Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 604
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
View Kevin Waugh Profile
2021-06-14 18:17 [p.8369]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Quebec was on the committee when this bill was discussed, along with another member from the NDP: the member for Edmonton Strathcona.
This is an important bill. The member mentioned in his speech that there was good intention behind it. As legislators in this country, we all have good intentions, but this is the worst bill that I have seen in six years. I am embarrassed to put my name on the committee report when it is presented to the House. I have been a broadcaster for over 40 years. This bill is despicable, and the gag order put in by the Bloc and the Liberals is utterly ridiculous. We have seen this time and again. This bill should have been debated for over a year. The Conservatives put forward 40 amendments and there was no discussion. There were just the names of the amendments. There was never a discussion on them.
Could the hon. member from Quebec comment on 40 amendments that were never even talked about in committee?
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and question.
I feel some of his frustration. The government handled the whole thing very poorly. I completely agree with his assertion that we should have spent the past year debating this bill. It is so important that the Liberals should have put it on the agenda much sooner, which would have enabled us to be much more efficient and systematic in our work on this bill.
However, I do not share my colleague's concerns right now. We cannot just ignore the fact that new digital broadcasters are excluded from Canada's and Quebec's cultural content production ecosystem. This is a step forward that takes us in the right direction as a society.
Even so, I think it is a terrible shame that 40 amendments got left on the table because the Liberals were unable to manage their agenda.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
View Leah Gazan Profile
2021-06-14 18:19 [p.8369]
Mr. Speaker, I will express a concern similar to the one just raised by my colleague, who has worked tremendously hard fighting for the arts and artists in Quebec and throughout the country. I share his concerns about how the current government prorogued Parliament and scheduled things poorly. Now we are at the eleventh hour and having to debate things, which is placing us in a very bad situation.
In spite of that, I am wondering this: Could the member expand on the importance of having the bill amend the act moving forward? How may it help artists going forward?
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant comment and question.
Web giants do not pay tax in Canada, despite the Liberals' promises. We are told they will as of January, but we shall see. For the time being, they do not pay. Furthermore, they do not contribute to the production of content for television or film, nor to the music industry, which is very important. Having new players at the table and including them in the system so they do contribute would increase our ability to invest in the cultural sector, which will enable us to create and maintain good jobs and support homegrown creators. I think that is a priority.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I agree with almost everything the member had to say.
I found it quite refreshing to hear the member's assessment of what the Conservatives are up to. He is basically saying that, given how this bill was rolled out, although we might disagree with the minister's approach to it, the Conservatives saw an opportunity to exploit it for political gain.
As I heard the member say that, I could not help but sit here and wonder if that is what we are here for. Is that the role of the opposition? Is the role of the opposition to look for the political opportunity to exploit a weakness so it can gain power? Is it not the role of the opposition to genuinely try to make legislation better for Canadians?
If we agree with the member's assessment of it, could he comment on whether that is the right way for an opposition to be functioning?
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, it is a shame to see these political games, but the reality here is that we have to win our seats and our ridings through elections. Unfortunately, there can be a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.
Historically, the Conservatives have never been big supporters of the cultural industry or our artists. The cuts made by Stephen Harper's Conservative government in the mid-2000s speak volumes about the Conservative vision of free markets and their laissez-faire attitude towards foreign companies. It is a vision that sees our artists as millionaires who then get no help. We know very well that in small markets like Quebec or Canada, if there are no mechanisms like the Canada Media Fund, it is extremely difficult to protect one's culture, one's cultural sovereignty, and to have cultural content made by local people.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
View Alain Rayes Profile
2021-06-14 18:23 [p.8369]
Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for my NDP colleague, with whom I once served on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
When a problem crops up, people often argue and point fingers. Earlier I heard the Liberal member try to blame the Conservatives, but he is forgetting to consider the source of the problem. If the problem had been addressed at its source, we would not be seeing any of these further problems.
Does my colleague agree with my interpretation? If the Minister of Canadian Heritage had done his job from the beginning and taken his time introducing this bill, would we be in this position today?
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a softball question. I see exactly where my colleague is going with this. It is a fair question.
The minister mismanaged the bill and explained it poorly. He did not take the time to make the bill watertight. Once the genie of doubt is out of the bottle, it is very difficult to put him back in. This is why the NDP agreed to pause the committee to bring in the heritage and justice ministers and to ask for a second opinion from the Department of Justice.
Yes, the minister himself bears a lot of the responsibility for all of the mixed messages and disasters surrounding Bill C‑10 so far, with the gag orders and today's supermotion.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-06-14 18:25 [p.8370]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.
Last week culminated in a devastating assault on democracy as MPs were forced to vote on amendments that were not made public and vote on sections of the bill without any discussion or debate. There was zero openness and zero accountability, and it was absolutely wrong.
