44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 9, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the misinformation that is being put out, and most of it is being put out by the members of the Liberal government. If we look to the actual facts of the matter, the fact of Bill C-11 is that it says that the Governor in Council, that is, the cabinet ministers, would determine the criteria by which the CRTC would decide who would be impacted by the legislation, so that it is the government telling the CRTC who would be under it. It has not revealed that information, although we have asked for it for a year.
The Senate has now brought amendments that would specifically exclude individual content. It would say that if one were not commercially involved, if one did not have a unique identifier, that one would not be subject to this legislation. The Liberal government, again, has refused to accept it.
Could the member tell me how this legislation is different from what happens in communist countries, where the government determines content and who is going to be able to see it?
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find the great depth and knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition's understanding of how algorithms work very interesting. I applaud him on that. I also find it very perplexing that he does not understand how a tag got into a YouTube video that affected those algorithms; nonetheless, I will not go down that road.
My question is specifically about the Conservative approach to this bill. What we do know is that Conservatives, in the committee process, put forward some amendments that would allow the CRTC to do censoring. Those amendments were not passed. Could the Leader of the Opposition comment on whether it is all forms of censoring or just the forms of censoring that Conservatives are against?
I say this notwithstanding the fact that I personally do not believe that this bill has any censoring in it from the outset.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to let Margaret Atwood answer that question. This is what she said. She described the CRTC as “the shadowy body that lurks in the background... They're secret. How many of them are there, or what do they do actually?”
Furthermore, and directly to the member's question, she stated, commenting specifically on this bill, “All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through—government bureaucrats. So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.”
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes to CBC and yes to Bill C-11. I would invite the member opposite to tell me what he thinks Canadian content is, why he will not define it in the bill and why he is misleading Canadians, to say that the CRTC, the Chair of which is appointed by him, will not regulate what Canadians see and hear on the Internet. He is misleading the House, and he knows it.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate about how the Liberal government is taking excessive control over Canadians' choices.
Let us not fool ourselves. This bill gives way, way too much power to the federal government, which wants to impose its vision on the choices Canadians make when they use the Internet to watch movies and documentaries and enjoy Canadian culture.
The government wants to direct Canadians' choices by issuing orders to the CRTC. That is why we are fiercely opposed to this bill, which is a direct attack on people's freedom to choose whatever they want to see on digital platforms. We are not the only ones concerned about this. Many people who work in the industry are sounding the alarm. I will say more about that in a bit.
For now, let us concentrate on what has happened in recent years. We have been talking about this bill for years. Some people keep saying that this needs to get done fast, it is urgent, people want this bill and it is taking too long to pass it. We have been accused of filibustering.
The reality is that this bill has been delayed the most by the Liberal government itself. Previously, this bill was known as Bill C‑10, and it was introduced before the unnecessary election that cost $620 million in taxpayers' money. We had to carry out the study all over again.
I am prepared to listen to the comments of those accusing us of talking for the sake of talking and other such things. That is political rhetoric. However, the reality is that those who have delayed the debate and passage of this bill the most are not the Conservative members. It is the Liberal government, which triggered an election and even prorogued Parliament to avoid the WE Charity scandal. The election essentially changed nothing. The government spent $620 million of public money to change absolutely nothing, and this delayed debate of the bill, which, at the time, was known as Bill C‑10, and which is now Bill C‑11.
We are not the only ones in Quebec to have reservations about this bill. Indeed, the Quebec government wants to have its say on the bill. This is nothing new. Almost 11 months ago, on April 24, the Quebec government sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage informing him of Quebec's major concern about the unprecedented power that the federal government was giving itself under clause 7. This clause gives the executive branch, meaning government and cabinet, the power to give the CRTC directions to dictate what Canadians will be able to watch, by creating algorithms for browsing online platforms.
That is why the Quebec minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, repeated that on February 4 in a letter in which he stated that it was “essential...that Quebec's cultural specificity and the unique reality of the French language market be adequately considered”, that “Quebec was the homeland of the French language and francophone culture in the Americas”, it was essential that it be heard. He also said that it was essential “to ensure that Quebec's legislative powers were recognized but that these conditions have not yet been met”.
The Quebec government raised its concerns last April. Following that letter, the National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion asking the federal government to let the Quebec government have its say in committee. The federal government did absolutely nothing. The minister received the letter and could barely be bothered to send an acknowledgment of receipt. After that, as I said last week in the House, he stuck it on his bedside table, under a pile of other papers, and did nothing about it for an entire year.
On February 4, 2023, Minister Lacombe got angry and sent the federal government another request, saying that time was up and that the Quebec government demanded to be heard. The Minister of Canadian Heritage did absolutely nothing.
It is not for lack of trying on our part. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our political lieutenant for Quebec, and I asked not two, not three, not four, but 20 questions to make it clear that Quebec wanted to be heard on the matter of this bill.
