44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, let me also express my words of thanks on behalf of the minister and the government, and on behalf of all artists and members of the cultural communities across Canada. My congratulations and my thanks go to the member opposite and his party for pointing out the importance of modernizing and making more equitable the Broadcasting Act. Again, we are in the 21st century. We are not back in the 19th century, when we used other means of communication and technology.
It is very important that we can depend on everyone's input to be reasonable, focus on facts and avoid conspiracy theories. There is nothing in this bill that goes against freedom of speech. In fact, it would support the freedom of expression of our artists in Canada, who depend so much on our support and do not get the support they need from web giants these days.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague from Winnipeg North, who just started his speech, is speaking as if we were still debating the closure motion.
I simply want to tell the member that we just voted on the closure motion. We can now talk about Bill C-11, which is before us today. The vote is over, and there is no need to insist on the subject.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 12:13:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member spoke at great length in his speech about misinformation and disinformation, and then, when answering a question, he was heckled about a comment from Margaret Atwood. I would like to read what The Globe and Mail said about that: “The author said she had not read the bill 'thoroughly yet' and that there seemed to be 'well-meaning attempts to achieve some sort of fairness in the marketplace.'”
The Conservatives cannot even give Margaret Atwood the respect she deserves in terms of accurately representing her statements. How can we expect them to be doing it for anybody else?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising to speak to Bill C-11 for the second time. I gave a speech about it about one year ago.
We have been talking about this for a long time. My hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières is not here today, but I often have conversations with him. He always gives very brilliant speeches, choosing his words carefully and speaking with intention. He told me about a word that aptly describes what is being done with Bill C‑11: “lantiponner”. I do not know how the interpreters are going to translate it, but it means to fool around, to hedge, to delay, to procrastinate, to quibble needlessly when the issue at hand is urgent.
I think that this word is fitting because we have been back and forth on this issue for two or three years. People have been waiting 30 years for a bill that addresses the challenges of our time in order to support our artists.
One year ago, I gave a speech in which I spoke at length about culture and also about the fact that this bill is important because it helps minority cultures, the world's small cultures, stand up to the platforms that threaten to steamroll over them. That is very important when we fight for a small culture. With respect to language, Pierre Bourgault once said that when we fight for the French language in Quebec, we fight for all the minority languages in the world.
This is the type of challenge we are facing when working on Bill C‑11. I talked about culture in that speech, but today I feel like taking a more personal approach and talking about my artist friends. Thirty years ago, before becoming a member of Parliament, I attended the National Theatre School. Artists are my friends. I love them. In fact, I do not just love them; I adore them. They are my brothers, and they have very difficult living conditions. The situation of artists is very precarious. We need to do everything we can to support them because artists are the heart of who we are. They add spice to our lives. I do not know whether my Conservative colleagues have ever tried to do the test. At one time, there was a campaign to raise awareness of the importance of culture in our lives. The test was to try to see if you could get through an entire day without listening to the radio or music or watching TV or a movie.
Let us try to see what life would be like without music, movies and television series, without all of these things that reflect our stories, our ways of living, our traditions, our values, our interests, the things that basically show who we are. Let us try that just for a day so that we can understand the value of artists and what they bring into our lives, this very special way of seeing things. These artists need our help. They need our support.
I will now talk about an artist who is famous in Quebec, Sylvie Drapeau. She is a friend of mine. She may be the greatest stage actor of all time in Quebec, and perhaps even in Canada. She is absolutely sensational, extraordinary. When you see Sylvie Drapeau on stage, you remember her. She did a solo performance at Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, or TNM, a few years ago, and it was a rather personal and remarkable tour de force. There was a time Sylvie Drapeau was in five plays in Montreal a year. She performed at all the major theatres and played all the major roles. She would perform Shakespeare at TNM in the evening and rehearse Chekhov at the Théâtre du Rideau Vert during the day. She would then perform Chekhov in the evening and, the next day, rehearse Marivaux or Molière at TNM—and she always had the lead role. In the middle of all that, she would fit in a play by Racine and do a bit of television, if she had the time. Playing a lead role on stage for two or three hours and rehearsing another play every day takes a lot of energy.
We are talking about a remarkable actress. We are talking the Wayne Gretzky of theatre. We could also say Maurice Richard, as one of my colleagues mentioned.
We have heard our Conservative friends talk about culture as if it started and ended with Tom Cruise, the red carpet and the Oscars, but that is not the case. There is a whole world out there. I know some of the people in it, they are my friends. They are creating art. They are producing remarkable works that need to be seen and appreciated. With Bill C-11, we can fight for the artistic ecosystem. All of these actors, creators and writers are part of artistic life in Quebec, across Canada and around the world.
Even when she was playing the five roles I mentioned, as well as all the starring roles in the repertoire, Sylvie Drapeau was earning $35,000 a year. It is important to point that out, because there are a lot of people like that, whether we know their names or not.
