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 434
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, that gives me a great opportunity to explain to the minister that he can check out Michael Geist's website if he has not figured this out already.
The offending sections are 9(1), 10(1) and the removal of section 4.1, which was originally put in there to protect social media and was taken out. That is available publicly. It is available on Michael Geist's website. Those are the exact sections. If the member needs more, I am happy for him to come to my office and I will explain it to him again.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:00 [p.8382]
Madam Speaker, I have to be very sympathetic to our translators. They do a phenomenal job, ensuring all members can understand what is being said. I apologize for any popping noise that I might have caused.
In regard to the legislation, and as I was listening to the debate this evening, I was reflecting on a couple of points. One was the Conservatives' opposition to the legislation and the tactics they used to try to frustrate the House, and ultimately mislead Canadians on the second reading debate of the legislation. I can recall at least a good portion of that debate back then.
I realize I somewhat date myself as a parliamentarian now for about 30 years, both at the provincial and national level, but a lot of things have changed. When I was first elected, I had a Compaq computer. I think it was a 256 kB, and it had a five-and-a-half inch disk on which to back things up. To get on to the Internet in downtown Winnipeg, at the Manitoba legislature where my office was as an MLA, I would have phone into the Internet. I would get the long dial tone, a ding-ding sound and then I would be on it. It sure was slow as was the computer.
Things have changed. When I compare that to where we are at today, a couple of things that come to mind. We have underestimated for decades the impact the Internet has on society in many different ways. With regard to the legislation, for the first time we are taking steps forward to address that huge gap, those decades of doing nothing.
We have a Prime Minister who understands that technology has changed and he has mandated the Minister of Canadian Heritage to bring forward this legislation. Members within the Liberal caucus have been waiting very patiently for the legislation. We were glad to see it not only introduced, but get to second reading and then ultimately pass out of second reading. It has been long overdue.
Today, we have Wi-Fi. We can forget the telephone-dial-in type of Internet in downtown Winnipeg. We cannot even draw comparisons to the speed. I am learning this thing about music with the iPad and iPhone. It is called Apple Music, and I have acquired some music from that service. It has millions of songs. I suspect that if I were to start to listen to one song after another, I would be long gone before all the songs were played. In other words, any song one could possibly imagine can likely be found in its library. It is truly amazing what we can get on the Internet.
There are shows from the past like The Andy Griffith Show, or Three's Company orWKRP in Cincinnati. These are all shows from the past, and were fairly dominate outside of Canada. I remember The Beachcombers from British Columbia. There were many different kids' programs. I think of programs with great Canadian content. At one time, I suspect the rules sufficed, that they protected the industry, the consumers, our arts and culture and ensured we had a sense of Canadian identity.
As I have pointed out, over the decades, things have really changed. We can be very proud of some of the programs we have seen over the last number of years in particular.
I did not hear of Schitt's Creek until it won all those wonderful awards. A number of my caucus colleagues talked about the program, so I binge watched it. One gets a sense of pride that this is a first-class Canadian production. There is a very strong Canadians perspective to it.
When I think of programs of a Canadian nature, I think of Corner Gas from Saskatchewan and some of the personalities in that show. I think of some of the music industry stars such as Celine Dion and Anne Murray, just to mention a couple with whom I am familiar, as I am not really the most musically inclined.
However, Canada is rich in our heritage and in the arts, and we need to do what we can to protect that into the future. In good part, Bill C-10 is all about that. It is the part that interests me. I am very much concerned about Canadian content going forward and the opportunities for future songwriters, scriptwriters, musicians, actors, performers and the people who manage the stages. A healthy, vibrant industry exists and it needs to be supported. One of the ways we can support that industry and protect, in good part, our Canadian identity going forward is to support Bill C-10.
I find it amazing that the Conservatives have taken a hardened approach to it. I asked a question earlier about freedom of speech. I asked the member to be very specific, to provide me with a quote. A former member mentioned a couple of clauses, which I will have to take a look at, but the member I asked the question of did not even attempt to answer the question. I do not think she had any idea what it specifically was.
The Conservatives are very good at spinning things. I have been getting emails, as I am sure others have, about concerns with freedom of speech. It was even brought up at one of my virtual town hall meetings. A lot of Conservative spin out there is amplified for a wide variety of reasons. The skeptic side of me might say it has something to do with the Conservatives fundraising machine. Another reason might be that they are frustrated with other issues related to the pandemic, such as the government's performance in its work with other levels of government and Canadians and how reasonably well things have gone on that front, so they are trying to find something to complain about.
