44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have been really clear, on this side of the House, that it does make sense, and I did reference that in my intervention, for organizations like Netflix to pay their fair share in order to pay taxes. That is completely separate from being able to change the content people see online. They are completely separate things. This is one of the reasons why we, on this side of the House, have said from the very beginning that some of these issues should be separated. Charging GST for some type of service is very different from changing, or even defining, what discoverability is, with looking at what people are able to see online and actually changing the algorithms so that what we see is what the CRTC comes up with that one should be seeing. Those are completely separate issues.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in regard to the Liberals' efforts to fast-track a bill through Parliament that would allow the government to censor what Canadians post. The Trudeau Liberal government and its NDP allies are pushing through a motion in the House to curtail Parliament's responsibility to examine Internet regulation, Bill C-11—
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 6:26:25 p.m.
- Watch
I believe the hon. member for Fredericton is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out that the member should not be using people's names in the House.
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 6:26:35 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. I should learn to pay attention in those first few seconds. I know that we cannot reference people's names in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is duly noted.
I would like to think that the Liberals would have learned their lesson after the debacle of Bill C-10 in the last Parliament, but only this government would be able to introduce a bill that is even worse than the original. The Liberals claim they are trying to level the playing field between traditional and online media. However, it is already incredibly difficult to start a radio station in this country, but it is very easy to start a podcast. Why would the government not make it easier for traditional media to operate instead of policing online content?
In all of this, the Liberal-NDP coalition has refused to listen to Canadian experts, content producers and other witnesses at the heritage committee to fix this incredibly flawed bill. Today's motion only limits the ability of parliamentarians to hear from witnesses, and to debate and study the proposed amendments. Essentially, the Liberals and the NDP are censoring MPs from speaking on their censorship bill.
One of the greatest concerns is proposed section 4.2 of the act, which outlines what is considered a program for the purposes of regulation. In answer to this question at committee, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was adamant that social media posts would not fall under the definition of a program, yet the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, said the exact opposite when he testified, “Proposed section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.”
He, on another occasion, reassured Canadians they had nothing to worry about because the folks at the CRTC, “have lots of things to do. We don’t need to start looking at user-generated content.” How is it reassuring that they do not need to start looking at people's social media? In other words, they will eventually start looking at people's social media, but they are just too busy at the moment.
The Liberal government is telling Canadians to just trust it, except Canadians do not trust this government. They do not trust it when it comes to mandates. They do not trust it when it comes to protecting Canadians online. They certainly do not trust it when it comes to ethics. I think of the SNC-Lavalin and the WE Charity scandals. They do not trust the government at all.
Rather than policing Canadian social media, why would the government not tackle online sexual exploitation? I believe there are some areas where the Internet should have oversight. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to our children online, but they do, and there are no requirements to make sure that accessibility to their sites is for those over the age of 18. I also believe porn companies should not be able to post their content without verifying the age and consent of each person depicted therein.
Too many women and kids have been horrifically exploited online, and porn companies, such as Montreal-based MindGeek, have made billions of dollars from exploiting these women and children, but the Liberals' Bill C-11 does not tackle any of these important issues. The Liberals are more interested in policing our political, social and religious views online. Despite multiple calls for action by survivors, NGOs and parliamentarians, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have done nothing to address companies like MindGeek, which have been publishing and profiting from online sexual exploitation for many years with impunity.
It has been over two years since nine parliamentarians wrote the Prime Minister to alert him to the fact that companies like MindGeek were profiting from child sexual abuse material, sex trafficking and rape in his home province. It has been a year and a half since 20 parliamentarians from four parties wrote the justice minister inquiring why Canada's laws have failed to hold online exploiters accountable, and it has been 18 months since the world has asked why Canada allows this company, MindGeek, to profit off of videos of exploitation and assault.