We asked 20 questions, and what did the Minister of Canadian Heritage do each time? He resorted to theatrics. He bragged and blustered, he gave a grandstanding response, but he offered nothing for Quebec.
It is scarcely surprising that the centralizing Liberal government should take this approach. I could spend days and days reminiscing about how this government and all previous Liberal governments were eager to commandeer the provinces' political powers. In fact, we are currently seeing how the government has made a specialty of sticking its big fat nose into provincial jurisidictions, where it does not belong.
It is not surprising that the government is doing that. However, it is disappointing to see the Bloc Québécois abetting this usurpation of ministerial responsibility and especially of Quebec's jurisdictions. These people get elected by saying that they speak for Quebec in the House of Commons and that they express the unanimous opinion of Quebeckers. They play up how important that is.
Mrs. Dominique Vien: When it benefits them.
Mr. Gérard Deltell: Madam Speaker, when it benefits them, as my colleague so aptly pointed out.
What is really going on? While we, the Conservatives, stood up 20 times to ask the government to accommodate Quebec's request, the Bloc Québécois maintained radio silence. It is a fitting metaphor, since we are talking about the CRTC. It was radio silence, not a word. They were missing in action, nowhere to be found.
Where is the Bloc when it is time to defend Quebec and speak for Quebec's National Assembly? They drop out of sight.
Speaking of the Quebec National Assembly, do members know that, about a month ago, on February 5 and 6, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted three motions condemning the federal government's action? Do members know that those three motions were directly related to positions defended by the Bloc Québécois in the House on Bill C-5, Bill C-11 and the immigrants at Roxham Road? The last motion severely condemned the use of the term “all-inclusive”, which was said in the House by a member of the Bloc Québécois. We know that Bloc members recognized that it was not the best idea. They said it in the House. The Quebec National Assembly did not like that and adopted a motion condemning that statement.
I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly. I, too, have had occasion, several times, to vote in favour of motions unanimously condemning an act of the federal government. This time, there were three motions in 20 hours, over two days, unanimously condemning the action taken by the federal government with the support of the Bloc Québécois. When the Bloc Québécois says that it is there to defend Quebec, defend the Quebec consensus and speak on behalf of the Quebec National Assembly in the House, it is not true.
That is why we keep saying that it is very important to know how to protect the choice of jurisdictions. Why does Quebec stand up and want to be heard on this bill? This is essential in our debate: Clause 7 states that the government grants itself the power to give directives to the CRTC, which in turn will be responsible for the government's directives to then rework and give directives on the algorithms that will have to be processed by the public. This has many people concerned.
That is why the Financial Post said in an editorial that if the government's bureaucrats were given the right to decide what content is imposed on Canadians there is a real risk that the government will be tempted to use its screening power to silence its critics. That is not good.
Former CRTC chair Ian Scott said that he did not want to manipulate the algorithms. Rather, he wanted the platforms to do that so as to “produce particular outcomes”. That is how an expert sees it. A former head of the CRTC said that.
That is why, as long as this government wants to give itself excessive powers to control what Quebeckers and Canadians have access to, we will be against this bill.
1461 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would remind the House that I myself worked at Radio-Canada. Our party's objective is not to take money away from the CBC, because it is important to us that the CBC have the means to continue doing what it does, which includes disseminating the French fact throughout Canada.
What concerns us about this is that the government wants to exert control. We can see how it already wants to control everything that goes on. Just imagine what will happen when it gives itself the power to control what the CRTC tells broadcasters. Again, I am not the one saying this. Professor Michael Geist said, and I quote, “No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way, and it should be removed from the bill because it doesn't belong in the Broadcasting Act.”
Will you remove this offensive clause that gives you all the power?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague. I worked with him previously, as we were both journalists. He worked for TVA and I worked for TQS. He had fewer viewers than I did, in Quebec of course. I should not have mentioned it because my friends at TVA will be upset with me, but we were number one when I worked at TQS.
What the member said is quite true. However, I would like to remind him why we are so dead set against Bill C-11. It is because the federal government is giving itself all the power to dictate to the CRTC what will be allowed in the algorithms of digital platforms. We cannot accept that. I know that the member is a proud nationalist, that he is proud of Quebec. How can he accept such a blatant abuse of power by the federal government with respect to Quebec?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is playing defence for Bell, for Rogers, for Shaw and for the big telcos that want to ensure that user-generated content comes under the control of the CRTC. That is what the government wants.
The NDP can stand up for Rogers, Shaw and Bell all it wants. Conservatives will stand up for individuals who are creating the content that Canadians watch, and they do not need the government to do anything to get their content out. They are already succeeding. They just need the government to get out of their way.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill would allow the CRTC, by direction of the government, to create regulations that would affect what we see on the Internet. Here we have the CRTC, which is already the regulator for telecommunications, that even after well over a year, is not able to set up a suicide hotline of 988. What kind of confidence does the member have in the CRTC being able to take on this giant new mandate?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have none, and I think that is a great point.