Based on today and what I heard coming out of committee, the Conservatives have definitely found something, and that is Bill C-10 and freedom of speech. I still do not understand the connection.
I do not remember the date, but the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, just as Canada's analysis confirms that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter's guarantee of freedom of expression, Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between creators and web giants.
It requires big, powerful foreign streamers to provide information on their revenues in Canada, to financially contribute to Canadian stories and music, and to make it easier for individuals to discover our culture.
The bill explicitly says that obligations apply to web giants only: not to Canadian users. Web giants have gone unregulated for far too long. Our government has chosen action over reaction.
I appreciate that there have been some amendments, changes and modifications, but whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Heritage, they have done a fantastic job representing what the legislation would do, considering the degree of support it is getting. I believe the National Assembly of Québec, listening to the minister, unanimously said that Bill C-10 was good legislation and it should be passed.
It surprises me that when Bill C-10 was in committee, the Conservative Party was determined to prevent it from moving out of committee. I genuinely believe that if it were up to the Conservative Party, Bill C-10 would never have left committee.
Some members say that they feel ripped-off because they did not get the chance talk to the amendments, because the government put time allocation on the amount of time the committee had for the bill. I would like to remind my Conservative friends that, as a minority government, for us to successfully put in any form of time allocation, we require at least one other opposition party to support that initiative. We cannot ram it through committee stage.
It seems to me that the Conservatives feel their rights have been walked on if the government brings in a motion for time allocation and gets passed. However, for the government to have the time allocation motion passed, it has to have an opposition party onside, and in this situation the Bloc Québécois provided the government the numbers necessary to ensure that Bill C-10 would get out of committee. If it were not for the desire to move this legislation forward and get the support to do so, it likely still would be in committee today.
Many members, including myself, would have thought the New Democrats would have supported that move. Those members are not what I would classify as naive. They understood what was taking place in committee. They seemed to understand what the Conservative Party was attempting to do with Bill C-10. However, we were able to move the bill out of the committee stage and get it to report stage and then third reading so we can get it passed. As I pointed out at the very beginning, this is critical legislation.
I have been in opposition in many governments for 20-plus years, and I have had the good fortune of being a part of a majority government. Typically, when we get to the month of June, hours are extended and we look at passing important legislation before the summer.
It is no different this time. We attempted to bring in extended hours and we were successful, but not because of the Conservatives. That is the reason why we are debating this legislation right now. We were able to get support, not from the Conservatives but from other opposition members, so that we could actually sit longer to debate the legislation we are debating right now.
Ironically, Conservative Party members would argue that they do not want extended hours. They did that. Let us remember that last Thursday the Conservatives tried to adjourn the House. They did not even want us to sit on Thursday. It is because the Conservative Party has no interest at all in seeing any legislation pass at this point. Conservative members will do what they can to filibuster and prevent the government from passing legislation. On the other hand, they will be critical of the government because they say we are trying to limit the amount of time in which they can speak to legislation. However, they were denying the opportunity to speak by having extended hours and by actually sitting as opposed to trying to adjourn debate for the day.
Just as the Conservative opposition continues to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, as it attempts to frustrate the government in trying to pass legislation such as our budget, the Liberal government will continue to be focused on Canadians and on ensuring, as much as possible, that we have legislation like our budget, Bill C-10, Bill C-6 and other progressive pieces of legislation that other progressive parties will see the merit of passing. This is as opposed to buying into what the Conservatives want, which is to prevent at all costs any legislation from passing in the House of Commons.
This legislation is good legislation. It is good for Canadians. It is good for the industry. I highly recommend that all members of the House support its passage.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2021-06-14 20:19 [p.8384]
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here in Canada, in our Canadian House of Commons and in our Canadian Parliament. We are not in the U.K. right now. We are not virtual. We are actually here, literally, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, where people throughout Canada elected Conservative members of Parliament to be.
We are so proud to be here to debate legislation that we believe is not good for the freedom of Canadians. The Internet should be a place where Canadians are able to share their thoughts and to view different thoughts and opinions.
Why do these Liberals think that a basic dictatorship, the one they admire in China, should be adhered to here in Canada where they could control what Canadians see, think or watch on the Internet? I would like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who is not here—
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:20 [p.8384]
Madam Speaker, I like to think that I have contributed significantly over the years, at least in terms of the debate taking place physically on Parliament Hill. Nothing has changed from a virtual perspective, and I can in fact continue to contribute to that debate.