It has been over 70 weeks since the Canadian heritage minister promised legislation to fight online exploitation within three weeks. It has been 498 days since the survivor, Serena Fleites, shared her horrific story and called on parliamentarians to do something. It has been one year since the ethics committee tabled a report with 14 unanimously supported recommendations. There has been nothing, no action, from the government. Within three days, Mastercard and Visa were able to make findings and judgments that ended their relationships with MindGeek and Pornhub, yet the government has been unable to come up with anything to end this online harm.
To be clear, there have been multiple lawsuits from survivors in Canada and the United States against MindGeek, but zero government legislation to prevent companies from exploiting or profiting from the victimization of children, sex-trafficked victims or rape victims. There have been zero known investigations in Canada, zero charges laid in Canada, and zero justice for survivors. This government's priority is to police law-abiding Canadian citizens online and turn a blind eye to exploitation.
The government could have even used Bill C-11 to tackle online exploitation to protect minors, which is why I have provided some amendments to Bill C-11 that would do this. Specifically, I am proposing that Bill C-11 amend section 3 of the Broadcasting Act to set out policy objectives that the CRTC is mandated to implement to protect children from sexually explicit content and to prevent broadcasting of sexual violence. Specifically, I am proposing these policy objectives to seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content and to safeguard the human rights of women and marginalized people by preventing the broadcasting of programs that include pornographic material that is violent, sexist, racist or degrading or that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion.
I have put forward these amendments at the committee, and I hope that the government will support them. These amendments are supported by child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation.
In a brief submitted to the heritage committee, an organization called Defend Dignity highlights, “Children are spending more time online” than ever. It also notes, “Exposure to sexually explicit material is detrimental to children’s [health and] well-being” and “The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child...recently adopted General Comment 25”. It continues, “Sexually violent material perpetrates discrimination and abuse [with the] connection between sexually explicit material and sexual exploitation”.
Defending Dignity also wrote:
Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority. As an organization working to end sexual exploitation in Canada, we call on all members of the committee to support [the member's] proposed amendment to section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.
There was also a joint submission to the Heritage committee from Timea's Cause and OneChild, two organizations with a combined 30 years' experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children. They wrote:
Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....
This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values and ideologies. In the case of children who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them—this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of content online has frightening links to rape, 'sextortion', deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child sexual abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.
That is why Timea's Cause and OneChild are urging the committee and this government to adopt these amendments to Bill C-11.
Conservatives will continue to defend the interests of Canadians. We will stand up to the exploitation, and those at risk of exploitation. We will stand up for those who are artists and creators, speaking out against this bill because it will harm their livelihoods. We will stand up for all Canadians.
1452 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague put a lot of emphasis on women and children and their protection, and I really appreciate that. However, I would like to point out that he has given an example of a case where regulation is important, where we need to decide what is appropriate in some cases, and so would the member not agree that it is important that we do regulate online content?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what my whole speech was about. There is an area of the Internet that we need to work on to ensure that children are not gaining access to it and ensure that it is not ending up in front of the eyes of children. This is something that is going to be hard. It will be difficult, and it will take effort. However, one of the things that I have been frustrated with is that the government does not put in the effort to get pieces of legislation that we need across the finish line.
Bill C-11 would do nothing to prevent the exploitation of children online, and I am very disappointed to see that is not being addressed. I have moved amendments for Bill C-11 to work in this area, but as it stands, the bill would do nothing to prevent sexual exploitation online.
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised—and that is putting it mildly—by the member's speech. As the saying goes, “give a dog a bad name and hang him”. His speech was a bit like that. He spoke about pornography and child exploitation, but that is not at all what Bill C-11 is about. I would invite him to introduce a different bill on that topic.
Bill C-11 is about forcing the web giants to make room for our creators, our artists. That is what we are talking about. Please do not tell me that we are rushing things. We have been working on this for two years, and artists and creators have been waiting 30 years for the act to be revised.
