Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 250
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-06-04 11:41 [p.7974]
Madam Speaker, we are talking about free speech. The government's Bill C-10 intends to censor artists and creators who are achieving success online.
We were in the middle of going through Bill C-10 clause by clause in committee, which is the normal and right legislative process here in this place. The government does not want any more problems to be discovered with its bill, and it is plagued with them, by the way.
Why is the government shutting us down? It is nothing less than a gag order.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, yet again, we have more fearmongering on the part of the Conservative Party.
Let me point out that during the first four meetings of the committee, the committee was able to study 79 amendments. Since the Conservative Party decided to start systematically obstructing the work of the committee, during the last 11 meetings, we were barely able to make it through seven amendments.
If the committee were to pick up the same pace that it had initially, it would have plenty of time to go through all of the remaining amendments. However, if we continue going at the rate we are going now, in six months' time the bill would still be in front of the committee.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-06-03 20:05 [p.7952]
Madam Speaker, tonight I will talk a little about Bill C-10. We have talked about free speech and net neutrality. There have been a lot of words mentioned by the minister about foreign big tech and the Conservatives supporting them. When I look at lobbying, and I look at all of those people from big tech, the Amazons, the Netflixes, the YouTubes, they are not coming to lobby me. There is a registry that shows who gets lobbied, and they seem to spend a lot of time in the minister's office, not mine, so I am not sure where he is getting that from.
There has been some discussion about tax. Yes, if businesses are doing business in Canada, we agree there should be a tax, but we are going to be honest about that because the users are going to be paying up to 50% more because of that tax. The Biden administration is saying that, if we tax those companies like that in Canada, there are going to be tariffs, so where is that cost going to go to?
We are talking about funding this for culture, but who gets it and where does it go? The parliamentary secretary was the chair of the heritage committee when we looked at where our funding was going for cultural groups in Canada. Is it a surprise that Alberta got 50% less per capita than the rest of the country?
Who decides where it goes? The CRTC is involved in this, but who is the Canadian Radio and Television Commission? It is made up of nine appointed commissioners, and if we look at the Yale report, which a lot of this supposed legislation in Bill C-10 is based on, it recommended that one has to live in Ottawa, the national capital area, if one is on the commission. That is interesting.
There are no minutes for the CRTC. It has no record of debates and no record of votes. Is this transparent and accountable? We know that in the private sector, algorithms have been developed for Amazon or Netflix. They have developed the algorithms, so, if people like a movie, it will suggest some more like it, or if we are buying one thing, it will suggest more we might like.
They are driven by profit and data. We know that, but now we are taking the content, which is what we object to at the CRTC. It did protect individuals, but it pulled off the protective content, so now the CRTC, these non-transparent commissioners, are going to develop algorithms that are driven not by data but by content.
Would someone have a concern about the content of an organization that is going to develop algorithms based on Canadian content? That means they are going to look at whatever they think is Canadian content and develop algorithms that say this one is more Canadian than that one. It will say we should be watching these Canadians more than those Canadians.
That creates winners and losers in our creators of Canadian content. We have 200,000 people who have created and uploaded their content. We have 25,000 people in Canada who have been very successful at making a living. Our concern is to protect individual rights, and the content should be left alone. That is freedom of speech and it should be net neutrality. That is why we are concerned about Bill C-10.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-06-03 20:10 [p.7953]
Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is an absolute priority for our government and for the cultural sector. It has been 30 years since the Broadcasting Act was modernized, before Canadians turned from video stores to streaming services to access their movies and shows. Over that time, foreign web giants have stepped into that void and they made money in Canada without any requirement that they contribute a portion of those revenues to our cultural industry.
We have an uneven playing field where traditional Canadian broadcasters have regulatory obligations and the foreign web giants do not. We are levelling that playing field, while creating greater support for an important part of our economy. I am happy that the member opposite raised the issue about cultural productions in Alberta because the Canadian cultural sector employs many Canadians across our country on shows like Heartland, which is filmed in Alberta.
Since Bill C-10 was introduced on November 3 of last year, the proposed legislation has received more than 20 hours of debate in the House of Commons. Even during that first debate in this place, the Conservatives vowed to block the bill. There have been more than 40 hours of dedicated study at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Witnesses provided over 100 in-person testimonies; dozens of written submissions were accepted and looked at. The bill itself is the response to a 2019 report called, “Canada's communications future: Time to act”, which received more than 2,000 submissions. All that is to say there has been considerable study and debate on this bill.
Having witnessed the Conservatives in power for the 10 years previous, once we formed government we ensured that all bills must be accompanied by a charter statement. The Department of Justice Canada's analysis has confirmed that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter's guarantee of freedom of speech, as has our supplemental analysis after amendments were made at committee. I would like to add that the original Broadcasting Act contains a section that remains unchanged, which states that it must be interpreted in a way that respects freedom of expression and journalistic and creative independence. That has been there for the past 30 years. We added a further clause, at committee, that repeats its protections specifically for social media companies. The bill is consistent with our right to freedom of expression.
I would like to go back to the amount of time that has been put into the study of this bill, which, over the past weeks, has included tremendous amounts of repetition. Every moment lost as a result of the Conservative Party of Canada's filibuster has deprived the Canadian economy of important investment in our culture and jobs. Each month, an estimated $70 million that Bill C-10 would add to our broadcasting, audiovisual, music and media sectors and would support the 170,000 people who work in those sectors is lost. Instead of going to our artists, creators and cultural workers, and Canadian stories, we are seeing that money remaining in the pockets of foreign tech companies.
