Bill C-11

Online Streaming Act

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service, unless the programs are prescribed by regulation;
(c) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of the Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should
(i) serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from Black or other racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages, and
(ii) provide opportunities to Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(d) enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society, including by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs in both languages;
(e) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of English, French and Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide English, French or Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) takes into account, among other things, the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings,
(iii) ensures that any broadcasting undertaking that cannot make maximum or predominant use of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming contributes to those Canadian resources in an equitable manner,
(iv) promotes innovation and is readily adaptable toscientific and technological change,
(v) facilitates the provision to Canadians of Canadian programs in both official languages, including those created and produced by official language minority communities in Canada, as well as Canadian programs in Indigenous languages,
(vi) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities,
(vii) facilitates the provision to Canadians of programs created and produced by members of Black or other racialized communities,
(viii) protects the privacy of individuals who aremembers of the audience of programs broadcast, and
(ix) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which the Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on any class of broadcasting undertakings if that imposition will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(f) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(g) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(h) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(i) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(j) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(k) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(l) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(m) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act .
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to talk about SDTC and the green slush fund, because this gives us an opportunity to look at what is happening here in Canada. My friend from York—Simcoe talked about the way the government is working, or not working, I should say, or is working in a bad direction. My speech focuses on where the loss of trust is, how we have this loss of trust and why we have this loss of trust.

Over the last nine years, we see there have been so many things that have made Canadians, who voted for Liberals in 2015, say that they cannot trust the government anymore. The green slush fund is just another example of why Canadians have lost trust and hope.

What is the green slush fund and why was it created in the first place? When we look at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, we have to look at its mandate. Its mandate was to help Canadian companies develop and deploy sustainable technologies by delivering critical funding support at every stage of the journey. This sounds great. It is something we need, and for decades we did have it.

In the last six years, there was $836 million spent on green start-ups. I am not against any of that, but the issue I have here is there were also 186 projects that had conflicts of interest. When I talk about loss of trust in the government, that is where I really want to focus. We, as a party and as opposition, have been asking for these documents for months.

Last December, in 2023, when the whistle-blowers came forward and talked about what was happening and how this money was being distributed, things started happening. We saw a freezing of the slush fund. The money is not available, which, in turn, is causing a lot of problems for people who are actually running legitimate businesses, who are not able to get the payments they expected and are not able to get the assistance from the government that would help them. However, because the government was allowing people to be eligible for truly ineligible reasons, those payments did not move forward.

We can talk about the conflicts of interest. We can talk about whether it was the CEO or board chair, but we can look at the conflicts of interest that were occurring in SDTC as well. This all goes back to looking at accountability and transparency, which is something we have seen very little of over the last nine years. For a Prime Minister who was going to have sunshine and said that everything was going to be fine and that they were going to be clear, accountable and transparent, which is what he was running on in 2015, that is exactly the opposite of what we see here in 2024.

The loss of hope is one of the biggest challenges we are having here in Canada. When I had this opportunity to speak on this motion, I spoke to my friend from Oshawa. He was talking about what we can talk about, because he was looking at the censorship issues here in Canada. There are Bill C-63 and some of the other things the government has come out with, like with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, which are just a whole bunch of bills that come together that continue to impact Canadians negatively.

My friend from Oshawa was talking about censorship. I thought I would talk about trust and hope and how this is just another example of how Canadians have lost trust in the government and have lost hope for the future. When we look at the data, it is very clear. We see the data between 2014 and 2024. People ask where the hope is and what can they see for their futures. As a mom of five, and I am very proud of being a mom of five, I am now watching my children, who are between the ages of 21 and 30, asking what the world is going to look like for them. How are they going to get ahead? I will add more to that.

I think it comes down to something very simple. If we look as of 11 a.m. today, we had $1.356 trillion in debt here in Canada. This number makes me very queasy, knowing that just 10 years ago, under the Harper government in 2014, our debt was $648 million. That is $648 million compared to $1.3 billion in nine years, which is just absolutely ludicrous. We know that is just wasteful spending and unaccountable spending as well.

Things like the current number of people working in Canada and the GDP are all data points we need to look at when we are talking about the economy and why we are talking about things not working. If we do not have a strong economy, everything starts falling apart. We have to look at the economy as a piece of this puzzle that has created so many drastic problems for people. On employment specifically, we have seen a decrease in employment. In Canada, as of October 2024, we currently have 33,977,000 people working, which is 60.6% of the population.

Just 10 years ago, we had 61.6% of the population working, which was over 28,930,000. This matters because at the end of the day, it is those people who are employed and paying taxes on their employment or pensions or whatever it may be, who are putting back into the system. It is really important that we have people out there working because it also adds to our GDP.

I had a great conversation about this with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We were talking about what the GDP looks like and why it is important to understand the GDP-to-population ratio. When I talk about the number of people working being down to 60.6% from 61.6% just a decade ago, we then have to look at where our GDP is, and that is where these numbers become astounding. I compared the numbers for Canada, looking at 2014 to 2024, but also looked at GDP in the United States. I am not looking at total GDP, but looking at the increase because that is giving us the hope for prosperity. When people see an increase in our GDP that looks healthy, they know that there is hope for their businesses, for their future, for their employment and for their children's future as well.

In 2014, we saw a 2.87% GDP growth rate. In the United States, it was very similar at 2.52%. Today, when we are looking at the data, it is not a full year, but in 2024, our GDP growth rate right now is 1.34%, compared to the U.S. at 2.77%.

If we want to look at entire years, in 2023, we can look at Canada at 1.25% compared to the U.S. at 2.89% in 2023. When GDP growth rate is down, that is when people start losing great hope. What are they going to do when it comes to employment? How are their businesses going to survive? In the last few weeks, we have had many discussions with the people in my riding talking about how they are going to survive if we cannot have good public policy and legislation and the United States is talking about putting a 25% tariff on items coming from Canada. For people within my constituency, the moment that was announced, the phone started ringing. In my riding and in many areas of Canada, we are exporting 80% of our goods.

I spoke earlier to a gentleman who builds scoreboards, so we can watch some of those great NCAA scoreboards and know that they were built in London, Ontario. Eighty per cent of his markets are U.S. high schools and universities. If there is a 25% tariff, his business will close, so we have to make sure that the government is doing the right thing. That is what we have seen over the last week and a half.

Down in the United States, they talked about our leader, but, honestly, looking at the current government on its last leg, or actually on its last toe, it is really hard to know that it is doing the negotiating for the future of Canada when we do not feel confident in our own economy and our own strength. Therefore, when we are sending team Canada down to the United States, we need to make sure team Canada has some very strong representatives from the Conservative Party. When we become the government, we need to make sure that we have a very strong relationship so people like Jeff in my riding do not lose their entire business because of bad policies and relationships with the United States. It really comes down to the importance of making sure we have those trade relationships, making sure we have good policy, and making sure that our economy will continue to have drive.

Going from those GDP numbers, we have to look at other issues. Here in Canada, we are currently at a birth rate of 1%, which does not replace our Canadian population. We need 2.1% for replacement. For me, I step back and say that I have done my job; I have five kids and I am doing really well. I step back and think, why are other people not having children? For me, it is pretty darn simple. I can sit there and look at my own children. My son, who is 28 years old, is running his own business and I absolutely love what he is doing, but it is difficult starting. As a starter-business owner, he can do a great job, but then he also has to pay for his rent and his food and everything else. For him, it would probably be better right now to get a part-time job and have his actual career on the side so that he can pay for the groceries and pay for rent.

The way that this economy is right now, when people are paying almost $2,000 a month for rent and utilities, it is darn hard to get ahead. I feel bad when I say to my kids that I paid $220 a month in 1991 when I was in university to live in the worst place ever in a London residence when I was at Western University.

I have friends whose children are paying $1,600 a month just to live in a four-bedroom house or apartment. Mine was $220 a month. We have to look at the debt load being applied to our children.

We are seeing a rate of 1% increase. We know that the cost of student debt has increased. In 2014, when people were graduating, it was about $12,800 for student debt. Now in 2024, it is way over $30,000. We are not using the data on the rent increases that we have seen on many of our students who are using the food banks.

Why are we having these issues? It is because we have a government that does not spend wisely and continues to increase our debt for future generations to try to dig out of.

When I am looking at the cost to our students, 10 years ago student debt was a little over $12,000. Now I look at students in 2024 with a $30,000 debt load trying to rent an apartment starting at $2,000. Can members imagine trying to pay off student debt, get food in the cupboards and actually pay the rent. If they want a car and insurance, well, holy cow, they would need to be lucky.

I look at the people who live in my riding, which is very rural. People need a car to drive from home to work. There is no public transportation, nor is there really a business plan for that at this time because of the population and how few people would be using that.

We have to look at our children today, who have these exorbitant costs, whether they are paying taxes, and we have this great debt of $1.3 trillion, or whether they are paying for food, and the cost of inflation. It is very difficult for our children to move forward.

I am going to talk about my son who is hopefully going to be a plumber soon. He had taken a few years off school and then decided to go into plumbing. The opportunities for him in plumbing are endless. People say, “Hey, you're an apprentice? Great, we'd love to take you on.” We are looking, all the time, for people to have these opportunities.

I think of my son and the fact is that he will probably have a job in about six months. Fantastic, but I bet it will take a long time for him to actually get out of my basement. After becoming a plumber, how would he pay to get into a house or to rent something, when he still has to buy his food and all of those things? He will be very fortunate because he is not going to have student debt.

That is very unlikely for the majority of the population in this country. He will still have the extraordinary costs of buying tools and supplies. Plumbing is not a cheap job to start off with, so starting his own business will be very very difficult.

Once again, the idea of being able to say, “I have got a job. I have graduated from school. I am going to go forward. I am going to get married. I am going to have children. I am going to have that white picket fence,” those dreams that we talked about in the 1980s, they are so gone for this group of people that are part of Generation Z.

It is going to be difficult because when we look at productivity, it is one of our greatest challenges. We are going through a mental health crisis. I urge everybody to read this book that I have read called, The Anxious Generation. It is talking about Gen Z and what they are going through. I love to read it and ask myself, what am I doing, and how am I screwing up my kids?

I was listening to one colleague last night who talked about Dallas and Dynasty. He was talking about the government being very much like that, and having amnesia. Those were good years.

I think of the stress that my own children and all of their friends are looking at in 2024. When I graduated from university, my debt load was probably about $6,000 or $7,000, very minimal compared to what people are going out with now. I was also able to buy a house when I was 25 years old for $122,000. I was also able to get a job and, this is the best part, that paid $12 an hour, but that was okay because it actually paid the bills. That $12 an hour, back in 1993, after graduating, paid the bills. It paid for my house.

Now we have lost hope. We have lost hope for this future. I look at my five kids and I love them to pieces. I do not know how many of them will be moving home when it comes to trying to find affordable living.

That is very difficult for me as a parent, thinking about what I did or did not do to set them up properly. It is not that I do not think I have set them up properly. They have been in great school systems. They have had amazing teachers over the years and amazing opportunities, but when it comes to them actually stepping outside the house, going and buying their own things, trying to create their own credit limit and trying to rent a place, mom and dad are very necessary. That is what we are seeing with this generation: Those in generation Z are really having to depend on their families, their parents. We have a generation of people, my generation, who are not only paying for their own bills but also helping their children out. The children cannot afford to pay for bills right now, with the cost of living and with their own student debts. This is something that we did not see 20 and 30 years ago. We now see that hope lost.

Those are the things that I think of when we are looking at the green slush fund and we are looking at where the government is and asking about what has gone wrong. We can say that it is poor direction, poor administration and poor ideas. There are ideas where we are throwing out money, but we should ask what we are actually sometimes getting in return. We have talked about very many social programs. Some have had a positive impact, and some have had a negative impact. I would really love to see what the cost rationale is for some of these things. For every dollar spent, are we actually leveraging a better Canada, or are we just throwing our money away? Those are the concerns I have.

We look at the birth rate of 1%; we are trying to get a new workforce in this country and not being able to do that. We look at our extravagant student debt load. We look at the rate of people being employed in Canada, which is less than 60% right now; many of those are people paying bills so that other people can have benefits. We are looking at our GDP being at less than 1.25% right now. These things do not give us a lot of hope. They do not give the businesses that are trying to get into business more hope either.

That is why I wanted to talk at the last minute on the green slush fund and what it has done to start-ups. We have seen start-ups that have had to drop 30% of their labour force because what they were doing with the government stopped working. Because of the failure of the government on this technology program, which had been existing for over 20 years, we are now seeing technology companies having to decrease. It has actually taken away the competitive nature that was in place for so many years when it comes to technology in Canada. We have taken that away.

Those are some of the greatest concerns that I have moving forward. In the last 20 minutes, I have spoken about how we have seen nine years of the government creating greater debt and less hope for the next generation. We have seen a lot of stress. I do not see it getting better under the government.

We have talked about there needing to be an election. As everybody knows, I plan on retiring. If there is an election tomorrow, I am praying that we win with a Conservative majority. At the end of the day, we need to ensure that we have good programs and fiscal responsibility to get on track. These are things that I have great concerns about. I do not know whether that will be the case if we continue under the government for the next year that we are scheduled for. I can see that our GDP will only continue to decline, our debt will only increase and our hope will only decrease as well.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the outstanding constituents of Oshawa and to speak to the question of privilege. I just want to take the opportunity as well to wish members of the House and my constituents in Oshawa a very Merry Christmas. I do not know whether I will have an opportunity to rise in the House again before the break, but certainly we need some more Christmas spirit around here. I think the best Christmas gift we could get the people of Oshawa would be a carbon tax election, because the government is not worth the cost or the corruption.

My speech this evening is going to be more or less about censorship, disinformation and misinformation. The Liberal government is moving down a spiral of authoritarianism. It is a very deceptive government that is definitely not about transparency as it originally promised it would be. It is a government using every single legislative tool to censor and to control.

Around the world, government censorship is constantly being used to silence opposing opinions, suppress transparency and accountability, and consolidate power. We see this form of government censorship in several countries: Russia, China, North Korea and, yes, Canada. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, we are witnessing a new level of government censorship more than ever before in Canada. The issue today is about contempt of Parliament and about fraud.

The government's censorship threatens the very foundations of our democracy. Without the ability to demand production of documents, speak our mind, express our views and challenge the status quo, we are left with nothing but the hollow illusion of freedom. The government censorship we are witnessing here today is not about protecting Canadians from harm or ensuring public safety. Instead it is about silencing dissent, shutting down debate and consolidating power. It is about covering up corruption and fraud.

With respect to the question of privilege, we are addressing government censorship regarding the failure to produce documents ordered by the House on the scandal involving Sustainable Development Technology Canada, otherwise known as the Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund. However, while the power of the House is supposed to be supreme, the Prime Minister's personal department, the Privy Council Office, decided to execute the order by telling departments to send in documents and censor them through redaction to cover up corruption and to cover up fraud.

This form of government censorship completely breaches a member's privilege because the order from the House did not say to redact. The government has opted to defy the House and to censor information in the SDTC documents at every single step of the way, as it does not want Canadians to know that through the green slush fund, $400 million has gone to Liberal insiders. It may be twice that amount because the Auditor General could not complete the full audit.