I just want to say to my colleague that I am really surprised by his speech. I do not think I really understood where he was going with it.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about holding the web giants accountable. MindGeek and Pornhub claim to be one of the largest sites on the Internet with over 11 billion viewers every year. There is enough content on their website that, if someone had to watch it all, it would take them 572,000 years. MindGeek and Pornhub are a major part of the problem on the Internet. It is probably one of the biggest web giants, if there is such a thing, in the world.
I am very disappointed that Bill C-11, while attempting to tackle holding so-called web giants to account, does nothing of the sort when it comes to a company that is in our own backyard and based in Montreal. This bill does nothing to tackle the exploitation that this particular web giant has participated in.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just mentioned in a response that he had amendments to this bill. During the seven hours of filibustering at the heritage committee, those amendments could have actually been brought forward when they got to clause-by-clause.
If he feels that he did not get to bring forward amendments, he might want to ask his colleagues on the heritage committee about it. They prevented it from getting to clause-by-clause, thus preventing amendments being brought forward.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the amendments I have moved at committee. However, I would just generally say that I am not supportive of the bill in its entirety. Even if those amendments were to pass, I would not be voting for this particular bill. I think that those amendments would improve the bill. It would allow the CRTC to focus on that. However, I am looking for the government to take action on fighting online sexual exploitation. This bill is not the bill that would do that.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Drummond.
The government is committed to implementing a digital and cultural policy agenda that will serve Canadians' interests not just today but well into the future. It will support our cultural and artistic ecosystems, including our many talented creative sector workers. This is urgently needed.
Today, I am pleased to speak to the important elements of the online streaming act. First, I will have the pleasure of talking about Canadian independent producers and the important role they play. Second, I want to talk about the importance of ensuring that Canadians can find and access Canadian stories and music.
Delaying Bill C-11 would do harm to our production industry. It would leave the creative ecosystem in a very uncertain and difficult place, without support and predictable funding for Canadian programs. Ultimately, the online streaming act aims to foster an environment where Canadian music and stories can thrive and be discovered. The time to act is now. There is a lot at stake.
However, just like last time, the Conservatives have proven that they have no interest in making our broadcasting system fairer by levelling the playing field between tech giants and Canadian broadcasters. They have decided to use every tactic in their tool box to delay and block our study on Bill C-11. It is disappointing but not surprising. On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting the incredible creators across our country, telling stories that reflect our diverse experiences and building cultural bridges that bring us together.
Turning an idea into a cultural product is no simple task. From coast to coast to coast, our creatives have undeniable talent and an unparalleled work ethic. Canada's independent producers are an example of this.
A Canadian independent producer is a Canadian person or entity, usually a corporation, that creates an audiovisual media project that is not owned or controlled by the broadcaster or distributor. In other words, independent producers make movies, TV shows and documentaries that are not subject to creative control by a TV channel, network, streaming service or cable company. They are crucial to creative risk-taking, authentic storytelling and diverse representation in our audiovisual sector.
In film and television, independent productions cover a wide range of formats and genres, from art house films to popular animated kids shows and everything in between. Popular independent programs include comedies like Letterkenny, French-language originals like M'entends-tu? and science fiction like Orphan Black. There are also many acclaimed indie films, such as Ruba Nadda's Cairo Time and Kim Nguyen's French-language film War Witch. These are only a few examples of the range of quality programming that our independent producers create.
To successfully realize a project, independent producers do many things. They invest in development, make pitches, secure financing, hire creative and technical teams, scout locations and navigate complex trade, tax and labour arrangements to make projects happen. Not surprisingly, Canadian independent producers often work closely with Canadian musicians for scores and soundtracks.
There are over 600 independent production companies in Canada, most of them small and surviving project to project. Canadian independent film and television accounted for $2.9 billion in production volume and more than 81,000 jobs in 2019-20. Many of these independent production companies are undercapitalized and often face difficulty obtaining project financing. In Canada, once a finished project is in hand and all the rights for its creative elements are clear, the producers then make money. However, it is a risky business with a lot of upfront costs.