Whether I am doing it virtually or standing on the floor of the House of Commons, both should be respected for what they are and that is an important part of our institution. Both are equal in terms of the statements that are made, whether I make them here or on the floor of the House of Commons physically.
Having said that, there is no concern with regard to Canadians sharing their concerns on the Internet, and I will expand on that in the next question.
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2021-06-14 20:21 [p.8384]
Madam Speaker, I listen, I read and I try to take the time to put myself in others' shoes to understand what scares them and why they feel that way.
When reading the bill, I noticed that the programming promotes indigenous languages, French and even English as a minority language in Quebec. It makes more room for those who should have it and supports jobs for francophones and members of first nations. It does not infringe on the freedom of expression of anyone who wants to upload content who is not employed by a broadcaster.
After all is said and done, I am asking myself the following question: Could the problem with freedom of expression simply be related to the fact that the majority would, according to them, have less time because the minority would have more? Are they afraid of change because we are making more room for indigenous people and francophones?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:22 [p.8385]
Madam Speaker, I am very proud that the Liberal Party of Canada, while in government, is the party to have brought in the Charter of Rights. I am very proud that my colleagues understand and value the importance of freedom of speech. Misinformation is being espoused by and fed, in part, by members of the Conservative Party.
After listening to members speak today and after reading some of the email correspondence going out, I do not believe for a moment that Canadians need to be concerned about how this bill is going to limit their individual rights or their freedom of speech. I do not know a clearer way of putting it. This is good, solid legislation.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am not sure about the Conservatives, but I think that everyone else here is in agreement. This is a 30-year-old bill that we are trying to bring up to date. It was brought in originally before the Internet and social media, yet the Liberal government has been in power now for almost six years.
Why did it leave this so late? Why did it do such a terrible job of explaining all of this to Canadians? Now we are trying to rush this through because it is an important bill. This is leading to all of these questions and has given the Conservatives an opportunity to say that it would inhibit freedom of speech, when it clearly does not.
After reading the bill and seeing the amendments put in by the Conservatives themselves, can the member say why they blew this so badly?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:25 [p.8385]
Madam Speaker, I would like to address the issue of rushing this through. Members can look at the number of days that we have actually sat and the agenda we have had to deal with. Many pieces of legislation have dealt specifically with the coronavirus and the pandemic. Initially, there was a great deal of support from all sides of the House as we tried to pass legislation that was critically important to dealing with the pandemic. Today there is still critically important legislation to pass, such as Bill C-30.
Not a day went by that the government, while responsible for the agenda of the House of Commons, did not attempt to bring forward good, solid legislation to debate. We have attempted on several occasions to be able to—
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation.
I want to start off by thanking you and the Chair occupants, who have been doing a phenomenal job during these virtual and hybrid sessions of Parliament we have been having. It has been remarkable to see the way you have been able to handle the technical difficulties of the members who are participating and give advice on where to hold the microphone when they are speaking. I think congratulations are in order to the Chair occupants and indeed all the staff who have really made this work.
I want to welcome new members to the Liberal Party. Last week the member for Fredericton decided to come and join the Liberal Party, and it looks as though tonight we may have some other members who are eying up the idea. I can assure them that we have a very strict vetting process. I encourage them to apply and go through that process. No promises can be made in advance, but we will certainly review those applications to see if they qualify to sit with the Liberal Party. We certainly do appreciate their interest in doing that.
When we talk about this bill, one of the first things that come to mind, which I have been hearing the Conservatives say time and again when they get up, is that there has not been enough time, that they have not debated it long enough and need more time. They are nodding in agreement right now. It is the same line that we have been hearing over and over.
Canadians should know that this bill occupied 28 meetings of the committee. To put that into context for members and the public, there have only been 44 meetings of the committee, so this bill has occupied more than half of the meetings of the committee. As well, 130 witnesses have come forward to speak to this bill. In total, 47 briefs have come forward for the committee to consider. Therefore, despite the fact that the Conservatives might not be happy with the way things came about, I certainly have a very difficult time believing them when they say there has not been enough time. On the contrary, indeed there have been tons of opportunities for this bill to be debated.
