So V ote

Jun/20/22 4:41:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I will give my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, a break. I will not talk about censorship. I will not talk about the enormous power that the CRTC will have over what Canadians and Quebeckers can and cannot watch online either. I think that we agree that the bill we are discussing contains no such horrors. However, in the short time we had to discuss the amendments, there was something that troubled me, and that was the issue of the degree to which foreign companies will be required to use homegrown talent and creators. We tried to submit a minor amendment that would have forced online companies to maximize their use of homegrown talent, creators and artists, but it was rejected. I would like to hear the reasoning behind this refusal to also make foreign companies maximize their use of Canadian and Quebec resources.

149 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 5:14:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech with an aside once again. I am definitely making a habit of starting my speeches with an aside. I want to do this and I think everyone will be fine with it, because last Friday was graduates' day. In Quebec, we celebrated students graduating from high school, CEGEP, vocational school and other schools. We applauded their efforts and their determination at an important step in their studies. I therefore wanted to take a few moments to commend graduates in the riding of Drummond. I am thinking in particular of Elsa Darveau and Ève Turgeon, two young ladies that I adore. Back home, I want to applaud my stepson Christophe and his girlfriend Sophia who are also headed to CEGEP. I want to commend and congratulate everyone graduating in Quebec and Canada, and all those taking this big step in their studies. I hope that this will be the last time we rise to speak to Bill C‑11. I am optimistic that it will be. We worked on Bill C‑10, we worked on Bill C‑11. It is time to pass this bill that our cultural and broadcasting industries have awaited for such a long time. I must say that we put a lot of hours into Bill C‑10 after it was introduced in 2020. The spotlight was on us, as members of Parliament, and we were being congratulated and patted on the back by our colleagues and others, but there is a whole team working behind the scenes. I want to acknowledge my support team, which did extraordinary work during our study of Bill C‑10 last year and during our study of Bill C‑11 now before us. I especially want to thank my assistant Mélissa, who did an amazing job planning more than 60 meetings with stakeholders from all across the industry and who worked non-stop to prepare for the committees. She did an amazing job. I thank my friend Éric, who contributed his thoughts and experience, our research friends, Michael and Vincent, and the whip's team, Paul, Marie-Christine and Charles. I want to say a special thank you to my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, who is here in the House today. Last year, she held meetings on Bill C-10, and she put in a lot of effort. It was a bill that she cared a lot about. I imagine she is pleased today to see that Bill C-11 will be passed. She was a singer in a former life. Actually, that is not true. She will always be a singer. In fact, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the opportunity to benefit from her talents at just about every meeting. I think this bill was particularly close to her heart because she has made a living from singing and she knows how important the Broadcasting Act is to the entire cultural industry. I therefore thank my colleague for her wonderful help. I feel like I am giving a thank-you speech at an awards ceremony, but I think it is important. I hope others will follow suit. I also want to say a big thank you to the interpreters, the committee staff, and the clerks' office staff, who do an absolutely incredible job, always behind the scenes. Without them, I do not think we would be able to get anything done. I want to sincerely thank them as well. With that, I want to focus on a number of very important things that were added to Bill C‑10, which I spoke about earlier. My pet analogy is that Bill C‑10, as introduced on November 3, 2020, was like a blank paint-by-number. The numbers were there, but they were in need of paint to fill in the structure and content of a bill that was lacking on both fronts. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary talked about Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11 as though they were essentially one and the same. He is not completely wrong about that, but he should have said that it was actually the final version of Bill C‑10 as amended and the version of Bill C‑11 as introduced that were virtually the same. That is an important distinction because a lot of work was done on Bill C‑10. Specifically, a lot of work was done to take out significant sections of the Broadcasting Act, for example, paragraph 3(1)(a) on the Canadian ownership and control of broadcasting entities. Last year, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to Bill C‑10 to replace it with the following: “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and foreign broadcasting undertakings may also provide programming to Canadians”. The wording has changed a bit in Bill C‑11. Without getting into it too much, we would have preferred the wording from Bill C‑10, but this is still an important amendment. We often say that the Bloc Québécois put the protection of French back into the broadcasting bill. That is true, and it is in Bill C‑11 because we managed to add it to Bill C‑10. Here is what the new subparagraph 3(1)(i.1) says: “reflect and support Canada's linguistic duality by placing significant importance on the creation, production and broadcasting of original French language programs, including those from French linguistic minority communities”. There is an important nuance here that I think is worth bearing in mind and repeating. The bill talks about “original French language programs”, not programs in French. If we had stuck with “programs in French”, as the bill seemed to suggest before we amended this clause, then content dubbed in French would have been given equal weight regardless of the original language. What we were calling for, and it was entirely legitimate for us to do so, was original French content, meaning broadcasting companies would be required to produce original content in the language of Molière, Vigneault, Leclerc, Lévesque and myself. I am talking a lot about Bill C-10 because we added a few things to it, some of which also made their way into Bill C-11, so they have been discussed again. One of them was the issue of discoverability, which really got people talking. It has become quite hackneyed and used to spread appalling misinformation. I talked about discoverability in the House last week, and I think it is pretty straightforward as a concept. It aims to ensure that local content is promoted, easy to find and available on any broadcasting platform. I cannot imagine anyone thinking to themselves that, yes, we produce great content but that we need to make sure that no one can find it, so as not to completely confuse the algorithms of the big foreign companies, which will stop liking us. I was elected by Quebec voters, who want me to protect their interests. I was not elected by multinational