Publication Search

Thank you.

I agree with Ms. McPherson that extra time would have helped, certainly at the beginning, to try to move this forward. In fact, several times at the beginning of the study of Bill C-10, I tried to get extra time for extra meetings so that we could move through this quickly.

We have now reached a point where, in the last meeting, we did not vote on a single amendment. Adding extra meetings during the summer isn't going to help us get to where we need to be because at this point, we have just reached a standstill. Quite frankly, Ms. McPherson is well aware that there is a motion for time allocation and I would hope she would support that so that we can put this important bill forward and make sure that we are doing what we need to have web giants pay their fair share and to support Canadian artists.

I would point out that the Conservatives have been filibustering here at committee, as is their right to do by parliamentary procedure, the same as it is our right to bring forward a motion for time allocation.

I would like to point out to Ms. McPherson that I think it's been laid bare at this point, when I am looking at statements that have been made by the Conservatives, that the issue here isn't about freedom of expression that they are really pushing for. In fact, I would just point out what Ms. Harder stated to her local press about Bill C-10 specifically, and what is trying to be done. The quote I have is:

These artists are not able to make a living off of what they are producing, so they require grants that are given to them by the government. And so these little, niche lobby groups composed of outdated artists are going to the Liberal government and asking them to charge these large streaming companies in order to bring about more money to put into these grant funds so these outdated artists can then apply for that money so they can continue to create material Canadians don’t want to watch.

That's the fight we're in about Bill C-10 right now. That is saying that artists like the Arkells or shows like Heartland are not things that Canadian want to watch, and that we shouldn't be supporting, as a government. I don't believe that's true.

My question for Ms. McPherson is, is she going to support time allocation so that we can move forward to support artists, or is she going to take the position that these are outdated artists whom we don't need to be providing support for?

Mr. Chair, I want to revisit the point that there's absolutely a need to move to time allocation, because we could sit all summer. We are going through entire meetings without voting on a single amendment. For the past several meetings, even when we do vote on an amendment, it's one or two a meeting. At that pace, we will not complete the study of Bill C-10 . We will just keep going for months and months and months.

I do believe there's a bit of a disconnect, if anything, on that, to say that if we just add in a few more meetings this summer we'll be able to complete it. That's clearly not what's been shown over the past weeks and even, I would say, months.

No, I think you had Monsieur Champoux before me. My hand is down.

I move to adjourn the debate.

No.

Mr. Chair, I find this amendment interesting for two reasons. One is that it seems to very much mirror an amendment that had been voted down by this committee previously. In addition, it is again trying to carve out contributions toward our cultural production funds.

In light of what Ms. Harder said in her local press, I believe that a lot of what the Conservatives are seeking to do right now is, in fact, reduce our cultural production funds as a whole. Part of the reason I feel this way is this quote, which stood out to me:

That arts fund actually goes toward a very niche group of artists that are stuck in the early 1990s because they haven’t managed to be competitive on new platforms. So they are very reliant on government grants in order to continue to exist. And, quite frankly, they are producing material that Canadians just don’t want.

I apologize—

I was. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, because it goes to the point about contributions to the funds, which is actually what this amendment goes to.

If I may, I'll just complete it to make sure that it's clear what I believe the actual background is to this amendment. Then I will have a question, actually, beyond that.

She continued to say, “Because, at the end of the day, if Canadians did want it then there would be a market for it. And if there was a market for it then these artists would get paid based on the market.”

Basically, in that quote there is a huge disrespect, a tremendous disrespect, for our cultural production funds and for our artists.

As I pointed out, there is that background to it, as well as the fact that this is something the committee has already considered. I was wondering if perhaps the department could help me to better understand what the impact of this amendment would be. What would be the net impact of allowing this amendment to proceed?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps the department can help me with getting some clarification, because the way I understood Mr. Waugh's argument, he was talking about user-uploaded content to companies, and I understand that user-uploaded content is excluded.

I wonder if I could get some clarification. This proposal is about the companies, is it not? Could you help to clarify that for me?

I was.

I would just to quickly say that I was just pointing out that it has come up in the House in debate and it came up in that article that the Conservatives have said that Canadian creators are a niche market and that there has been a certain denigration of having cultural production programs and funds to support our Canadian creators. That does cause me to question the filibustering we have seen as well as the onslaught of these many new amendments being proposed and how that's been happening.

That is my point, and I think it's been raised in the House in debate, here at committee in the ongoing debate, and in that article that I quoted.

Mr. Chair.

I do believe though that raises a valid question. Perhaps I could ask the department whether there is any analysis as to what the impact of this amendment on cultural production funds would be. It might assist in the argument, given what Mr. Shields has raised.

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I think we've reached the point.... Right now, we are not going into CRTC regulatory-making pieces. This is going quite far afield from this amendment.

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

This sounds a whole lot more like debate than a point of order, and we have an amendment on the floor.

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I feel that we're debating the debate that was in the House and not the amendment that's on the floor. If Ms. Harder would like to discuss this amendment, that would be lovely.