44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
- Jun/20/22 3:05:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been shaken by reports of Hockey Canada's involvement in alleged sexual assaults and cover-ups.
Hockey Canada is an organization that received $8.3 million from the federal government last year and paid no income tax, despite having a surplus of $13.2 million. What action has the government taken to ensure sports organizations receiving federal funds, grants and contributions are taking real action to prevent sexual assaults, harassment and cover-ups?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 3:41:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and debate legislation. It is unfortunate that we have to do it under the guillotine of a guillotine motion whereby all stages were time limited and Canadians did not have the opportunity to fully engage on this piece of legislation.
I would remind the House that this is the first major update to the Broadcasting Act in over 30 years, and the government saw fit to ram this through committee, report stage and now third reading with limited debate. However, the Senate—the unelected, unaccountable branch of government—can take all the time it wants. It is allowed to have witnesses and it is allowed to hear from Canadians, but here in this House, the people's House, the elected branch of Parliament, we are being forced to deal with this.
The practical effect of this piece of closure upon closure upon closure is that key stakeholders never had the chance to appear before committee. I would remind the House as well that many of the limited number of witnesses we did have expressed significant concerns. I am sure the government would be interested to know that over a third—39.3%, to be exact—of the witnesses who appeared had significant concerns with this piece of legislation. In fact, 31% thought it should be defeated altogether because of its poor drafting.
There was not unanimity. There was barely a plurality who saw this bill as a perfect piece of legislation in its actual form. Canadians did not have a chance. Let us hear from some of the groups that did not have a chance to appear before the committee.
The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network contacted the committee and wished to appear, but could not appear. Ethnic Channels Group did not have an opportunity to appear. The Community Radio Fund of Canada, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Radio-Canada International Action Committee all contacted our committee to appear and share their views on this piece of legislation. They could not do that because of the actions of the government in ramming it through committee and through this House.
The practical result is that when it came to clause-by-clause study, every single clause, every single amendment was forced to be put at 9:00 p.m., without debate, without amendment, without even reading the amendment into the record. Canadians watching at home—and there were Canadians watching at home who were concerned about this piece of legislation—had no clue what parliamentarians were voting on. What is more, we only received these amendments that same day, with no time to consult key stakeholders in the industry or key creators who may have had concerns or viewpoints on potential amendments. We could not contact them. We could not talk to them. We did not have the opportunity to have that conversation, and instead every single clause, every single amendment was put without debate, without amendment, without even being read into the record.
That is not how committee ought to function. That is not how deliberative democracy ought to function.
I want to be clear. We had several key amendments that we felt would improve this piece of legislation. I want to talk about one that actually succeeded, despite the best efforts of the Liberal government. Every Liberal voted against this amendment, but thankfully the opposition stood firm and eliminated part II licence fees. For far too long, the government has been charging part II licence fees for domestic Canadian broadcasters. It is a tax. It is solely a tax levied on Canadian broadcasters. It is not levied on foreign streaming giants, only on Canadian broadcasters.
The government keeps talking about levelling the playing field, but their idea of levelling is just adding more regulatory burden on everyone rather than truly having a positive impact on domestic broadcasters. Thanks to the Conservative leadership on this issue, we eliminated part II licence fees, saving Canadian broadcasters over $100 million in tax, money that simply goes into the government coffers. It does not go to CRTC. It does not go to programming. It does not go to promoting Canadian culture. It does not go towards promoting Canadian content. It is just more money that goes into the government coffers.
There were other amendments that we proposed that would have improved this piece of legislation. I would say the most important were related to section 4.2, user-generated content. I note that the Green Party had similar amendments that would have either taken out or significantly modified section 4.2 to ensure once and for all that user-generated content was not captured.
Unfortunately, in each case the government voted down each of those meaningful amendments. Liberals even voted down eliminating two words that would have at least taken out indirect revenue. Anyone who spends time talking to digital first creators, talking to those who use digital platforms to promote their content knows that when we are saying “indirect revenue”, it captures a whole swath of the Internet. That is the concern Canadians have had from day one.
I know this has been mentioned before, but this is an important observation from Canada's most successful YouTube channel. Morghan Fortier said:
Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It has been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad.
She went on:
Worst of all, proposed section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet use of everyday Canadians and small businesses like mine that are not even associated with broadcasters.
That is the reality. Conservatives stood up for those creators to try to narrow the exception to the exception that is found in section 4.2, but of course the government members voted against the idea.
