44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am next tabling a petition in support of Bill C-257, my private member's bill that seeks to combat political discrimination.
Petitioners say that Canadians have a right to be protected against any form of discrimination, that Canadians can and do face political discrimination, that it is a fundamental right in Canada to be politically active and to be vocal and not face discrimination as a result, and that it is in the best interests of Canadian democracy to protect public debate and the exchange of differing ideas.
Petitioners call on the House to support and pass Bill C-257, which would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. They also want the House to defend the right of Canadians to peacefully express differing political opinions.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is also in support of a private member's bill, Bill C-281, which is currently before the foreign affairs committee.
Petitioners note the importance of Canada's standing up for the rights of ethnic, religious and other minority groups targeted by human rights violations around the world, and they see this bill as an important step and an important tool in that fight for greater Canadian engagement in international human rights. They want to see the House act quickly to adopt Bill C-281, the international human rights act.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 12:26:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know members of the Bloc have been very supportive of this bill through the process and getting us to where we are today in debating it.
We hear, and I know he hears, a lot of rhetoric and lot of misinformation and disinformation, in particular that rights would be trampled upon with this legislation. I wonder if the member can comment on whether Bloc members agree with the relentless position that the Conservatives have had on this bill, as though it somehow would trample on individual rights and freedoms.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of questions about what we have been hearing from the Liberal side today.
Let us forget about Bill C‑11 for a second, because I think our colleague has set the record straight. He reminded us that it was actually the Bloc Québécois that proposed fast-tracking it two years ago because of a likely election, meaning the session would end.
There has been talk equating being in favour of proposed legislation with being in favour of using a gag order to get it done. I am very concerned about that. We are talking about rights and freedom of speech. I am also concerned about the rights of parliamentarians. We represent the people.
The fact that some are equating the two is concerning to me. Should gag orders be the norm? I believe that is what is being suggested.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 3:37:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. This would help the independent artists. It would do that because all we are saying is that the rules that apply to the traditional media outlets and helping to fund those independents should apply to the web giants too. That is all that this is. There is great opportunity here and great potential.
I would say, to Conservatives who are saying this is a violation of freedom and rights, that we will see what happens the day after this legislation receives royal assent. Would the Conservatives take it to the court to have a charter ruling on it? I am going to guess they would not, because any lawyer who would advise them would most likely tell them they do not have a case.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies must assume that I am about to give a rant about women's rights.
When Margaret Atwood's name is invoked so often with a novel that is entirely about women losing their rights in a dystopian future, where unbelievable things have happened like the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and women having to fight again for rights that were assured. That is not my theme. That just happens to be a deep irony in hearing The Handmaid's Tale invoked over and over again.
Let us get to Bill C-11. I have been talking via email with Margaret Atwood, who I am honoured to know. She does not wish to be associated with the idea that Bill C-11 is “creeping totalitarianism”. If shadowy figures were to be determining what we got to watch, that would be creeping totalitarianism.
I am just going to read what Margaret Atwood would like entered into this discussion. It is found on something called margaretatwood.substack.com. If someone wants to look for the article on a search engine, it is about featuring Canadian content without the benefit of algorithms.
It is called “Can CanCon or Can't It, Eh?” It was posted about Bill C-11 by Margaret Atwood. As she has pointed out to me a few times by email, there is no reference to “creeping totalitarianism” in this article. There are elements of what she wishes were clearer about Bill C-11. It is about the question of what is “content”, what is “creator” and what is “platform”.
To back up a bit, it is important to recognize that regulating Canadian content, whether it be The Littlest Hobo, The Beachcombers or whatever, was an important part of fending off the behemoth of U.S. Hollywood productions.
It is even more important for the culture of the incredible Québécois nation, which is so different from the anglophone Canadian culture. Quebec has a smaller audience which means that it faces an even greater threat from American culture and Hollywood.