The scandal as well, it is really important to recognize, compromises two current cabinet ministers and one former cabinet minister. I would like to say that it is a surprise that the government would behave in this manner, but based on the government's track record, government censorship and fraud are nothing but the expected. In other words, for the government, it is business as usual.

Perhaps this is a very good time for my colleagues to talk a little bit about a history lesson. Remember the Liberal sponsorship scandal? The last time the Liberals were in power, they funnelled $40 million to their friends and orchestrated a sophisticated kickback scheme. Then they got caught at fraud, corruption and cover-ups.

The best predictor of future behaviour, I would suggest, is past behaviour. Is the SDTC scandal part of the latest Liberal kickback scandal? Where did the money go? This one scandal is at least 10 times greater than the sponsorship scandal. It is another in a long list of scandals that the Liberals are trying to cover up through censorship.

I should probably define what I mean by censorship. Censorship is “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” I would suggest “politically unacceptable” is why the Liberal-NDP government champions censorship. I should probably define a few other terms. Misinformation is “the inadvertent spread of false information without intent to harm”. Disinformation is “false information designed to mislead others and is deliberately spread with the intent to confuse fact and fiction.”

Another word is a controversial new term, malinformation, used to describe the NDP-Liberal government, a “term for information which is based on fact, but removed from its original context in order to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” In other words, malinformation is “true but inconvenient” for the government and its narrative.

Under the guise of combatting disinformation and hate speech, the government has implemented policies that give it the power to silence voices, censor information and withhold documents that do not conform to its own woke ideological agenda. This censorship is spreading across Canada, through our institutions, not just here in the House of Commons.

We saw this last week when independent journalist Ezra Levant was arrested for simply filming and reporting on a pro-Hamas rally occurring in his own neighbourhood. Instead of arresting provocative pro-Hamas supporters who spewed hate, celebrating genocide while chanting “from the river to the sea”, an independent member of the press was arrested for simply doing his job, arrested by the very police who have sworn to protect his charter rights.

We wonder why Canadians are questioning whether this is the country they grew up in. When a Jewish man gets arrested by Toronto police in his own neighbourhood while supporting a vigil for families whose loved ones were massacred and kidnapped on October 7, while members of the hateful mob are allowed to continue their mockery of the victims' suffering, we have to ask ourselves why the government condones this hateful behaviour, censors first-hand accounts of cruel anti-Semitism and supports police who discriminate. When governments and our institutions condone this behaviour, it is as if they give a stamp of approval, and that definitely is not okay.

What about the government's history of pushing through authoritative legislation? Let us take a look at that. Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, according to the NDP-Liberals, aims to modernize the Broadcasting Act. However, it harms Canadian digital creators by limiting their services and ability to reach global audiences. It also allows the government boundless powers to regulate digital content and gives it the authority to control what Canadians can and cannot access online.

This is a direct assault on the freedoms of expression and access to information that have flourished in this digital age. Instead of letting Canadians choose for themselves what to watch and listen to, the government seeks to impose its own narrative, prioritizing state-approved content over independent voices and diverse viewpoints. Our young, bright Canadian content creators are being stifled. If other jurisdictions also decide to put forward legislation like this, it will mean Canadian content will be a lower priority for the rest of the world and that could damage our entertainment exports.

The government's censorship does not stop there. Bill C-18, the Online News Act, also allows the government to get in the way of what people can see and share online. This bill requires Internet companies to distribute royalties to newspapers whose content is shared on a site. It demonstrates the government choosing to side with large corporate media while shutting down small, local and independent news, as well as giving far too much power to the government to regulate without limitation. As a result, local and independent media outlets that might challenge the government's narrative are left vulnerable, and those that conform are rewarded.

Common-sense Conservatives believe we need to find a solution in which Canadians can continue to freely access news content online, in addition to fairly compensating Canadian news outlets. However, when we offered amendments to the bill that would address these several issues, the NDP and the Liberals voted them down.

Bill C-63 is another testament to this government's continuous commitment to censorship. The online harms act would create costly censorship bureaucracy that would not make it easier for people experiencing legitimate online harassment to access justice. Instead, it would act as a regulatory process that would not start for years and would happen behind closed doors where big-tech lobbyists could pull the strings.

The common-sense Conservative alternative to the online harms act is Bill C-412, proposed by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. It would keep Canadians safe online without infringing on their civil liberties. It would give Canadians more protections online through existing regulators and the justice system, and would outline a duty of care for online operators to keep kids safe online while prohibiting a digital ID and giving parents more tools.

For another outrageous example of withholding documents and censoring information, let us not forget the cover-up at the Winnipeg lab. The Liberals allowed scientists loyal to the Chinese Communist Party to work at our most secure lab. The Liberals gave them a Canadian taxpayer-funded salary and allowed them to send dangerous pathogens back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they work on gain-of-function research. When exposed, the Liberals, whom we know admire the basic dictatorship of China, let these scientists escape the country without proper investigation. When Parliament asked for these documents, the Liberals actually took their own Liberal Speaker to court and then censored our ability to disclose those documents by calling an early election. We still have not found out what happened there.

On top of censoring Parliament, let us not forget about the NDP-Liberal government's track record of censoring individual expression. We have seen countless individuals, physicians, scientists and organizations being punished for simply speaking out against the current government's policies. The government froze bank accounts. People were labelled as promoting hate speech and disinformation, or as conspiracy theorists, racists and misogynists, by their own Prime Minister.

We were warned that this could happen. In one of his final interviews, esteemed scientist Carl Sagan noted, “We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces.”

Who is running science and technology in a democracy if the people do not know anything about it? We have seen this technocracy weaponized by governments during the COVID pandemic through various unjustifiable mandates and government censorship surrounding medical research. Now, the new head of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, Marty Makary, has said on the record that the greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the pandemic was the United States government, and it is the same here in Canada.

The weaponization of medical research is not just an American issue. Dr. Regina Watteel, a Ph.D. in statistics, has written, an excellent exposé on the rise of Canadian hate science. Her books expose how the Liberal government, through repeated grants from CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, hired Dr. David Fisman, a researcher for hire from the University of Toronto medical school, to manipulate COVID statistics to support a failing government policy.

He was touted as an expert, but his only expertise was manipulating statistics to support government overreach. His sham studies were used to justify some of the most draconian COVID policies in the world and were quoted extensively by the Liberal-friendly media. Any criticism of Fisman's fraudulent statistical analysis has been shut down and censored. Again, this is a Canadian example of a result that Carl Sagan warned us about decades ago: the fall into technocracy, where government-sanctioned expert opinion trumps hard scientific data.

Sadly, the government's censorship has now extended to our judicial systems and other institutions, including the Parole Board of Canada.

While the Liberal justice minister brags about appointing 800 judges out of the 957 positions, we can see the soft-on-crime consequences of his woke ideological agenda. We saw an outrageous example of this last week when the French and Mahaffy families desired to participate in the parole hearing of their daughters' brutal murderer. Locally, Lisa Freeman, a constituent in Oshawa and the inspiration behind my private member's bill, Bill C-320, was recently informed by the Parole Board of Canada that the axe murderer who brutally murdered her father while on parole at the time will be subject to a closed-door review.

In the past, Ms. Freeman has been denied her rights as a registered victim and, as a result, has been continually revictimized, only this time by the very institutions that should be putting her mental health and safety and the safety of victims first. Attending and meaningfully participating in an in-person hearing to deliver a victim statement is not only fair and reasonable, but well within Ms. Freeman's rights, as per the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights under the right of participation. It is crucial that Ms. Freeman be able to express the emotional pain and turmoil the murder of her father caused and continues to cause. She also deserves to be able to gauge for herself the accountability of the offender. This is something she has previously been unable to ascertain.

The brutal murder of her father has not only vastly impacted her life and the lives of her loved ones, but also continues to cause post-traumatic stress, which is exacerbated by the complete lack of care by the Parole Board of Canada for her rights as a victim. It is completely unacceptable that Ms. Freeman is once again being censored by the Parole Board of Canada as they plan to make a closed-door decision regarding the offender's continuation of day parole and full parole without holding a hearing.

It is shameful that the NDP-Liberal government seems to care more about censoring victims than keeping repeat offenders off the streets. What they do not understand is that government censorship does not fulfill the requirement of protecting people from harm in society. Instead, government censorship is the harm to society. It threatens our fundamental democratic values, which we should be championing. To quote the famous author, George Orwell, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

The Marxist communist Vladimir Lenin once said, “Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?”

More and more we are seeing these quotes and Marxist ideas implemented under the NDP-Liberal government. We must stand up for the idea that truth is not something that can be determined by the state. We must insist that Canadian citizens, not censoring politicians, should be the ones who decide what information they believe, what opinions and values they hold and with what content they engage. We must continue to reject the government's idea that censorship is the solution to every problem, though it may be the solution to their problems, and instead embrace the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of conscience are part of the solution of a more free and prosperous Canadian society.

Justice Potter Stewart said, “Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritative regime”. That is what we see with the tired, divisive, Liberal government of today. Canadians have indeed lost confidence in the weak Prime Minister and the corrupt Liberal Party. If we allow government to censor the rights of the people's elected representatives and the Internet; squash individuality, opinions and expression; and curtail our freedom of movement, then indeed the Marxists have won the ideological war.

In closing, Canada is not the greatest country in the world simply because I say it is. Canada is the greatest country in the world because we care and fight for our fundamental, democratic values. We have a history of that people from around the world in other countries would love to have, so these values must not be taken for granted. When we, in Oshawa, sing our national anthem, we take “The True North strong and free” to heart.

The current SDTC scandal, with the refusal of the NDP-Liberal government to release the requested unredacted documents to the people's representatives, threatens the very essence of our democracy, which generations of Canadians died to protect and must be respected and fought for. At our cenotaphs, service clubs and in the sacred House of Commons, the people's voices will be heard.

Canadians are listening today, and they have a core identity. We are proud Canadians. We are not the first post-national state. When people ask us which country we admire the most, we do not say that we admire the basic dictatorship of China. We say we admire Canada.

Hopefully, like most things that criticize the government, such as this speech, the Liberal-NDPs do not decide to censor it. Let us see what they have to say.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, there have been several bills before the House, including the one to tax the Internet. There have been many censorship bills, such as Bill C-11, which restricted what we can see and hear on the Internet.

With all of this, be it the carbon tax or anything that makes life more expensive, it is the goal of the government to make life less affordable. All that is meant, as the Prime Minister himself has said, to change this from a democratic society to one where technocrats and autocrats like him run the country.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like asking questions about this, but the trend of the NDP-Liberal government is toward greater obstruction and censorship. We are looking at the censorship bills Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-63, and we cannot forget the Winnipeg lab. Do members remember when we were requesting those documents and the Prime Minister went as far as to take the Speaker to court? He actually called an election to keep Canadians from having that knowledge. I am extremely worried about the precedent we would set if we do not challenge the government on this point.

Could my colleague please talk about the importance of precedent? Enough is enough for the Canadian people with the government. Let us call an election.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not going to like what I say about this, but we have been entirely consistent that the solution to bad speech is not necessarily to stop speech. That is what we have seen from the Liberals with Bill C-11, Bill C-63 and, to some extent, Bill C-18. The solution is both more speech and having the consequences in place to actually arrest people who break the law. There are plenty of laws that currently exist in our Criminal Code that have been broken time after time and that would create more civil rest in this country rather than the unrest, the rioting and the behaviour that we have been seeing in the streets. I do not think the solution is stopping Canadians from having their point of view; it is stopping the lawbreakers from breaking the law.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it will be a real joy to see all our Olympians, of whom we are so proud.

I will get back to the green slush fund scandal, which began with Navdeep Bains, who was then the minister of industry, science and economic development. He was involved in some questionable things. I want to read from one of the newspapers about the time when he stepped down:

...Bains was implicated in a questionable real estate transaction, when former Brampton mayor Linda Jeffrey's chief of staff [Mr.] Punia, shared confidential details about a land purchase with Bains and former Liberal MP Raj Grewal. When Brampton council learned about the behaviour it sent details of a third-party investigation into the matter to the RCMP, because the force was already looking into Grewal's activities involving chronic gambling in Ottawa while he served as an MP.

The City eventually paid about $1 million extra for the land it was trying to acquire, after a group of local businessmen with ties to the Liberals purchased it, then flipped it to the City, after Punia had passed on details of the original offer the City had planned to make for the property, which was owned by the Province.

There is no evidence Bains has any ties to the [business]....

Just because we could not find evidence does not mean that nothing happened. The article continues:

Grewal was charged in September by the RCMP with five counts of fraud and breach of trust for alleged misuse of his constituency office budget while he was an MP, after an extensive investigation.

This was the kind of people who started the fund and then went forward with it. It then got a bit worse, because in 2019, the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change came along. He was one of the people who approved the money for the fund in 2021. He was a member of cabinet, which approved the billion dollars going into the slush fund.

I have one other thing to say about Navdeep Bains. The article reads:

Bains was in the news again when questions were raised last year about his father's involvement with individuals implicated in a Fort Erie Gurdwara scandal. There is no evidence Bains has any ties with the plan and he denies any link.... The Sikh temple had sponsored three priests from India who were given special visas by Ottawa. It turned out the Gurdwara was not even operating and the three men disappeared after arriving in Canada.

We do not have any evidence of wrongdoing, but there is always suspicion. Here we are again with the same thing because the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was part of the cabinet that approved the billion dollars. One of the board members was a lady named Andrée-Lise Méthot. She was the founder and managing partner of Cycle Capital, a company that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is invested in.

Section 119 of the Criminal Code says that no holder of public office, for example someone like the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, can take an action, for example giving a billion dollars to a slush fund that would be of benefit for themselves, for example his investment in Cycle Capital, which tripled its value through the money given to it from the green slush fund.

I certainly think that when the RCMP finishes its investigation and is able to see the documents, it could be that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be back in his orange pajamas again. He, as we know, was a convicted felon. In 2001 he was charged and convicted. He served a year's probation plus 100 hours of community service and paid $1,000 of restitution.

This is the calibre of corruption in the Liberal government and cabinet. It is no wonder things go awry when these kinds of people are involved. The Liberals have been trying to suggest that they need to stand up for the charter rights of Canadians. I certainly wish they would, because they have not.

One is what their record says they are, and if we look at the record of the Liberal government on the matter, we see the chill the Liberals have put on freedom of speech in this country with Bill C-11, the censorship bill. With Bill C-18, the freedom of the press was compromised. Bill C-63, the online harms bill that I just talked about, once again would violate everyone's charter rights happily.

Then there is freedom of religion. I spoke about this before, but since then, things have escalated even further in our country. Have members heard about the persecution that Hindus are facing in Brampton? People were out with knives. There were violent attacks on temples. The government has done nothing about it. Liberals wring their pearls and say that it is unacceptable, but they have done nothing to ensure that the rule of law in this country is enforced.

What is the point of having rules to protect Canadians if they are not enforced, and why has the federal government, which has the highest authority to make sure that rights are protected, done nothing? A hundred or more Christian churches were burned in our country, and again, it is crickets from the Liberals on this. It goes on and on. What has happened to Jewish Canadians is heartbreaking. They have been constantly harassed, and their synagogues and their businesses are vandalized. They have been given death treats and nothing has been done. Certainly freedom of religion in this country is in serious jeopardy.

