- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her passionate speech.
She began by talking about art. Art certainly offers a certain perspective on nature. Something becomes art when the viewer decides that it is artistic. An author once said that to read a book is to write another. The artistic aspect certainly lies in someone viewing it more than its distribution. We know that everything in the art world is what ultimately constitutes culture.
I want to ask my colleague what impact Bill C‑11 will have on culture.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about discoverability for several minutes now. Discoverability refers to the potential to be discovered, found, used, watched, listened to and read, and it is very important to us. Discoverability leads to more revenue over time. Like all models, these models can, of course, be improved. However, I think that we have worked on it and polished it enough.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is an important one that will give us the opportunity to clarify the situation.
The thing that surprises me a bit is that the question sounds a lot like the Conservative point of view, which is unusual, honestly. However, in this case, the proposed interpretation of clause 4.2 is simply false. That is not how it should be understood, on the contrary.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very important question.
Discoverability is a potential. It is a possibility. It is a bit like planting seeds and watching the flowers grow afterwards. At the moment, I would not be able to say what colour the flower will be, and that is what will probably be governed by the regulations in due course. Nevertheless, what matters is that the possibility of being discovered is written into the law. It is the use that will determine this discoverability, but, for the moment, the important thing for us is that it is in the bill at this stage.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression is a truly fundamental subject. Freedom of expression is often discussed but seldom defined. I would like to add a philosophical dimension.
Freedom of expression is the possibility of saying something. It is not permission to say anything at all; it is the possibility of saying something. Bill C‑11 fundamentally leaves a lot of space for everyone. I believe that Bill C‑11 does not place significant restrictions on freedom of expression. I honestly believe that one would have to be a little malicious to think that it contains restrictions.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑11. I am very proud of this bill and will explain why.
I want to take this opportunity to mention that my son started working on air in radio this morning. I wish him well with discoverability. I will also add that my daughter is a documentarian and recently produced a documentary on Montreal in the disco era. I have two children working in the arts, in French, which is why this topic is particularly important to me.
In addition, my riding of Trois-Rivières is a place where many artists converge. People are familiar with Fred Pellerin and, perhaps, the Lemay brothers. There are also people in studios producing soundtracks that are distributed all over the world, even in China. The Cogeco auditorium just recently hosted Harmonium symphonique, so it is safe to say that Trois-Rivières is awash in culture.
Speaking of culture, I want to address one criticism. In the past, a number of people—although there are fewer of them now—have asked me what the Bloc Québécois's role is in all of this. We defend the French language and francophone culture, which means that we protect and support artists.
As soon as we saw Bill C-10, we could tell that protecting French was not a strong priority. English is appealing; it is everywhere on the web and in music. I have nothing against English. However, what bothers me is that English is becoming the singular way of thinking, which means that culture is disappearing.
Let me give you an example. Recently, I was with people from the OECD who were presenting a framework for analyzing artificial intelligence. Being a language specialist, I asked the woman which language the framework was designed in. She told me that everyone had met in Paris—people from Egypt, Brazil, Canada and everywhere. I asked her what language these people spoke while in Paris, and she said that they had been working in English. There is nothing wrong with that, but the very nature of the thought process is different.
That is what people mean when they talk about losing a culture and losing a way of thinking. That is why the discoverability we have all been talking about here is important. We have to be able to develop francophone content, and it has to be a priority for online companies. With Bill C‑10, we had concerns about whether the CRTC, as a relic of the 20th century, would have the wherewithal to take action on this. We proposed amendments that addressed the situation and resolved those concerns. Our francophone artists will reap the rewards.
We also considered the impact of Bill C‑10 on freedom of expression. My colleague from Drummond proposed amendments that were agreed to, amendments that can provide reassurance to artists and content creators.
Next came an unjustified hiatus because of the election. Perhaps it was not completely unjustified; after all, I was elected. People lost money because of the hiatus because it delayed the introduction of Bill C‑11. My colleague from Drummond was undeterred. He kept working just as hard, single-handedly advancing the cause of content creators, because that is what the Bloc Québécois does: We do it all for Quebec.