In conclusion, Bill C-10 would even the playing field. It is not fair the way the system is working now. I understand the Conservatives have opposed levelling this playing field from the very beginning. That is their choice, but Canadians want fairness and that is what Bill C-10 would deliver.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-06-03 20:14 [p.7953]
Madam Speaker, not to be a repetitionist, but there is another issue that has developed this week that is really of significant importance.
COVID really destroyed the airline industry in this country, hugely, shutting it down and losing all sorts of parts of our airline industry to travel. There were 20,000 people at all different levels who lost their jobs. Every type of employee was affected. Travel agencies lost their businesses, 85% of them female.
There was a bailout negotiated by the current Liberal government, using taxpayer money for loans and money. The executives suffered from the pain of firing 20,000 and negotiated a bailout, reacted decisively and got millions and a buyout and bonuses. This is the wrong thing for the bonuses.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-06-03 20:15 [p.7954]
Madam Speaker, well, at least we have avoided repetition, but today we were talking about Bill C-10.
The government understands the need to act quickly. The regulations for the broadcasting industry need to be reformed because the current version of the act is over 30 years old and because, today, Canadian content is created in a very different context than it was in 1991.
I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-10. I look forward to the opportunity for our creators to travel all across our country, even to Alberta, to create these wonderful stories.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-05-31 14:35 [p.7622]
Mr. Speaker, we often hear it said that diversity is our strength. At least, that is what the Prime Minister often says. The irony with this is that Bill C-10 would actually attack diversity by narrowly defining what is constituted as Canadian content and therefore what will be demoted and what will be promoted online. Government-censored choice is not choice and government-approved diversity is not true diversity.
Why is the minister insistent on hindering the expression of those who do not fit his mould?
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-05-31 14:36 [p.7622]
Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act has not been updated for 30 years and during that time foreign web giants have stepped into that void. They have made money in Canada without contributing to our cultural creative industries. Bill C-10 seeks to modernize our broadcasting system and to level the playing field between our traditional broadcasters and these foreign web giants.
Why have the Conservatives vowed from the very beginning to block Bill C-10 and let these web giants make money in Canada without contributing to our Canadian jobs and creations?
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-05-31 14:36 [p.7622]
Mr. Speaker, this bill has everything to do with attacking Canadians and nothing to do with going after these web giants.
Canadian content creators from minority groups are doing better than ever on platforms like YouTube. They are able to reach a global audience without any interference from the government. Now we are hearing from leaders in these groups that these artists will be among the hardest hit with with Bill C-10 should it go through.
Why is the government so adamant on picking what is and what is not Canadian, and thereby suppressing the voices of minority groups in Canada?
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-05-31 14:37 [p.7622]
Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act has not been updated in 30 years, before streaming services even became a part of the way Canadians found their shows, movies and music. It needed an update.
The rules for social media companies and their obligations would be restricted to requiring them to report the revenues they make in Canada, contribute a portion of those revenues back to Canadian cultural industries and to make Canadian creators discoverable. That would be good for Canadian jobs and our Canadian artists.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-05-28 11:32 [p.7556]
Madam Speaker, the minister once again tries to mislead the House and the Canadian public. The bill would result in discrimination against some Canadians. It is clear the Liberals no longer advocate for net neutrality; they think discrimination is okay so long as the government is the one doing it.
Here is the thing. We cannot lift one group of artists up by tearing another group of artists down, which is exactly what Bill C-10 is trying to do. The heritage minister is attempting to pick winners and losers. Will he change course, do the right thing and scrap Bill C-10?
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-05-28 11:33 [p.7556]
Madam Speaker, the only obligations in Bill C-10 for social media companies are for the companies themselves, not individuals. The proposed obligations for the companies are restricted to having them advise the Canada Revenue Agency, contribute a portion of those revenues to Canadian production and make those creators discoverable.
Nothing in the bill asks social media companies to hide content. It is about requiring web giants that make money in our country to contribute to our Canadian shows, movies and music. Why would we let web giants make money from Canadians and not contribute back?
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-05-28 11:33 [p.7557]
Madam Speaker, a well-read answer. I really wish the individual who just answered would stop trying to mislead Canadians.
The Internet is an amazing tool that allows Canadian artists to explode in popularity around the world. With Bill C-10, the Liberals are attempting to build a wall around Canadian creators. The problem is, on average, 90% of their audience is from outside of Canada. By creating a so-called protective wall around them, the Liberals are actually imprisoning them, thereby quashing their ability to succeed.
When will the minister stand up for all Canadian artists and scrap Bill C-10?
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-05-28 11:34 [p.7557]
Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is about modernizing the Broadcasting Ac, which has not been updated in 30 years. That is before streaming services became a part of the way that Canadians found their shows, movies and music and it needed an update. However, from the very beginning, before the bill even went to committee, the Conservatives vowed to block this law from going ahead. The Conservatives have been against web giants contributing to the creation of Canadian stories from the beginning. Why?
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, three weeks ago, I asked the heritage minister why he removed the clause in Bill C-10 that exempted what Canadians post online from government regulation. The minister's answer was that I should read the bill. Patronizing remark aside, that same minister has since admitted that Canadians posting online with enough views will, in fact, be regulated.
Which is it? Will Canadians be regulated online or not?
Results: 61 - 75 of 250 | Page: 5 of 17

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data