How did we get there? Earlier in the spring the Liberals brought forward an amendment to their own bill, which removed a section that originally protected the content that individuals would post online. When that section was removed, of course it caused disarray at committee and a great discussion ensued.
That was the case because Canadians deserve to be protected. They deserve to have their voices contended for and their freedoms established. When that part of the bill was taken out, of course the Conservatives went to bat. The Liberals did not really like that very much, so they moved something called time allocation in the House of Commons, which limited debate at committee to five hours.
This meant that hundreds of pages of material was only given five hours of consideration, after which time members of the committee were forced to vote on the bill, including its amendments and subamendments. Again, those were not made public and no discussion was allowed.
It was not exactly democracy in its finest state. It was a sham, and not how good legislation is meant to be created in Canada. This is not democracy.
Once again, the bill is now in the House. Although the Liberals have not moved time allocation, they have moved to have our debating time restricted again.
From here the bill will go to the Senate where it will be discussed further. My genuine hope is that the Senate will have the opportunity to examine this bill and hear from witnesses. In particular, it is my hope that the witnesses it brings forward include creators from digital first platforms because those individuals have been left out of the conversation despite being impacted to the greatest extent.
Let me back up and explain what this bill does for a moment. There are two things. The first is, as the government argues, it levels the playing field between large streaming companies and traditional broadcasters. The second thing this bill does in fact do, however, is censor the content we place online.
With regard to levelling the playing field, the minister claims this is about getting money from web giants, but if he is concerned about GST being paid, that is already taken care of because there is already an initiative starting in July that will require companies, such as Disney+, Netflix, Spotify, Crave, etc., to start paying GST, which takes care of levelling the playing field.
However, Bill C-10 goes far beyond just levelling the playing field. It is backed up by many lobby groups that are pushing for a 30% Canadian programming expenditure requirement as a share of revenue per year. What this will do is not simply increase the cost to these large streaming companies, it will actually pass that cost down to consumers. According to experts, costs are actually expected to rise by about 50%.
Canadians already pay some of the highest rates in the world, so with Bill C-10, they can expect to be taxed even more. This of course will have a huge impact on them with respect to money coming out of their wallets. Furthermore, the bill will impact the content Canadians can post and access, which brings me to my second point on censorship.
When I talk about censorship, I talk about the government getting involved with respect to what one can and cannot see and post online. I am talking about the government putting an Internet czar in place.
Peter Menzies, the former CRTC vice-chair, stated Bill C-10, “doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” That deserves consideration. It is quite the statement.
Bill C-10 is in fact a direct attack on section 2(b) of our charter. Under this section, Canadians have the right to speak and to be heard. Much of that speaking takes place within our new form of the public square, the Internet.
The bill before us would infringe upon the ability Canadians have to post online and to express themselves freely. Furthermore, the bill would infringe upon the rights that viewers have to access that content online, which means that the right to speak and the right to be heard will be infringed upon if the bill passes.
Let us talk about viewers for a moment. Viewers go online in order to access the content they want. They go on YouTube perhaps looking for a video on how to fix a bicycle chain, or they may want to look up information having to do with the war of 1812. They are looking for content that is going to fit their needs.
However, if the bill is passed, they would go on YouTube, and the government would determine what that need might be. The government would dictate the type of material that they would be able to access. The government would dictate this based on how “Canadian” the material is.
The government would curate what we can and cannot see by bumping things up or down in the queue, which means that the content a viewer really needs to access might be pushed back to page 27 of a YouTube search whereas, normally, right now, according to the existing algorithms, that content would probably be found on page one. The government would actually infringe upon a viewer's ability and right to access that information, because it is going to curate and determine that, no, a viewer does not want what is on page 27, but rather what the government is putting on page one. It wrong. It is dictatorial. It is anti-democratic.
Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch, and they know how to find it. Platforms such as YouTube are curated in such a way as to point people to more of the content they desire. When a viewer searches for content, YouTube gives it, and then it might suggest more that is similar to it. However, that would not be the case going forward. Instead, the government would steer viewers in the direction that the government wants them to go, and it will do it through the power of its Internet czar.
I will talk about creators for a moment. They are amazing. In Canada, we are punching above our weight in terms of what creators are able to produce, and I am talking about individuals who are using non-traditional platforms in order to gain an audience. They share their talent, skill and ability with the world. Ninety per cent of watch time of Canadian content comes from viewers outside of Canada. That is amazing.
I think about Justin Bieber, and about how much popularity he has gained on the world stage. He started out on YouTube, a non-traditional platform. However, under Bill C-10, Justin Bieber probably would not have risen to the top, because the algorithms that the government would impose through its Internet czar would relegate him to the bottom. Why? Well, it is because his content just would not be Canadian enough to make the cut. Again, it is wrong.
Let us also talk about diversity. This government loves to celebrate diversity, but let us talk about the indigenous digital first creators or those who are members of minority groups. Instead of being able to make a name for themselves and follow the protocols that are already in existence, they would come under government scrutiny and, again, the Internet czar would determine whether or not their content can be accessed.