We clarified the concept of decision. This may seem simple, but it is not. Decision is a word, and, as I often point out, a word is a construct of sound and meaning. We added meaning to the word decision.
We also insisted on maintaining Canadian ownership and Canadian control of the broadcasting system. We insisted and will continue to insist on the chair of the CRTC becoming proficient in French. This is not a preference, but a necessity. A culture cannot be understood if its language is not understood. Throughout the current process, the Bloc Québécois kept pressuring the government to do more for Quebec.
Sadly, the debate gave way to disgraceful comments. I am thinking in particular about the member for Lethbridge, who told Alberta media that some provisions of Bill C‑10 targeted a very niche group of artists from Quebec, outdated artists stuck in the early 1990s because they failed to be competitive on the new platforms. She went on to say that these Quebec artists produce content that Canadians simply do not want.
One would be hard pressed to find greater contempt. Throughout the debate, I heard several colleagues, especially on the Conservative side admittedly, express their concerns about freedom of expression.
That is an important topic, so I took the time to ask three colleagues in the House how they would define freedom of expression. Interestingly, other than saying that freedom of expression is important and essential, no one was able to define the concept and what they understood by it. I was not convinced by the argument.
Invoking something does not make it real. Instead of wasting time with baseless arguments, the Bloc Québécois prefers to take action and protect content creators. Quebec culture is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's mission. Broadcasting is one of the most effective tools for sharing this culture, which is our identity.
The Bloc Québécois is clearly in favour of modernizing the Broadcasting Act, which has not been updated in ages, not since 1991. Obviously, the evolution of technology has not been taken into account.
The Bloc Québécois also contributed significantly to the previous version of the bill, Bill C-10, by securing the following gains: the protection and promotion of original French-language programs; the discoverability of services, and I will not dwell on this, since it has already been discussed at length; the promotion of Canadian programming in both official languages and in indigenous languages; a mandatory contribution to Canada's broadcasting system; the requirement for first-run French-language content, in order to ensure there are new French-language shows on Netflix, for example; and a sunset clause that would provide for a comprehensive review of the act every five years.
When my colleagues ask about the purpose of the Bloc Québécois, I can say our purpose is to protect, promote and take care of francophone culture. The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised us that the Bloc Québécois amendments would be included in the new version of the reform, and indeed, we see significant evidence of them. We have to admit it. That said, the wording obviously differs. Some words are changed here and there, which can change the meaning a bit, but we have to admit that it is quite clear.
Quebec's and Canada's cultural sector has been impatiently waiting for this act to be updated. It has been waiting for decades. The first request from the cultural sector is simple: ensure that this bill is passed. That is what we are being asked to do. Earlier, there was mention of the $70 million estimated by the then Minister of Canadian Heritage. It was an estimate, but a reliable one.
Since the beginning of time, it was said that everything that happened happened within the bounds of space and time. Nothing could exist outside space and time. Globalization and the Internet turned this idea upside down. In 2022, the virus has no borders, inflation has no borders and culture has no borders. It is time to pass Bill C‑11 before time ravages our Quebec and Canadian cultures, turning them into a monolith.
1304 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia. His riding is magnificent.
I would really like to hear his thoughts on something. I picked up on some major distrust of the CRTC. In my opinion, the CRTC is a relic of the 20th century, but I would like my colleague to expand on why he does not trust it.
Why is he so suspicious of the CRTC?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservative members have talked a lot about freedom of expression and censorship. At this point in the debate, I would like my colleague to tell me exactly what she thinks freedom of expression is and what she thinks censorship is.
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood for his speech.
I heard a number of arguments there, and I am left puzzled by one thing.
He bases his first argument on freedom of expression. I am not sure that this is really about freedom of expression, but I would like my colleague to give the House a definition of freedom of expression.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his very lengthy speech.
