Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 541
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair—
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, my hand is up.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
I'm letting you know my hand is up.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support and applaud what my fellow member Ms. Dabrusin just said in relation to the Conservative member's recent comments in the Lethbridge Herald about her party's position on the situation of artists. Frankly, I was very concerned by the party's view of the cultural sector as well as its read on Bill C‑10, which I think is completely wrong. No doubt, we'll have a chance to revisit the matter later.
I want to speak to Ms. McPherson's motion. As everyone knows, the party leaders are in the midst of negotiating next steps regarding a summer schedule. The committee can't decide to sit in hybrid format until the powers that be have come to an agreement.
In light of that, I think we would do well to propose an amendment to Ms. McPherson's motion, specifying that the motion is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.
I am not suggesting Ms. McPherson's motion has no merit, but I do think we should take into account the talks under way, which will certainly override some of the committee's decisions.
I therefore move that the motion be amended by adding wording to the effect that it is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, precisely.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
I am proposing that Ms. McPherson's motion be amended at the end to specify the motion is conditional on the outcome of the talks between the party leaders.
I don't know what the exact wording should be. Perhaps one of the legislative clerks could help with that. I am no expert on legislative wording, but I would just say something to the effect of “all conditional on the outcome of the party leaders' discussions”.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
I had my hand up, Mr. Chair.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
When someone moves an amendment to a motion, a debate is obviously supposed to follow.
Fundamentally, I'm somewhat resistant to the idea of doing things out of order. I am of the mind that we should discuss Bill C‑10 as long as possible because I firmly believe that we should pass it. Obviously, my first choice is not to extend into the summer, but if we must, let's do it.
I put forward an amendment to ensure that, if Ms. McPherson's motion was adopted, the discussions under way between the party leaders would not interfere with the decisions we made here, in committee. I simply wanted to make sure we were going to do things in an orderly way.
That said, as was pointed out earlier, there is no point holding additional meetings if we are going to spend them dragging things out, filibustering and preventing Bill C‑10 from ever seeing the light of day, because there are groups who are strongly opposed.
I wanted to make clear my intention, which is essentially to give us some peace of mind in light of the discussions between the party leaders, should Ms. McPherson's motion be adopted.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
It is me, Mr. Chair. As you can see, I'm back. I would like to thank my fellow member Mr. Lemire for holding down the fort for a few minutes.
I want to flag something, Mr. Chair. When a vote is taking place in the House of Commons, members have to participate through one of the means available to them, in‑person participation being the main one. As you know, the committee's proceedings are deemed to be suspended until the members are back in the committee room or ready to participate virtually, as the case may be.
I was in the House a short time ago for the vote, and the committee was in a rush to get started even though the results of the vote had yet to be announced. I was forced to ask a colleague on the spur of the moment to replace me on the committee, which is in the midst of some very important discussions.
I won't belabour the point, but it really bothered and concerned me. I would even go so far as to call it a lack of respect for the parliamentary procedure we are supposed to follow.
Thank you.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect, Mr. Rayes is talking about amendments that the committee has not yet looked at, amendments that could be subject to subamendments.
I don't know how the senior officials are supposed to give us a reliable answer to a question that pertains to amendments the committee has yet to discuss and vote on.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
I have a technical point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
As you know, I'm loath to interrupt Ms. Harder, but I think we were listening to Mr. Housefather talk about the amendment before us. It seems as though Ms. Harder is doing the exact same thing. She appears to be debating the amendment and giving her views on it, rather than raising a point of order. What's more, Mr. Housefather had the floor.
I will leave it to you to judge the relevance of what's being said, Mr. Chair.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a few points about which I'd like to comment or give my perspective.
Ever since the Friday on which the committee voted in favour of removing proposed section 4.1, we've been able to see the turmoil that resulted. Ever since, I've believe that proposed section 4.1 ought to be reinstated in the bill and amended in a manner that would exclude the regulation of social media users, but not the social media themselves with respect to their commercial broadcasting purposes. For the sake of the cultural industry, the cultural community, and artists, social media must be subject to regulation with respect to their commercial broadcasting activities.
Nevertheless, we afterwards succeeded in putting forward a number of amendments. Even though there were not that many, they got things back on track.
