SoVote

Jun/17/22 12:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 528—

Questioner: Tom Kmiec

With regard to Elections Canada's "Inspire Democracy network": (a) when was the network established; (b) which community organizations and stakeholders are members of the network; (c) which of the 27 community organizations and stakeholders in the network promoted early voting options on behalf of Elections Canada in the 2021 federal general election; (d) how much funding or other support was provided by Elections Canada to each organization or stakeholder referred to in (c) for the promotion of early voting options; (e) who has editorial control over the materials and communications products used or distributed by or on behalf of the Inspire Democracy network; (f) what are the details of the network's 139 community outreach events during the 2021 federal general election, including for each event (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the host or hosts, (iv) who was invited, (v) how the invitation list was determined, (vi) the general description of the audience invited to attend, (vii) the purpose of the event, (viii) the general messages conveyed at the event; (g) how much funding or other support was provided by Elections Canada for each community outreach event referred to in (f); (h) what are the details of the further 26 outreach events in which the network participated during the 2021 federal general election, including for each event (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the host or hosts, (iv) who was invited, (v) how the invitation list was determined, (vi) the general description of the audience invited to attend, (vii) the purpose of the event, (viii) the general messages conveyed at the event; (i) how much funding or other support was provided by Elections Canada for each outreach event referred to in (h); (j) what are the details of the distribution of election information to 619 contacts by the network during the 2021 federal general election, including for each contact (i) the identity, (ii) the date, (iii) the content or subject-matter, (iv) whether the contact was sent the information on a solicited or unsolicited basis?

Question No. 529—

Questioner: Stephen Ellis

With regard to the procurement of COVID-19 rapid test kits: (a) how many kits have been procured since April 1, 2021, and what is the value of those kits, broken down by (i) month acquired, (ii) supplier from which they were acquired, (iii) provincial or territorial government, federal department or other entity to which they were provided; (b) what are the responses to (a), broken down by those procured under the authority of each of (i) section 1 of An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19 (S.C. 2022, c. 2), (ii) Vote 1c under the Department of Health and Vote 1c under the Public Health Agency of Canada of the Supplementary Estimates (C), 2021-22, enacted through the Appropriations Act No. 5, 2021-22 (S.C. 2022, c. 3), (iii) clause 46 of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, (iv) any other statutory or proposed retroactive statutory authority; (c) what are the details of the statutory or proposed retroactive statutory authorities referred to in (b)(iv); and (d) what is the balance outstanding on funds appropriated for the procurement of rapid tests, broken down by each authority referred to in (b)?

Question No. 530—

Questioner: Mel Arnold

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' management of fisheries, broken down by year since 2016: (a) what was the total number of fisheries managed by the department; (b) in which fisheries did the department reduce licenses; (c) what was the total number of licenses reduced, broken down by each fishery; (d) in which fisheries did the department reduce total allowable catch; (e) what were the total reductions of total allowable catch, broken down by each fishery; (f) in which fisheries did the department reduce quotas; (g) what were the total reductions of quota, broken down by each fishery; and (h) what are the total amounts of money that the department disbursed as compensation for reductions of licenses, total allowable catch and quotas, broken down by fishery?

Question No. 531—

Questioner: Mel Arnold

With regard to the government's allocation of funds for the upgrading of the existing Lions Gate Primary Wastewater Treatment Plant (Lions Gate) and construction of the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant (North Shore), both located in Vancouver, British Columbia: (a) since 2016, what are the total amounts of funds allocated by the government to the Lions Gate and North Shore projects; (b) what were the dates of the allocations; (c) what are the amounts of allocations that the government will make to Lions Gate and North Shore in the 2022-23 fiscal year; and (d) when will the North Shore project be completed?

Question No. 532—

Questioner: Mel Arnold

With regard to the government's provision in budget 2017 of $43.8 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to continue and expand aquatic invasive species programming: (a) how much of the funds have been allocated to date; (b) to whom have the funds been allocated; and (c) on what dates were the allocations made?

