44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am just amazed that the member for South Shore—St. Margarets is heckling me while I read the transcript of what somebody said in committee.
This is, again, from Gord Sinclair, from The Tragically Hip:
The Hip set out from Kingston, Ontario, in the mid-1980s, and our journey took us around the world and lasted over 30 years. It concluded where it began, back in Kingston, when our final concert was broadcast nationwide and viewed by a third of the population of Canada.
How did we wind up there?
Over the years, we wrote some good songs, we worked hard and we had great fans, but in the beginning we were beneficiaries of CanCon, the partnership between private broadcasters and government. This was not a handout. For us, it was a leg-up. With the help of our managers, we recorded an EP and got signed to a label and, with their help, we were able to get some airplay on radio. That gave us enough exposure across the country to take the show on the road, as so many great Canadian entertainers have done.
Canadians excel at live performance. The sheer size of the country is our greatest asset. The road is long and hard, with vast distances between gigs. You can't have a day job and aspire to be a performer in Canada. You either learn to love the life and your travelling companions or you break up. The late great Ronnie Hawkins always said that Canadians have to work 10 times as hard to get a tenth as far.
The artists who do endure have honed their talent to a very high standard. Canadian musicians are seasoned travellers. They've learned to play live and to live on the road, and that's what sets us apart. Somehow, during the years and hours of staring out the van window at granite and black spruce, you discover what it means to be a Canadian. You realize that despite its size, distinct regions and communities, there is more that binds us together in this country than separates us. The Hip wrote songs from that perspective. Many of them resonated with our fellow Canadians and enjoy enduring popularity.
Through the travel, the space, the time and the weather, the songwriter searches for meaning and what gives us a common identity. Nations create and preserve themselves through the stories they tell. Words set to rhythm and melodies are our stories. They allowed us to enjoy a long fruitful career until Gord Downie's untimely death....
Times change. In the 30 years that The Hip were performing, we went from producing vinyl records and cassettes to CDs, videos and DATs through Napster, and to iTunes and YouTube, and now to streaming and its dominant platform, Spotify. Through it all, until recently, there have been live shows to make ends meet, but people no longer buy the physical products our industry produces. In the digital age, people haven't given up on music—just the idea of paying for it. That business model is unsustainable.
We are all stakeholders of the arts, and the future has never been more dire. For years, traditional broadcasters, in partnership with the federal government, have helped develop and sustain Canadian recording artists. The Canada Music Fund provides critical support for music in this country. What will happen if that funding disappears?
Gord Downie wrote in our song Morning Moon that if “something's too cheap, somebody's paying something”. Every song ever recorded can now be streamed for less than $10 a month. The somebodies in this case will be the future you and me when we realize that we've undervalued the contribution of Canadian musicians and songwriters.
There is no better art form to preserve, promote and export our culture than music, but after two years of pandemic-induced venue closures and cancelled performances, our domestic industry is in peril. Artists must see a glimmer of hope for a career in music or they will simply give up. Where will our next Joni Mitchell come from if we abandon our young artists? Artistic development takes time. If we don't actually value something at a level necessary to sustain it, it will surely disappear.
Streaming is here to stay, but the platforms and ISPs must contribute to the long-term health of the arts in some way. They must look on it as an investment. Streaming is a great way for artists to have their material heard, to discover new music and to be discovered, but in an industry that has seen the majority of its revenue streams disappear, how can an artist earn a living? Streaming can help, but regulations must adapt to allow Canadian culture to flourish in the digital age....
My worry is that many will give up before they get the chance to find their voice. As much as the global market is important, Canadian artists must also reach their fellow Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In today's environment, there is a place for everyone, just as there is a place for streaming alongside traditional broadcasters and live performances.
Our potential as a creative nation is as vast as the country itself. Songwriters are our best cultural ambassadors. We are compelled to create, to express what we know and what we feel. We need partners in government and industry....
Right now, somewhere in Canada, a young artist is searching for their voice, the right bit of melody to go with the perfect words. We need your help to hear these voices.
These are the words of Gord Sinclair. To the member who was heckling me previously, and who continued to heckle me while I was reading that, I really hope for the goodness of this institution that he was not doing the same while Gord was delivering those words at committee, because that would have been extremely disrespectful.