Furthermore, there is discrimination that happens. We are supposed to be free from discrimination in this country, but it happens even in the Liberal benches. The Liberals are discriminating based on age. They decided to give seniors who are older than 75 more money than the seniors who are between 65 and 75. Similarly, there are violations in the minority language rights; the government has been proven several times in court to not have done what it should have done to protect the minority language rights of Canadians.

Let me sidebar for a moment and say how proud I am to announce that Sarnia—Lambton has the official francophone designation of Ontario.

I am very happy. I worked hard with the francophones of Sarnia—Lambton and I am very proud of our work.

The other argument we will hear from the Liberal benches is that the RCMP does not want the documents. Is it really the case that the RCMP does not want to see evidence of potential crime? The whistle-blower was clear that there was criminality going on, and it is possible that it was with more than one minister. I talked about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, but actually there is also the current minister who was overseeing the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund.

There is an agreement that says the board members had to disclose any conflicts of interest to ISED, so the minister would have known about them and not acted. Perhaps that is what would be uncovered when the documents are released. Certainly there is an issue there.

I think that what happened in the slush fund is just another example, and we keep racking up dollars. I think about the number of scandals that have happened in the government since I came here in 2015. This one is $400 million. There was the $372 million the Liberals gave to Frank Baylis to make ventilators when he had never made ventilators before, and they never ended up using any of them. It goes on and on with the different scandals. There was the WE Charity scandal and the huge waste of money there.

Canadians are finding the current scandal particularly obscene, at a time when the number of people going to food banks is the highest it has ever been. There are also 1,400 tent encampments in Ontario alone, and they are spread across the country. At a time when people are struggling, cannot afford food and cannot afford to feed their family and heat their house, there is an incredible waste of money and people lining the pockets of insiders. It is just unacceptable.

When I look at some of the previous things that have happened, I ask myself what we need to do to put in place some accountability so that this sort of thing does not happen. What kind of protection can we provide to whistle-blowers? If it is going on in one department, what is going on in all the other funds?

It is said that the fish rots from the head. The Prime Minister has already been violating ethics laws in the billionaire island fiasco, and he is also under suspicion in the SNC-Lavalin scandal for pressuring a criminal prosecution, which the RCMP is investigating. In the WE Charity scandal, the Prime Minister took an action, by awarding money to the organization, that benefited himself and his family: his brother, his mother and his wife. As I said before, under subsection 119(1) of the Criminal Code, that is illegal. It is not just a mistake.

Therefore we really have to clean up the government, and it does not look to me like we can change the spots on the leopards. Over here on the Conservative benches, we believe in the rule of law. We believe in transparency. We believe in accountability and we believe in trying to be prudent with the use of taxpayer dollars for the benefit of all Canadians.

I think that Canadians are looking for a change. They cannot take the continual rise in taxes that they have seen under the current government, such as the carbon tax, which it is going to increase to 61¢ a litre at a time when people are already struggling. The Liberals want to quadruple it and quadruple the misery.

EI premiums, CPP premiums and all of these things are going in the wrong direction at a time when there is going to be increasing competitiveness from the U.S.; President-elect Trump has clearly put America as a priority, and we are not on competitive ground. We have taxes and a regulatory burden that are going to drive millions of dollars and millions of jobs to the U.S.

The Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund is the tip of the iceberg. We have to get to the bottom of it. As much as everybody would like to move on from this, until the documents are produced unredacted and we can give them to the RCMP so we can get to the bottom of what happened, the Conservatives are going to continue to do what is our job. We are His Majesty's loyal opposition, and our job is to hold the government to account, which means not just saying, “Oh, there's nothing to see here.” It means asking for the documents, doing the hard work to get to the bottom of it and going to committees.

I understand that once the documents are produced, the PROC committee is supposed to look at them. However, I have a little bit of skepticism about that, because with every other scandal that has gone to any committee, NDP members, partners of the Liberals, work together with them. They are still doing it, even though the leader of the NDP made a big deal of ripping up the agreement, effectively saying, “Oh, the Liberals are too weak and they can't be trusted. We're not going work with them anymore.”

The New Democrats are still supporting the Liberals today at committee. What they do is shut down the committee. They filibuster so they do not have to produce the documents, and that is exactly what would happen if this thing went to committee, which is why we have to hold on and wait until the Liberals deliver the documents.

Why will they not deliver the documents? The Auditor General has seen them, although she was not auditing criminality. The documents exist and need to be produced, but what are they hiding? Are people going to go to jail? That is what it is starting to look like. However, we will not know until we see the documents, so the Liberals need to produce them, the sooner the better.

Canadian Heritage

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today on behalf of the Conservative members on the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage. We submit this dissenting report on the tech giants' use of intimidation tactics to evade regulation in Canada and across the world. The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada, as well as the roles played by tech giants and the current federal government. This dissenting report is required.

I should say that the committee got to hear from 18 witnesses over the course of the study. Many of those testimonies expressed the censorship of Canadians by the government and tech giants in terms of what they can see, hear and say online, with specific nods to the hindrances being caused by both Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, we did some great work on Bill C‑10, the first version of Bill C‑11, which would later become the Broadcasting Act.

The reason is that the Conservatives do not want anything that could possibly improve CBC/Radio-Canada. They are constantly looking for the little irritant, the little blip, something they can blow out of proportion to ensure that people do not to see the positive aspects, do not think about the positive aspects and only focus on what appears scandalous or reprehensible.

At the end of the day, we cannot move forward unless everyone is willing to move forward.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House, but I am disappointed that we are on week three of speaking about parliamentary privilege.

Those who are watching at home want to know why we are here and how we got here. It all started with Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This is a fund that was designed to support initiatives for green technology, emissions reduction and things like that. The fund started in 2001, and under Liberal and Conservative governments, it went along just fine until this corrupt bunch of Liberals got involved.

Cabinet ministers decided to give a billion dollars to the fund. They picked their friends to be on the committee to decide who was going to get the money, and the friends gave the money to their own businesses. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest; 80% of the projects had conflicts of interest, and there was a whistle-blower within the Sustainable Development Technology Canada department who said that there was criminal activity involved.

As such, as parliamentarians, we wanted to look into the matter. The documents related to this fund were requested in June, but the government, the Liberals, did what they normally do: They delayed. Then, when they sent the documents, they blacked out all the useful parts. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle stood up on a question of privilege because it is our right, as parliamentarians, to get whatever documents we need to do our good work. The Speaker absolutely correctly ruled that, yes, this was a violation of our privilege, and he ordered the Liberals to deliver the unredacted documents so that we can turn them over to the RCMP.

We have been waiting for three weeks and debating this matter of privilege every day. No documents have been delivered. That is why we are here.

I am going to spend my time today talking and pushing back against the Liberals' very weak arguments about why they cannot bring the documents forward. I will start with one of the myths they are spreading. They say that they cannot produce the papers, because giving them to the RCMP would violate the charter rights of Canadians. This is not true at all. The police and the RCMP get tips all the time: They get tips from Crime Stoppers, as well as phone calls and documents alleging criminal activity.

The law says that the RCMP must do due diligence by looking at the evidence presented. If they find evidence of criminality, then they have to go to the court and order those documents through the court in order for them to be used at a trial. That is the law, so it is ridiculous to suggest that the government cannot produce the papers for that reason.

The other thing I would say is that it is very hypocritical of the Liberals to say that they are concerned about the charter rights of Canadians. They have violated nearly every charter right. They are what their record says they are, so let us look at their record.

First, let us start with freedom of expression. There is Bill C-11, the censorship bill, by which the government-appointed CRTC can take down an individual's content if it finds the content objectionable. Let us also talk about Bill C-63, which is the online harms bill. It would put someone in jail for life if the government thought that person might commit a hate crime in the future. That is utterly chill on freedom of expression.

Let us talk about freedom of religion. There are people crying “death to Jews” from coast to coast to coast. The government has done nothing to stem the flow of vandalism and harassment that is happening at synagogues and at Jewish businesses in our country. The Hindus are being persecuted by the Khalistanis; again, the government has done nothing. There are 112 Christian churches that have burned. The government has said nothing. Therefore, there is no protection for freedom of religion from the Liberal government.

If we want to go down the list of other freedoms, let us talk about mobility rights. Every Canadian has the right to freely enter and leave Canada. That is in the Charter of Rights. However, during the pandemic, Liberals trapped four million people in the country for over two years, even after it was medically proven that people who were vaccinated could get and transmit COVID in the same way as the unvaccinated. Therefore, 90% of vaccinated people were allowed to go wherever they wanted, to leave and enter Canada. However, 10% of people, who were not a higher risk, were trapped in the country. This separated them from their families and caused a lot of trauma.

Then we get to the Emergencies Act, which was ruled by the courts to be illegal. I am not sure why there were no consequences for that. If I were convicted of something, I could appeal, but I would have to appeal from prison; therefore, I am not sure why there has been no action on that. However, Liberals froze people's bank accounts. That is unlawful search and seizure, so they violated another charter right.

When it comes to freedom from discrimination, people are not supposed to discriminate against anybody based on race, religion, age, etc., but we have seen that the Liberals do. The Canada summer jobs program discriminated against people of faith who would not sign the attestation. Moreover, the Liberals discriminated based on age when they decided to give an increase in OAS to people over 75, but not those between 65 and 74.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government has failed on the fronts that my colleague mentioned in two ways: action and omission. On action, the government has censored Canadians through Bill C-11, which has had a massive effect on YouTube creators, censoring who gets seen and who does not. Bill C-18 has resulted in a news ban for online media platforms, so Canadians cannot get the news. It has also put many newsrooms out of work, so now the government cannot be held to account. Now the government is proposing Bill C-63, which will lead to a kangaroo court, wherein any Canadian could be dragged through with vexatious complaints based on their political opinions.

As well, through omission, by not putting limits on facial recognition software, the government can overreach and use Canadians' biometric data without any limitation. All of that leads to a police state, a censorship state, and something that every Canadian, regardless of political stripe, should be absolutely opposing with every fibre of their being.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me that the government House leader is worried about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the government has violated every single Charter right there is. It has violated the freedom of expression with Bill C-11 and Bill C-63. It has violated the mobility rights of millions of Canadians, as well as life and security of the person. I could go on and on.

Then the member says she is concerned with making sure there is separation from the RCMP. When has the RCMP been separated from the government? In the WE Charity scandal, the Prime Minister took an action that benefited him, his wife, his brother and his mother, which is against subsection 119(1) of the Criminal Code. What about SNC-Lavalin? When did the government start taking action? It was four years after the event.

How can the member look herself in the mirror and not see the problem on that side?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is the most centralizing government in Canadian history. Bill C-11 has given more power to the CRTC over what is considered to be Canadian. That also includes content from Quebeckers. The member has essentially voted to give more power to Ottawa, to the bureaucracy, over people's online expression.

The Prime Minister has doubled the Canadian debt. That means Quebeckers will have to put more money each and every year to service that debt, to Ottawa, instead of to their own interests.

The member talks about a bill that the Bloc Québécois has put forward in regard to seniors. The Prime Minister has changed the way the Senate works. The government can get a royal recommendation from the Minister of Finance, but can it get through the Senate? I do not think so. It is like the equivalent of Jack and the Beanstalk; Bloc members are asking for some magic beans, and that is what the Liberal government will offer them, but they will not grow anything except bigger Ottawa.

Online Harms Act

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry in our part of eastern Ontario. In this case it is to contribute to the debate going on today on Bill C-63, known to many Canadians, through the media or the debate on the bill, as the online harms bill.

I want to take the time I have today to lay out a case to Canadians that I think is getting clearer by the month and the year. After nine years of the NDP and the Liberals in office, crime is up significantly in this country. It is their record and it is their actions, or in some cases inactions, that have undone what was successful in keeping our streets safe.

When we looked at the metrics by Stats Canada before the Liberals came into office, we see that crime was decreasing across the country. After nine years of their legislation, their bills, their ideas and their policy proposals, here is what Stats Canada says is the record of the Prime Minister, the NDP and the Liberals working together: Violent crime has increased 50% in this country. Homicides are not down; they are up 28%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%, and gang murders have nearly doubled in this country over the course of the last nine years. A crime wave has been unleashed across this country.

I make the case. Sadly, now there is not one part of this country, a province or a region, that has not heard the stories in local media or by word of mouth in communities of crime going up: violent crime, robberies, theft and car theft. Auto theft is up 46%. The justice minister's own car in fact has been stolen three times. That is how bad crime has gotten under the Liberals' watch.

Extortion has exploded in this country under the Liberals' watch. It is up 357%. This side of the aisle, through our deputy leader from Edmonton, the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, proposed a private member's bill that would crack down and toughen up on Canadians who try to extort others. I would suggest that when there is a 357% increase, the status quo of whatever the Liberals are doing is not working. We proposed a common-sense private member's bill from this side of the aisle that was voted down, only to continue the status quo by the Liberals and NDP.

Recently, through our work in asking questions, we finally got some answers. The Liberal government was forced to admit that 256 people were killed in 2022 alone by criminals out on bail or another form of release. It is unacceptable and speaks to the many broken policies that the government has implemented in the last nine years. It is not by accident.

The province of Ontario paints a picture when it comes to the Liberals' public safety record. In Ontario, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations is up 51% to 164,723. Homicides in Ontario are up 50% to 262. Total violent firearms offences, for all the action the Liberals have claimed to have taken, and I will get to that in a bit, is up to 1,346. That is a 97% increase in violent firearms offences in Ontario alone. Extortion is up 383% in Ontario, at just under 4,000 cases.

Theft of a motor vehicle has gone up. When the Liberals came in, there were 16,600 vehicle thefts in Ontario. It has exploded 167%. Now, under their watch with their soft-on-crime approach, including Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and so forth, it is up to 44,459 thefts of a motor vehicle.

That is the Liberals' record. Bill C-75 was passed and implemented by the Liberals and the NDP, who implemented catch-and-release bail policies. Despite the legislation demanded by Conservatives and by every premier in this country, it did not go far enough, and Bill C-75 is still wreaking havoc on our law enforcement and on public safety in this country.

Bill C-5 passed, again by the Liberals and the NDP and supported by the Bloc in that case, I specifically remember as well. When it started to be implemented and Canadians saw the wacko examples of criminals of a violent, repeat nature being arrested and back out on the streets, the Bloc members tried to pretend they were not for it anymore, but they voted for Bill C-5. That bill removed mandatory minimum sentences for major crimes, ensuring again that violent criminals are out on the streets.

After all those numbers I took the time to lay out, that is the Liberals' record. They cannot go back and blame anybody else, but for the last nine years that the Liberals have been in office, it has been their government legislation that has allowed the crime wave to be unleashed across Canada, and here we have a justice minister who is touting how great the Liberals' latest solution is with Bill C-63.

Rightfully, Canadians have major distrust in the current government. Its record on public safety speaks for itself by the numbers and the examples that people are living and breathing. However, it was the current justice minister, on his first days on the job, who did a media interview and said he thought it was empirically unlikely Canada is becoming less safe. He said it is in people's minds; it is in their heads and is not really a problem. People are just envisioning that.