From the very outset, people from the cultural industry and the cultural community, with whom I have frequently held discussions, have been convinced that reintroducing proposed section 4.1 into the bill would be a mistake. They feel that as things stand now, user freedom of expression is in no danger at all.
We heard expert opinions from both sides. As my colleague Mr. Rayes was saying earlier, legal and other experts have given us diverging opinions. In fact, the problem I see with respect to this committee's work is that there are many lawyers and other experts defending a point of view, but we've not heard from the judges. If a judge were to rule on our current debates, it might be easier to find a way of settling our disputes.
In view of the comments made by these experts, I still believe that in the current circumstances, and with the amendments that have been adopted, there is no attack on user freedom of expression. I think it's a mistake to believe that there is and to try to convince people of it.
I'd like to take a few seconds to speak about net neutrality, a subject that's been on the agenda quite often of late.
Here again, on behalf of those listening to us or perhaps watching us online, I want to say that net neutrality has nothing to do with Internet content. Net neutrality is a principle that guarantees that the speed at which my aunt Gertrude's video chats are transmitted is no slower than the speed at which online content from a broadcaster is transmitted.
This principle therefore applies to telecommunications. It applies to service providers who send data through Internet "pipes". Because of this principle, Mr. Champoux's aunt Gertrude's video chats are not transmitted any more slowly than a Netflix program to the same destination.
It has nothing to do with content or with the fact that some people might be discriminated against because of their opinions. It's important to clarify this point.
Mr. Rayes Spoke earlier about artists who earn their living through online media. More and more people are doing just that. Online media give us access to terrific content. People are creative, and that's all to the good. However, based on the standpoint from which I look at the situation, my conclusion is that these artists will be able to continue to create and disseminate their creative work through their platforms. Nothing we are doing now will prevent this or control it. On the contrary, we might even be helping them, if they want it, to acquire more visibility.
The broadcasting act is designed to apply to broadcasting undertakings that have an impact on the Canadian broadcasting system and on the cultural industry. YouTubers or artists who use their own platforms to disseminate content are not affected here.
I believe that these ongoing fears about freedom of expression survive simply because people are being told that it could be attacked. If instead they were told to take the trouble to read what is written in or proposed in this bill, I think many of them would be reassured. At least that's my impression.
The arts and culture in Quebec and Canada urgently need us to continue to study the proposed clauses and amendments of the bill we are studying. We need to do as much as we can in the time remaining.
That's all I wanted to say about this amendment. I too will now give the floor to others.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try to be brief. I simply want to respond to what Mr. Shields said a while ago.
He said something very important when he talked about not rejecting other people's opinions in a discussion. I fully agree with him.
Besides which, we took the time to ask questions, listen to the experts and check whether indeed there was anything to worry about in terms of an attack on freedom of expression for users of digital platforms and social media. I think we kept an open mind on this matter. I fully agree that it is important in debates to remain open to the opinions and ideas of others, because the healthy exercise of democracy means that we shouldn't necessarily cling our positions.
I also just wanted to add that when I said that we had no judges on the committee, I was drawing an analogy, an image to say that what we have here is a dialogue of the deaf. Each party is doggedly defending its positions, and I said that it might take a judge to rule on the matter. I am well aware that these issues will highly likely end up in court.
I also wanted to return briefly to Ms. Harder's lengthy monologue. I got the impression that we were being schooled on the quality of the work that had been done by the committee members, and I must say I take umbrage at this. We received 121 witnesses and 54 briefs during the study and preliminary study of Bill C-10. Indeed, I think that the Conservatives were able to invite many of these witnesses, and our colleagues who were there at the time were very effective. When we were began doing it, I think each of the parties did a good job of inviting the witnesses they felt were most appropriate at the time.
Did we invite everyone who should have been heard? I think we would agree that's impossible, but a call was nevertheless sent out to all interested parties across Canada to prepare a brief to state their opinion on this issue. So I think the work was indeed done well and that several issues were raised by people who were not necessarily there during the studies of Bill C-10, and I'll admit that there were moments when this struck a chord with me.
Results: 1 - 15 of 541 | Page: 1 of 37

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

For more data options, please see Open Data