One has to wonder why the Conservatives are playing this game. I think they are starting to find themselves in a corner, especially tonight. I do not think the debate that has been going on tonight has been particularly helpful for the Conservative members, because time and again they have had members from all different parties ask them to tell them more about the legislation and where they find it to be offensive, to read the parts of the legislation that they have a problem with. Time and again they do not answer the question. They keep going back to how the minister did a horrible job on an interview here or there, or something like that, but they will not tell us which parts they are. To that point, earlier when I asked that of the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, and I will give him credit for trying to answer it, he threw out some random numbers and my staff went back and looked at exactly which clauses he referenced.
The first one was subclause 9(1). That subclause does not even exist. However, there is a subclause 9(9), which states, “Fees payable under this section and any interest in respect of them constitute a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be recovered as such in any court of competent jurisdiction.” If that is what he finds offensive in this, it certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech, so the member might want to go back and check that section. Again, the section that he actually referenced does not exist.
He went on to another clause, clause 10. He mentioned a subclause, but all clause 10 talks about is regulations. It talks about “developing, financing, producing or promoting Canadian audio or audio-visual programs, including independent productions”. It goes on to talk about “supporting, promoting or training Canadian creators”. It talks about “supporting participation by persons, groups of persons or organizations representing the public interest in proceedings”. It talks about minimum expenditures, application of regulations, recipients.
It does not say anything about content, which is what the Conservatives have been harping on about being the offensive parts of this. Although I respect and admire the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for trying to answer that question, whereas the previous people who were asked that question completely diverted away from trying to answer it, what he read out either does not exist or has absolutely nothing to do with the Conservatives' stated concerns about this particular bill.
One of the other things that I find very troubling is the borderline conspiracy theories that seem to be developed by Conservatives over this bill. We heard the member for Saskatoon—University say that, in his opinion, the only reason the Bloc was supporting this bill was that, at the end of the day, Bloc members want Canada to separate and they see this as an opportunity to push Canada toward failure. A Conservative actually said that tonight. I am being generous by saying it is a borderline conspiracy theory, quite frankly.
The member then went on to talk about what the Prime Minister was going to censor from people and how this was going to become a quasi-communist state as a result of the Prime Minister interfering with what individual people can share on social media. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor can Conservatives point to anywhere in the legislation that talks about this. What has happened is that the Conservatives have seen an opportunity for political gain, to solidify their base, to fundraise, to rally the troops, and that is what they have jumped on.
One has to ask, is that the proper role of an opposition? Members of Her Majesty's opposition are coming into the House of Commons and suggesting that an issue exists when it really does not, and then when they float the idea and gain some momentum, they keep repeating it. I bet some of them are actually starting to even believe it at this point because of how much time and energy they have spent telling people that it is the truth, but it certainly is not. Nothing should be more telling for Canadians than the fact that the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens are all asking the Conservatives what part they are worried about, and nobody has an answer.
I said earlier that I quite often disagree with the Bloc, with the NDP and even with the Green Party from time to time, but 99% of the time when I disagree with them, it is based on policy. My fight is a policy issue, whether a certain objective should be advanced or not. The Conservatives come into the House and everything is about political opportunity, and they spend months and months on it. They do not worry about the Prime Minister's policies, just trash-talk him, call him a trust fund baby and everything else because that is what is going to get them votes. That might help their base, but it is certainly not doing their job.
Their job is to be the official opposition. They are supposed to come in here and from time to time say, “This is good legislation, and this is bad legislation, and it is bad because of this, this reason here”, but not some trumped-up conspiracy, like the member for Saskatoon—University saying that Bloc members only support this bill because they see it as an opportunity for Canada to fail. It is some of the most ridiculous stuff I have heard, but then they fundraise off it and clearly mislead Canadians for political gain.
As much as I disagree with the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens from time to time, I do not see that kind of rhetoric coming from them. They fight with us on policy. They ask why we are not doing more on pharmacare. That is a good question. Let us work together to do that. They ask why we are not doing more for Canadian culture. That is a good question. Maybe we should look at doing that. That is what our job here is. Our job is not to come in here and look for opportunity for political gain.
They said it themselves. They keep going back to the minister having this—
Mr. Eric Duncan: Terrible interview.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: There they go again: a “terrible interview” with Evan Solomon. They are yelling it from across the way. What does that have to do with the legislation? He had a terrible interview, if we take them at their word, but what does that have to do with the legislation? They should be able to objectively look at the legislation themselves, come to conclusions and then, when I ask them what the offensive part is or to read off the offensive part to me, they should be able to do that, and none of them are able to do that. That is the problem with their approach.