I thought it was extremely important to read those words into Hansard so they could be part of the debate the House experiences on this issue. I am very concerned by the rhetoric I have been hearing. Unfortunately for them, I do not think this applies to Canadian discourse, but unfortunately for Conservatives, I do not quite think this manufactured outrage they are attempting for a second time has been nearly as successful as it was the first time around in the last Parliament because they just do not seem to have the traction, despite the outrage we have seen, particularly from the previous speaker.
What I do know is that musicians and individuals who are looking to preserve that Canadian culture, and who take great pride in being Canadian, need our support. Doing something strictly because we think we are going to get a little political gain out of it, but doing it at the cost of those cultural creators throughout our country, is extremely, to use her word, disingenuous of what we should be doing and how we should be properly taking care of Canadian artists.
I have no problem supporting the bill. I know the bill does not do a number of the things that were previously said. It does not impose regulations on the content everyday Canadians post on social media. It does not impose regulations on Canadian digital charter content creators, influencers or users. It does not censure content or mandate specific algorithms, as the previous member indicated, and it does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.
1267 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way made the comment that the bill does not give the CRTC the ability to regulate user-generated content. However, Mr. Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, came to committee, and he said that yes, in fact, they do have that ability. He said however right now they refrain from using it. He asked us to trust him, but he made it very clear that he has the power to regulate user-generated content, which is, in other words, everyday Canadian content online.
The member opposite seems to know something different. I am wondering who is telling the truth, him or the CRTC chair.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting comment. If we reflect on the words that she just used, what she said is that apparently he already has the powers. Her words were, “he has the power” to do this. I am not here to reflect on what the CRTC's current powers are, I am here to reflect on the content of the bill.
My interpretation and my reading of the content of the bill is that it does not give any of those powers this individual is referencing, although we will note she was very judicious in her words. She specifically said, “he has the power”. That would imply that he already has the ability to do that and that his comments are related to that, not what is in the bill.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague mentioning Gord Downie, someone that I was proud to know. I have seen the growth of careers of those in bands like the Hip, and I see the crisis facing musicians today, especially after COVID and the shutdown of live venues, along with the fact that Spotify is ripping artists off dramatically. When I hear the Conservatives talk, they are saying that the bill is actually going to somehow make it impossible for us to watch a video of someone fixing their deck. I do not know what they think entertainment is, but we are talking about a powerful industry in Canada. Our artists travel the world, yet without the ability to have a sustained financial income, we are seeing more and more musicians unable to make it, along with more and more theatres, and more and more groups.
I ask my hon. colleague this: What specifically in the bill will guarantee that we start to see a revenue stream return rightfully to the artists who make the content?
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I started off my speech by telling the story about how I lived on the street five doors down from Judge Baker's house where The Tragically Hip used to practise in the basement. As a newspaper boy, I used to listen to the noise that was coming from the basement, and I had no idea I was witnessing the formation of The Tragically Hip.
Members heard from the words of Gord Sinclair when he was at committee, which I read out in the House, when he said that, had it not been for CanCon and government investment, The Tragically Hip would have never become what it did.
Finally, regarding the member's comment about the Conservatives being worried about somebody being able to watch somebody repair a deck, I just hope that all members know that the member for Timmins—James Bay has a great YouTube channel where they can watch some of his home improvements. If I thought for a second that this bill would limit my ability to do that, I certainly would not be supporting it.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am very worried that it might be misconstrued that I am getting financial benefits when I do decks and drywalling. That is not the fact at all. I just want that on the record.
42 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 10:33:00 a.m.
- Watch
That is not a point of order.
The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is well known that Pierre Trudel, a law professor at Université de Montréal, said that broadcasting must be protected—
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 10:33:14 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member is trying to pose a question. It is very hard for the parliamentary secretary and me to hear that when there are side conversations going on from one end of the chamber to the other.
The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was saying that Pierre Trudel, a law professor at Université de Montréal, said that broadcasting must be protected, that the freedom of Internet users is not at risk, that there is no thought police on television and that there will be no thought police online.
In May 2021, the Department of Justice filed a legal opinion refuting these allegations and confirming Mr. Trudel's statement that freedom of expression is not at risk.