Now, members might ask who the Internet czar is. It is none other than the CRTC, which is the regulatory arm of the government. Who makes up the CRTC? I can tell members that the leadership of the CRTC is made up of six white men. It would be six white men who would be determining what type of content is Canadian and what content is not.
They would be determining whether or not indigenous first creators can be accessed or not. They would be determining whether visible minority content can be accessed or not. Six white men would be making those decisions on behalf of those individuals who are putting their content out online and on behalf of Canadians who wish to access that content.
I have not seen legislation this dictatorial since my time of first being elected in 2015. It is wrong and anti-democratic, and it is altogether harmful, not only to creators, but also to the millions of viewers who use platforms such as YouTube in order to access information and engage in the public square online.
It is wrong, and I would ask for Bill C-10 to be rescinded, at the bare minimum. When it gets to the Senate, I ask that, please do the due diligence; please research well; and please hear from witnesses who have not yet been heard from, namely the artists.
View Kenny Chiu Profile
CPC (BC)
View Kenny Chiu Profile
2021-06-14 18:35 [p.8371]
Mr. Speaker, I do not have as deep of experience as the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood does in media, but in my previous life I debated on ethnic TV and in the media. I actually championed the right for our Bloc Québécois members to be able to debate and articulate why Quebec should be independent, although, of course, I am a federalist.
I would like to hear from the member for Lethbridge what kind of control there could be, should any other province campaign to be independent because, obviously, then it would not be Canadian content.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-06-14 18:36 [p.8371]
Mr. Speaker, at the heart of the issue is censorship. It is the government determining what we can access online and what we cannot access, and what creators can post online and what they cannot post online. For the government to determine this does in fact mean it could swing things in its favour in curating that content, which is wrong. It should be left up to Canadians.
The Internet is this amazing free space where we are supposed to be able to access information, where we are supposed to be able to exchange ideas and where we are supposed to be able to engage in debate. For the government to dictate what can or cannot happen within that public space is a breach of section 2(b) of the charter. It is absolutely wrong and it is harmful.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. I would like to quote from a recent article in Canadian news, where screenwriter and actor Sugith Varughese said, “I’ve gone before the committees in Ottawa speaking on behalf of the writers and the sneering contempt that the Conservative Party members have is insulting.”
In light of this comment and the comment the member made on several occasions, more recently in a local newspaper in her riding but in the House as well, I would like to ask her if her comments in the House and this recent news article could be considered as contempt as well and, if so, if she would like to apologize in the House for having made those comments on numerous occasions.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-06-14 18:38 [p.8371]
Mr. Speaker, I am so thankful the minister is here today, because unfortunately he has not taken time to listen to digital first creators, but I would like to speak on their behalf.
Ms. Morghan Fortier is the CEO of Skyship Entertainment, an award-winning entertainment company owned and operated in Canada. It is one of Canada's top two YouTube creators. I do hope the minister will stay with me and actually hear this comment rather than leave.
Ms. Fortier wrote, “Despite our prominence we have been given zero opportunity to participate in any discussions regarding this legislation, and neither have any of our digital content contemporaries.” She is the first or second-largest YouTube creator, depending on the day, and she and her company were not consulted by the government. She goes on to say to the minister, so, again, I hope he is listening, “You have an opportunity to raise our traditional media companies to the standard of success our digital producers are experiencing. Instead you are choosing to antiquate digital companies. This is a step back, a step inward, and a step in the wrong direction.”
I hope the minister takes these words to heart.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-14 18:39 [p.8372]
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Lethbridge speak for about 10 minutes. I will give her a chance. We can talk about content, but I do not think we will ever agree. As the old saying goes, if a lie is repeated often enough, people start to believe it. However, that is not what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about what she said in an interview she gave to the Lethbridge Herald, in the city she was elected to represent. Her comments were insulting and offensive to people in the cultural industry, who asked the member to apologize, as we have also asked her to do here in the House.
I am reaching out to the member for Lethbridge and giving her the opportunity to apologize to the members of the Quebec and Canadian cultural community for the derogatory comments she made about them.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-06-14 18:40 [p.8372]
Mr. Speaker, again, I would present to the House, and I am so glad the member is listening, that there are a lot of deaf ears in this place and, for whatever reason, a refusal to listen to digital first creators. I am uncertain as to why that is the case, why this cohort has been ignored, has been erased, has had its voice squelched.
Why are we not listening to these individuals who are making a go for themselves on non-traditional platforms? Why are they being punished through Bill C-10 rather than being celebrated for the tremendous contributions they make to Canadian culture? It is as if we are pitting one group of artists against the other, and it is wrong. It is wrong for the government and it is wrong for the minister.
Results: 136 - 150 of 604 | Page: 10 of 41

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data