That just goes to show the mindset and perspective when it comes to public safety, to protecting our streets and getting the violent crime wave down in this country. That is the perspective: It is just all in our heads and there is nothing to think about.

I have mentioned Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The debate today is actually timely because it was just last week that we got an updated answer. Four years ago, the Prime Minister did a big stunt of a photo op and an announcement that he was going to ban assault rifles; he was going to clamp down and resolve all of this by way of the Liberals' legislation and their will. Well, the numbers are out. Four years later, after saying that, zero firearms from criminals are off our streets, and the only winner in this is the bureaucracy.

Sixty-seven million dollars of taxpayer money has been spent on a program that is not even running, not even active and has taken precisely zero firearms from criminals and gang members off our streets in this country. That is the Liberals' record. Worst of all is that we know what the Liberals are proposing to do and the reason there are all the delays. They are rightfully being called out that it will not affect the gang members and those involved in criminal enterprises who are committing the car thefts, violent crimes and firearms offences in big cities, suburbs and rural communities alike. They are not going to be participating in this terrible program, this costly, useless program, frankly.

The Liberals are targeting law-abiding firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous communities that follow the law and have never been a public safety issue. They are going to be the ones paying the price on this, and it is taxpayer money, $67 million alone, going out.

One of the things I have said to many folks in our part of eastern Ontario and in my travels across the country is that there are not too many prerequisites to becoming a member of Parliament and sitting in the chamber. Members are democratically elected, which is obviously the right way to go. However, I feel if there were a little asterisk of what every member of Parliament must do before debating or voting on public safety legislation such as this, it would be that the member should do a ride-along with the frontline law enforcement in this country.

We are very blessed in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry to have the OPP, the Cornwall community police, a force in Akwesasne and the RCMP. One of the most rewarding events or annual visits I make is to those detachments, getting in a vehicle with a frontline law enforcement member and seeing first-hand and on the front lines what they have to go through day in and day out.

Officers are extremely frustrated after nine years of a soft-on-crime approach, a broken justice system, a broken bail system and a Liberal government that continues to make life easier for those criminals of a repeat violent nature, which takes valuable police resources and time away from important things. Instead, they are repeatedly arresting and re-arresting many of the same folks despite being out on bail.

I raise that today because under the Liberals watch and the broken bail system, where repeat violent offenders are back out on the streets within about 24 hours, on average, police are being redirected and dealing with the same percentage. The Vancouver Police Department said that in one year there were 6,000 police interactions, many of them arrests of the same 40 or 50 people. This means that every other day there was an interaction, an arrest, a bail hearing and back out on the street. That is a waste of police resources.

How much longer will it take? How many more calls from the Conservatives, premiers and law enforcement agencies will it take to fix our broken bail system? Instead, today, when we talk about the broad terms of protecting folk online, protecting children, or cracking down on Internet child pornography as the bill states, the basis of this legislation is admitting failure on the part of the government.

Our court system and existing law enforcement resources are so overloaded with the increase in crime, the broken justice system and the broken bail system, that now the government is proposing a brand new federal bureaucracy, with hundreds and hundreds of federal bureaucrats, to administer what it says cannot be done through existing means.

If we were able to go back to common sense, the way it was before the Prime Minister and the government came into office, we could revert and allow law enforcement and, in many cases, our existing laws to be enforced and protect Canadians, protect children, families, victims of child pornography, victims of all ages, and clamp down on the rising hate crime numbers happening under the government's watch.

I correlate it again to the government's record. We had legislation a couple of years ago passed under its watch, Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which I basically called a censorship act, where the government would hire hundreds of new bureaucrats at the CRTC to watch and regulate the algorithms of Internet searches in Canada. At that time, the Liberals said not to worry, that it was not that big of a deal, that it would not cost that much. It is getting very expensive, and they are just getting started in the cost of the bureaucracy.

I am proud of our common-sense Conservative team on this side. Very early on, when the government came forward with Bill C-63, we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to look at what the cost of this proposal would be, an independent look to understand the true cost to administer the government's proposal. A little while ago the analysis came forward. Posted on the website, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that would cost a staggering $200 million to establish, the government's own data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 330 new bureaucrats and a brand new bureaucracy to administer this. When does this madness stop?

The Liberals keep adding new bureaucracies, new commissions and new layers, but they do not tackle the problem we have in our existing justice system and law enforcement community. Whether it be the RCMP, a provincial force or local municipal force, they are stretched thin because of the broken policies that the government has implemented. Now its proposal is to separate all that into a new bureaucracy. Worst of all, when asked, there is no time frame. A lot of the regulations and details of what it is proposing will be dealt with later, of course, behind closed doors. A lack of transparency and details, that is what the Liberals are providing to Canadians.

We know how Ottawa works. We know how the Liberals work with the NDP. They make a great, big announcement of how wonderful the legislation would be and that it would solve every problem possible. They never follow through, it is never done cost-effectively and it is delay after delay, and more and more frustration and backlog. We will see the exact same thing when it comes to the new bureaucracy proposed under Bill C-63. For context, if we took the $200 million and invested in frontline law enforcement, if we hired more police officers, we could hire over 200 more per year to work the front lines each and every year.

I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who has been on the file of protecting women, children and all Canadians and victims of child pornography, of exposing intimate images and, in many cases, new emerging technologies of deepfakes and AI. We need to realize that this legislation is inadequate for many reasons. She, our shadow minister for justice and the Attorney General of Canada, and many other colleagues with a law enforcement background in the legal community have spoken up against the bill.

As Conservatives, we have said that, as always, the Liberals get it wrong again. They claim that we should pass this, get it to committee and just be fine with it, because for four years they have consulted experts in the field. They have tabled legislation before that they had to pull because they got it wrong. There are still many voices in the country speaking up against the bill in its current form and what it would do on the infringement of free speech. The Liberals are making decisions through regulation, through back-channel means and behind closed doors, putting the power in the hands of way too many people who do not deserve it, for example, Meta, Facebook, other tech companies that have these massive lobbying efforts they can use to pressure this new bureaucracy.

Instead, our common-sense Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-412, would enforce the existing laws in the country when it comes to hate crimes. The laws are there, but the government lacks the political will use those tools. If we are going to modernize legislation, which it does need at times, we could go after AI and deepfakes, which is not even addressed in Bill C-63.

The Liberals, like they have with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and now with Bill C-63, talk a big game. We can look at other legislation such as their firearms confiscation program of law-abiding hunters and anglers who own firearms and so many other pieces of legislation. We can look at the Liberals' own numbers. The longer they are in office, the more they spend and the worse it gets from a financial situation, but, most important, from a public safety perspective.

Bill C-63 does not need to be as omnibus as it is. For the number of years the Liberals claim they consulted experts, they have gotten it wrong again. It is time to bring forward not this bill, but the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-412.

Let us get to the root causes, protect children, women and all Canadians from the abuse and hate and violence seen online through child pornography and other means. Let us trust our law enforcement on the front lines, with the tools and resources, to get that job done. They do not need a new bureaucracy or to be thrown aside. Law enforcement needs to be empowered with good legislation and support from this federal government, not the record we have seen after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we must protect Canadians in the digital age, but Bill C-63 is not the way to do it. It would force Canadians to make unnecessary trade-offs between the guarantee of their security and their charter rights. Today I will explain why Bill C-63 is deeply flawed and why it would not protect Canadians' rights sufficiently. More importantly, I will present a comprehensive alternative plan that is more respectful of Canadians' charter rights and would provide immediate protections for Canadians facing online harms.

The core problem with Bill C-63 is how the government has changed and chosen to frame the myriad harms that occur in the digital space as homogenous and as capable of being solved with one approach or piece of legislation. In reality, harms that occur online are an incredibly heterogenous set of problems requiring a multitude of tailored solutions. It may sound like the former might be more difficult to achieve than the latter, but this is not the case. It is relatively easy to inventory the multitudes of problems that occur online and cause Canadians harm. From there, it should be easy to sort out how existing laws and regulatory processes that exist for the physical world could be extended to the digital world.

There are few, if any, examples of harms that are being caused in digital spaces that do not already have existing relatable laws or regulatory structures that could be extended or modified to cover them. Conversely, what the government has done for nearly a decade is try to create new, catch-all regulatory, bureaucratic and extrajudicial processes that would adapt to the needs of actors in the digital space instead of requiring them to adapt to our existing laws. All of these attempts have failed to become law, which is likely going to be the fate of Bill C-63.

This is a backward way of looking at things. It has caused nearly a decade of inaction on much-needed modernization of existing systems and has translated into law enforcement's not having the tools it needs to prevent crime, which in turn causes harm to Canadians. It has also led to a balkanization of laws and regulations across Canadian jurisdictions, a loss of investment due to the uncertainty, and a lack of coordination with the international community. Again, ultimately, it all harms Canadians.

Bill C-63 takes the same approach by listing only a few of the harms that happen in online spaces and creates a new, onerous and opaque extrajudicial bureaucracy, while creating deep problems for Canadian charter rights. For example, Bill C-63 would create a new “offence motivated by a hatred” provision that could see a life sentence applied to minor infractions under any act of Parliament, a parasitic provision that would be unchecked in the scope of the legislation. This means that words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

While the government has attempted to argue that this is not the case, saying that a serious underlying act would have to occur for the provision to apply, that is simply not how the bill is written. I ask colleagues to look at it. The bill seeks to amend section 320 of the Criminal Code, and reads, “Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”

At the justice committee earlier this year, the minister stated:

...the new hate crime offence captures any existing offence if it was hate-motivated. That can run the gamut from a hate-motivated theft all the way to a hate-motivated attempted murder. The sentencing range entrenched in Bill C-63 was designed to mirror the existing...options for all of these potential underlying offences, from the most minor to the most serious offences on the books....

The minister continued, saying, “this does not mean that minor offences will suddenly receive...harsh sentences. However, sentencing judges are required to follow legal principles, and “hate-motivated murder will result in a life sentence. A minor infraction will...not result in it.”

In this statement, the minister admitted both that the new provision could be applied to any act of Parliament, as the bill states, and that the government would be relying upon the judiciary to ensure that maximum penalties were not levelled against a minor infraction. Parliament cannot afford the government to be this lazy, and by that I mean not spelling out exactly what it intends a life sentence to apply to in law, as opposed to handing a highly imperfect judiciary an overbroad law that could have extreme, negative consequences.

Similarly, a massive amount of concern from across the political spectrum has been raised regarding Bill C-63's introduction of a so-called hate crime peace bond, calling it a pre-crime provision for speech. This is highly problematic because it would explicitly extend the power to issue peace bonds to crimes of speech, which the bill does not adequately define, nor does it provide any assurance that it would meet a criminal standard for hate.

Equally as concerning is that Bill C-63 would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. This process would be extrajudicial, not subject to the same evidentiary standards of a criminal court, and could take years to resolve. Findings would be based on a mere balance of probabilities rather than on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The subjectivity of defining hate speech would undoubtedly lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints would chill large amounts of protected speech, and the system would undoubtedly be deluged with a landslide of vexatious complaints. There certainly are no provisions in the bill to prevent any of this from happening.

Nearly a decade ago, even the Toronto Star, hardly a bastion of Conservative thought, wrote a scathing opinion piece opposing these types of provisions. The same principle should apply today. When the highly problematic components of the bill are overlaid upon the fact that we are presently living under a government that unlawfully invoked the Emergencies Act and that routinely gaslights Canadians who legitimately question efficacy or the morality of its policies as spreading misinformation, as the Minister of Justice did in his response to my question, saying that I had mis-characterized the bill, it is not a far leap to surmise that the new provision has great potential for abuse. That could be true for any political stripe that is in government.

The government's charter compliance statement, which is long and vague and has only recently been issued, should raise concerns for parliamentarians in this regard, as it relies on this statement: “The effects of the Bill on freedom expression are outweighed by the benefits of protecting members of vulnerable groups”. The government has already been found to have violated the Charter in the case of Bill C-69 for false presumptions on which one benefit outweighs others. I suspect this would be the same case for Bill C-63 should it become law, which I hope it does not.

I believe in the capacity of Canadians to express themselves within the bounds of protected speech and to maintain the rule of law within our vibrant pluralism. Regardless of political stripe, we must value freedom of speech and due process, because they are what prevents violent conflict. Speech already has clearly defined limitations under Canadian law. The provisions in Bill C-63 that I have just described are anathema to these principles. To be clear, Canadians should not be expected to have their right to protected speech chilled or limited in order to be safe online, which is what Bill C-63 would ask of them.

Bill C-63 would also create a new three-headed, yet-to-exist bureaucracy. It would leave much of the actual rules the bill describes to be created and enforced under undefined regulations by said bureaucracy at some much later date in the future. We cannot wait to take action in many circumstances. As one expert described it to me, it is like vaguely creating an outline and expecting bureaucrats, not elected legislators, to colour in the picture behind closed doors without any accountability to the Canadian public.

The government should have learned from the costs associated with failing when it attempted the same approach with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, but alas, here we are. The new bureaucratic process would be slow, onerous and uncertain. If the government proceeds with it, it means Canadians would be left without protection, and innovators and investors would be left without the regulatory certainty needed to grow their businesses.

It would also be costly. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct an analysis of the costs associated with the creation of the bureaucracy, and he has agreed to undertake the task. No parliamentarian should even consider supporting the bill without understanding the resources the government intends to allocate to the creation of the new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsman and digital safety office, particularly since the findings in this week's damning NSICOP report starkly outlined the opportunity cost of the government failing to allocate much needed resources to the RCMP.

Said differently, if the government cannot fund and maintain the critical operations of the RCMP, which already has the mandate to enforce laws related to public safety, then Parliament should have grave, serious doubts about the efficacy of its setting up three new bureaucracies to address issues that could likely be managed by existing regulatory bodies like the CRTC or in the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Also, Canadians should have major qualms about creating new bureaucracies which would give power to well-funded and extremely powerful big tech companies to lobby and manipulate regulations to their benefit behind the scenes and outside the purview of Parliament.

This approach would not necessarily protect Canadians and may create artificial barriers to entry for new innovative industry players. The far better approach would be to adapt and extend long-existing laws and regulatory systems, properly resource their enforcement arms, and require big tech companies and other actors in the digital space to comply with these laws, not the other way around. This approach would provide Canadians with real protections, not what amounts to a new, ineffectual complaints department with a high negative opportunity cost to Canadians.

In no scenario should Parliament allow the government to entrench in legislation a power for social media companies to be arbiters of speech, which Bill C-63 risks doing. If the government wishes to further impose restrictions on Canadians' rights to speech, that should be a debate for Parliament to consider, not for regulators and tech giants to decide behind closed doors and with limited accountability to the public.

In short, this bill is completely flawed and should be abandoned, particularly given the minister's announcement this morning that he is unwilling to proceed with any sort of change to it in scope.

However, there is a better way. There is an alternative, which would be a more effective and more quickly implementable plan to protect Canadians' safety in the digital age. It would modernize existing laws and processes to align with digital advancements. It would protect speech not already limited in the Criminal Code, and would foster an environment for innovation and investment in digital technologies. It would propose adequately resourcing agencies with existing responsibilities for enforcing the law, not creating extrajudicial bureaucracies that would amount to a complaints department.