corporations that are based abroad and who report virtually no revenue, pay virtually no taxes and contribute virtually nothing to our broadcasting system and our cultural industry in Canada. I therefore have no problem imposing discoverability requirements on these businesses, because I find that it makes sense. I find it contemptible that this requirement has caused so much outrage and been used as justification by those who claim that this broadcasting bill essentially amounts to censorship. Another very interesting addition made to last year's bill is the sunset clause. This emerged from the realization that the Broadcasting Act has not been updated, revised or amended for more than 30 years, and that if nothing were done, it would more than likely be quite some time before a new act were adopted or amendments made to the new Broadcasting Act. Why would we not require a re-evaluation at specified times to make the necessary amendments and adjustments? That is one of the fine additions included in Bill C-10, and then in Bill C‑11, and it will require the House to review the Broadcasting Act every five years. If some things are not being done properly today, we will not have to wait 30 years to correct them. Bill C‑11 has had quite a strange trajectory. We can agree that the process was a little messed up. In other words, it was short-circuited or neglected. I apologize; perhaps I could have used a better term. It did not help that the Conservatives decided they were going to oppose the bill in any way they could, by filibustering during some very important meetings, even though the study process had already been planned out when the committee received the bill. In response, the government opted for a closure motion, which made it tough to talk about amendments and advocate for amendments. This meant that the committee was not able to have the types of discussions it would normally have when amendments to bills are proposed. I think that the discussion can open members' minds. I wanted to hear my colleagues make arguments, even the ones I find far-fetched. In committee, we are meant to discuss, listen to what others say and keep an open mind. This is how we can amend Bill C‑11 as effectively as possible. A few Bloc Québécois amendments were rejected. I think the main reason they were rejected is that we did not have the opportunity to explain them. There was no room for debate, particularly on the control we want to have over online companies, or rather the control we refuse to have over them. It is unbelievable. When we tried to force American, Chinese and international companies, foreign companies, to hire Canadian and Quebec human resources, creative resources and talent as much as possible, I was told that it is impossible because the companies are already investing a lot of money. I was told that we cannot force them to hire locals because that would be too upsetting. That is what I was told. These companies and the web giants say that they are already contributing a lot and that it would be inconvenient if they were forced to use Canadian resources as much as possible. To that I say, they are always nibbling away at the advertising pie and taking the revenues for themselves. I really want members to understand this. People in this flourishing industry are on the verge of switching careers. They no longer have an income, and media outlets are closing up shop, yet web giants tell us they do not want us to impose those kinds of constraints. Our doormat of a Canadian government lies down and has no problem letting them walk all over it. I sincerely hope the government will take a somewhat firmer stance, especially when it comes to orders the CRTC can give. The CRTC does actually require good faith negotiations between the companies that create programs and those that distribute or broadcast them, and obviously that includes online platforms in our current system. That means the CRTC would need the tools to impose fair negotiation rules should good faith negotiations not happen. That idea was turned down too. I was told it would not work, that the government could not give the CRTC tools to respond should negotiations not take place in good faith. That means big corporations will be able to walk all over our little-guy production companies and carry on exploiting our Quebec and Canadian content creators for profit. Who might need these negotiations to be protected? Small programming businesses might need that, although many of them have grown. Consider APTN, for example. APTN's wonderful model is being emulated around the world. New Zealanders were inspired by what APTN has done in Canada and created a similar channel. CPAC is another example. I think everyone here is quite familiar with CPAC. We can also think of The Weather Network. These are all businesses that need this protection, but they are not getting it because we think that if we are too strict with online businesses, they will be angry. Do we really think they will go away because they are angry? They make billions of dollars. Here is another thing that really frustrated me. We hear about balancing the market, making the market fair to ensure that our traditional broadcasting companies are not penalized in relation to online companies. In that regard, I am quite happy that the part II fees, which imposed significant and onerous financial conditions on licensed broadcasters, have been dropped. I think dropping these fees should really help them, or at least give them a little breathing room. However, the CRTC still cannot issue orders. Let us talk about one of the amendments that I thought did not make much sense: The [CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting...any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking that is required to be carried on under a licence. I said that the idea of a licence should be removed because we want that to apply to online undertakings. However, that was rejected. People did not want that to apply to online undertakings. It is as though they were still scared of the big online company monster. It is as though they were afraid of stepping on the toes of the giant. We are afraid to step on the toes of the giant, but that giant is crushing us and we are saying nothing about it. We think it is amusing because we can watch our movies and our shows. We do not even realize that our creators are starving. Bill C‑11 will pass. The result of the vote will be close, but it will pass. I hope that the fears of those who have profusely expressed them will be allayed when they eventually realize that the “censorship” and “control” of what they envisioned are fabrications. These arguments are pure fearmongering and really have no merit. All the rambling that took place over the past few months and the Conservatives' systematic filibustering when Bill C‑11 was being studied in committee has only resulted in the postponement of important studies, such as that of bill C‑18. More than 450 news businesses have closed their doors. This is a crisis. Because so much time has been wasted for unfounded ideological reasons, a slew of media outlets, including small regional media, are on the brink of closure, and I find that outrageous. I think that these people should show their frustration by pounding a table and making sure their MPs hear them. It is absurd that Bill C‑18 cannot be studied sooner and that we must wait until the fall to discuss this urgent matter.