Question No. 534—

Questioner: Laila Goodridge

With regard to Service Canada Centres: (a) what is the current processing time for each service provided to Canadians (Social Insurance Number, Employment Insurance, Apprenticeship Completion Grant applications, etc.); (b) for each service in (a), what was the processing time as of January 1, 2020; (c) how many Service Canada employees are currently (i) on leave in relation to the vaccine attestation requirement, (ii) working from home, broken down by location; (d) broken down by each Service Canada Centre, what is the number of daily on-site staff, (i) as of January 1, 2016, (ii) as of January 1, 2020, (iii) currently; (e) what safety protocols are in place at each Service Canada Centre; (f) between March 1, 2020, and May 2, 2022, which Service Canada Centres (i) had new air filtration systems installed, (ii) did not have new air filtration systems installed; and (g) broken down by each location in (f)(i), what are the details of each system, including the (i) date of installation, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount of the expenditure, (iv) description of the system, including the make and model?

Question No. 535—

Questioner: Marilyn Gladu

With regard to Translation Bureau operations: (a) how many hours of simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary proceedings were provided in fiscal year 2021-22, broken down by (i) sittings of the Senate, (ii) sittings of the House of Commons, (iii) meetings of Senate committees, (iv) meetings of House committees; (b) how many employees have provided simultaneous interpretation in fiscal year 2021-22 (i) of parliamentary proceedings, (ii) in total; (c) how many freelance contractors have provided simultaneous interpretation in fiscal year 2021-22 (i) of parliamentary proceedings, (ii) in total; (d) have the minimum employment qualifications for simultaneous interpreters employed by the Translation Bureau changed since the government's response to Order Paper Question Q-611 in the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament, and, if so, how have they changed; (e) how many of the employees and freelance contractors identified in (b) and (c) met the Translation Bureau's minimum employment qualifications; (f) what are the language profiles of employees and freelance contractors listed in (b) and (c), broken down by "A language" and "B language" pairings; (g) what was the cost associated with the services provided by freelance simultaneous interpreters, identified in (c), is fiscal year 2021-22, broken down by (i) professional fees, (ii) air fares, (iii) other transportation expenses, (iv) accommodation expenses, (v) meal and incidental expenses, (vi) other expenses, (vii) the total costs; (h) what percentage of meetings or proceedings where simultaneous interpretation was provided in fiscal year 2021-22 has been considered to be (i) entirely remote or distance interpretation, (ii) partially remote or distance interpretation, and broken down between (A) parliamentary, (B) non-parliamentary work; (i) how many employees or freelance contractors providing simultaneous interpretation have reported workplace injuries in fiscal year 2021-22, broken down by (i) the nature of the injury, (ii) whether the meeting or proceeding was (A) entirely remote, (B) partially remote, (C) onsite, (iii) whether sick leave was required, and, if so, how much; (j) how many of the workplace injuries identified in (i) have occurred during (i) sittings of the Senate, (ii) sittings of the House of Commons, (iii) meetings of Senate committees, (iv) meetings of House committees, (v) meetings of the Cabinet or its committees, (vi) ministerial press conferences or events; (k) why was the turnkey interpreting solution not available by the projected 2021 date; (l) what is the current status of the turnkey interpreting solution; (m) what is the current projected date of availability for the turnkey interpreting solution; (n) how many requests for services in Indigenous languages have been made in fiscal year 2021-22, broken down by (i) parliamentary simultaneous interpretation, (ii) non-parliamentary simultaneous interpretation, (iii) parliamentary translation, (iv) non-parliamentary translation; and (o) what is the breakdown of the responses to each of (n)(i) to (n)(iv) by language pairings?

Question No. 536—

Questioner: Marilyn Gladu

With regard to the Department of Justice's Laws website: (a) how are the entries under the "Frequently Accessed Acts" and "Frequently Accessed Regulations" lists determined; (b) broken down by item, on what date was each item currently on the lists referred to in (a) added; (c) what items were formerly on the lists referred to in (a) and during what time periods was each item on the lists; and (d) how many page views has the website received since 2012, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) act or regulation?

Question No. 537—

Questioner: Jamie Schmale

With regard to all contracts for Cloud-Based Storage Services at the Protected B level since 2016: what are the details of all such contracts, including for each (i) the date, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) the duration of the contract, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced, (vii) reason for sole-sourcing the contract, if applicable?

1675 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Jun/17/22 12:32:32 p.m.
Watch

Before giving the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby the floor, I see that the hon. member for Durham is rising on a point of order.