The Conservatives have a rather narrow vision of the arts. I would just like to remind them that, in Quebec, 80% of the members of the Union des artistes earn less than $20,000 a year. Only 1% of those members make more than $100,000. When someone tells me that an artist’s life is all cocktails and glamourous premieres, I say no, that is not true.
I know a thing or two about it myself. When I graduated from the National Theatre School of Canada in 1987, I wanted to change the world through theatre, and I know plenty of people who had the same goal. They dreamt of changing the world through films and plays. I am talking about actors, but there are also dancers, singers, and other artists who want to put on productions that move people, that speak, that touch the heart and soul. At the very least, we need to help these people pay the rent.
When I left the National Theatre School of Canada, I wanted to change the world. I started a theatre company called Béton Blues. I worked for two years with two or three colleagues to start a company and apply for grants to keep it afloat. I had never done that in my life. After filling out grant applications, we needed to get to work to try to get money from major private donors.
That was something. I remember the first time I called Hydro‑Québec. We had prepared a highly researched document to tell its representatives that they should give us money because we were young creators of the future and what we were doing was very important and that our plays would really move people. It had to be sent to the person in charge of arts and donations at major corporations. Then, we had to call to ask them if they were going to give us the money. I was not prepared. I did not know what to say to these people. I remember calling a gentleman at Hydro‑Québec. I was on the phone with the person in charge who could give us $2,000 for our performances. I just asked whether he had any money or something like that. We had no idea how to do it but we did it.
Essentially, what I am saying is that this was important work to me. I worked for two years. Ultimately, we put on a show. We adapted As You Like It, a play by Shakespeare, in the Old Port of Montreal's hangar number 9, now home to an IMAX theatre.
It was a kind of like a big warehouse spread out over 300 feet. It was an absolutely stunning sight. We had nothing. Four sets were used in the show. People arrived and the show began with 20 minutes in one spot. Then, the back of the stage would open up to reveal 300 feet of space and three more sets. The audience would move around, following us.
I will talk about this show in another speech because I think it was remarkable. We really made headlines with that show in the spring of 1988. All that to say, I worked on that show for two years. Can any of my colleagues guess how much money I made? I made $1,200 for two years of work.
In that case, it was my decision. However, all my friends, all the actors, writers, directors, set designers and decorators, all these people who are planning shows in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, all these artists who are struggling to make ends meet—we have to support them.
That support begins by voting for Bill C‑11 so that it can pass as soon as possible.
1539 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 1:44:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out some of the flaws in this bill. Professor Michael Geist, whom I know she has worked with in the past, said that this bill is going to restrict how people can be heard. I want to read the definition of “censorship” into the record. “Censorship” is defined as “the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information”.
I was wondering if the member could please comment on why the government cannot be trusted with any type of legislation like this, on Margaret Atwood's comment that this is creeping totalitarianism and on why we have to be very cautious of it.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 1:59:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to push question period forward by 20 minutes so I can finish my speech.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:25:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of freedom of speech; it is very simple. Big tech has no problem with this bill. It will keep making money hand over fist because of its oligopoly. The government does not want to break up that oligopoly. It has been sucking up to big tech for the last eight years. What it wants to do is to shut down debate.
Canadians want the freedom to express themselves without government control—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:26:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a book and it is still legal, at least for now.
When will the government stop its attack on freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:26:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, I have dedicated my life to ensuring that free speech occurs in our country. Holding up a book and pretending that this is about anything other than making sure that big tech pays its fair share to our artists and creators in our country, trying to pretend that there is anybody in the House who believes anything other than free speech, is the very reason that member can go all over the country and say all kinds of nonsense that I disagree with, because we have free speech in our country.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 3:35:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his honesty today and for dealing in facts and evidence. It is very refreshing to hear, considering this debate.
I came to the House to fight for Canadians and to stand up for the Charter of Rights of Freedoms. When members opposite are making a case that we are against free speech or that we are somehow here to control the Internet, it is scary to me because what I then get at home in my riding, and which my staff have to deal with, is a barrage of hatred. I wonder if the member can comment on how dangerous this kind of rhetoric really is.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 3:42:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the member who was heckling me when I was reading Gord Sinclair's quote. I really wish he had given me the rest of that heckle so I could have at least heard it through his question.
It is inaccurate to suggest I do not understand the context of this bill. With respect to his suggestion that all I did was attack Conservatives, that is not true. He did not listen to the first eight minutes of my speech. The fact is, I did talk about artists, about how content impacted me as a child and is impacting my children, and about how I saw this legislation would improve the content my children are watching today.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:47:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in recognizing the effort that it took to get the international mother language day to this point, I do have to recognize the tireless efforts of our consul general from Bangladesh, because Bangladesh is where this all started. They saw something important and have been working tirelessly across all nations to bring this to where we are today.
