to worry about it, that it is in the law and that all these guarantees are laid down in the law, but they will not believe it. They still send those emails to their supporters saying the Liberal government is trying to censor their thoughts and trying to influence the way they think for political purposes. It is in the law. It says this as well, in proposed subsection 2(3), under “Interpretation”: (3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with (a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings It is not even legalese. It is extremely clear, and even a non-lawyer like me can understand it. When I wrote back to this individual, I also referenced the mandatory charter statement that accompanies all bills tabled by the government, a requirement, as members know, that was instituted by our Liberal government. This was not a requirement before 2015. At that time, when the government introduced a bill, there was no independent charter statement by Department of Justice lawyers, who have the professional responsibilities of integrity and calling it like it is. There was no independent charter statement on a bill, so we saw a lot of bills being introduced by the Harper government that really pushed the limits of charter rights. I told the individual who wrote to me that the bill is an extension of the decades-old policy of taking measures to ensure Canadian culture is supported in a cultural marketplace dominated by a powerful cultural industry centred outside of Canada and whose priority is not, understandably, Canadian cultural content, to be honest. The person wrote back and said that if Canadian cultural products cannot stand on their own and if they cannot compete in the Canadian cultural marketplace, those products should be left to wither. I thought deep down that this is exactly the Conservative mindset when it comes to culture. The problem with this view is that it is based on a naive conception of the marketplace and on how the marketplace works in today's reality. It is the ideological belief that today's marketplace is Adam Smith's marketplace: a small town square market where there are no power imbalances between buyers and sellers, and no one buyer, seller or small group of these distorts transactions and bends them to their financial interests. However, that is not an accurate description of the modern marketplace, and I think members will agree. The fact is that whoever controls distribution controls the market. They control what the market has the opportunity to choose from and consume. This is true in the market for goods and services, which is why, as we know, the banks want to get their hands on insurance. They want to monopolize that market and make sure we buy insurance from them in addition to everything else. This is a normal impulse on the part of market actors, but it is the job of the government to make sure that there are measures in place to prevent this natural tendency toward market dominance from taking place. In the cultural marketplace, the distributor decides what the audience will see. That is why we have worked so hard to maintain a Canadian-owned broadcasting system in Canada. It is about maintaining an independent distribution system for programming, domestic homegrown programming. If we did not have CTV, Global, CBC/Radio Canada and Télé-Québec, and only had ABC, CBS and NBC in the Canadian broadcasting space, none of the popular Canadian programs we have come to know and love over the years would ever have seen the day. It is that simple. It is important to mention that streaming services are both distributors and producers. They therefore have an interest in showcasing their own content. The Internet and streaming services are, by definition, not traditional broadcasters, but they are distributors of cultural products nonetheless, and powerful and ubiquitous ones. There is no reason they should not contribute financially to the creation of Canadian cultural products. There is no reason they should not pay their fair share like everybody else. It is time for the Conservatives to get on board, stand up for Canadian culture and creators and stop telling Canadians that there is a conspiracy to control what they see, think and feel. Such persistent efforts, in my opinion, are a nefarious form of disinformation, and that is why we are at this point here today where we have to get on with the bill. It is a bill that has covered two legislatures and time is pressing. The cultural sphere is galloping ahead with new technologies and new streaming services surrounding us and, of course, providing cultural content that we like to consume. It is not all going to be Canadian, but we should be able to see what the Canadian offerings are. Somebody asked me the other day if I guessed this means that the CRTC, that great force of evil in the Conservative mind, is going to be writing algorithms for Netflix and Crave TV and whatever other streaming services that we have. The bill says, in black and white, on page 14 of the bill, “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 does the opposition not come clean and mention this in its speeches? It is here in black and white in the bill. The opposition does not care. Even if it is in the legislation, somehow it does not exist. Let us keep going with the talking points that we probably see, I do not know as I do not subscribe, in those blast emails that are moving around the cybersphere as part of the Conservative leadership campaign. It is here in black and white in the bill. It is also in black and white that the bill does not apply to users of social media. I think it is time to move on. Canadian culture needs the support. It needed the support yesterday. It certainly needs it now. It is time.