27 words

Hon. Erin O'Toole

Jun/17/22 12:32:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek support for a unanimous consent motion. The details on this motion have been provided to all members of Parliament. There have been discussions between the parties. I would say to my colleagues respectfully that the subject matter is dealing with people who sacrifice all for our country. This is something that stems from e-petition 3636, brought by the member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, and it comes as well from thousands of veterans of the Afghanistan war. I know all members of this chamber would at least want to be heard before the question is called in the House. I would ask for that courtesy as we are nearing the end of this session. Mr. Speaker, I have conducted extensive research and engaged in discussions with all parties and members and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House recognize that Canadians are fortunate to enjoy peace, order, and good government, and that we must honour the service and sacrifice of our citizens who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces; that presently Canada has no independent review body to advise the government and the Chancellery of Honours with respect to errors or omissions related to military honours within the Canadian honours system; that the Canadian Victoria Cross, created in 1993, has never been awarded, including during the 12-year period of the Afghanistan war, when more than 40,000 Canadians served as part of the longest deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces in history; that the organization Valour in the Presence of the Enemy, alongside the Afghanistan Veterans Association of Canada, the Royal Canadian Legion, and countless other Veteran associations have asked for the Star of Military Valour awarded to Jess Larochelle, of North Bay, Ontario, be reconsidered for elevation to a Canadian Victoria Cross to recognize the tremendous valour he demonstrated in Afghanistan on October 14, 2006; (e) that thousands of Canadians have supported this request for reconsideration as evidenced through the 14,129 signatures for petition e-3636 tabled by the member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski on May 19, (f) that such reconsiderations for the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor have been and are being performed by our major allies in an independent fashion that also permits historic reconsideration for error or omission including due to racism or bias in the past with regard to language, race, religion, or other form of intolerance of the era, and and therefore, the House calls for the creation of an independent Canadian advisory body with the specific mandate to review decisions made under the Directorate of Honours and Recognition and its precursor bodies when new evidence demonstrates that the reconsideration of a military honour is warranted to ensure that no error or omission was made; that the advisory be styled as the Military Honours Review Board; that the board have at least nine members including, but not limited to, the Canadian Secretary to the Queen or designate from the Privy Council Office, a designate from the Department of National Defence, a designate from Veterans Affairs Canada, a designate from the Canadian War Museum, a designate from La Citadelle de Québec, a designate from the Royal Canadian Legion, a designate from Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association, an anglophone professor of military history from a Canadian university and a francophone professor of military history from a Canadian university; that the Board and its participant organizations undertake to select designates that incorporate gender balance and diverse perspectives, that the Board meet at least twice annually to fulfill its function, that the Board consider requests for reconsideration referred by a committee of the House of Commons, a committee of the Senate, the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada, or by reference from the Prime Minister's Office, that the Board be funded with staff researchers to support in administrative and reporting duties, including the administration of applications, examination of evidence provided by applicants, and providing recommendations to the Board, that the board deploy a formal process for review which would include the requirement that scholarly evidence be provided by applicants for consideration; that the board advise the Chancellery of Honours at Rideau Hall and the Prime Minister’s Office of their decision in each specific case and that the decision be tabled in the House within sixty days of notice to Rideau Hall and the Prime Minister’s Office; and that the Department of National Defence be instructed to amend the Canadian Forces honours policy in accordance with the intent of this motion, including but not limited to chapter 1, paragraph 26, on retroactivity, and chapter 1, paragraphs 75 and 76, on award errors and policy changes. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members to consider that valour has no time limitation attached to it, so I hope we can do the right thing as a chamber before we rise and before we celebrate our country on Canada Day.

845 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Jun/17/22 12:38:35 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

18 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/17/22 12:39:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to the intervention of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby prior to question period. He started by talking about the way that the NDP, a relatively small party in this chamber, was able to successfully take forward its concerns to committee through amendments and to negotiate at committee to properly represent their constituents. I know my question is going to come off tongue-in-cheek, but I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby can provide the Conservatives some insight into how it feels to know that members are actually doing the job that they have been elected to do as opposed to just coming forward with rhetoric and bringing forward misinformation about everything the bill does not represent, and that they actually did their job and were able to bring forward some amendments that were important to them.

148 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/17/22 12:40:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, this is not only important for us, but it is important for all Canadians. There is no doubt that we have improved the bill. I have some suggestions for the Conservatives, because they have certainly lost their way over the last six months. First off, when a bill comes—

52 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Jun/17/22 12:40:26 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

20 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Jun/17/22 12:40:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if you could inform the House if we do, in fact, have quorum at this time.