While we may recognize Toronto landmarks in the background of an episode of Suits or even in the foreground of Pixar's Turning Red, these are American productions. They work with Canadian talent below the line: the “best boys”, “grips” and “gaffers” listed in movie credits. They work with our visual effects, post-production and virtual production studios, such as Stoic in Vancouver, Deluxe in Toronto and MELS in Montreal. They are valuable, without a doubt.
Canadian productions, and specifically independent Canadian productions, are important for ensuring that cultural industry investments touch down and take root in the places where our stories come from. For example, the long-running Canadian television series Heartland is set in Alberta. It is produced by Calgary-based Seven24 Films and Dynamo Films and has a big local economic impact. For just one season of Heartland, they spent over $28 million on production, saw each dollar of federal tax incentive produce more than $11 in GDP and hired more than 1,400 vendors across Alberta.
Independent Canadian productions also tell untold stories and develop diverse programming. Consider Indian Horse, a film adaptation of Richard Wagamese's novel about a talented Ojibwa hockey player who survives the racism and residential schools of his time. Its independent producers were committed to engaging with local indigenous communities, providing jobs and working with elders to ensure respect for cultural protocols.
Diversity is one of Canada's greatest strengths. Without independent producers taking risks, we would never have films such as Water in Hindi and Edge of the Knife in the endangered Haida language. In children's and family programming, Canadian independent producers are innovators. The Kratt brothers are pushing boundaries in the multiplatform arena, while WildBrain has become a global programming powerhouse.
Our stories and our creative talent are at the heart of the online streaming act. The legislation lists several important factors for the CRTC to consider in its definition of Canadian programs, including, for example, collaboration with Canadian producers, Canadian ownership and exploitation of IP by Canadians. This would give the commission the flexibility to require all types of broadcasting undertakings, including online streaming services, to financially contribute to the development of Canadian programs and Canadian talent. That is what Canada's important independent production sector needs to continue to thrive.
A strong independent production sector ensures Canadian stories are told by and for Canadians. However, it is not enough to encourage the production side alone. It is important that Canadians can find and access Canadian stories and music. As we see more of ourselves reflected in these popular mediums, it creates a sense of pride and a sense of unity, which are precisely what we need in these difficult times.
The influx of streaming programs has meant access to endless content, but it can be difficult to find or even recognize Canadian programs. This is in part because online platforms are not required to showcase Canadian programs in the same way as traditional broadcasters.
Our independent productions, and especially Canadian music, deserve to be discovered and supported. However, in the current context, it is a challenge for independent producers to remain visible in the marketplace.
With major artists like Kanye, Adele and Ed Sheeran dropping new music every few weeks, new content simply outpaces our ability to consume it. While we find pride in Canadian artists such as Drake, The Weeknd and Shawn Mendes dominating streaming playlists, we know that production and quality music alone are not enough to get noticed. If that were the case, we would see artists such as k-os, Hawksley Workman, Ada Lea and the quartet Corridor find the global success they deserve.
Word-of-mouth marketing is no longer sufficient. Our musical tastes are increasingly dictated by algorithms. What we are asking for has proven successful in the past. Forty-one years ago, the federal government stepped in with requirements for CanCon to save our singers and musicians from being lost to the radio hits from the United States. We are adapting this policy to safeguard Canadian music for the future.
Without prominence, Canadian stories and songs will not be discovered, heard or remunerated. Discoverability is important. It is an opportunity to be introduced to up-and-coming Canadian artists such as Morgan Toney, a young Mi'kmaq fiddler from Nova Scotia.
I will end here, as I know my time is short. Anything I did not say I can hopefully get to in a question or two.
1358 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, foreign tech giants have been crashing on our couch in Canada without paying their fair share. Today, those subscription-based foreign streaming platforms benefit from access to Canadian markets but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and contributing to our creators. Passing the online streaming act and regulating these foreign web giants to pay into the system that our traditional broadcasters already pay into would contribute to funds for artists and our own storytellers.