2597 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 5:35:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I have never bought into those kinds of theories of infringement on individual freedoms and freedom of expression. People have raised concerns, and I think those who have raised them have gotten answers. Done and done. On the other hand, people who have absolutely no interest in this, who are not open to any kind of regulation, will reject any argument that is presented, no matter what it is. There are several other examples of this throughout history. I am fairly certain that in the western United States in the nineteenth century, a time of complete lawlessness, the people running the show and getting their way certainly did not expect any legislation to be forced on them. Regulation is required in certain situations. In this case, we are trying to do it right, and we have taken a long time to do it. I do not believe that we will end up with something perfect, but it will be much better than the current lack of legislation.

169 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 5:37:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith on the quality of her French. That was perfect. I could take 20 minutes to answer that question. Of course the government should have imposed tax rules on online businesses much earlier. Even now, I do not think adequate measures have been brought in, far from it. When it comes to contributing to the broadcasting system, to the cultural industry and to content, some companies are making an effort and trying to do something, but it is still not nearly enough. I do not want to point fingers at every single company, because there are some that are trying to produce things here. However, several aspects still need to be fixed or brought in. Rules and a legal framework are needed. Once the framework is in place, it will be much easier for these businesses to generate original Quebec and Canadian content that meets both our expectations and the financial needs of the community.

164 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 5:39:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I really do not feel like answering the question. I would much rather react to my colleague's comments. Freedom of expression is a topic that we could debate for many hours. I would say that, when it comes to broadcasting legislation, there also needs to be parameters that in some way guide what we can and cannot say. In fact, this is something that we already do in everyday life. There is a rather universal concept that is generally understood by all, in Quebec and across Canada that one person's freedom ends where another's begins. There is nothing in this bill that infringes on freedom of expression. I am not sure if that answers the question from my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, but, since I am saving the two or three insults I have for him for later in private, I will stop there.

151 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 5:41:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, that is the source of all the disinformation. There is absolutely no interference in the coding of algorithms. There is even a clause that states that the CRTC cannot require the use of algorithms. In short, the purpose is to create performance objectives. How will that be accomplished? It will be up to the businesses to explain that to the CRTC. The CRTC will then give them the green light, provided that it is shown the results. No one will tell these businesses to change their algorithms to include Canadian content or other content, or that such content will be prohibited based on algorithms. That is simply not true. That concept simply does not exist.

117 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 5:43:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. We do need to give ourselves the latitude to review the legislation and change things that are not working. Things are moving so quickly with the arrival of these web giants. The digital universe is evolving so quickly that we can barely keep up. I think we will have to keep an eye on this and monitor the evolving technologies and content consumption patterns. We do not consume content the same way that we did five years ago, and that will probably change again in another five years. A provision requiring that the House review the Broadcasting Act every five years will allow us to keep up and make it so that we do not end up with a completely outdated law in need of a total overhaul 30 years from now.

140 words

Jun/20/22 5:58:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie talked about Halloween and the fright nights we went through in committee. In his opinion, if the committee had had the usual length of time afforded to the study of a bill, if everyone had participated in good faith and if committee members could have pursued debates on amendments proposed by the NDP, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc and even the Green Party, could the committee have improved the bill we will be voting on this week?