I do want to take the opportunity to talk about the importance of this, because, as much as I would love to stand here and tell members about all the games Conservatives are up to, there is an underlying, more important issue here. That is the issue of Canadian content, keeping that Canadian content intact and keeping the federal responsibility to make sure that Canadian content and culture stay alive.
I would argue to the member for Saskatoon—University, who is on this wild conspiracy idea that the Bloc is using this as an opportunity to push separation in Canada, that perhaps the Bloc just sees a good bill here that would help to protect French culture in Quebec. I would argue that, perhaps, this is where they are coming from on this, and it makes sense.
I think back to the Canadian content rules. Yes, I am old enough to remember when we could only hear music on the radio, believe it or not. I can remember sitting there or driving in my car and hoping a song comes on and then maybe thinking I would go for a longer drive and maybe the song would come on. While I was sitting there listening, I was subjected to these great artists like The Tragically Hip, who came from Kingston.
I hate to think what the case would have been in the late eighties and early nineties when The Tragically Hip were trying to make their mark on the music scene and what the competition would have been like had they been drowned out by all this music and entertainment coming from south of the border. What would we be like today, representing our cultural identity, had we not had these rules around Canadian content?
While I was driving around hoping for that top-40 song that I wanted to hear so bad, maybe I was subjected to a Tragically Hip song that got me hooked on them, and maybe many Canadians were in the same situation. I can relate that to TV shows. I can relate that to so many Canadian artists. I think it is critically important at a time like this. When I drive to Ottawa and when I drive home, I usually listen to Apple Music. When I am in Kingston, I tend to listen to some of the radio stations a little more, because I am more interested in hearing what they are talking about and what the pulse of the community is.
The point is that more and more people are being driven away from the radio and TV giants toward the Internet, and when they do that, we need to figure out how we are going to promote that content on the Internet and how we are going to make sure that the next band like The Tragically Hip that is up and coming is still going to get exposure. I have news for members: My 17-year-old is not dialing in to an FM radio station in Kingston, unfortunately. He is getting all of his content off the Internet.
How are we supposed to encourage the future generations, like my 17-year-old, to make sure they are being exposed to Canadian content? We need to have legislation that supports it, and I believe that what is being put forward is exactly that. Was the handling of how messaging was delivered and how things rolled out the best? I do not know. I will let somebody else be the judge of that. I am here to legislate. I am here to look at policy. I am here to assess what is in the best interests, in my opinion, of my constituents, and I can tell members that a bill like this, which advances Canadian content and secures Canadian content for future generations, like my 17-year-old, to be exposed to, is critically important, because without that we run the risk of losing what is so uniquely Canadian about us, that Canadian culture and Canadian content.
There are tons and tons of content creators out there now. I watch them too, primarily through Facebook. I see the content that is created, and a lot of them are Canadian. Some suggest that the bill is going to impact their ability to deliver content, but show me where. Show me where the bill gets to that point. Nobody has been able to do that.
It is very important now more than ever that we look at this 30-year-old piece of legislation, bring it forward to adopt today's mediums and where people are going in their content and information, and then ensure that Canadian content can continue to stay alive. I encourage the Conservatives to really think about not just the political gain from this, but what it actually means to artists and to the people out there who will be the beneficiaries of having a system in place that promotes Canadian culture. Had Canada not done that decades ago, who knows where we would be now?
If we only ever look at issues as an opportunity for political gain, to bump our number by half a point in the polls, to try to edge out the other parties by a bit here and there, we completely lose sight of what our job is here. Our job here is to develop, scrutinize and create good policy that Canadians can be the beneficiaries of.
I do not think the Conservatives should be hijacking these issues, although to their credit, they have done a fairly good job of it. It might solidify their base and it might help them raise a little money, but it is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians.
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2021-06-14 20:49 [p.8388]
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Kingston and the Islands' opinion. I am on page 16 of Bill C‑10, specifically subclause 8(10), lines 7 to 14 of the English version, which states the following:
(4) Regulations made under this section, other than regulations made under paragraph (1)(i) or (j), do not apply with respect to programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service — if that user is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.
My interpretation of that provision is that, if Videotron uploads content to YouTube, the company is subject to CRTC rules, but ordinary users who do likewise are not. I see no attack on freedom of expression there. Does my colleague interpret that provision the same way?