To begin, the RCMP and many law enforcement agencies across the country are under-resourced after certain flavours of politicians have given much more than a wink and a nod to the “defund the police” movement for over a decade. This trend must immediately be reversed. Well-resourced and well-respected law enforcement is critical to a free and just society.

Second, the government must also reform its watered-down bail policies, which allow repeat offenders to commit crimes over and over again. Criminals in the digital space will never face justice, no matter what laws are passed, if the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies are not reversed. I think of a woman in my city of Calgary who was murdered in broad daylight in front of an elementary school because her spouse was subject to the catch-and-release Liberal bail policy, in spite of his online harassment of her for a very long time.

Third, the government must actually enforce—

Opposition Motion—Federal Intrusions in the Exclusive Jurisdictions of Quebec and the Provinces

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with that idea. I heard those arguments when we were debating Bill C‑11, but I truly believe that there are advantages to having the provinces, the Quebec nation, first nations and every other group of Canadians work together to act as a counterbalance to this power south of the border that I am just as wary of as the member. It takes a counterbalance. If we are divided in 10, each with their own communications regulator, I think that will weaken us in the long term. Honestly, I very sincerely believe that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank him for putting something into each sentence of his speech that would provoke questions or reactions from me and other members from the Bloc Québécois. I would need 15 minutes to ask all my questions and challenge my colleague on some of his claims, but I will try to be more constructive.

First, I would tell him that 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March want the federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions to be respected. Whether it is about health care or anything else, 82% say that everybody should mind their own business. That is clear.

I particularly liked the example my colleague gave about the success of centralization when he mentioned the CRTC. This example is of particular interest to me because, first of all, I worked closely with the government to improve the Broadcasting Act with Bill C-11, and because I am a strong supporter of culture, language and all that.

However, I was taken aback to hear the CRTC characterized as a centralization success story. Without the intervention of the Bloc Québécois, almost no protections for francophone culture and Quebec broadcasters would have been included in Bill C‑11, which the CRTC is currently looking at.

I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of the idea that the Bloc Québécois has been promoting for years: to create what would essentially be a Quebec version of the CRTC to manage more to benefit—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in the midst of an identity crisis.

The Bloc Québécois is trying to go in two totally different directions. First, the Bloc Québécois claims to be a separatist party whose goal is to finally get rid of the federal government's control over the Quebec nation and the lives of Quebeckers. Then, according to its leader, the Bloc Québécois is a “progressive, socially democratic” party. It shares the same ideology as the current Liberal Prime Minister. The Bloc wants a big government that directs the economy with huge taxes, deficits, regulations, programs and industry subsidies. It wants a government that extends its tentacles everywhere.

Although I do not share these two objectives, namely socialism and sovereignty, a party in Quebec's National Assembly can coherently propose both at the same time. It can propose the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada and the creation of a massive welfare state in Quebec. I think it is a bad idea, but at least we know that it could be part of a coherent approach. The problem is that the Bloc Québécois is not a provincial party in the Quebec National Assembly. It is a federal party in Ottawa, and its socially democratic demands are helping to expand the size of the federal government.

In this zero-sum game, when the federal government has more money and power, this leaves less money and power for Quebec and Quebeckers. Every taxpayer dollar spent in Ottawa leaves a dollar less for the Government of Quebec or Quebec taxpayers. Do not take it from me; this comes from Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon, or PSPP. He calculated that Quebeckers pay $82 billion to Ottawa in taxes. Most of the taxes that Quebeckers pay the federal government goes back to Quebeckers in the form of child benefits, payments for seniors or transfers for health care and social services that are received by the Government of Quebec. PSPP seems to be saying that there is even more money that does not go back to Quebec. Where did that money go? It went to budgetary appropriations.

Budgetary appropriations refer to money that is voted on in Parliament and spent to fund the bureaucracy, consultants, agencies, contributions to corporations, and interest groups. It is basically the big federal monster in Ottawa that sovereignists want to separate from.

One would think that a separatist party would have voted against all the budget allocations that feed this federal monster, but that is not what happened. In fact, since arriving in the House of Commons in 2019, the leader of the Bloc Québécois has voted in favour of all of this Liberal Prime Minister's budget allocations. On 205 occasions, the Bloc leader has voted to authorize a total of $500 billion in additional government spending. That is almost equal to Quebec's GDP. We are talking about $500 billion, half a trillion dollars. That money did not go toward old age security or health, since such expenditures are already set out in legislation and we do not need to vote to authorize them. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the federal machine in Ottawa, in favour of hiring an additional 100,000 public servants and pumping 50% more money into the federal bureaucracy. The Bloc voted to double spending on private consultants. It voted for $21 billion in spending, or $1,400 per Quebec family, for federal consultants.

This includes financing ArriveCAN, which cost $25 million, when the Liberal government promised it would cost only $80,000.

Again, I find it fascinating that a Quebec party that calls itself separatist never supports measures seeking to reduce the federal tax burden shouldered by Quebeckers. It never supports income tax cuts. One would think a separatist party would always oppose Quebeckers being forced to send their money to Ottawa, but this is not true for Bloc Québécois members. They want, in their own words, to radically increase taxes. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C-11, which gives the CRTC, a federal agency, full control over what Quebeckers can see and post on social media.

Even its support of Radio-Canada is paradoxical. The Bloc Québécois wants to separate from Canada, which would expel Radio-Canada from Quebec, but at the same time, it says that Radio-Canada is essential to the culture and media of Quebec. Apparently, it believes that Canada and the federal government are essential to Quebec life. This is not very separatist of them either.

The real question is, how would a sovereign Quebec under the leader of the Bloc Québécois be different from the Canada led by the current Prime Minister? The Bloc Québécois supports high taxes, massive federal debt and a bloated bureaucracy that meddles in everything but is good at nothing.

We should also remember that the Bloc Québécois supports a justice system that frees repeat offenders and bans hunting rifles. In fact, an independent Quebec with the leader of the Bloc Québécois as premier would be almost identical to the federal state led by the current Prime Minister.

Luckily for the Bloc Québécois, its fantasies of a welfare state have already become very real in Canada under the current Prime Minister, with all the government programs, bureaucracy, taxes, deficits and regulations. Everyone depends on the government. This is a dream for left-wing ideologues like the leaders of the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, but it is a nightmare for the working class, with housing, food and everything else being unaffordable. There is more homelessness, poverty and desperation.

The Bloc Québécois does not offer Quebeckers either sovereignty or independence. Instead, it offers a more costly, centralist and indebted federal government, exactly like the Liberals. The Liberal Bloc is not a pro-independence party but a pro-dependence party. It defends what it depends on. The Bloc Québécois depends on the federal government for its pensions and paycheques and for all its ideological dreams, which are in reality centralist.

However, with our common-sense plan, we will axe the tax, build the homes, not the bureaucracy, and fix the budget by capping spending and cutting waste. In short, with a small federal government, we will let Quebeckers make their own decisions. They could decide to keep more money in their pockets or to give more money to their government in Quebec City. It will be up to them. This is a message for Quebeckers: With the Liberal Bloc, the federal government is master of your house, but with the common-sense Conservatives, Quebeckers will be master of their own house.

Thank you very much.

Government Responses to Order Paper Questions

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I support this question of privilege in light of the violation of government's obligation to answer an Order Paper question, but I also add to it, considering how the government has taken steps to take control of the Internet in Canada.

It has done this through legislation like Bill C-11, which centralizes regulatory control of what Canadians can see, hear and post online based on what the government deems “Canadian”.

In addition, I highlight Bill C-18, which has resulted in the government being one of the biggest gatekeepers of news in Canada. This is a major conflict of interest and a direct attack on journalistic integrity in this country.

Now, most recently, through Bill C-63, the government proposes to establish an entire commission, yet another arm of the government, that would regulate online harm.

How can Canadians trust the government to police various aspects of the Internet if it cannot even be honest and tell the truth about the content requested to be taken down? Trust is pinnacle and frankly the government has not earned any of it. The truth must prevail.

Mr. Speaker, you have the opportunity to look into this and to get to the bottom of it, or you can keep us in the dark and allow secrecy and injustice to reign. I understand that you are the one to make this decision, and we are putting our trust in you to make sure that this place is upheld and democracy is kept strong.

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for being so concise.

On this February 15, before I begin my speech, I would like to salute a few illustrious people, namely François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier, Charles Hindelang, Pierre-Rémi Narbonne, Amable Daunais and François-Stanislas Nicolas. We think of these persons today, as we have done every year on February 15 since 1839.

The bill we are discussing today is a very simple bill. What we are really asking is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act be amended to ensure that Quebec is systematically consulted when the CRTC puts in place any regulations that would have an impact on Quebec culture.

It is a short bill involving one very simple amendment. Earlier I listened to my Conservative colleague recount the events that followed the passage of Bill C-11. When Bill C-11 was almost ready to be passed, the Conservative Party released a letter that was sent to the government, the Liberal Party, to the heritage minister at the time. That letter set out Quebec's specific demands with respect to Bill C-11, which reformed the Broadcasting Act.

I would like to provide a bit of context. With a little good faith, I think that my Conservative colleague will lend credence to what I am going to tell the House. The Conservatives unduly delayed and blocked the bill in committee for a very long time. Quebec had demands and it was not consulted during the study of the bill, at least not formally.

By the time Quebec's demands finally arrived, the bill was about to be passed. Does that mean that the demands therein were illegitimate? No, not at all. Realistically, however, it was too late to reopen the file in committee and go back to the drawing board, so to speak.

If my Conservative colleague had the slightest understanding of how the Government of Quebec operates in this kind of situation, he would not have talked about having Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, appear before the committee. If he had the slightest understanding of how the relationship between Quebec and Ottawa works, he would know that Quebec government ministers do not testify in committee. They have a nation-to-nation relationship with Ottawa. They speak minister to minister. Ministers from Quebec do not appear before committees. He should know this, but he does not. It was much more dramatic to take the letter and say that the Bloc and the Liberals do not listen to Quebec. He said the Bloc did not listen to Quebec, did not listen to cultural groups and did not listen to groups in Quebec's broadcasting sector during the study of bills on broadcasting, online news and anything to do with Quebec culture. What a joke. It is funny, actually, so that is how we will take it.

That being said, we have here Bill C-354, which was introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. This bill addresses one of the most important demands set out in that letter from Minister Lacombe and the Government of Quebec. This is a natural demand and Minister Lacombe was not the first to make it. Quebec's need, its desire, its demand to have its say in the decisions that are made in Ottawa and that have an impact on francophone culture and the French language dates back to 1929 and has been kept alive by successive Quebec governments.

The premier at the time, Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, saw this weird new technology called radio and thought that it needed to be regulated immediately. That is when a regulatory body was created to provide oversight.

To no one's surprise, instead of agreeing with what Quebec was doing and choosing to play a part in this regulatory body, Ottawa decided to do something else. It created the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, or CRBC, the current CRTC's ancestor. Both organizations were developed in parallel, as is so often the case, with a tiny intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions. It seems that this was even more commonplace back then and that people did not complain as much. There was no Bloc Québécois to fight for Quebec in Ottawa.

Long story short, wanting to have a say in French-language communications and culture in Quebec is not just a Quebec separatist or nationalist thing. Liberal governments also asked for it, and so did Union Nationale governments. Even former minister Lawrence Cannon, who was a Liberal minister in Quebec before becoming a Conservative minister in Ottawa, asked for it.

This is not a demand being made by spoiled sovereignist brats who want to repatriate all powers to Quebec. This is a reasonable request to ensure that Quebec is consulted on decisions made by the next-door nation that affect the Quebec nation's culture.

We will be voting on Bill C‑354 in a few days. We are not asking for the moon. At the moment, we are not even asking for the right to immediately create a Quebec CRTC, which is also among Quebec's requests and the Bloc Québécois's plans, and quite reasonably so. For now, this is not what we are asking. For now, we are simply responding to a straightforward request from Quebec.

As my Conservative colleague said earlier, the Conservatives tried to promote this request themselves, but it was already too late in the Bill C‑11 process. I presume that the entire House of Commons will support this very reasonable request when we vote on this amendment to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act.

Bill C‑354 was introduced in response to a request from Quebec, the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec, and I think everyone in the House should agree that Quebec and the provinces that are concerned about preserving French in some of their communities should be consulted when regulations are put in place that will have an impact on the French language and culture in those places.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C‑354, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois's bill seems pretty straightforward. It states:

The Commission shall consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about the French-speaking markets in those provinces before furthering the objects and exercising the powers referred to in subsection (1) in respect of the aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that concern those matters.

This seems like a fairly simple request for consultation, and it would require the CRTC to consult Quebec and the provinces.

Of course, I support the principle that the Government of Quebec should have the opportunity to express itself, especially when it comes to Quebec's cultural distinctiveness. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec are not shy about making their position known, especially when it comes to protecting the French language and Quebec culture.

As Conservatives, we on this side of the House recognize that French is the only official language that is in decline in Canada. As such, we have an essential role to play in protecting it.

To continue the debate, I would like to come back to Bill C-11, which amended the Broadcasting Act. The Government of Quebec had called for specific amendments to this bill so that Quebec's concerns would be heard.

In February 2023, Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, wrote to the then minister of Canadian heritage. I will read some excerpts from that letter to provide some context for the Bloc Québécois bill. At the time, the Bloc refused, for months, to convey this request from Quebec's elected officials to the House of Commons.

I will now quote Minister Mathieu Lacombe:

It is essential, both in Bill C‑11 and in its implementation by the CRTC, that Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and the unique reality of the French-language market be adequately considered. I would like to reiterate our demand that a formal, mandatory mechanism for consultation with the Government of Quebec be set out in the act to that effect....[Quebec] must always have its say before any instructions are given to the CRTC to direct its actions under this act when its actions are likely to affect companies providing services in Quebec or likely to have an impact on the Quebec market....

This letter that came from the Government of Quebec was sent to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, it seems that no one in the Liberal government saw fit to respond to this request. There was complete radio silence after that letter.

However, on this side of the House, the Conservatives heard this plea. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles rose in the House several times to urge the government to receive the Quebec minister in committee in order to hear what Quebec was asking for and determine how Bill C‑11 could contribute to ensuring that the act takes Quebec's cultural distinctiveness into account. That is something tangible. We had a tangible request from Quebec to be heard on a bill that would have considerable repercussions on Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and on Quebec's language. We felt it was important to grant this request and allow the Quebec minister to come testify in committee.

Allow me to quote an article from La Presse from February 14, 2023. That was a year ago almost to the day. The headline of the article read, “Broadcasting Act reform: Conservative Party supports Quebec's request for a say”. That about sums it up.

I think La Presse hit the nail pretty much on the head. I will read some of the article:

The Conservative Party is urging the [Prime Minister's] government to refer Bill C‑11, which seeks to modernize the Broadcasting Act, to a parliamentary committee in order to examine Quebec's request for the bill to include a mandatory mechanism requiring the province to be consulted to ensure that the CRTC protects Quebec's cultural distinctiveness.

That article was written by Joël‑Denis Bellavance, someone who reliably reports the facts.