I would like my colleague to address one very simple question. How would he define freedom of expression?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her speech, although I had a hard time following it because it had so many elements.
I have a question for my colleague.
We all know that we are governed by the legislative, executive and judiciary powers. We all know that the power of the media and companies like GAFA cannot be ignored, since in some ways, it is greater than the government.
How could the CRTC, which has merely surveyed the damage so far, possibly require the web giants to follow its guidelines, given that it is an institution from the last century?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquent speech on culture. That is something we do not hear often enough within these walls.
I also liked that he talked about freedom of expression, not in terms of censorship, but rather in terms of the need for artists to express themselves. To do that, they have to be able to earn a living, so it is another form of freedom of expression.
I would like to know whether, in terms of revenue or discoverability, artists should rely on the web giants or rather on us, on the government.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the notion of “fair share”, of paying one's fair share of taxes and contributing one's fair share of Canadian content, can be found throughout Bill C‑11.
How will the government ensure, with Bill C‑11, that the web giants will not be the ones deciding what is considered a fair share?
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I worked as an ethicist for 25 years and I am against censorship.
My hon. colleague was talking about freedom of speech, but freedom does not give people permission to say whatever they want. This is an important distinction. I would like to know how he plans to make that distinction if there is more regulation.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my esteemed colleague how much control would be appropriate if he does not think that the government should have full control over broadcasting and online media.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we definitely need to ensure that our creators stop suffering.
They have suffered unnecessarily because Parliament's work was interrupted for the sake of personal vanity. I think we should proceed quickly but stay vigilant.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Trois-Rivières is a riding full of events, culture and sports. Recently, I informed members of the House that I had applied for Trois-Rivières to host the Jeux de La Francophonie.
It is truly a place where people have suffered. Those who were already rich and have unfairly become richer during this time should be able to give back. The businesses that profited most from the lockdown are the web giants. I completely agree with my colleague. Compensation is something we might think about.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, I have heard those concerns. In the first bill, I was concerned about possible adverse effects, but quite honestly, I was reassured. My specialty is ethics, and I am quite familiar with issues around freedom of expression.
I currently have no fear for those who want to post a TikTok or share a cat video under Bill C‑11.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The industry is, indeed, very much alive, but it is struggling a little and was hard hit by the pandemic.
It was actually struggling well before the pandemic. I want to share a story about a friend of mine in the music industry who sells a fair number of albums. He told me that in the past, a successful album would have sold 320,000 copies, then that figure dropped to 100,000 copies, and now success is measured in play counts on Spotify.
This platform brings in one-quarter of what earnings would have been. His music has a lot of plays on Spotify, more than 320,000, but he receives just 25% of what he would have originally earned.
We must ensure that people in this industry, which is very much alive, no longer have to struggle and can continue to earn a living.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and humbled to rise today to debate and get down to the brass tacks of a bill that is extremely important to the creators and people of Quebec and Canada. Allow me to digress a little and talk about some conceptual aspects before I offer some more practical recommendations.
It is time for Canada to get out of the stone age and catch up to the rest of the world. Most of us agree that this is essential. We also agree that, in doing so, we must absolutely protect the artists who are the living embodiment of our culture. We must not rush into things. We must take the time to think things through.
When the current Broadcasting Act was drafted in the last century, the world was a very different place. The war had reshaped borders. Radio and television were the only ways to get information.
Certain ancient or classical philosophies postulated that space and time were the only two things without which nothing was possible. An event must take place somewhere and at a given moment. It cannot occur anywhere or at any time because it would not be an event. Nothing can be imagined outside space and time.
In those days, many passed the time wondering how long would it take for a bird flying in the sky to fall to the ground if time did not exist. The answer is that it would take no time at all because it would not fall without time. That is the idea, but that was before the Internet.
The Internet did away with the notions of time and space. It is both nowhere and everywhere and it will be there always. Those of us who are used to the Cartesian way of thinking are sometimes destabilized by the Internet because it has no centre. It is all very well to call it the web, but it has no centre.