I do not understand why the parties are bickering about protecting broadcasting.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, perhaps that is a better question for the Conservatives, who continue to rail on this issue, despite the fact that these legal opinions have come forward. Of course they are going to dig up one or two individuals who can support what they are saying, as they continuously do in the House.
However, in my opinion as to why we are debating, it is because the Conservatives, in the last Parliament, drew a little blood out of this issue. They saw that, and like a group of sharks, they circled around it. They are attempting to get more and more blood out of it, quite frankly. I just do not see any concern, and this member has indicated that perfectly through her question.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑11 at report stage. Let me start by saying that this bill matters a lot to the Bloc Québécois and has since the last Parliament.
I spoke in favour of this bill in a speech last month. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work of my colleague from Drummond, who has devoted himself, body and soul, to this bill ever since its previous incarnation as Bill C‑10. He deserves every bit of the applause I am hearing right now.
I will begin my speech today with a reminder about how important Bill C‑11 is to the discoverability of francophone culture. I will move on to a reminder about the importance of local media, and I will wrap up with an expression of hope regarding the importance of fighting misinformation, which has had such an impact on this parliamentary session.
As I was drafting my speech, I came across the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The CDCE states that Bill C‑11, which updates the Broadcasting Act, is one of Canada's important and long-awaited cultural policies. On its website, the CDCE has what I think is a very good summary of the importance of Bill C‑11.
It ensures that Canadian creations and productions have a prominent place on our airwaves and on our screens, and that the companies generating revenues from access to culture in the music and audiovisual sectors contribute to their creation, development and distribution.
Canadians are increasingly accessing culture through online platforms. Much of the broadcasting ecosystem is transitioning to digital content. This has a number of benefits for the public and for creators: increased access to a variety of stories, music and ideas, increased opportunities for creators to launch their work, and renewed ability to reach audiences in Canada and around the world...
Many large corporations take advantage of this digital age without any obligation to contribute. Artists, creators, producers, publishers and other professionals of the music and audiovisual industries, as well as for Canadian society, do not reap the potential benefits of investment in the Canadian cultural ecosystem. C-11 was introduced to correct this unfairness.
Unfairness is indeed a problem.
The purpose of the new bill essentially remains the same as the previous one, namely to apply the Broadcasting Act to the web giants by forcing them to contribute financially to the creation and discovery of Canadian cultural content.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, will receive new powers that will allow it to determine which online services will have to be regulated and what quotas will need to be respected. Bill C‑11 will help better regulate video streamers such as Netflix, Apple and TV Plus, Disney+, Prime Video, but also companies that specialize in streaming music online such as Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music. The bill will require them to contribute to Canadian content when commercial items such as albums are downloaded and distributed on platforms.
However, the exclusion clause, namely clause 4.1, addressed earlier, has been revised. Now creators, users and social media influencers are exempt from the legislation. The money a creator earns from their content is immaterial in the eyes of the new legislation. So‑called amateur content on social media would be exempt. The legislation focuses specifically on commercial products.
The level of monetization of the use of content in full or in part by a broadcasting undertaking regulated by the CRTC will, among other things, be taken into consideration. The CRTC will also have the option to impose conditions associated with discoverability and the development of Canadian content.
The bill will not touch the algorithms that can influence the recommendations made to users, and that is very important. The Department of Canadian Heritage says it wants to focus on discoverability outcomes and not intervene directly with respect to web giants' algorithms. There are still questions to be asked, for example, on whether the two are not already intertwined and whether greater discoverability of Canadian and francophone content is necessarily dependent on algorithms.
In our case, it is the outcome that counts. Quebec, francophone and Canadian content must be much more accessible on platforms. Ottawa is trying to give the CRTC the power to hold discussions with each of the digital companies to determine how much they should contribute to Canadian content based on their business model. The CRTC will be able to impose administrative and monetary penalties on those digital broadcasters that refuse to comply with the Broadcasting Act.
Finally, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is proposing other legislative changes in his bill that will apply to all broadcasters, traditional or otherwise. The law should also strengthen programs produced by Canadians that cover news and current events—from the local and regional to the national and international—and that reflect the viewpoints of Canadians, including the viewpoints of indigenous persons and of Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds.