A little further on in the article, it talks about what happened here in the House of Commons when we discussed this issue. It states, and I quote:

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Conservative member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles] and his colleague [from Louis-Saint-Laurent] both questioned [the heritage minister] on this subject and urged him to consider Quebec's “legitimate request”.

The article goes on to quote the question that was asked that day:

“[The] Quebec government is urging the Liberal government to include a mechanism for mandatory consultation in Bill C-11 to ensure the protection of Quebec culture....Do the Prime Minister and the Bloc agree with Minister Lacombe when it comes to Quebec culture and the fact that the government needs to send the bill to committee?” asked the member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles].

That is a very legitimate question that was asked in response to the letter published the day before by journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance.

The answer given by the then minister of heritage was rather cold. It was more of a diversionary tactic. The minister completely avoided my colleague's question. Instead, he chose to go on the attack and to completely avoid answering the simple question about the fact that the Quebec minister of culture and communications was asking to appear before the parliamentary committee.

During the same question period, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent raised the issue again. I would like to quote from the article and the question at the same time:

“[H]ow can a member from Quebec, a minister from Quebec, refuse to listen to the demands of the Government of Quebec? I understand that the purpose of Bill C-11 is to centralize power in Ottawa, with help from the Bloc Québécois, which I might have to start calling the ‘centralist bloc’”, fumed [my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent].

Members will understand the reason for his anger, not only toward the governing party, the Liberal Party, but also toward the Bloc Québécois. The Liberal minister came out with a sledgehammer argument. Instead of answering the question and granting the Quebec minister of culture and communications' legitimate request to appear in committee, the then minister of heritage accused the Conservative Party of trying to stall the bill's passage again. It was as though asking to hear from the minister of a duly elected government was not a good enough reason to slightly delay a bill's passage in order to find out what Quebec had to say. That is unacceptable.

In his letter, Minister Lacombe argued that, as the “heartland of the French language and francophone culture in America”, Quebec considered it “vital to have a say in these instructions”. It seems to me that the committee should have listened to what Minister Lacombe had to say.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent moved a motion in committee. Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party voted against that motion, which was intended to allow a discussion of the amendments proposed by the Senate and Quebec's request. Again unsurprisingly, the NDP sided with the Liberals. How did the Bloc Québécois member vote in committee? Did he seize the opportunity to be the voice of reason, speaking on behalf of Quebec and Quebeckers? After a formal letter from the Government of Quebec and a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, which side did the Bloc Québécois take?

The answer will shock everyone, even our viewers: The Bloc Québécois voted against the common-sense motion moved by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, which would have allowed the voice of a Quebec minister to be heard in committee. At the time, not only did we agree in principle, but we took concrete action to ensure that the Government of Quebec would be heard.

Now let us see how negotiations unfold in committee, so we can find out whether everyone really meant what they said.

News Media Industry

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the media crisis has once again swept away a part of our news media and a part of our democracy.

Bell is laying off 4,800 employees. This comes on the heels of more than 500 job cuts at Quebecor and 600 at CBC/Radio-Canada. The entire industry has been imploding for years with no meaningful response by the federal government.

Bill C‑11 is having no apparent impact because the CRTC is making zero progress on the regulatory framework. Bill C‑18 is all well and good, and we will happily accept Google's millions, but the job cuts continue.

When is the government going to take action?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House of Commons to talk about the $23 billion in inflationary deficits added by this bill alone. Here is yet another example of a Prime Minister who, after eight years, is not worth the cost.

When I say that he is not worth the cost, I am talking about his false advertising. Normally, in the private sector, false advertising is a criminal offence. If, for example, a business advertises a product at a certain price and does not deliver the promised product, that business may have to face criminal charges in court. Governments do it all the time. They ask for money to deliver a product to Canadians. We see the Prime Minister do that all the time.

For example, in very general terms, take his program to help the middle class. Eight years down the road, nine out of 10 middle-class young people are unable to afford a house and believe that will never change. Eight years on, the number of employed Ontarians using food banks has increased by 86%. These are middle-class people. They are suffering. They never needed to use food banks before, but eight years after the government floated the idea of helping the middle class, they need it now.

We have a Prime Minister who promised to help the media by giving them big subsidies to buy their love. How did that turn out? Media articles are now being erased from social networks.

There is also talk about a program to help kids get lunch at school. However, if we read the bill to find out what the program is about, no food is included. The money is for two federal ministers to hold consultations with provincial ministers and interest groups and write a report about a plan to create a policy to someday feed children. Here is just another example of a government that says it is going to feed kids, but then turns around and feeds bureaucracies instead.

Now let us move on to housing. While criticizing Jean Chrétien for eliminating housing bureaucracy at the federal level, the Prime Minister announced that the feds would once again fund housing by setting up major, $87‑billion programs for affordable housing. Eight years later, what has happened? Housing prices have doubled. The cost of a mortgage on an average home has more than doubled, with payments increasing from $1,400 to nearly $3,500 a month. The cost of a one-bedroom apartment has risen from an average of $900 to almost $2,000, and the down payment for the average home in this country has increased from $20,000 to more than $50,000.

The program proposes spending billions and billions of dollars on affordable homes and apartments. The result is that costs have doubled. That is exactly the opposite of what the ads said. Unfortunately, these ads sometimes appear in documents voted on in the House of Commons. For example, there are affordable housing programs that increase the price of homes, and millions or billions of dollars are provided to fund them.

In the private sector, charging money for a product and then failing to deliver that product would land a CEO in jail. The Prime Minister does that all the time, but he keeps his privileges while the population suffers.

That is why I created a monumental documentary on the housing hell that this Prime Minister has caused. The bought-and-paid-for media had a meltdown. They had a meltdown across the country, but they had a problem. They could not find a single error in any of the facts that were presented. I presented around 55 facts. The documentary introduces a new fact roughly every 20 seconds. There is not a single journalist who could find one factual error.

Let me review some of these facts. I found many of these facts in articles published by the media that attacked me for my documentary. They published those same facts. That is the problem. They published facts about the housing crisis, but failed to mention the Prime Minister who caused this housing crisis, who is in power and who has seen prices double.

Here are the facts.

First, nine out of 10 Canadians believe that they will never own a home. The journalist who wrote that is Shazia Nazir from Milton, Ontario. That is a fact. There is no denying it. Which Prime Minister created this phenomenon, which had never been seen before in our history? It is this Liberal Prime Minister.

Second, I demonstrated that it takes 66% of an average paycheque to make the monthly payments on the average single-family home. A Radio‑Canada journalist said that figure was made up, but it comes from the Royal Bank of Canada. It is published on the RBC website. Radio‑Canada could have found it, if its journalists had wanted to share the truth. It takes 66% of an average paycheque to make the average payments for an average home in Canada. The remaining 34% is needed to pay taxes, leaving nothing after that. People will not be able to buy groceries, do anything fun or go on vacation. They will have barely enough money to pay their mortgage. This is compared to 39% when I was the minister responsible for housing. Eight years ago, it took 39% of an average family's paycheque to buy an average home and pay the monthly expenses. That means the percentage of a family's monthly income needed to afford an average home has increased by half. That is after eight years under this Prime Minister, and it is a record. It has never been the case before now.

A 57-year-old grandmother had to live in her van because of the housing crisis caused by this Prime Minister. Refugees have to live in the streets because the shelters are full. After eight years of this Prime Minister, there is no more room. Eight years ago, the average price of a house in Canada was $454,000. Now, it is about $700,000. With the higher interest rates, monthly payments are even worse.

The Liberals and their bought-and-paid-for media are trying to blame a global phenomenon, but that is not going to fly. Other countries are not experiencing the same crisis as we are here, in Canada.

All the international data show that prices in Canada have gone up much faster than in nearly every other country. Housing costs in Canada have outpaced wage growth faster than in all but one OECD country. On affordability, Canada ranks next to last out of almost 40 industrialized countries for the period from 2015 to 2023. Interestingly, the Prime Minister has been in power that entire time.

According to UBS Bank, Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world. This is not a phenomenon observed in all of the world's biggest cities; it is just in Toronto. Moreover, Vancouver ranks sixth. According to UBS, these two markets were reasonably priced 10 years ago. That is another fact that the Prime Minister's bought-and-paid-for media tried to contradict, but they failed.

Houses near the border on the Canadian side can be three times more expensive than those on the U.S. side. How does that make sense if it is an international phenomenon? In general, prices in the United States are 25% to 40% lower than in Canada, even though the U.S. population is eight times the Canadian population and their land mass is smaller. After eight years of this Prime Minister, people can buy a Swedish castle for less than it costs to buy a two-bedroom house in Kitchener.

Of all the G7 countries, ours is the largest by landmass. A Radio-Canada reporter who was trying to save the Prime Minister's reputation said that that argument was ridiculous because people cannot live in Canada's far north, for example. He was suggesting that the only land available in Canada is in the far north. That is what is ridiculous. There is plenty of land around our big cities. If those claims are true, then why is the U.S. able to provide housing at a much lower cost, even though its population is concentrated in New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and other large cities?

Even if the population is concentrated in big cities, houses are a lot less expensive in the U.S. than they are in Canada after eight years of this Prime Minister. Those who say it is irrelevant to talk about the amount of land that we have to provide Canadians with property are forgetting that the reality is that supply and demand always determine the price. Prices should be very low in Canada because there is land available around cities, in southern Canada, western Canada, eastern Canada and even northern Canada, land on which we could be building housing, if we could cut through all the red tape put in place by governments at all levels.

The fact is, since this Prime Minister came to power, there are fewer houses per capita than before. Of all the G7 countries, Canada has the fewest houses per capita, even though it has the largest landmass available for housing. I find it very interesting that there were more houses per capita eight years ago, when there were no bureaucratic programs to make properties more affordable. Do my colleagues not find that interesting?

According to the Prime Minister, $87 billion was spent on building affordable homes. However, eight years later, there are fewer houses per capita. It is unbelievable. It is like being in a restaurant, ordering something that tastes terrible, getting the wrong order and terrible service, and then being told it is going to cost $500. Then we turn around and say it was a great meal because it cost so much. That is the Prime Minister's argument. His programs are expensive, so they must be good.

He just attacked us for voting against the money allocated for programs because he believes that money equals results, even if that spending results in the opposite of what the programs promise. He criticizes me for not having spent enough on housing. I delivered affordable homes and apartments when I was minister at a lower cost to taxpayers. That is good, common sense: lower costs for taxpayers and lower costs for those buying or renting homes. That is what it means to know the value of money. The Prime Minister does not understand that because he has never had to work in his life. He inherited his wealth and kept his wealth in a tax-sheltered trust fund. I understand why it is hard for him to grasp the value of money.

I will give an example. In 1972, 232,000 housing units were built in Canada. In 2022, 219,000 homes were built in Canada. In 1972, there were 22 million Canadians. Last year, there were 39 million. The Canadian population has practically doubled, but fewer houses are being built after eight years of this Prime Minister and after $87 billion of government spending to build more. This government spends more to build less at a higher price. That is its approach.

What is the highest cost of building a home today in Vancouver, for example? Is it lumber, the workers' wages, the land? No, it is not even the construction company's profits. It is government fees and red tape. Yes, the red tape is local. It comes mainly from local governments, but it is funded by the federal government.

The Prime Minister boasts about the fact that he is sending bigger cheques to municipal politicians to build a bigger bureaucracy to prevent construction in the name of affordable housing. In Nova Scotia, after completely failing to provide a decent quality of life for people in Halifax, after 30 homeless encampments cropped up around the city, the housing minister came along with money from the housing accelerator fund and gave millions of dollars to his friend, the Liberal mayor of Halifax. He said that it would speed up housing construction.

We later learned what that money will be used for. It is going to be used to hire more public servants, the same public servants who are preventing construction in Halifax. There is going to be more red tape thanks to the money the federal government is sending. The Prime Minister has learned absolutely nothing. That is why we need to make a common-sense change that will build houses, not bureaucracy. That is our approach.

Some people have criticized my monumental documentary. According to them, nothing can be built because there is not enough land in places where people want to live.

The Squamish people have proven otherwise. In Vancouver, the Squamish are building 6,000 apartments on a 10-acre property. On 10 acres, they are building an unbelievable 6,000 apartments. That means they are building 600 apartments per acre. These are outstanding results. This would have never happened if they had been forced to listen to the bureaucrats in downtown Vancouver. On their traditional land, a traditional reserve of their people, they did not need permits from local bureaucrats. That enabled them to build housing.

This proves that if we could cut out the bureaucracy, we could build more large apartments downtown and more houses in the suburbs at the same time. That is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister is doing right now.

I have heard other excuses from staunch defenders of the Prime Minister, who set up a huge fund to financially support the media and buy their loyalty. They say it is not the Prime Minister's fault that the cost of housing has doubled, because it was COVID-19 that drove up housing prices.

A Journal de Montréal columnist I admire said that COVID-19 has become a scapegoat. COVID-19 should have lowered housing prices, because there was less immigration during COVID-19. The immigration system was practically shut down for nine or 10 months, and it slowed down for another nine or 10 months after that. The figures show that there was less immigration, fewer jobs and lower wages.

All these factors would normally reduce demand in the real estate market. I am not the only one saying this. In spring 2020, the federal government's housing agency predicted that housing prices would drop by 32% because of COVID-19. They were wrong, but it is understandable why they predicted that prices would fall. When the country loses jobs and wages and closes its doors to immigration, the results are lower prices and less demand. However, prices have gone up. Why did prices rise in the two years following COVID-19? Because the central bank printed $600 billion. Money was created out of thin air.

The media said that that was not true and had nothing to do with it, but my documentary includes a Bank of Canada graph that shows the number of houses bought by investors doubled. It started in the spring of 2020, right when the Bank of Canada started printing money and buying bonds from banks and financial institutions, which flooded the financial system. All that money was loaned to investors that have relationships with the bankers. They are the ones who helped double the amount invested. Prices jumped by 50% after that massive injection of newly printed money. It was not COVID‑19. It was the sense that people had money that caused a sudden spike in housing prices.

In fact, the Liberals and their supporters in the bought-off media will say that all that government spending was necessary because of COVID-19. Is that really true?

There was a $100-billion deficit before the first case of COVID-19. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 40% of new spending during the COVID-19 pandemic had nothing to do with COVID-19. The pandemic has been over for a year or two, but the deficits continue. The government can no longer blame COVID-19 and say that COVID-19 ate its homework, when the deficits were there before COVID-19, the deficits during COVID-19 were not related to the pandemic, and the deficits after COVID-19, in some cases, are increasing. Although COVID-19 is disappearing in the rear-view mirror, deficits continue to increase. We cannot accept the Prime Minister's excuse that the dog ate his homework. Printing money to spend recklessly was an irresponsible decision, and I warned against it. That is continuing to this day and it is driving up interest rates.

It just goes to show, once again, that every time this Prime Minister stands up in the House of Commons and says he has no other choice, he is spending money on all kinds of slogans. However, when we look at the results behind those slogans, it is the exact opposite of what has been promised. It is false advertising. That is why we often vote against spending that, according to the slogans, sounds great, but in reality does exactly the opposite of what the slogans promise. That is why we need a common-sense government. That is what I can offer as Canada's future prime minister.

