44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is lamentable. What I recall is actually being with that member at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the last Parliament and doing a study on acts of coercion and acts of aggression. Witnesses came from all parts of the country, including witnesses invited by the Conservative Party. When we put to those witnesses whether the presence of a firearm in the home increased jeopardy and vulnerability or decreased it, the answer was very straightforward. It obviously increases jeopardy. This is not something that should be partisan. This is not something that should be politicized. We all have a stake in addressing domestic violence. This is one way to do it.
117 words
All Topics
- 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, 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
- 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, the issue of trust is something we could apply back to the Conservative official opposition, because we had Conservatives pretending that somehow the bill made Canada into North Korea. We had Conservatives pretending that somehow this meant that the government would be following people on cellphones. It is all in Hansard and it is all in testimony that we have seen.
Conservatives repeatedly blocked witnesses from testifying and refused to have us consider clause-by-clause on the bill to actually improve the bill, which is where most of the witnesses were. Conservatives refused to acknowledge that the vast majority of witnesses who came forward were in favour of the bill with improvements.
The NDP went to work and we got more amendments in than any other party. We worked to improve the bill, which I will be talking about in just a moment. I would ask my colleague, whom I respect a lot, how Canadians can trust Conservatives when they have been so misleading and disinforming about the bill.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I also enjoyed our time sitting next to each other during the long hours into the evening on clause-by-clause. We had a lot of fun joking back and forth. That is part of the fun we can have sometimes in this place, regardless of the party.
In answer to the member's question, I do not think there is an actual number, but there were dozens more witnesses we were trying to hear from. I do not think the committee ever settled that 20 hours would be the limit. In fact, committees often change the number of witnesses once they are into the committee and say they should hear from more people. We thought we should perhaps hear from a few more witnesses to get a more balanced approach so we could have more discussion about the amendments that were being proposed in clause-by-clause.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the member's amendment. It is not something I support. I support the legislation as it has been put. I think we have a very comprehensive bill here that covers almost all the issues that witnesses brought to our attention at committee. We have incorporated those comments and stakeholder input into the bill, and I am satisfied with everything we have in time for a vote.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to engage with this member, who lives in the House of Commons.
I am a little surprised that the member does not care about all of the witnesses who have been on the record to say how this bill is going to impact them. Has he not listened to the witnesses? This is 100% how a content creator is created. Justin Bieber started his first video by uploading himself playing music. That is a fact.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the comparison to George Orwell is so unbelievably wacky that I cannot even address that.
I would like to stick to the facts. The facts are that we had the equivalent of five weeks of hearings. The facts are that the vast majority of witnesses who came before committee were in favour of the bill and wanted some improvements. The NDP worked very hard to achieve those improvements, but the vast majority of witnesses supported the legislation because they have seen how the cultural sector has been eroded by the dominance of the web giants.
Fact: The Conservatives blocked additional witnesses by filibustering even some of the witnesses who came, such as the chair of the CRTC and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Fact: The Conservatives did not submit their amendments after all the other parties had submitted their amendments, leading to further delays.
Fact: The Conservatives did not want consideration at clause-by-clause.
Fact: The NDP pushed through important amendments that I mentioned earlier tonight that actually improved the bill to make Bill C-11 better than ever.
Final fact: This is important, and not a single Conservative addressed this. The fact is that right now there is indiscriminate collection of people's private data by the web giants. The Facebook papers revealed this, yet not a single Conservative has spoken to decry the indiscriminate collection of private data that is taking place right now by web giants.
How does the member respond to all of these facts?
252 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my colleague does not love one of the best authors of all time.
To his points, I actually agree 100% that we need to be harsh on people who are taking advantage of others. We put these amendments forward.
To his point about the witnesses, 40% of the witnesses did not agree with this bill. I would put it back to him and ask him if he thinks this bill is ready. Does he think this bill is ready for legislation when 40% of the witnesses have said it was not?
In my opinion, we have something significant that has not been touched in 31 years. The Liberals are ready to ram it through without more careful consideration. It is going to change how we consume and create everyday media. I would like to be a little more thorough than that.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