After everything we just talked about with regard to this legislation, I also want to mention the gains that the Bloc Québécois was able to secure with Bill C-11.
The Bloc Québécois did a lot to improve the previous version of the bill, namely Bill C-10, by ensuring the protection and promotion of original French-language programs; the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian content, including French-language original content, in an equitable proportion; the promotion of original Canadian content in both official languages and in indigenous languages; a mandatory contribution to Canada's broadcasting system if a company is unable to make use of Canadian resources as part of its programming; the requirement for first-run French-language content, in order to ensure there are new French-language shows on Netflix, for example, and not old ones; and a sunset clause that would provide for a comprehensive review of the act every five years.
This is very important, because we will thoroughly review C‑11 and meet with the various industry stakeholders and experts to get a sense of what is happening in the industry. We will have to keep evolving this law. We will not hesitate to try to improve it, if necessary, and we will surely propose again many of the hundreds of amendments that were rejected in the spring. Some of our proposals would have made improvements for local, community and independent players, for example.
We have to keep in mind we want a piece of legislation that will not be obsolete as soon as it is passed. Technology is developing very quickly, and we need a long-term vision to ensure that the act does not become outdated after just a few years. Flexible legislation is important, especially since Quebec's and Canada's cultural sectors have been waiting for decades for this act to be updated.
The cultural sector made a simple demand just a few days after Bill C‑11 was introduced. We need to ensure that this bill is passed quickly. The sector has waited long enough.
In May 2021, on Tout le monde en parle, even the former minister of Canadian Heritage said that every month that goes by without us enacting Bill C-10, now Bill C-11, represents more than $70 million that does not go to our artists in Quebec and Canada.
Second, do not forget that, like Bill C-18, which specifically focuses on assistance to print media and is based on the Australian model, Bill C-11 also fits into the context of this media crisis.
Since their inception, Facebook, Twitter and Google have been appropriating news articles and reports without giving any compensation to the authors or the media outlets concerned. For too many years, the digital giants have therefore been instrumental in dismantling our traditional media. This phenomenon began with national advertisers deserting traditional media for Facebook and Google, later followed by local advertisers, who also stopped buying advertising in local weeklies in favour of the giants.
Advertising on digital platforms is now the property of Google and Facebook, which alone are pocketing 80% of online ad revenue. Moreover, digital giants pay nothing for journalistic content that ends up on their platform, and they disregard the copyright of journalists whose work others share on social media.
Third, I really want to talk about misinformation, especially since there has been so much of it in connection with Bill C‑11: cat videos that will not be allowed to circulate, freedom of expression denied and information controlled, like in Russia. I have heard so many shocking things during the debates on this issue.
Just this week, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed concerns about the impact of misinformation on the health of our democratic institutions. He pointed to the demonstration in downtown Ottawa that paralyzed the city for three weeks, but he emphasized the importance of our shared responsibility to fight ignorance and hatred, which lead to misinformation. He expressed one wish for people in positions of authority, such as ourselves, namely that we pay more attention to the statements we make and their veracity.
I also replaced a colleague at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during its deliberations on radicalization and online hate. We cannot continue to ignore our role as elected representatives in the deterioration of public discourse on topics like Bill C-11 and in the divisiveness that exists. I hope to see this place debating a bill to address online hate sooner rather than later.
As a final point, I do not know whether this will be my last speech of the session, so I want to remind everyone listening of my unwavering commitment to the people of Shefford. I always keep in mind that I am accountable to my constituents, first and foremost, and, in this case, I am thinking of our local media in particular. I want nothing but the very best for the people of my region who have a right to access francophone cultural products, and for our artists, who have such an important and vibrant presence in our communities. They have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, so they need some good news. Let us do something for them and pass Bill C-11.
1764 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member for Lethbridge gave the example of a Canadian content creator on YouTube who worries about not being included in the digital landscape, if Bill C‑11 is passed, and about their voice being silenced by the government.
In an effort to set the record straight, could my colleague indicate whether this theory is correct?
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for her love of French. She is improving. That is great. I love having discussions with her.
I think I demonstrated that there has been a great deal of misinformation about this bill.
I remember the sarcastic intervention by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert when he said that after listening to the Conservatives, he had to agree with their arguments.