Conservatives also stood up for Canadians to try to bring in a definition of “discoverability”. We want to ensure that Canadians can find their favourite Canadian content online. We want to ensure that when Canadians log on to one of the platforms, they can find Canadian content. What we do not want to see is one piece of Canadian content being promoted over another piece of content, with the CRTC deciding which Canadian content is most Canadian or which piece of content should be promoted over another piece of content.
We introduced measures that would have ensured that algorithms were kept out, that Canadians were not going to be subjected one way or the other to promotion of content, but of course our efforts, which included the definition of discoverabilities and included protections for Canadians, were also voted down.
We also suggested that there should be an updated or a clear definition of “Canadian content” to ensure that Canadian stories are told, that Canadian actors, Canadian technicians, Canadian directors and producers are encapsulated into a broad definition of Canadian content so that those films and television shows filmed right here in Canada and those actors who have striven all their lives could find success here in Canada.
Here is what John Lewis, international vice-president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, said about Canadian content:
Under the current system, The Handmaid's Tale doesn't qualify as Canadian. It's based on a novel by Canadian author Margaret Atwood, who served as a consulting producer. It features Canada-centred plot lines, was filmed in Canada—employing hundreds of Canadians—and garnered 75 Emmy nominations. Canadians were recognized internationally for their skill in art direction, production design, hairstyling, makeup artistry, costume design, visual effects and editing.
But The Handmaid's Tale is not Canadian content.
We tried to have the government commit to updating the Canadian content rules prior to going ahead with Bill C-11, but of course it did not happen, and we are still waiting for the minister's policy directive to the CRTC. Bill C-11 provides very broad powers to the CRTC, but much of that will be filled in by the policy directive that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will send to the CRTC.
Canadians deserve to know how the minister wishes to see the CRTC implement those measures, but we have not seen that policy directive. The minister will in fact not disclose it until after royal assent, so Canadians and parliamentarians here in this place and in the other place are forced to vote on Bill C-11 before seeing how it will be implemented.
1465 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about the king of filibusters, it is the member for Winnipeg North.
Let us be very clear. In the last election platform, the Conservative Party committed to updating the Broadcasting Act and ensuring that foreign web giants paid their fair share in Canada, but we also made the commitment that we would do so by respecting digital-first creators and by ensuring that Canadian content was able to find success not only here in Canada but around the world. What Bill C-11 does is put up walls around Canada that will prevent our great creators from finding success worldwide.
Let me be very clear. It was only on May 24 that the bill first came before the Canadian heritage committee. Then the government went forward and used closure upon closure upon closure to force this through committee rather than allowing parliamentarians to do our jobs, analyze the bill, hear from witnesses and make amendments to the piece of legislation.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the 20 hours we proposed represent the minimum amount of time for hearing from witnesses in committee. While witnesses were appearing, we heard from cultural groups, organizations and broadcasters who had concerns about this bill and who wanted to go before the committee to be heard and provide information in that regard. The Conservatives had 20 witnesses who wanted to appear, but were unable to do so. Some Canadians wanted to testify and did not have that opportunity.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am standing up for cultural workers. I am standing up for those digital-first creators who have found success through online means, who have found success here in Canada and around the world because they have used new technologies. We strongly believe in updating the Broadcasting Act to bring it into the 21st century, but we should not and ought not do that at the expense of those who have found success globally thanks to new technologies.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is one of those rare occasions, and perhaps not so rare, when the blues and the Greens are on the same page on something, and it is on section 4.2.
The member mentioned in his comments the ambitious versus less ambitious amendment. I want to talk about the less ambitious amendment that would take out indirect revenue and the impact that would have on at least ensuring that those who are paid by the platforms would be captured, but those who have indirect revenue through licensing deals or through sponsorships would not be captured. I wonder if he could expand on that and how that would have been a small change that would have had a big impact on digital-first creators and how they do their work.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did call out just to correct the member about the Conservatives' strong position on this matter, and its strong principles—
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to give the member for Brampton Centre a couple of seconds to sit down and maybe collect his thoughts, because he might be reading the wrong speech from the department. It does not seem to be relevant to Bill C-11. I enjoy the walk down sports history lane, but I do not see the relevance to Bill C-11. Perhaps the department gave him the wrong speech.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his sports analogies. I am not sure how they are relevant to Bill C-11, since sports are actually not entirely captured in Bill C-11, since Canadian broadcasters use sporting commentary to fulfill their CanCon requirements, but since he is on sports, I wonder if he would join me in condemning Hockey Canada for failing to disclose, four years ago, a sexual assault that occurred in London, Ontario.
Will he join me in condemning Hockey Canada for covering that up for the last four years?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about levelling the playing field. Would he agree that one way to level the playing field would be to eliminate class 2 licence fees?
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/22 11:47:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent to adopt it on division.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