I mentioned the food, poetry and music, but there is also the issue of humour. I will divert for a second here, because years ago, I got to attend a lecture by Marshall McLuhan who said that one could tell an awful lot about society by its language and its humour. He told a story from the Soviet Union, and this is back in the early 1960s.
The Soviet Union said it was going to lighten up a little bit and was going to build a nightclub, and it did. It opened with great fanfare, but eight months later it was shuttered, and so there was a Russian equivalent of a royal commission to find out what happened. Members of the commission asked the people questions:
What about the decor, was it okay? They said that they had copied great designs from Paris, Rome and Berlin.
What about the food or the booze? It was perfect, and things people could not get in Russia they could get at their nightclub.
What about the chorus line? It was perfect, every one a good party member since 1917.
That was a big joke in Russia back in those days, but it told a little bit about the ethos that we had at that time.
The ethos here I think was most appropriately set by our late friend and superb parliamentarian, Jim Carr, from his final speech in the House of Commons. He said, “I love this country, every square metre of it, in English, in French, in indigenous languages and in the languages of the newly arrived.”
I would like to repurpose Jim's following remarks, because his remarks were intended to preempt the notion that his private member's bill on greening the Prairie economy somehow encroached on provincial jurisdiction. Jim said that rather than a federal intrusion, it added leaves to the table, one that we set to build a better Canada. That, too, is the outcome of celebrating international mother language day across Canada each February 21. We are not constraining, diluting, confusing or imposing. We are adding leaves to Canada's cultural table. The feast we enjoy by doing so will be satisfying in every way.
430 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech given by the leader of the official opposition, and I wonder if he would like to backtrack or apologize for characterizing the CRTC as a small group of privileged insiders closest to the Prime Minister. I would also ask him if he would like to define the word “woke”. I asked one of his colleagues for that definition, and I would like to hear what he has to say.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:49:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is the craziest, wackiest speech that we have heard from Conservatives although they have, through this debate, been crazy and wacky at every single step. It is quite clear to Canadians that there is not a single Conservative who has actually read the bill because they all have the same speech: something, something, tyranny, North Korea; something, something freedom. We saw how devoted—
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:52:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, she is misrepresenting my words. We need to watch the video again. I will post this, and she can comment on it. I will put it on Facebook. That is how freedom of speech and expression should work in Canada. Members can disagree with me. Come onto the forum, put a comment—
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.
I do not always give a title to my speeches, but there was a movie released back in 2020 that I managed to draw my inspiration from. This is the movie called The Social Dilemma. As we know, it is about big tech using social media as a means to manipulate and influence people.
The public was outraged about it, and rightly so. The government apparently was too, but the problem was that it did not think of it first. That is what we are going to see with this bill as it goes through. I think I have a title for my speech. I am going to go with “The Liberal Dilemma” in the same vein as The Social Dilemma.
It has been amazing to see the strong response we have gotten from the general public, which has reached out to many members of Parliament. Lots of us in the Conservative caucus have heard from a lot of people. We heard from experts, both at committee and out of committee, demanding that the Liberals stop what they are doing. Sadly, the voices have been repeatedly ignored.
What is more troubling is that these same voices might eventually be silenced. However, the Conservatives have been listening to them. We have been raising the alarm and opposing the bill while it passed through this House. The other place has also taken these concerns seriously. Bill C-11 was sent back to us with several amendments from the Senate. One of those amendments is especially relevant and important to the issue of user-generated content.
The Liberals have another chance to show some good faith and correct the problem they are creating in this country. We already know that they are not taking the opportunity in front of them. The minister has made it clear that the Liberals are going to reject this exact amendment, which has been at the heart of this entire debate so far.
At least it is crystal clear where the Liberals stand, and it is not on the right side of the issue. It is exactly the opposite. The Liberals are not interested in protecting the rights of Canadians. It is not their priority. That is really discouraging to see from the federal government. It is a complete failure of leadership on their part.
That is why, on the opposite side, Conservatives have been fighting so much on behalf of our fellow Canadians. We want them to know that someone will stand up for them and their rights in Parliament. If the Liberals go ahead with this, we would get rid of it if we formed government because we firmly believe that it is the right thing to do.
There is a reason the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it mentions a fundamental freedom of expression, includes “freedom of the press and other media of communication”.
The ability to communicate freely is so important to our society. Whether someone was born here or chose to come here from another part of the world, Canadians know and love their personal experience with freedom. We want to make sure that our children and future generations enjoy it as well. We should never take it for granted. The same freedom is essential for our political system to function.
If the Liberals controlled the press, they would let it silence voices which disagreed with them and turn our news networks into a publicly funded propaganda machine; but in fact, it is too late.
History has shown us the worst examples of what can happen with government censorship and control. Even in our own time, there are authoritarian regimes that are doing the same thing to oppress their people, and we know that there have also been attempts to interfere in our elections and have influence within our own country.