The Conservatives claim that we now have a system that imposes things on us, controls information and might well drift into allowing excessive control over what is broadcast.
I showed that compared to the former Bill C‑10, clause 4.1 of this bill adds protection against that. I would remind members that the bill includes a provision requiring a five‑year review of the legislation. We could therefore monitor the progress of the situation.
In this specific case, I believe that this worry is unfounded. We have shown that there is a protection mechanism in the bill. This does not infringe on freedom of expression; Canada has not become a dictatorship that tells people what they can say, do, think or broadcast. That is really pathetic.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to get some clarification from the member, because even at the eleventh hour of the abridged debate on this bill, there still seems to be doubt as to whether user-generated content is regulated. Liberal members, Bloc members and NDP members seem to be saying that it is not regulated. Why not remove all doubt and simply put a clause in the bill that says user-generated content is not regulated?
An hon. member: There are numerous clauses, if you read the bill. Read the bill.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 10:46:55 a.m.
- Watch
It is not time for the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to answer the question. It is up to the hon. member for Shefford.
The hon. member for Shefford.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find that interesting. All parties seem to recognize that there is already a provision in this bill stating that this content will not be regulated.
When someone gets to the point where they feel like everyone else is wrong and they are the only one who is right, it may be time for them to do some soul searching. Are they contributing to disinformation? Have they properly done their work as parliamentarians? Have they read the bill? Are they representing all their constituents?
Francophone artists would not agree that they have not kept up with the times and have not been able to adapt to the digital age since 1993. That is what I heard said about certain francophones and artists from Quebec.
It is shocking that the Conservatives are trying to accuse our artists of not being able to adapt to the digital age. Quite frankly, that is insulting.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member for Shefford. The Conservatives have lost it. They spread completely false information. It would seem that they never read the bill. They are making all sorts of accusations. People have to at least try to be realistic when saying things in the House of Commons. Even though we can say anything, the Conservatives should exercise some self-control.
I have a simple question to ask the member for Shefford, who gave an excellent speech. It is now estimated that web giants, who have been profiting for years, will contribute $1 billion, which will be invested in Canadian jobs. What impact will this have in Quebec?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as a former journalism student and as a lover of arts and culture, I am watching this bill very closely. I hope that the money will highlight some amazing cultural projects from Quebec and help make them successful.
I also want to say that we need to allow local media to thrive, as called for by the Voix de l'Est, a newspaper from back home. In my speech I mentioned Marie-Ève Martel's excellent book Extinction de voix, which explains why this bill is so important. This money must be redistributed to help local media and local artists. This money could be reinvested elsewhere.
The web giants have done enough copying from our local media. Now it is time for them to give back to the smallest media outlets, in order to ensure that Quebec culture can truly be enjoyed around the world.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise. I certainly salute the numerous colleagues, such as the member for Shefford and the member for Kingston and the Islands, who have actually addressed the bill. They have obviously read it. This is very important.
What is unbelievable to me is the over-the-top, crazed, Republican-style rhetoric that we have heard from the Conservatives over the last few weeks. This is very simple. There were the equivalent of five weeks of hearings, and the vast majority of witnesses who came forward, as members know, were in favour of the bill but wanted improvements. I will be pleased in a moment to talk about how the NDP was successful in improving the bill, playing our role yet again as the effective opposition party and pushing to make sure that bills are better.
After the equivalent of five weeks of hearings, for two weeks the Conservatives blocked witnesses, refused to let the amendments that had already been submitted be discussed and debated, and blocked everything. They completely filibustered so that nothing could move forward. We have seen the same sad travesty here in the House. The Conservatives, ever since they basically imploded six months ago, have refused to let anything good go through the House for the benefit of Canadians. It is sad. The Conservative Party used to be a respected opposition party, but what it has done over the last few months undermines that.
I will say that there are members of the Conservative caucus whom I have a lot of confidence in, including the member for Perth—Wellington. I wish that his voice was heard more often in the Conservative caucus.
That being said, what did the NDP do? The New Democrats brought forward a series of amendments. We wanted to make sure the bill was stronger. That is our role. As the effective opposition in the House of Commons, we tackled it from five standpoints.