88 words

Jun/20/22 6:14:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her speech. As she mentioned earlier, I had the pleasure and privilege of working with her on Bill C‑10 last year. I almost rose earlier on a point of order. I believe there is a standing order that states that we cannot lie and we cannot spread misinformation. I believe I heard my colleague say that she was 50 years old. Enough is enough. We are being taken for fools. This colleague is not 50. If she is 50, then I am 85. That said, I recall that we worked very hard to advance Bill C‑10 last year despite the obstacles we faced. I would like to know whether my colleague has had the chance to take a look at what is in Bill C‑11, and if she found that there were things missing that we had added to Bill C‑10. Are there amendments that she would have wanted to make to Bill C‑11 this year, even with the good work done on Bill C‑10?

194 words

Jun/20/22 7:06:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I agree with her on one point, and that is that we did not have enough time. We should have had more time to debate the amendments. However, when there is a gag order, there obviously comes a time when the amendments are no longer being read. That is true. This was raised many times by my colleague during the clause-by-clause study in committee. There are many things that should have been discussed. I assume that my colleague was present during clause-by-clause consideration because she is familiar with the bill and our concerns about it. I would like to hear her talk about the very important amendment that we proposed regarding paragraph 3(1)(f). It is one of the amendments, one of the clauses in the bill, that I think is among the most significant. I would like to ask her about the amendment that we passed with respect to paragraph 3(1)(f) specifically, and hear what impact she thinks it will have on digital companies compared to traditional broadcasting companies.

187 words

Jun/20/22 7:21:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Perth—Wellington. It is usually a great pleasure for me to work with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We do not always agree and sometimes have our differences, but that happens even in the best of families. I want to remind the House that when we started studying Bill C‑11 in committee, we agreed to do so as quickly as possible, at the request of the cultural industry and broadcasters. However, it was the Conservative Party, through my colleague from Perth—Wellington, who asked the other committee members to set aside 20 hours to hear from witnesses. We agreed on that. This was a suggestion from the Conservative Party and my colleague from Perth—Wellington. My question is the following. Why did my colleague later decide that 20 hours was not enough? We already had all of the requests to appear for the witnesses and organizations. What happened at that point to make my colleague change his mind and decide that the 20 hours he had requested were no longer enough?

187 words

Jun/20/22 7:49:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to learn that my colleague plans to support the bill. I admit that I was concerned about the Green Party members, especially when I heard the member for Kitchener Centre take the Conservative position on the issue of digital content creators, on the exemption and on clause 4.2 in particular. I wondered whether my colleague shared that position and whether she also believed that this clause gave her cause for concern respecting freedom of expression and freedom of creation by these new artists, who are carving out more and more space in our landscape and from whom we will benefit a lot in the years to come, I am sure. My other question has to do with the Canadian content she was talking about. She brought up The Handmaid's Tale, saying that Bill C‑11 would correct the fact that a production like that was not considered Canadian content. I want to understand something. Does my colleague think that this content will become Canadian content or, on the contrary, does she think that the rules have to be tightened so that anything produced with stories from here are also produced by artists and talent from here?

204 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 8:55:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. I had the pleasure of working with him when the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage studied Bill C‑11. He said earlier that he spent only about three minutes criticizing the Conservatives' obstructionist tactics and 17 minutes saying nice things about Bill C‑11. I congratulate him on having the self-restraint to spend only three minutes talking about the obstructionist tactics. I would like his opinion on what I see as a crucial part of Bill C‑11, the government's kid-glove treatment of web giants. We would like to see the government really stand up to these digital giants that exploit us and rake in huge profits at Canadians' expense, and especially at the expense of Canada's and Quebec's cultural industry. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does the government's position inspire confidence? Does he believe in the future of our industries, knowing that the government is too spineless to stand up to the web giants?

187 words

Jun/20/22 9:24:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech. I had the pleasure of sitting with him during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, and we had a lot of fun. It was probably the most entertaining part of the study, I must say. Having said that, in his speech, he talked about how the legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate content such as user-generated content, which I think is an unfounded statement. I am wondering how many opinions he would have needed to hear to convince him that there is no infringement on freedom of expression or on user-generated content. Clearly, I am talking about opinions that were contrary to the few that were presented by the witnesses invited by the Conservatives. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this. I know he did not attend all the committee meetings, but I think he has a pretty good idea of our work.

173 words

All Topics

Jun/20/22 9:57:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑11 contains many extremely important points that we have not discussed much because all kinds of events happened that prevented us from really debating issues that I feel are very important. For example, we have talked about the concept of discoverability at length, but the idea of the concept of discoverability has boosted francophone culture and enabled francophone artists to have great careers and develop an enviable audience, especially on the radio, in Quebec and probably eastern Canada as well. I would like my colleague to say a few words about discoverability because this is an extremely important concept in the context of Bill C‑11. It is important to the development of Quebec content and francophone content across Canada.

128 words

All Topics