Government propaganda spread through government media can either sway public opinion toward its ideals, or what is worse, be used to cover up the corruption and crimes carried out by the state. Given that the independence of media from the government is such an important principle to Canada and other countries around the world, why do the Liberals want to provide an opening for online censorship and interference with media communications?
That is the direction Bill C-11 is taking us. It will hand over more control of media and the Internet from the people to the government. Up until this point, Canadians have had the opportunity to participate in a media marketplace that is free and open. All content is given equal opportunity and can be judged based on its own merit.
Canadian artists have impressed us with their talents here at home, and they have also punched above their weight in the global market. That has been the case with every art form. Canadians continue to succeed as actors, video creators and musicians performing in pop, classical or other genres. Each one of them has worked hard at their craft, and they have excelled based on merit. It did not require bureaucrats in Ottawa or anywhere else to decide if they should be considered Canadian enough.
We all want to see Canadian talent thrive. As much as the Liberals want to hide behind the idea of supporting artists, that has never been the issue. They need to stop using it as an empty excuse to push forward a power grab that could eventually threaten the rights of artistic expression as much as any other ability for Canadians to speak freely.
The ability of Bill C-11 to limit what Canadians would see online would also hurt Canadian content producers. They have been saying as much. Many talented creators have not only made a name for themselves in the Canadian scene, but they have also become stars in the U.S. and all throughout the rest of the world.
Bill C-11 would become a gatekeeper that bars regular Canadians from reaching audiences online. How can that be, if the government is saying it would encourage Canadian content? The problem lies in the fact that, when we give the government the right to censor some content, we must consider that lobbyists from larger producers will influence the regulatory process, which in this case would be carried out by the CRTC.
Only rich, established groups can afford to hire lobbyists. Young men and women posting music to YouTube or maybe trick shot videos in their free time cannot do that. They cannot afford it. Bill C-11 would make it much harder to break into the industry because the only people who can afford to buy lobbyists are already the established media companies.
Across the board, Canada has too many gatekeepers that stop us from building homes or developing our industries. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would expand the government's policy of gatekeeping now to our online content. When it comes to its claim about promoting Canadian content, Bill C-11 does not really make sense, nor address the major problem. The stated goal is to require that media sites give preference to Canadian content in an attempt to promote Canadian culture. However, we still have to ask: How would that rule apply in practice?
The bill fails to define Canadian culture and what content qualifies as Canadian. This vagueness is what would give the government the ability to label as “Canadian” whatever it wants us to see, and to censor anything else that does not align with its priorities. It is irresponsible and can only make people think there is some reason why it wants to leave the door open to controlling how it is that we communicate.
If the Liberals were serious at all or had any interest in defending Canadian culture, they would not allow for this ambiguity and leave so many loopholes in the bill. They would not vote against the necessary amendment to exempt user-generated content from government censorship. It was included in this new version of the bill because of careful and thorough study. Parliamentarians, both in this House and in the other place, have heard from numerous witnesses and had overwhelming feedback from constituents. Apparently, none of that matters to the Liberal government.
The legislative process of Bill C-11 has been a mess right from the start. Last year, the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, rammed Bill C-11 through the House of Commons, not allowing stakeholders to fully voice their concerns about the bill. Today, they have once again tried to censor the opposition by forcibly ending debate on this censorship bill.
As usual, the Prime Minister and his party will not listen to anyone who disagrees with their agenda. It is the same arrogance and condescending attitude that have been on display since they have been in power. That is exactly what people are worried about if they have the power to censor and remove criticism.
Earlier in my speech, I referred to serious allegations about foreign interference in Canada. It is a good example of what could go terribly wrong if we do not protect free expression. We already have a Prime Minister who has disregarded the public interest and tried to cover up accusations against him about conflicts of interest. Most recently, he refused to have an independent inquiry about Beijing's interference in Canada's elections. Can members imagine how much worse it would be if the same Liberal government had the power of censorship when we have learned as much as we have about all the scandals it has been engaged in over the years?
It is a scary thought, but we are not going to give up the fight. We are going to work as hard as ever to oppose censorship and to expose the endless failures of the Liberal government.
1660 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:04:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really appreciate his speeches. However, I would like him to set aside the briefing notes provided by Michael Geist and tell us how he himself defines censorship.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:11:14 p.m.
- Watch
I am hoping the hon. member still has enough time in his speech to bring us to the relevance.
The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:12:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think members of the House have been very patient. The member has not read the bill. He does not understand the bill. He is not speaking to the bill. I do question relevance when he has a speech that has nothing to do with the bill.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:12:43 p.m.
- Watch
We are approaching the halfway point in the time allocated for the speech, and there has been no reference to the bill in question. I recommend the hon. member get to that point, please.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