22 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Jun/17/22 12:40:51 p.m.
Watch

We will check. And the count having been taken: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie): We have quorum, and I therefore invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to complete his question. He has a few seconds left.

41 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/17/22 12:41:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, first, I just wanted to suggest that Conservatives actually read legislation. Second, they should actually listen to witnesses when they come before committee, rather than blocking them from testifying. Third, they should actually offer improvements to legislation. That is the role that we have here. That is why the NDP has been the real effective opposition in the House of Commons. Yes, we are seeking to oppose when it is warranted, but above all we are seeking to make sure that things in the House of Commons are done in the best interests of Canadians. The NDP influence on Bill C-11 has been undeniable, in terms of improving it, including aspects of freedom of expression. That is the kind of work all members of Parliament should be doing.

131 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Jun/17/22 12:42:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for most of us in the House when I say we are thankful to receive correspondence from our constituents on issues that matter to them. Even when we disagree, it is important to engage and inform them about the process in this chamber. I wonder if the member could speak to the disinformation campaign that we have seen on the bill in particular, because there is nothing so disheartening as when I receive correspondence that is just riddled with conspiracy theories, to be honest. Could the member comment on that?

96 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/17/22 12:42:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, this is a disturbing undercurrent that we saw bring the United States right to the edge of having a coup d'état. The kind of disinformation that drives people from the far right, the far-right extremists, is something we have to be very acutely conscious of. The comments from Conservative MPs that, somehow, Bill C-11 is going to allow the government to follow people on cellphones, and the odious comparisons with the murderous dictatorship in North Korea are unbelievably inappropriate comments made on the floor of the House of Commons. This is very disturbing. We have to push back against Republican-style disinformation from many, but not all, Conservative MPs. Some Conservative MPs still respect Parliament. The ones who do not, though, need to be called out. That is why we have spoken specifically on the bill and specifically on the provisions that we have improved. It is an effort to get real information out to Canadians. Shame on the Conservatives for what they have said through the course of the last few months.

179 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/17/22 12:44:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver East on a per-capita basis, we actually have the largest number of artists in our community. They are actually very much looking forward to the passage of Bill C-11. Can the member explain to the Conservative members why this bill is so important to artists?

51 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/17/22 12:44:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best, because my community, as well, of New Westminster—Burnaby, is really known as Hollywood North. There is a real creative energy that is in our communities. We know that $1 billion will be transferred from the web giants, which have basically been taking that money out of the country, and it will be provided to Canadian cultural content and Canadian cultural institutions, broadcasters and Canadians who are creative, both in the online world and the broadcasting world. What we are going to see is a real renaissance of Canadian content, and that is why I will be supporting the bill.

108 words

Mr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.)

Jun/17/22 12:45:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11. For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and our radios. This is no accident. We support our cultural sovereignty. It is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, it is our present and it is our future. It is how we tell our stories to each other. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. That is why we have the Canadian content that we are so proud of. Here is what has changed. Online streaming platforms are the new broadcasters, yet they do not have to play by the same rules. Online streaming is the norm. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. That is why the government introduced Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This bill ensures that online streamers contribute in an equitable but flexible way to the creation of Canadian content, and ensures that Canadians can find that content on their platforms. Now, let us talk about what this bill would not do. This bill would not impose regulations on content that everyday Canadians post on social media. This bill would not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. This bill would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms, and this bill would not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form. We have heard a lot of misinformation. My colleague just mentioned previously that a lot of emails have come in with a lot of confusion and misinformation, and I believe that is deliberate. I was going to address two of the issues that we might be hearing some of the most misinformation about in the Online Streaming Act. First is the fact that user-generated content is excluded. People ask where that is in the legislation. The bill explicitly excludes all user-generated content in social media platforms and streaming services. I will read the subsection. Subsection 2.1 of Bill C-11 states: A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service — and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act. In plain language, that means that users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters and therefore they will not face any obligations under the act. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue.

478 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/17/22 12:48:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think we have quorum in the House again.

20 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Jun/17/22 12:48:35 p.m.
Watch

We will check. And the count having been taken: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie): We do indeed have quorum, so the member for Kitchener—Conestoga may continue.