Can my colleague from Avalon tell the House how important arts, music and culture are to Newfoundland and Labrador?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I have been in his riding many times. I have family in the area.
This will help local artists and producers. We only have to look at some of the shows that have come out of Newfoundland. Consider the Republic of Doyle, for example, and what it did for our province to highlight and drive the tourism industry literally crazy because of the scenery it showed and the houses and colours of St. John's and beyond.
Our own artists need all the help they can get, especially with trying to come out of COVID. The member is an artist himself, and he fully understands how hard it is to make it in the industry. Why should people not be compensated for someone benefiting from their talent? They should be compensated, they should be supported and that is exactly what our government would like to do.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avalon, for whom I have tremendous respect. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We all appreciate his work as chair, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank him. I also want to thank him for his speech. I was very happy to hear him talk about independent producers, who are literally the driving force behind the cultural economy in Canada and Quebec.
I would like my colleague to tell us about the work that committee members, specifically my colleague from Drummond, have done on the discoverability of French-language content. Can he comment on why it was important to protect French-language content in Bill C‑10 and, of course, in Bill C‑11?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her comments. At the committee we serve on together, FOPO, she continues to amaze me with her intent, her questions and her knowledge of the industry. I also know her to be a performer, because she has gifted us with her talents at committee different times.
We have to protect our cultural identity, regardless if it is our French culture in Quebec, our Irish culture in Newfoundland and Labrador or our Ukrainian culture in Saskatchewan. We have to do everything we can. This country is unique given its diversity. As a government and as parliamentarians, we should try to build on it and make sure we do not lose it going forward, because if we lose our identity and culture, there is really nothing that says what Canada is.
We have to do everything we can to protect it, whether it be the French-language culture in Quebec or in other areas of the country. We have a great, talented country, and our music and talent speak for themselves.
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a blended family, and my stepbrother and stepsister were from upstate New York. They used to come here and were filled with the idea that Canada had no movies or music to offer. It was not that they did not exist, but they were not getting exposure. I feel like so much more work has been done to support Canadian artists and content creators.
What is at stake if we do not pass this bill? What do we risk losing?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what is at stake is losing who we are as a society and as a culture. As I said to the previous question, if we do not protect our own identity, who will protect us? We would be absorbed by the U.S.
I have said to different people that some people do not know where they are from. They have no connection to their community. They can leave one part of the United States, move somewhere else and think nothing of it. I am from Conception Bay South, Newfoundland, and I hope I will one day be buried in Conception Bay South, Newfoundland. I have never lived anywhere else. I love where I live. I love our identity and I do not think we can afford to lose it, because we will disappear as a society if that happens.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for Avalon for sharing his time with me today.
Allow me to make a quick digression to talk about my family. I just returned to Parliament Hill after waging my own battle with this nasty virus that has been talked about so much over the past two and a half years. I am fine now. We fought it off as a family. I want to thank my partner, Caroline, who is recovering as well, her daughter Alexandrine and my daughter Lily Rose. The girls and I are warriors, and we are fine now.
I am happy to be back, but not so happy to be debating Bill C‑11, or more specifically, Motion No. 16, which is preventing us from talking more about Bill C‑11. There are both pros and cons here.
It is never feels good to forgo our duty and privilege as parliamentarians to debate bills as much as necessary before voting for or against. The debate needs to stop at some point, however.
One day I will be able to say that I was there in 2022. I was also there in 1991. Some might think I am not old enough for that, because I do not look my age, but I was working as a radio host in 1991 when the Broadcasting Act was modernized. At the time, I have to say that we had the same concerns, fears and criticisms that are being expressed today about what we are trying to add to the act through Bill C‑11.
We heard criticisms about what is now being called discoverability, but used to be called quotas, those infamous quotas of Canadian content, those French-language music quotas for the radio.