The CRTC, when tasked with urgent tasks, is unable to do it. I would not want to give it this complex task. It is too bad that the government is insisting that it has the power to direct what the CRTC does, which, under this government, is to regulate and restrict user-generated content from getting to Canadians and to the world.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was saying, we are now in the home stretch of the passage of Bill C‑11.
I would like to remind members that Bill C‑11 seeks to ensure that Quebec culture and Quebec and Canadian artists have their place and can succeed in the new digital world.
The Government of Quebec shared its demands concerning Bill C‑11. It is asking that Quebec have a say in CRTC decisions that impact Quebec culture and that the Quebec act respecting the status of artists be respected.
How will the minister respond to Quebec's demands?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I cannot wrap my head around what it is the Liberals do not understand. When they are saying they are going to control what Canadians see and read, it makes no sense. The critics have spoken up. There are hundreds and hundreds of them. They have said to the heritage minister that he has completely rejected the senators' amendment that would exclude user content from CRTC regulation. They said that they were going to do one thing and they are doing another. It makes no sense.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, the NDP supports an amendment that would ensure it is the CRTC, not the cabinet, deciding what kind of content media can produce. Can the member explain why this is not a form of government control that other parties are talking about?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I invite the member to follow along with me. Clause 7 of the legislation says that the cabinet can issue a directive, an order, to the CRTC because it amends certain sections of the act. When I go into the original act, it actually gives the right to cabinet to set policy objectives for licensing, service fees and for access.
The way I read Bill C-11 right now, it would allow the government to censor content it does not like because of clause 7 in the bill. Members have repeatedly mentioned that this bill is bad and that we need to kill Bill C-11. We have been consistent on this message.
Does the member agree with me on the reading of clause 7 that in fact it would give the cabinet the ability to direct the CRTC on licensing, content and fees?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the control is right in the bill. Clause 9, for example, the one I talked about in my speech, would dictate discoverability. It would provide the CRTC, the ultimate gatekeeper of traditional content platforms, the ability to force online streaming platforms and social media platforms to comply, under pain of a $10-million fine, I will add, with the enforcement of discoverability laws. They will downgrade a video that does not meet the government's definition of “Canadian” and will upgrade a video that does. To me, that is absolutely a limit on the free speech of the individual who is deemed not Canadian enough by the government's vision of Canada, which, as the Conservative Party has made very clear, we take great issue with over and over again.
That is in the bill itself. I do not know what to tell the member.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is from the reading of the bill and the experts in Canada who have been telling us this. I mentioned a number of expert opinions, whether they are from Michael Geist or other legal experts. They have explained to Canadians that it is discoverability rules that would dictate what social media and streaming platforms can do with their algorithms to ensure they are meeting the standard of what is Canadian.
I will say to members of the Bloc Québécois that I am surprised they are supporting this. They seem very keen to separate themselves from Canada, yet they are handing over the power of their own content creators, to be dictated to by a major Canadian gatekeeper, the CRTC. It really does not make sense and is not in line with what they believe in and how independent they want Quebec to be. This bill would ensure that what Quebec content creators get to share online and what other Quebeckers get to see would be dictated by a major Canadian gatekeeper. I cannot really square that circle.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, is the member telling us that algorithms and access to algorithms are easy things to decrypt? Is that actually what she is telling us?
Basically, as she sees it, the only way to avoid any interference in broadcasting and streaming is to abolish the CRTC.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, modernizing the act does not mean modernizing it and putting all the power within the government and the CRTC. That is not what Canadian content providers want.
To my colleague's question, nothing in the bill suppresses the power and influence of Facebook, YouTube, Bell or Rogers. None of what the Liberals are saying actually happens. The entire intent of Bill C-11 is to provide more control and more influence to the CRTC and the Liberal government over what Canadians watch, see and read on the Internet. It is that simple.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a very proud Albertan, as I know my colleague is a very proud Quebecker. Therefore, I find it interesting that the Bloc is so supportive of the legislation. He is very intent about protecting Quebec artists and Quebec culture, which I would agree is a very admirable goal. Why he would be putting the authority to protect Quebec culture, Alberta culture and Canadian culture as a whole in the hands of an autocratic, ballooning bureaucracy and one political party in particular by supporting Bill C-11? It clearly would give the cabinet the authority to influence the decisions of the CRTC.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was actually involved in the radio business for quite a few years as a high school student doing the midnight to six in the morning shift at town and country radio GX94. I would use the radio voice, but it is a little scratchy. I know it exactly. Those things were meant as the local radio station. We had 25% or 35% Canadian content, but it has changed. Our Canadian YouTube content generators are not worried about southeastern Saskatchewan. They are going around the world. This is a completely different game. Absolutely, there was a time when the CRTC had a role in controlling what content was out there and promoting Canadian content, but now we are playing on a world stage, not a regional stage.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