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that it is a rhetorical question, because she answered the question with her question. However, I will highlight that the Bloc member has been able to reference a part of the bill that says what she is claiming and supports why she is voting for this bill. On the contrary, which I mentioned during my speech, the Conservatives are unable to do the same when it comes to what parts of the bill they think are offensive.
The member is absolutely correct. There is specific wording in the legislation to indicate that this is not about looking at user content. It is more about making sure that web giants are promoting Canadian content when and where available.
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-06-14 20:57 [p.8389]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
What could be more fitting for a bill that could limit the free speech of Canadians across the country and what they can see online, than a government trying to use tactics to limit debate in Parliament? I have heard, loud and clear, from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country, and we have heard, loud and clear, from experts from coast to coast to coast how poor Bill C-10 is.
Canadians do not want this deeply flawed, speech-limiting, online-viewing-limiting legislation. It is truly shocking that the government would attempt on more than one occasion to limit debate on a bill that has been so divisive. The government keeps raising the bar on what divides us. If the Liberals cannot even tolerate dissenting views in committee and in this House, how are Canadians supposed to expect them to act differently and respect their views online should this legislation come into force?
Back in May, I addressed this chamber through Statements by Members, outlining the overwhelming opposition to this troubling bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. I outlined how hundreds, and by now hundreds more, have written me with their valid and real concerns. Residents in Kelowna—Lake Country have strong reservations about the government's attempted overreach to regulate individual Canadian Internet users and what they can hear and see online, concerns shared by University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. Dr. Geist is not just some newcomer to the field. He is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. Not only could he be considered an expert, he is a vocal and non-partisan critic who has been fighting for the rights of Canadians by speaking out against this dangerous legislation.
Dr. Geist has outlined how, despite the empty words on the part of government claiming otherwise, this legislation, “represent[s] an exceptionally heavy-handed regulatory approach where a government-appointed regulator decides what individual user generated content is prioritized”. Dr. Geist has also called the recent manoeuvring by the Liberals at the heritage committee to effectively cover this legislation in a dark cloud of secrecy “disturbing”, when the committee began to vote on undisclosed amendments without any debate or discussion.
All of this came on the heels of the Liberals' teaming up with the Bloc earlier this month to severely limit debate by using an archaic parliamentary process, manoeuvres that have not been seen in over 20 years in this House. The Liberals may claim that this legislation is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, but that has not stopped them from using procedures to ram Bill C-10 through Parliament without proper debate or discussion. We heard in debate today, from my colleague the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, how 40% of Bill C-10 was not even discussed or debated at the heritage committee with respect to other recommendations.
The voices of my constituents will not be silenced. Residents of my riding in Kelowna—Lake Country from all walks of life have written to me ever since the introduction of this draconian bill, stating, “Censoring free speech or shutting down debate is not acceptable.”
Another wrote that, “People should be able to speak freely on all platforms”.
One wrote that, “It is shocking that the current government has the audacity to even propose something as limiting to free speech as Bill C-10”.
Further comments were also expressed: “We must not tolerate this kind of censorship of free speech in a free country”; and, “Bill C-10 is the most appalling assault on free speech we have seen from any democratic government”.
I agree with my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country, and that is why I am here today.
This legislation is an unacceptable attempt by the Liberals to target the freedoms of individual Internet users in Canada. It raises significant concerns about the ability to preserve net neutrality, which is an important principle that ensures free flow of content and that no content on the Internet is favoured over another. Net neutrality is basically the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications, regardless of their source and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.
The bill before us would give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, absolute control with no clear parameters. Furthermore, this legislation would give sweeping powers to the CRTC to regulate the Internet, including individual users with no clear guidelines for how that power would be used.
What are Canadian creators saying about this proposed legislation?
Well, J.J. McCullough, a well-known Canadian YouTuber, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post. Mr. McCullough has nearly 300,000 followers on YouTube and, by his own research, he says that this makes him the “1,483rd most popular Canadian YouTuber”. I would say that provides a pretty clear picture of the success that Canadian content creators have online. He goes on to note that there are “...well over 100 Canadian YouTubers with subscriber counts surpassing 3 million — a combined audience larger than the population of Indonesia”. He mentions how well Canadian YouTubers have done without this legislation. Mr. McCullough also notes with real concern that “If Bill C-10 passes, satisfying the needs of audiences — the formula that has produced countless Canadian YouTube success stories...may soon take a back seat to satisfying government regulators”.