I can say that in 1991, radio stations had quotas to meet, and it was a source of frustration for me and most of my fellow radio hosts at the time because it took a real effort. We could not get away with just playing the big hits from the U.S. anymore. We had to make the effort to discover content that we knew nothing about, since French-language music and Quebec artists were nearly impossible to find at the time.
The same was true for Manitoban artists, with the exception of Daniel Lavoie, who was one of the French-Canadian artists who was doing well at the time. Fortunately, there was a place for him on the radio waves. Discovering the others, however, required showing curiosity, going to the record shop, then listening to albums and deciding to try something that people generally had not heard on the radio.
Those quotas allowed us to offer our artists something they would not otherwise have had: a showcase on Quebec radio. As a result, this music has gained popularity over the years, and now it is being increasingly played and increasingly requested on the radio. Thanks to that, Quebec has now a French-language music industry driven by francophone artists and a thriving music industry in general, independently of language, because the market has been well protected and has fostered homegrown content.
Therefore, it is not true that the concept of discoverability that we are attempting to impose on today's various broadcasters, primarily those online, is bad or evil, nor is it an infringement on the freedom of choice and freedom of expression of music consumers in Canada and Quebec.
The future will confirm what I am saying now, because it has been proven time and time again in Quebec. There is a good reason why there is such massive support for this bill in Quebec. Clearly, what we are trying to include in the bill is well-thought-out and positive.
I was around in 1991, and I was still around 2021, when the bill was called C‑10. Earlier, I heard a member say that the only difference between last year's bill and this one was the “1” in the title. One thing I know for sure is that, when Bill C‑10 was introduced on November 3, 2020, it was like a big, blank paint-by-numbers document. All the real work had yet to be done.
Some 130 amendments to this bill were put forward. The Bloc Québécois suggested some extremely important amendments that were debated and adopted so as to include discoverability of not only Canadian, but also Quebec, francophone and indigenous language content. For Bill C‑10, we had to reintroduce the concept of Canadian ownership to prevent our own homegrown undertakings from being swallowed up by giants for what to them is pocket change.
We added all kinds of things to Bill C‑10, and those things are in Bill C‑11. The fact is, the bill we are debating this year—or, rather, will be debating for a short time this year—is not the same as the one we debated last year. There is still room for improvement. We may run out of time for that, but I will still urge my committee colleagues to do the right thing and work efficiently and collaboratively. That may be wishful thinking.
The Conservatives want to hear from more witnesses. That was one of the arguments they used to hold up the process during the committee's recent work on Bill C‑11, yet they were the ones who proposed limiting our time with witnesses to 20 hours. I remember because I was there. We agreed to that proposal.
During those 20 hours, they could have invited the witnesses they say they did not have time to invite, like APTN, which is an extremely relevant witness and one of the first witnesses we should have heard from, but no. Our colleagues in the Conservative Party decided to invite YouTubers, TikTokers, creators of digital content. This is their choice and their legitimate right. Still, did they really need to invite the 160,000 creators who make YouTube videos in Canada? I think we got the message. We could have moved on to more relevant witnesses.
However, I am somewhat responsible for what happened. Since we had already heard from many witnesses and met with dozens and dozens of organizations since the beginning of this great adventure dealing with the broadcasting bill, I myself convinced a bunch of organizations not to testify, telling them that we would be able to study the bill faster clause by clause, and saying that we knew what they wanted and that we would represent them properly. I apologize to my Conservative colleagues, because I am perhaps somewhat responsible for the fact that we did not consider it essential to receive witnesses for hours and hours, as they would have liked.
It is important that this bill pass. I would really have preferred for it to pass in a more democratic manner, and for us to have a healthy debate on it. That did not happen in committee. However, it is important that it pass, and it needs to be flexible so that it can be adapted to new technologies. Soon online platforms will have the final say on what music and content we consume in our cars. Who knows where will be next. However, the CRTC must be given the opportunity to set out the rules and regulate this industry that is so dear to us, and it is up to us to do just that.
1263 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