A few months ago, the Bloc Québécois asked me what common sense actually is. I admire their humility in admitting that they have no idea what common sense is. I was able to help them by defining common sense. It struck them as a strange idea, because they live in a utopia. They are here in the House of Commons to make life more miserable, arguing that Canada should be split up into pieces. Again, to help the Bloc Québécois, commons sense actually means many things.

First, we need to bring back lower prices. How do we do that? We do that by axing the carbon tax that is increasing the price of everything. I know that the government wants to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers who produce food, on fuel and on all our industries. I know that the Bloc Québécois wants to radically increase the carbon tax. I know that there is a second carbon tax under the name fuel regulations. However, the Bloc Québécois is not satisfied. It wants to radically increase it. Only the Conservative Party will axe the tax on carbon to reduce the price of energy for all Canadians.

We will rely on technology to fight climate change. I know that the Bloc Québécois is against technology. For example, it is against the nuclear energy that France uses to produce electricity without any greenhouse gas emissions. The Bloc Québécois is against that. It is so ideologically radical. It is against nuclear energy and other sources of energy that do not produce carbon emissions. We will use these technologies instead of taxing F-150s in Saguenay or in Trois‑Rivières, where workers and farmers need their truck for work. These are good people. They work hard, and we are the only party for the vast regions of Quebec. That is all. That is the truth.

Another common-sense solution is to control spending. I find the Bloc Québécois funny. It always wants the federal government to do more. It is strange. The Bloc says that it wants to get rid of the federal government, but at the same time, it is always voting to increase the federal government's costs at Quebeckers' expense. The Bloc voted for all the spending increases that the Liberal government proposed. It voted against the financial discipline that we are proposing.

The common-sense idea I am proposing is a dollar-for-dollar law, which says that if we spend a dollar on one thing, then we need to save a dollar somewhere else. A law like that existed during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. It enabled the Democratic president to balance the budget and eliminate $400 billion in debt. That resulted in an enormous increase in jobs and wages, an increase in the stock market and plenty of other things. However, just after the law expired, the U.S. plunged back into a deficit and they are still in that situation today. That shows that politicians need a legal limit to control their spending. We are going to do things the same way that single mothers, small businesses and families do them. Every time a Canadian with common sense increases their spending in one area, they find a way to decrease it in another so that they can pay the bills, instead of just continuing to add expenses to their credit card. That is how we are going to impose discipline.

We will also eliminate waste. The Canada Infrastructure Bank costs $35 billion and has not delivered one single infrastructure project. We will get rid of ArriveCAN. We will get rid of the Asian Infrastructure Bank, which sends our money to China to build pipelines. We are building pipelines in China and banning them here in Canada. That makes no sense. We are not here to build the ancient Chinese empire. We are here to build a good quality of life for Canadians here at home. That is common sense.

We will tell municipalities that, if they want infrastructure money, they have to approve more housing construction. The reason we do not have enough homes is that there is too much bureaucracy getting in the way of construction. Canada is the second-slowest OECD country when it comes to granting construction permits. How will we get municipalities to speed up the permitting process? We will say that the amount of infrastructure money they are going to get is tied to the number of houses built. It will be based on results. I will tell every municipality to allow 15% more construction. If they do more, they will get bonuses. If they do less, they will lose money. Those bureaucrats will be paid like realtors. Realtors get paid according to how much they sell. The federal government will pay municipal bureaucrats according to how much construction they allow. We will demand that every public transit station be surrounded by apartments. The money will flow once those apartments are built and occupied by people.

We are going to sell off 6,000 federal government buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to build new homes. We are going to ask the federal agency that approves financing for apartments do so in two months instead of two years, or else we will fire their executives. It is easy. If you work in a senior position in my government and you do not keep your commitments, you will be fired. That is life. That is the real world. That is how life works for a carpenter or a mechanic. That is also how it will work for executives in my government. Eventually, this will speed up construction, after eight years of delays and people finding they can no longer buy houses.

Common sense also means putting real repeat offenders in prison instead of allowing them to commit the same acts of violence against Canadians over and over again.

We understand that some young people make mistakes. I get that, and we are going to rehabilitate them. However, we are not going to let people commit 40, 50 or 60 crimes over and over, each one more violent than the last, by releasing them, like the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals want to do. We want these criminals to go to prison. We do not want to let them out on bail or stay at home. We are going to offer treatment to people who are addicted to drugs, and we are going to stop targeting hunters and sport shooters.

The Bloc Québécois tried to help the Liberals ban hunting rifles. When the Liberals published 300 pages of hunting rifles that they wanted to ban, the Bloc member was there. It is on the video. They can deny it if they want, but there is video evidence. He was there and even said that it was his dream to see 300 pages of hunting rifles banned. Then all of a sudden, the Bloc members realized that there were hunters in the regions in Quebec.

That was quite a realization for the Bloc members, who spend most of their time with the lefties in Plateau-Mont-Royal, so it never occurred to them that there were hunters in Quebec. Like the Prime Minister, the Bloc Québécois had to back down because of Conservative pressure. The Bloc had to apologize and say that they would not try to ban hunting rifles after all, after hearing the Conservatives' strong arguments. Now that is common sense.

We know that this radical coalition will once again try to ban our hunters. People in the regions of Quebec will have to depend on the Conservative Party to protect their traditions, which have existed in Canada for thousands of years among indigenous peoples. I want to thank first nations for defending their right to hunt and opposing the Prime Minister's plan to ban their hunting rifles.

We are the only party that believes we should instead invest money in tightening the border against illegal guns. At the same time, we will put the real criminals in jail, while respecting hunters and sport shooters. That is common sense. Common sense is such a strange concept to our Bloc Québécois friends.

Common sense also means protecting our freedom. The Conservative Party is still the only party that voted against the censorship law. The Bloc Québécois voted to give Canada's federal bureaucrats in Ottawa the power to prevent Quebeckers from watching certain things online. Imagine a supposed sovereignist from Quebec saying that an official from a woke agency in Ottawa should be able to control what Quebeckers see and say on the Internet. We will never agree to that. The Conservative Party is the only party that will defend freedom of expression. Accordingly, we will scrap Bill C-11.

We cannot have freedom of expression without national freedom. That is why the Conservative Party is going to rebuild our army. This Prime Minister has wasted so much money by bungling procurement and delaying the F-35 aircraft replacement, for example. We are going to wipe out incompetence and waste and invest in helping our soldiers and rebuilding our army. We will stop giving money to dictatorships, terrorists and international bureaucracies and bring that money back here to Canada to rebuild our armed forces. We will defend our freedom by defending our military.

In conclusion, I know that, for most Canadians, things are miserable in Canada right now. Everything is broken. Do not take it from me. That is coming from two-thirds of Canadians polled. We have a Prime Minister who always wants to promote negativity. He is always negative. He tries to divide people.

I am here with a positive message, a common-sense message that gives hope to Canadians across the country. Yes, the future will be better than the eight years we have just gone through. Yes, we can have a country where people are free to earn big paycheques to buy food, fuel and affordable homes in safe communities. That is the goal of the Conservative Party. That is the goal of bringing home common sense.

Public Accounts

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Bill C-11, which was passed in the Senate. I think there is a big difference when we are talking about a bill that seeks to determine what people have the right to access online, the freedom of speech that they should have and what the government can control on YouTube, Facebook and the Internet in general.

With regard to the cost of food, we know that more than two million people have visited food banks over the past few months. With Bill C-234, we see an opportunity to tell the Senate, as we have before, that we, in the House of Commons, are the ones who have the right to impose taxes and create tax credits. That is $1 million for our farmers. It is an opportunity to ensure that people can put food on the table this Christmas.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we could engage in long debates with our colleague from Calgary Shepard over whether the Senate is necessary or whether senators should be elected. We could have a great discussion on that.

However, the Senate exists. It is there and it has to do its work of considering bills from the House of Commons. I felt the same frustration as my colleague when Bill C‑11 was before the Senate. At the time, Conservative senators were the ones slowing down the process. Nevertheless, we let the Senate get on with its business.

Here is what happened: Conservative senators literally bullied women senators, including a Quebec senator who is a Paralympic athlete, the pride of Quebec and a wheelchair athlete admired by all Quebeckers. Until recently, tweets by the House leader of the official opposition were still being posted from the lobby showing two photos of these senators, including the one who was forced out of her home for security reasons.

Does my colleague think that this is the best way to get the Senate to work faster?

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to this important issue and this very interesting bill, which was introduced by our colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I thank him for initiating this debate.

I am also very proud to be part of a political party that has recognized Quebec as a nation for many years, even before this Parliament did so. Other political parties did so too. We just heard the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent talk a little bit about that a few moments ago. I am not just mentioning it because he was motioning to me that I should emphasize that. It is true.

What is a nation? I am not going to give a sociology lesson, but I think that we can all agree that the things that define a nation are language, history, culture, institutions, lifestyle and other factors. Some of the essential components of culture are the singers and songwriters, music and TV shows we are exposed to. I was lucky to grow up in a house where we were surrounded by books, by Quebec and French literature, as well as by music by Quebec and French singers and songwriters. We listened to Félix Leclerc, Georges Brassens, Diane Dufresne, Claude Dubois and many others.

Because we were immersed in this atmosphere, we fell in love with the French language, with Quebec culture, with our Quebec songs and TV shows. Now I am about to say two things that will give away my age. First of all, when I was a kid, if we wanted to change channels, we had to get up off the sofa. There was a little dial on the television set, and there were not many stations either. Second, I am of the generation that grew up watching the original Passe-Partout.

The whole atmosphere of Quebec television and music shapes each generation and creates cultural touchstones. This builds connections between people and communities. We had these major television events that everyone tuned in to watch. They often reached the rest of Canada too if they were broadcast by Radio-Canada. The TV show Les Beaux Dimanches, for example, featured classical music and theatrical plays. It was broadcast everywhere.

These were major television events. It is important for us to have them, because it is important to preserve social cohesion and this bond that unites all Quebeckers and, if possible, all francophones across Canada. However, that bond is eroding over time. In my family, there are four children between the ages of 13 and 23. Their reality is completely changing, completely different. As a parent, I remember that the last big TV show in my house was Les Parent. We watched it as a family with the kids. There was also Les Bougon at one point. There is also Tout le monde en parle, which is still a great television event.

Of course we need a way to ensure that the CRTC's regulatory framework respects the linguistic and cultural requirements of Quebec, which is a nation. What Bill C‑354 proposes today is not all that complicated. It proposes that Quebec be consulted before any regulations are made and come into force if they relate to Quebec's cultural distinctiveness. This is no big deal. It is nothing revolutionary. I think it makes a lot of sense. It is just plain common sense, which should make my Conservative friends happy. We should be able to go knock on the door of the Government of Quebec to let it know about regulations that will impact broadcasting in Quebec, so that we can gather its feedback and figure out a way to work things out. I do not think that is asking too much at all.

As a New Democrat, I find it interesting that the Bloc Québécois's bill states the following: “to provide that the [CRTC] must, in furtherance of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, consult with the Government of Quebec or the governments of the other provinces, as the case may be, before regulating aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that relate to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec or that concern French-speaking markets”.

The bill therefore includes francophone minorities outside Quebec. That is very important to us, too, because this is not exclusive to the Government of Quebec, and it could be just as important for the CRTC to consult francophone communities outside Quebec, such as New Brunswick Acadians. Manitoba also has a sizable francophone community. This can have repercussions for those communities.

I think that, when Bill C‑354 goes to committee to be studied and improved by amendment, we absolutely have to make sure that representatives of francophone communities outside Quebec and Acadian communities can come and be heard. They should have a chance to tell us how they see this, whether they think it is a good thing, what the obligations should be and under what circumstances the CRTC would have an obligation to consult them or their provincial governments. This is something that matters very much to the NDP caucus. This is the kind of thing we will want to clarify, verify and maybe amend in committee.

I also think that the committee's study should include some reflection on the rules governing radio and television broadcasting of content in indigenous languages. There are two official languages, of course, one of which is and always will be endangered and vulnerable, given our demographic position in North America. However, there is also the recognition of indigenous nations, which are producing more and more interesting content in television and especially in music. I was at the ADISQ gala recently, and some very successful, talented people won awards. How can we make sure we do not forget about the cultural vitality of many indigenous nations, the Métis and the Inuit? They also need to be taken into consideration to ensure they are not shunted aside and forgotten, as they were for far too long in the past.

I think we also need to collectively reflect on how to make francophone and Quebec content more attractive, but also more accessible and discoverable. There are some absolutely extraordinary musical works, TV shows, videos and movies out there. How do we make sure that they are seen by our young people, teenagers and young adults? How do we make sure that this content, which is truly a reflection of who we are here in Quebec, Canada or North America, can be seen, heard, listened to and shared?

My fear, which I shared a bit earlier today, is that we do not live in the same environment as the one I grew up in, where I had to get up off the sofa to change the channel. The vast majority of the content that is promoted to our young people comes from the U.S. and is in English. I think that we need to reflect on this and find a way to give make these works and this Quebec and francophone content easier to access.

It is hard because we cannot go into every teenager's iPhone or iPad and tell them what they should do or listen to. I think this is an extremely serious cultural problem: the loss of major television events and the fact that our cultural offerings often come under the heel of American imperialism. Our offerings are so fragmented and so broad that it makes us wonder how we are going to be able to legislate and regulate all this. Can we really have a francophone and Quebec culture that is going to be vibrant, attractive and seen, but also profitable? These artists and artisans need to be able to make a living from their work, after all.

I think that we need to do a lot of collaborative thinking. We started to do so awhile back with Bill C-11 on discoverability, on the idea of forcing these digital platforms to promote French-language content and make it visible. These international companies are highly resistant to any attempt to force them to put prompts on their home pages to ensure that these songs, movies and TV shows are accessible and profitable. We can no longer rely on the traditional over-the-air channels to present these works. They need to be on YouTube, Netflix and Spotify. They need to be discoverable. There needs to be a French or Quebec category. How can we ensure that these web giants accept the unique status of Quebeckers and francophone minorities outside Quebec in order to make that possible? We need to find the right restrictions or incentives to make that happen. I think that this bill is a good start when it comes to consulting the Government of Quebec, but we need to put our heads together to take this a lot further.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on a bill introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague.

We obviously agree with the principle that Quebec should be heard in this situation, and I will tell you why. We need to go back to last February when the Government of Quebec, through its culture minister, called on the federal government in Ottawa, the Liberal government, to listen to what it had to say and to consult about Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

I will read the letter that Minister Lacombe sent to his federal counterpart. It says, “It is essential that the distinctiveness of Quebec and the unique reality of French-speaking markets be properly considered in Bill C-11 and in its implementation by the CRTC. In that regard, I want to reiterate our requirement that the act include a mandatory, formal consultation mechanism with the Government of Quebec for that purpose.” Furthermore, Quebec “must always have its say before instructions are given to the CRTC to guide its actions under this act when those actions could affect businesses that provide services in Quebec or the Quebec market.”