2131 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:34:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really agree with the last thing he said, namely that culture needs the support. I have had a concern about this bill from the outset, and I would like my colleague to comment on this. It concerns community media. We have been hearing that regional media could come together to negotiate. However, I am worried that there are not enough revenue sources for community media, which are fundamental to having very local information. I would like my colleague to comment on that.
89 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:35:13 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I am trying to get a better grasp of the question. It seems to relate to Bill C-18 on news content, the bill that will force web giants and traditional media to negotiate together and ensure that compensation is provided for the content used and paid for by traditional media. I saw somewhere in Bill C‑11 that schools, for example, do not have to worry because they are exempt. I believe, although I am not certain, that this does not really have to do with community media. Another clause in the bill states that it will not apply to a service that is too small. The CRTC will not have time to regulate the thousands of websites belonging to creators. Let us face it, the CRTC does not have the capacity to regulate all of that.
142 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:36:28 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member a fairly specific question about the content of his speech. He spoke about charter statements and the importance the government attaches to charter statements. We have seen multiple cases in which the government has table-dropped amendments to its own legislation and it has not offered a revised charter statement to line up with that change in policy. We saw that in another case with Bill C-7, where the government changed its policy in response to a Senate amendment but did not offer a revised charter statement. On the previous version of this bill, Bill C-10, we saw the government adopting changes from government members in committee without revised charter statements. This is a government that, through the Emergencies Act, has suspended the charter and then we have had contradictory stories told by the minister. I am very suspicious of the stated commitment to the charter. It seems increasingly like these charter statements are then subsequently ignored through amendments and not updated. It suggests that this is just an effort by the government to whitewash an attack on human rights. Most specifically, why does the government not have a practice of offering updated charter statements when bills are amended as a result of the amendments government members have put forward when they come out of committee?
227 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:37:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, the member has mixed in the Emergencies Act with this. The Emergencies Act did not suspend the Charter of Rights. This is another falsehood that is being peddled by the opposition. I do not think one should take charter statements lightly. The member has essentially impugned the professional integrity of the lawyers at the Department of Justice, who are not just parroting government lines; they analyze a bill based on their own professional expertise and knowledge and they produce a charter statement that they feel is accurate. I do not think we should take charter statements lightly. In terms of Bill C-7, the government was responding to court decisions. I think they are a very credible form of input.
122 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:38:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to look back on the Canadian content requirements from the past and realize they offered the chance to have conversations with each other as Canadians and not some form of tyranny. Is the hon. member, like me, puzzled about why the Conservatives seem to prefer letting the web giants and the streaming services determine what we watch, instead of supporting a bill such as this that would make room for indigenous people, Quebec content and the diversity that is Canada? I fail to understand why Conservatives prefer to let the big web giants and streaming services determine what we see.
108 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:39:34 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I think the Conservatives see some political upside in arguing and feeding into this idea that the government is trying to get people all the time. This has been their narrative for a long time. It is the populist narrative. It is the populist narrative of conspiracy theorists. I believe, and I think they are wrong in believing this, and time will show this but they will make their own decisions at that time, they seem to think this conspiratorial narrative is going to pay off in the long term. I do not think it will.
98 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/13/22 4:40:19 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I support so much of Bill C-11, but I am very troubled by the sections that I think need more work. I hate to see anything rushed through this place, and my friend from Lac-Saint-Louis will know that is my view. In the past number of years, I have been so blissfully happy since I got married to John Kidder. I am suddenly related to Eric Peterson, who is my brother-in-law. My step-daughter, Janet Kidder is a serious actor who has been successful. There are parts of Bill C-11 that work for them. The other day on a flight, just by coincidence, my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre ended up sitting next to the fantastic Stewart Reynolds, the comedian who goes by the name Brittlestar. He said to him, “I don't think the people who drafted Bill C-11 understand our industry of content created YouTubers. I don't think the bill has it right yet.” I would do anything to see us get help to Canadian culture, to Canadian content and to our brilliant actors, directors and all the people who need to do the work for production without getting it wrong for the new and emerging sector that I have to admit I do not understand the way I understood Canadian content, as my friend talked about, when we started making sure radio had Canadian content. The bill is not perfect. Why do we not work on it more?
255 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border