His trepidation is justified, as the Liberals rejected an exemption to individual users who upload videos to social media and even took it a step further by promising to introduce a new amendment to regulate apps. We have also heard that digital first creators have not been consulted. It is smoke and mirrors to say that Bill C-10 is about charging big Internet companies to get tax dollars.
On Bill C-10, Conservatives propose to protect individual users and small players in the market by exempting streaming services and social media users with lower revenues. The Liberals rejected this common-sense compromise. The minister ignores these concerns despite the stated purpose of the bill being to promote Canadian content and support, not burden, Canadian creators. However, if history is any indication, the minister does not care about factual and thoughtful points such as these. His party only cares about shutting down debate so its members do not have to listen to the mounting evidence against this proposed legislation.
It is not just the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country, Canadian content creators or Dr. Geist who are speaking out against Bill C-10. A former commissioner of the CRTC has said in an interview that 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”. This was from a former CRTC commissioner, and if anyone can speak on how the CRTC could interpret its new powers, he would be the one to ask.
The government claims that Bill C-10 is a priority and that is why it is using the tactics that it has chosen to employ. My Conservative colleagues and I will not apologize for doing whatever is necessary to defend the right to free speech and free viewing of the content of Canadians.
I think it is important that we examine exactly what has taken place in this Parliament leading up to this moment. We must not forget that it was the Liberals who prorogued Parliament to escape scrutiny for their ethical scandals. When it is something they want, they will ram it through in any way they can using procedures like the one we recently saw around Bill C-10, which we have not seen used in the House for over 20 years. There were amendments at committee that were never even read and debated. The Liberals had four years as a majority government and have been in power in this Parliament for almost two more.
We will be back here in September as, after all, the Liberals definitely do not want an election, right? So, I will not apologize for standing up for Kelowna—Lake Country and I will not apologize for standing for free speech and for net neutrality. This is deeply flawed legislation that should be deeply troubling, and it is troubling to the core to each and every one of us to consider here today.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the parent act, the Broadcasting Act, has three sections that specifically articulate freedom of expression. The version of Bill C-10 that was passed by the House at second reading specifically had a section that protected anyone who is uploading programs for transmission over the Internet. Then when the bill was at committee, there were four specific amendments adopted to ensure freedom of expression; one from the Liberals, two from the Green Party and one from the Conservatives.
With all of those sections that are specifically articulating freedom of expression, why are they all together not enough for the member to be satisfied that it is, in fact, protected?
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-06-14 21:10 [p.8391]
Mr. Speaker, as we know what even led us to this point was proposed section 4.1 being taken out originally, which started all of the concern. Of course, we had the heritage minister give this whole pretzel of information that was more confusing every time he spoke. I know there has been a number of amendments and recommendations, but as I said earlier in my speech, all of the recommendations did not even get discussed or fully debated at the committee. There were a number of other potentially very good recommendations. Sometimes it is not what is in there, it is what is missing. That is a big part of what has brought us here to our discussion today.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the free-speaking riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
When I spoke on Bill C-10 last December, I called this bill a fraud, an attack on freedom of expression, and a particular danger to the rights of Canadians speaking minority language. Since debate at second reading, this bill has become so much worse. The bill was already an assault on freedom of expression, but the process to ram this bill through Parliament is an assault on the foundation of parliamentary democracy. Undemocratic means have undemocratic ends. In the end, what we have is a bill so flawed, so regressive, so illiberal, the government must cut off all debate.
When I spoke against the Internet censorship bill at second reading, I highlighted how this bill is an offence against Canadian values. It is an attack on freedom. It is an attack on truth. It is an attack on multicultural heritage. Even before this bill was made worse in committee, it was an affront to freedom of expression. By removing the clause protecting social media, the Liberal government has made the violation so clear that every Canadian is now aware of the threat to their freedom.
This bill offends Canadians' sense of honesty by perpetuating a fraud and claiming video delivered over the Internet is the same as a video delivered by broadcast. Internet video streaming has more in common with video rental stores, movie theatres or book stores than they do with broadcasters. Internet video streaming, movie theatres and book stores sell a product to Canadians. Broadcasters turn Canadians into the product and sell them to advertisers.
One business model sells the work of cultural expression to Canadians. The other business model uses works of cultural expression to sell Canadians to big business. Broadcasters sell Canadians to advertisers using publicly owned airwaves and regulated cable monopolies. The federal government has the authority under the Constitution to regulate broadcasters. Movie theatres, video rental stores and book stores fall under provincial jurisdiction, even if they are foreign owned.