First, when we looked at Bill C-11, we wanted to make sure that we renew broadcasting in Canada and that online companies actually pay their fair share. We are talking about $1 billion in investments. That means tens of thousands of jobs right across the country. This will mean a significant renaissance of the Canadian creative and cultural industries. There is no doubt.
We also wanted to make sure we broke down barriers for marginalized peoples in Canada, so we tabled Bill C-11 and successfully got it through the committee. It is now before the House for consideration at report stage, and hopefully it will get to third reading as well. There are substantial improvements that break down barriers for Black and racialized Canadians in broadcasting, for indigenous peoples, indigenous culture, indigenous voices and indigenous languages, and for people with disabilities. Canadians with disabilities have been excluded from the broadcasting system and from online streaming for far too long. Those are important barriers that the New Democrats broke down, and we are proud of our accomplishments. We want to compliment the members of the heritage committee who voted for those far-reaching amendments.
Second, we wanted to renew community broadcasting. The disinformation and Republican-style rhetoric of the Conservative Party, and the hate we have seen with the “freedom convoy” that many Conservative MPs endorsed, are things that really need a renewal at the community level. Hate and disinformation come from the fact that we do not know our neighbours, and the erosion of community media and community voices has unfortunately contributed to the amplification of the hate and disinformation in our country that we are all seeing.
The NDP tabled this, and again a majority of members of the heritage committee agreed with the idea that we have to reinforce community voices, community media, community broadcasting and community radio. I would like to thank CACTUS and numerous other community organizations that offered important amendments so that we could improve community broadcasting and know our neighbours better. The best antidote to the hate and disinformation we are seeing from the Republicans in the United States and the far right in Canada is to ensure that we know our neighbours and appreciate them. That was an important second series of amendments we brought forward.
Third, we wanted to reinforce freedom of expression. Unanimously, members of the heritage committee agreed, and that means freedom of expression is now paramount in this legislation.
Fourth, we wanted to make sure that Canadian jobs and Canadian broadcasting were enhanced. We have $1 billion now, which is substantial. It is a massive increase in the resources available to Canadian cultural industries. We wanted to make sure it assures there are Canadian jobs, so we tabled with success a number of amendments that enhance the Canadian employment and Canadian jobs component.
Finally, we wanted to ensure more accountability for the CRTC, and we were successful in that endeavour as well.
As a result, what we have is a Bill C-11 that is better and more improved. We are happy that we were able to use our effective opposition voice not to destroy, block or stop any consideration, but to improve this important bill.
It is worth mentioning that the vast majority of witnesses who testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage were in favour of this bill. Even the Conservatives have to admit that these witnesses said that the bill must be passed. Dozens and dozens of organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Canadians from across the country told us that this bill should be passed, but that it had to be improved.
The NDP proposed amendments to improve accessibility for marginalized people, people with disabilities, indigenous peoples and racialized people in Canada, and these amendments were adopted. These measures will improve the bill overall. We also succeeded in getting the number of local and community programs increased. The fact that the CRTC will now be more accountable to Canadians is another NDP success. Canadian jobs are another very important aspect of the bill. We wanted freedom of expression to come above everything else, and the NDP's amendment in that respect was successful.
The reality is that the equivalent of five weeks of meetings were held with regard to the bill before us, during which we heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses. We can say that we met the expectations of these witnesses by ensuring that the bill is better now than it was when the committee got it.
Even though I am disappointed with the Conservatives for holding up all the work for weeks, refusing to hear from witnesses and consider amendments, and refusing to do everything necessary to improve the bill, I think that what did come out of the committee study was an improved version of Bill C-11. There is more transparency. All of the work that we have done over the past few weeks has resulted in a better bill.
I would like to say one last thing. Bill C‑11 and the fact that we have managed to make more Canadian voices heard are another way to counter disinformation. There is not just disinformation around Bill C‑11. In the United States, Republican disinformation is currently a major issue because it is warping democracy and undermining the very essence of voting. This hate coming out of the United States, this disinformation, must be kept out of Canada as much as possible.
We saw the hate expressed by the so-called “freedom convoy”. At that time, we saw that these people wanted to take down our democracy, take down Canada's Parliament. Some of the Conservative members supported that. The way to counter disinformation is to provide more information. That is also one of the objectives of the improved version of Bill C‑11.
1316 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