30 words

Mr. Tim Louis

Jun/17/22 12:49:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, as I said, in plain language, that means that any users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters. They will not face any obligations under the act. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue. With this approach, the experience for users creating, posting and interacting with other user-generated content will not be impacted whatsoever, while still standardizing the treatment of commercial content such as TV shows and songs across the platform. We studied this and it is very clear. It is a little hard to explain in legalese, but the bottom line is that music content creations are exempt. The other misinformation that has been floating around is on freedom of expression issues. Just to be clear, clause 12 of the online streaming act explicitly states that any regulation the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. It states: 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. Freedom of expression is protected under the charter and would be protected in the online streaming act. Artists are at the forefront of protecting freedom of speech. It is our arts that allow us to push these conversations. Every single arts stakeholder I have met supports this bill and free speech. I am putting that misinformation aside. I am a recording artist. The arts sector is how I was proudly able to make a living for my entire life before having the privilege of serving my community and my country as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Conestoga. As an artist, I felt support from fellow Canadians. I felt support from Canada. We are proud of our artists, and they deserve our respect and support. During the pandemic, we turned to our artists to make sense of the experiences we were going through. It was the stories, the books, the shows and the music that got us through the pandemic. I have said on more than one occasion that science is getting us out of the pandemic, but arts is getting us through it. We need to support our arts sector. It is one of the hardest-hit sectors in all of the economy and is taking the longest to recover as we move out of the pandemic. That is another reason this bill is so important. We need to show our artists that we support them. I sit on the heritage committee and was at every meeting on Bill C-11 and at every meeting on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. I have studied this. I met with countless stakeholders, individuals and organizations, and they are expressing the fact that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated. Our arts and culture industry is telling us how vital and urgent this legislation will be for it, and we are listening. I try not to get political in the House, but I find that politics has been creeping back in. The Conservatives have used every tactic in their tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. They did not allow the committee to get to clause-by-clause with their filibustering. They went as far as to filibuster their own study motion at one point. They said they had questions for the CRTC and then filibustered a whole meeting while the head of the CRTC and officials sat there and could not appear to answer the very questions we wanted to ask. The Conservatives said they wanted to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and then filibustered a whole meeting while the minister sat there. He could not appear to answer the questions we needed to ask. It has been deeply disappointing, because those stalling tactics are wasteful and prevent us from helping our artists. I will not stop advocating in support of our artists. I appreciate the co-operation of every party except the Conservatives. We have worked together to move things forward. We have co-operated, we have contributed to amendments and we have had conversations. I truly do not understand why the Conservatives are supporting the foreign tech giants over our own Canadian artists. I would like to quote Marla Boltman from an organization called Friends, who summed it up very nicely. She said: Requiring contributions from foreign tech giants that extract billions of dollars from our country will help sustain our industry while driving investment and innovation in the creation of Canadian content that continues to reflect our diversity of voices and who we are as Canadians. Foreign contributions will level the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and foreign platforms.... If you benefit from the system, you must contribute to it. I could not agree more. Bill C-11 is about fairness. It is about supporting our cultural sector. It is about having the power to shape our culture and make sure that everyone can see themselves in our culture. It is about being proud of who we are and being proud of Canadians. That is why I think it is important to keep moving on this important legislation, and why I will be supporting it. I just want to say that, as a musician myself, some of my earliest memories of playing were in our small apartment on the piano. My dad would pick up his bass. He used to play bass in the day. That is part of the way I learned how to play music, just playing some rock and roll songs. I actually thought my dad wrote all those Beatles' tunes we used to play. I did not find that out until later. As it is Father's Day, I want to say a personal happy Father's Day to my dad and to all the fathers and father figures out there who have supported the next generation of artists.

1012 words

All Topics

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Jun/17/22 12:55:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his contribution to the arts. As somebody who was an online content creator and able to create a business as a result of it, and who also worked in mainstream media, I am curious to have his thoughts on how he thinks the CRTC can logistically regulate the millions of videos that are uploaded to social media and YouTube every single day.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Tim Louis

Jun/17/22 12:55:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, digital creators are a future source of our culture. They are going to continue to tell stories. Many of them are already artists in the existing ecosystem here. In no way will this bill have the CRTC regulating their content. The CRTC is working with the platforms themselves. That is why there is flexibility between the regulation and the legislation we have right now. The legislation will give the CRTC the tools to work with the platforms, but according to proposed subsection 2.1 of Bill C-11, the user content itself, even for digital first creators, will not be subject to the Broadcasting Act.

107 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 91