The bill is unconstitutional even before it attacks the charter. Canadians are already fed up with Super Bowl commercials being substituted. How do Liberals think they are going to like the idea of their favourite YouTube streaming video being substituted by some CRTC-approved Canadian video? They would never try this with books or movies.
Canadians are not forced to buy a Canadian book to read A Game of Thrones. Canadians are not forced to watch a Marvel movie filmed in Vancouver to attend a foreign film festival. If the Liberals tried this with books or theatres, it would be clear that this wrong. However, the problem with this bill is the violation to freedom is more subtle, at least it was until the government removed section 4.1. That is when it stopped being a subtle attack on a freedom of expression and became a full on assault.
The government will claim it has no interest in censoring Canadians' cat videos, but that is not the concern. The concern being expressed, since the removal of section 4.1, is not that the CRTC will take down YouTube posts, it is that YouTube would take down or de-prioritize videos in order to comply with regulations. A counter argument that we should not worry about cabinet putting its thumbs on the CRTC scales because of the regulatory system takes a hit when one considers that Bill C-10 streamlines the process of cabinet giving directives to the CRTC.
That is not to say the Prime Minister would go around ordering YouTube posts to be taken down. It is just the limitations on what any future cabinet could do is reduced. Deleting parliamentary committee oversight of cabinet directives to CRTC may not be Orwellian, but it is what an Orwellian-minded government would also do.
I do appreciate the attention being drawn to regulations because that is where the original threat to freedom of expression lies. Compliance with these regulations comes with a relatively fixed costs. For Netflix that cost can be spread out over seven million Canadian households, but for a smaller streaming service, that cost may be spread over 700,000, 70,000 or 7,000 households.
As the popularity of the type of expression decreases, the cost to receive it increases. The only cost to receive any broadcast expression is the cost of a receiving device, but streamers charge end users. The whole point of having that freedom is not to protect the majority or popular expression, but the minority or unpopular expressions. This is not to say that web giants cannot be regulated, but fundamentally they are not broadcasters and cannot be regulated as such without impacting freedom of expression.
As I said earlier, Internet streaming services are more akin to movie theatres and bookstores, both of which are currently restricted under provincial registration. Is that closure a limitation of freedom of expression? It sure is. Is that reasonable in a free and democratic society during a pandemic? Ultimately that will be for the courts to decide, but at least there is a public purpose other than to grab some cash for the well-connected.
The point is that movies, bookstores and Internet streamers can be regulated, but it has to be in the public interest and by the appropriate level of government. Just as we have regulations that say someone cannot build a bookstore made out of dry kindling, someone cannot build a digital service that threatens to burn down democracy and not expect some public interest.
Any opposition to Bill C-10 is being framed as opposition to Canadian culture or logically extending to opposition of the Canadian content system. It only furthers the attempt to force a new digital world into an old analog paradigm, which also cuts off discussion on how to update the Canadian content system to the digital world. The whole idea of needing a system to feature Canadian artists to Canadians comes from a time when we were culturally insecure, but we are not that country any more.
We are the most diverse country in the world. We import culture and we brag about it. We are a proud, confident country. We do not live next door to the United States on the Internet. We live next door to everyone online. Canadians are amazing and our artists are awe-inspiring.
At the end of the day, cutting through the government rhetoric about Bill C-10, it is not about protecting culture or online harms. It is about money and rent-seeking. The government needs money and needs industry interest groups with euphemistic names to say nice things about them in French.
Until now the cost of this rent-seeking was largely borne by advertisers or CRTC-inflated cable bills. The government likes to claim that it will go on to fund artists, but it really ends at the money going to producers and their lobbyists.
The difference now is that the costs will not be paid by web giants, but by consumers. The methods to collect the money are media fund levies, regulatory compliance costs, a new digital service tax and HST on top of all of it. Together this adds up to a massive regressive excise tax. There is an HST credit to offset the regressive nature of that tax, but there is no rebate for the GST or the Canadian content media levy.
The government is not forcing web giants to pay. It is forcing low-income Canadians to pay and to pay the most. It does not have to be this way. We can regulate online businesses in the interest of public safety, and we can do it without threatening freedom of expression.
Results: 61 - 75 of 434 | Page: 5 of 29

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

For more data options, please see Open Data