We have had the benefit of Canadian content rules for many years. This takes them into protecting our creators from online streaming. I am going to quote Margaret Atwood because she has asked me to. She said the following:
Maybe the language used in the Bill is imprecise. “Content” is what goes inside the cheeseburger. “Creator” is who makes the cheeseburger. “Platform” is how the contents of the cheeseburger wend their way from the creator to consumer of the cheeseburger. Did the framers of Bill C-11 mean Creator or Platform, rather than Content?
And whose interests are to be served? Is all this in aid of “We need to hear our own stories?” That would be Content. But this doesn’t seem to be exactly what is meant.
I think...that the idea is to enlarge the space available to the creative folk in Canada by helping them profit fairly from their endeavours, insofar as that is possible, and to encourage the availability of platforms via which they may serve up their cheeseburgers. Is that it?
If so, the Bill C-11 writers might think of changing the wording. Substitute “creators” and possibly “platform” for “content.” For instance: in music terms—requiring a percentage of CanCon from radio broadcasters jump-started the careers of a whole generation of Canadian musicians. But they didn’t necessarily sing about Mounties and beavers. They sang about all sorts of things. CanCon in that context didn’t mean subject matter. It meant who was doing the singing. Listeners were allowed to hear the music, and then could make up their own minds about whether they liked it or not.
That is what we are talking about here with Bill C-11. There is no world in which people who manipulate algorithms are censors. They promote content, but they do not exclude other content.
People can find the content they want, and the Internet, as many Conservative colleagues have called for, will forever be a magical space of unending opportunities. However, within that large amount of noise, in order to level the playing field, Canadians will be given a bit of a hint to find Canadian content and Canadian productions.
What is that playing field, and why does it need to be levelled? It is because Canadian writers, screenwriters, artists, actors and directors need to be able to make a living. In this debate, the economics of the cultural industry have been somewhat muddied. Yes, it is true that the industry is great for a local economy, and I have experienced this in Saanich—Gulf Islands in my hometown of Sidney.
My husband came home one day and said, “Honey, the town has lost its mind. It's only October, and they're putting up Christmas ornaments.” The next day there was fake snow. We realized there was a Hallmark Christmas film being produced on Beacon Avenue in Sidney. I was able to tell my husband that the mayor and council had not lost their minds but had struck a good business deal; that was a good thing.
That Hallmark film was using Canadian areas and space to produce something. It was good for the economy. However, my husband's daughter tells me all the time that with the U.S. productions made in Canada, the starring roles and the big money go to the U.S. actors; the Canadian actors work at what is called “at scale”. My husband's daughter is a brilliant actor named Janet Kidder, by the way, and she is in a lot of productions.
To promote Canadian artists, we need to be able to say to the big giants, whether Amazon, Disney or Hallmark, that when they come to Canada to make a film, they would find it advantageous to actually use Canadian stars. We have brilliant actors who have chosen to stay in Canada and not move to Hollywood, and they should be paid properly.
We also know that the screenwriters of Canada have had a rather catastrophic drop in the amount of work available to them as the online streaming giants have taken off. If one is a Canadian writer, one's chances of being a screenwriter have been reduced quite dramatically over the last number of years.
This data is kept by an organization to which I belong called the Writers' Union of Canada. In this place, in debate, I heard colleagues refer to the Writers' Union of Canada as if it were a trade union, so let us clear that up. There are no trade unions representing writers. Writers have two organizations: the Writers Guild of Canada and the Writers' Union of Canada. It is a voluntary association of published writers working together in kind of a little society. It could have been called a “society” or a “club”.
It is not a union. There are no arts union bosses. Those are words I heard in this place, as if the arts union bosses are going to make money. No, they are not. There are writers in this country, and many of them are not the famous writers. They are not the Farley Mowats or Margaret Atwoods, and they struggle to make ends meet. Getting a book published or writing a screenplay in Canada is not a ticket to success. If one is lucky, it is a ticket to employment insurance at some point because one managed to put together enough to get some help between jobs.
Writers in this country struggle to make ends meet. They are not represented by union bosses. There are no arts union bosses. We need Bill C-11 to be passed for those creators.
1347 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