It is difficult to frame legislation when we cannot contextualize the subject matter. I will come back to that a little later. If we want to talk about the Internet, which is nowhere and everywhere, we need to change our paradigms and bring in regulations, which are found somewhere by their very nature.
To do that I will propose another philosophical reference, Heraclitus, who gave us the quote, “From all things one and from one all things”. The Internet is bit like that, from all things one. Geography and temporality have no meaning, it is nowhere and everywhere, always and never. How do we regulate that?
In Bill C‑11, we are talking about expanding the CRTC's powers. I wonder if that is the solution. Should we not instead, like other governments, consider creating a separate dedicated agency made up of digital experts?
The Canadian government often needs to be reminded that it is the government that defines the rules, not businesses. The past gives us reasons to doubt. In the case of the digital world, it is time for the state to do more than just survey the damage.
When will we have a new digital agency? Obviously, we would expect transparency, which would instill trust. We must also keep in mind that trust does not exclude control. We should be able to verify what is going on and we must make the businesses in question accountable.
Bill C‑11 will give the government the herculean task of convincing and compelling web giants to agree to a balance between their commercial interests and the public interest. That is no small task. Bill C‑11 covers it in 14 lines, but the actual work remains to be done.
It surprises me that these same web giants keep telling us it is important to innovate and keep up. Innovation does not justify everything. Some innovations should never see the light of day. Innovation does not justify wiping out a language or hiding it behind a skewed algorithm that automatically gives selective results for certain populations. Nobody can do that in the name of innovation. Innovation does not mean it is okay to collect individuals' data without giving them anything in return. That is not okay. Innovation is not an excuse for allowing surveillance capitalism to take root.
Many of the amendments the Bloc Québécois wanted to make to the old Bill C‑10 are in Bill C‑11, and we are very happy about that, but we cannot let our guard down or forget to think critically.
In some cases, the two versions differ by just a few words, yet the fate of the world can hang on a word. A word is a construct of sound and meaning. We need to be careful because sometimes words are stripped of their meaning and become nothing but sound, and then we have a language devoid of meaning.
As Orwell said a long time ago, the fewer the words, the smaller the temptation to think.
As an aside, when the first English-language version of the Bible was drafted, the King James Bible, there were about 6,000 words in that language universe. Shakespeare had 150,000 in his language universe.
These days, we have about 750,000 words with which to compose sentences, poetry, literature and music. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's lexicon was limited to 200 words. Only very crude ideas can be expressed in 200 words or less.
Words are a tool for preserving language, linguistic expression and culture. They also serve to create nuance, give life, and nurture culture. Words must not disappear. They are the tools with which culture and history can be told.
Let us come back down to earth. I realize my thoughts were a bit in the clouds just now. As the world becomes more and more digitized every day, it is unthinkable that the big media players, the web giants, have so few obligations to the citizens and states that make them rich.
In the past, the Government of Canada gave in to web giants. I would like to remind the government that it has the authority to be firm and a duty to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share.
Many people have spoken about that fair share today. However, the fair share is not what the web giants agree to pay. It is not that at all. They must pay their fair share of taxes. They must contribute their fair share to the production of Canadian content. They must pay their fair share in order to compensate content creators. That fair share is not an equal share. It is the amount that each one fairly owes.
It will not be easy. We will have to be careful because web giants became giants for a reason. They are used to deciding for themselves what their fair share is. We will have to be vigilant.
In this world where we have to rethink our references to time and space, the Government of Canada must not think of Bill C-11 in isolation. It will have to harmonize its regulatory instruments with those of our neighbours, the nations around the world. Several jurisdictions, including the European community, have already thought about these elements, as have certain English-speaking countries. I urge the government to at least look at these two sources, because Anglo-Saxon sources are very similar.
I will conclude with this point: We must never give in without a fight. I believe that Bill C‑11 is a good bill, that we must amend it to increase its scope a little and see how we can give it some teeth, and that creating a dedicated agency would be appropriate.
1298 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