That was from the letter that the Minister of Culture sent to his federal counterpart on February 4. The government's response? Radio silence. It eventually acknowledged receipt of the letter, but that is all. The government never stepped up to be proactive and hear what Quebec had to say on the matter. In fact, the National Assembly went so far as to adopt a unanimous motion calling on the House of Commons to consult Quebec in a parliamentary committee so that it might voice its demands with respect to Bill C‑11. Unfortunately, the Liberal government's response was once again complete and utter radio silence.

We Conservatives brought the voice of the National Assembly to the House of Commons not once, twice or three times, but about 15 times. We did it right here during question period all the way from February 14 to March 7. My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles and our political lieutenant for Quebec, and I asked the government 15 questions about why it was refusing to hear from Quebec in committee. Of course we did. When a national assembly speaks with a unified voice and a government demands to be heard, that is the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. People deserve to be listened to, all the more so when a government like the National Assembly and its 125 elected members demand to be heard. Of course they should be heard. They were not heard, however. It has been radio silence here, and nobody else has said a word either.

That is too bad. We wanted Quebec to be heard during the consideration of Bill C‑11, but that never happened. However, my colleague for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles and I raised the issue in the House about 15 times during question period. We also took the debate to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage at its meeting last March 10, when I moved a motion specifically asking that Quebec be heard on this bill. Unfortunately, but predictably, the Liberal Party refused.

Quite surprisingly, even the Bloc Québécois voted against the motion we brought forward at that meeting, which asked that we reconsider the bill and hear from the Government of Quebec on the matter, because the Senate had proposed quite a lot of amendments. Strangely, the Bloc Québécois did not vote in favour of our request. That is too bad.

For these reasons, we certainly want to hear what Quebec has to say about its cultural distinctiveness, particularly in the context of Bill C-11. Speaking of which, let us keep in mind that yesterday, the government puffed out its chest and made a financial announcement that it had secured $100 million from Google. Interesting. That is exactly what the government could have gotten a year ago. That is basically what Google offered. In the end, it took a year to come up with pretty much the same proposal that Google had made.

On the radio this morning, many people were wondering whether Radio-Canada would have access to the $100 million. The answer came this morning in parliamentary committee, thanks to my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, who asked specific questions to find out where things are headed. The minister quite clearly confirmed that Radio-Canada would be among the media receiving part of this sum, which is precisely the opposite of what the Quebec government was calling for again this morning through its culture minister, Mathieu Lacombe.

Now we have a bill that has been introduced. However, the part of the conversation that cannot be ignored is the fact that we Conservatives have been asking for weeks and weeks for Quebec to be heard. The government refused to listen. We asked for this in parliamentary committee and, oddly enough, the Bloc Québécois voted against it, which was unfortunate. Now, however, the Bloc is introducing this bill.

For us, it is important that linguistic minorities be heard and that provincial governments tell us what they have to say on the matter. These things are not mutually exclusive. It goes without saying that minority language communities must be heard. That is actually part of the legislation governing the CRTC, but we still need to go a step further. We must ensure that all avenues are preserved.

New technology means that people can go anywhere. Earlier, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said that young people no longer watch television, or at least they do not watch it like we used to do. Now they can go on Spotify or on any other global platform. Indeed, this poses some challenges. That is why we need to pay even more attention to linguistic cultural minorities in every community and every province.

I will remind members that we asked for Quebec to be heard. This is particularly important because we are talking about Quebec, which, as we know, is the home of the French fact in North America. As we know, the French language is currently vulnerable, and always will be. Now, with numbers to back it up, it is clear that French is under threat in the province of Quebec, particularly in Montreal, where more than half—or close—of the province lives. We must remain vigilant. We must wage a constant battle to ensure that Quebec does not lose ground.

An editorial in Le Devoir said that Quebec should definitely have a voice in the study of Bill C-11. I would like to quote a February 16 editorial written by Louise-Maude Rioux Soucy, who said, “The National Assembly's unanimous adoption of a motion demanding ‘that Québec be officially consulted on the directions that will be given to the CRTC’ makes perfect sense”. That is exactly what we Conservatives have been asking for in the House and in committee, and the author of the editorial confirms it by saying the following:

That is also the opinion of the Conservatives, the Legault government's objective allies in this inelegant showdown. It is up to Quebec to define its cultural orientations in order to protect its language, culture and identity. Bill C-11, like Bill C-18, which seeks to ensure the fairness and viability of the Canadian digital news market, cannot escape this imperative. Minister Lacombe is right to speak up.

That sounds a lot like what we Conservatives have been saying for weeks and weeks here in the House and in parliamentary committee.

This bill will obviously be studied in committee. It needs to be examined. There are a few items that need to be clarified. We believe that it contains a lot of vague elements and that definitions need to be incorporated. We will have the opportunity to delve deeper into the bill when it is studied in committee.

In closing, I cannot overlook the extraordinary affection that our leader, the member for Carleton, has for the francophone community and especially for Quebec. I will quote from the speech he delivered at our national convention in Quebec City. He said:

Quebeckers are fighting to preserve their language and culture.... That is why Ana and I are determined to speak French to our children and to send them to a French school. That is also why I voted in the House of Commons to recognize the Quebec nation. I will always be an ally to Quebec, the Acadian people and all francophones across the country. A less centralized government will leave room for a greater Quebec and greater Quebeckers.

It was the leader of the official opposition who said that. I also want to note that for the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, Quebec is a model that should inspire English Canadians. Once again, I will quote the speech he delivered in Quebec City.

He said, “This business of deleting our past must end.” He also said, “And this is a matter on which English Canada must learn from Quebec. Quebecers—and I’m saying this in English deliberately—do not apologize for their culture, language, or history. They celebrate it. All Canadians should do the same.”

Those are the words of the future Prime Minister with whom I am very proud to serve.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

moved that Bill C‑354, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑354 seeks to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act so that the CRTC must consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about their French-speaking markets before carrying out its mandate and exercising its powers with regard to aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that relate to those things.

Essentially, Bill C‑354 seeks to protect Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and the francophone community in the enforcement of the new Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. That involves organizing consultations with the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments before regulating aspects that relate to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec.

This bill responds to an official request from the Government of Quebec during the debates surrounding Bill C‑11 for the federal government to set up a mandatory, formal consultation mechanism with the Government of Quebec. Quebec wants to have its say before the CRTC takes any action that could affect businesses providing services in Quebec or the Quebec market. The motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in this regard specifies that Quebec intends to use all of the tools at its disposal to protect its language, culture and identity.

Bill C‑354 also constructively responds to the federal government's disturbing decision last year to end the tradition of alternating the CRTC chairship between francophones and anglophones. The bill is also consistent with the House of Commons' recognition that Quebeckers form a nation. Quebeckers form a distinct people, a nation with a unique identity based on our history, and particularly on our culture and language. It is only natural, and even essential, for a nation to manage its culture. Access to Quebec's common public language and culture allows newcomers to participate in and enrich Quebec society, and to enjoy the same rights and obligations as every Quebecker.

The idea of being sovereign in telecommunications management is not new. In 1929, Quebec Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau passed the law governing broadcasting in that province. However, instead of working with Quebec, in 1932, Ottawa responded to Taschereau's idea by creating the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the forerunner of the current CRTC, under the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The idea of being sovereign in telecommunications management remained alive, despite federal interference.

In 1968, Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson said the following:

The assignment of broadcasting frequencies cannot and must not be the prerogative of the federal government. Quebec can no longer tolerate being excluded from a field where its vital interest is so obvious.

Between 1990 and 1992, the Quebec minister of communications at the time, Liberal Lawrence Cannon, prepared a draft Quebec proposal that read as follows:

Quebec must be able to establish the rules for operating radio and television systems, and control development plans for telecommunications networks, service rates and the regulation of new telecommunications services.... Quebec cannot let others control programming for electronic media within its borders.... To that end, Quebec must have full jurisdiction and be able to deal with a single regulatory body.

In 2006, that same Lawrence Cannon became a minister in the Conservative cabinet under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

On April 9, 2008, Liberal ministers Christine Saint‑Pierre and Benoît Pelletier sent a letter to the Conservatives in Ottawa—Josée Verner and Rona Ambrose at the time—to conclude repatriation agreements in the culture, broadcasting and telecommunications sector.

This is what it said:

The purpose of this letter is to express the will of Quebec to engage, as soon as possible, in discussions on concluding a Canada-Quebec agreement on the communications sector...and a Canada-Quebec agreement on culture.

Considering the distinct culture of Quebec, the only French-speaking state in North America, we believe that concluding such an administrative agreement would make it possible to better reflect the specific characteristics of Quebec content in broadcasting and telecommunications, and would serve as recognition of the importance of protecting and promoting Quebec's specific culture.

The Bloc Québécois is convinced that telecommunications and broadcasting are of capital importance for the vitality of Quebec culture. That is clear. That is why we are of the opinion that, ultimately, these sectors need to be regulated by Quebec. This should happen under a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, a QRTC. That is the only approach that would allow us to have full control, to be masters of the decisions that concern our language and culture.

Quebec must have the tools needed to promote a diversified Quebec offer in the television markets and on digital platforms, which are increasingly predatory. As the serious media crisis in the province shows, from the small regional newspapers to the restructuring of Groupe TVA, it is crucial to maintain a francophone diversity of information sources and plurality of voices, regardless of the size of the media group.

Furthermore, the Internet deployment strategy must be better aligned with Quebec’s interests, particularly to ensure the right to a stable, affordable, quality connection. Quebec’s cultural development hinges on the ability to determine its own transmission terms, namely for television, radio and new media. Should the government of Quebec deem that a decision goes against the public interest, it is the National Assembly that would call for a review.

The closure of radio station CKAC in 2005 illustrates the government of Quebec’s inability to influence decisions that directly impact its duty to develop, promote and disseminate our culture. Despite a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, adopted on March 10, 2005, calling for CKAC to stay on the air, the CRTC kept silent and allowed this historic radio station to shut down.

Furthermore, this is not even a partisan issue in Quebec. All governments since the Taschereau era have argued for Quebec's independence in managing its telecommunications. It is therefore particularly frustrating to run into refusals or downright ignorance. The many times Ottawa has stayed silent demonstrate contempt, if not federal indifference, toward Quebec’s culture and its political institutions.

That said, our right to develop our own culture will not be won through the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that telecommunications and broadcasting fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the members of the House of Commons have the authority to delegate this administrative power if they are willing to do so. One such agreement already exists. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police delegated its powers to the Sûreté du Québec to protect the province. The Sûreté du Québec manages interprovincial heavy transportation and issues freshwater fishing licences. All it would take is a bit of political will to sign an administrative agreement that would change the fate of Quebec culture.

If it so wished, the federal government could change the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act today to include such an administrative agreement. This is how EI pilot projects are integrated into the Employment Insurance Act.

Introducing Bill C‑354 is a modest attempt to ensure that Quebeckers enjoy a modicum of respect when it comes to their right to culture and managing their telecommunications. It is the least that can be done.

In an ideal world, the Quebec government would pass legislation to create a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, a QRTC. The CRTC could then delegate the management of Quebec's licenses to the QRTC, which would regulate telecommunications and broadcasting companies that operate in Quebec. This would remedy the injustice that has persisted for a hundred years.

The decline of the French language and culture is undeniable. It is now crucial that we take the necessary steps to protect them.

We therefore invite members from all parties who care about Quebec culture and the francophone community to vote in favour of our bill.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is called the chamber of sober second thought, but right now that chamber seems to be drunk on power. When it finds problematic elements in bills like Bill C-11, that is one thing, but I would implore all of my colleagues to consider if this was their private member's bill. Let us say it passed through the democratically elected House of Commons, only to have, for the second time, a motion that senators decided was so important, despite having no involvement with the legislation, that they needed to amend the bill to make sure it cannot be renewed through an OIC and it has to go through a long bureaucratic process again. If that is what the senator felt so compelled to do, I feel sorry for her, because this House passed the bill and the Senate needs to pass it too.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague for her comments today.

I admit that the members of the Bloc Québécois have mixed feelings. On the one hand, we are tempted to agree with what the Conservatives are saying about the Senate today, but on the other, we have a duty to defend the process that is under way.

I am fascinated to see that the Conservatives take a different view of the Senate's work depending on whether or not they agree with the bill it is studying. I remember when senators took the time they needed, and then some, before passing Bill C-11. We never heard anything from the Conservatives about how senators are unelected and had no business delaying a bill that way.

Today, I fail to understand the Conservatives' attempt to literally gag the Senate. We have mixed feelings about that.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about this. What is the problem? Bill C-234 is at third reading in the Senate. That is how things are usually done. Now, the Conservatives are acting almost like Bloc members, denouncing these unelected members of the Senate who are making decisions that should be made by the House of Commons.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-52, enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. The bill was initially introduced by the former minister of transport. Bill C-52 has far-reaching implications for Canada's transportation system, and as the official opposition, it is our duty to ensure it will truly meet the serious and ongoing concerns many Canadians have within the transportation sector.

The bill proposes to set publicly reported service standards for private sector companies and government agencies responsible for air travel at Canada's airports almost exclusively through regulations, which would be created by the minister and the cabinet.

Furthermore, it proposes to require airport authorities to formalize noise consultation processes and environmental standards, and to publish information on their directors and senior management. Finally, Bill C-52 aims to amend the Canada Marine Act regarding the setting of fees by Canadian port authorities.

First and foremost, the timing of the bill's introduction raises concerns. Bill C-52 was presented on June 20, just one day before the House recessed for the summer. That raises questions about the government's motivations and intentions. It is essential to consider whether the timing was chosen to deflect attention from previous travel-related crises and to create an impression of swift action.

Between the summers of 2022 and 2023, Canadian travellers faced a disastrous travel season with numerous flight cancellations and unacceptable delays. Previous to that was the disastrous mismanagement of passports that affected travellers, but that is a whole other issue. In particular, the Christmas travel season last year brought further chaos and frustration in airports. Those events highlighted the need for significant improvements in our transportation system.

However, the Liberals are focusing on announcements and consultations rather than delivering tangible results for Canadian travellers. What is their solution? It is to empower themselves further.

One of the most pressing issues within our transportation system is the backlog of complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency, the CTA. This backlog has grown by 3,000 complaints per month and has resulted in a staggering 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated.

That backlog represents thousands of Canadian passengers who had their travel experiences disrupted or delayed, or had some form of service situation, and all those people are awaiting resolutions. Those passengers have been unable to resolve their compensation claims with airlines, and they have now been asked to wait over 18 months to have their complaints considered by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

This adds insult to injury and prolongs what could be serious problems. People are out-of-pocket, and airlines are not being held accountable for mismanagement and poor service.

Most recently, we heard damning reports of Air Canada's and WestJet's treatment of passengers with disabilities. For Air Canada, in one case in May, two employees, instead of being trained on the proper equipment, attempted to physically lift a passenger but ended up dropping him. In another report, a woman's ventilator was disconnected and a lift fell on her head. A man was forced to physically drag himself off a flight in Vancouver. Air Canada admitted it had violated federal accessibility regulations.

We heard that those passengers got notice, forgiveness and, hopefully, amends to which they are entitled, and Air Canada said it would be looking to ensure proper compliance. I am looking forward to ensuring that Air Canada's CEO will be appearing before the human resources committee I serve on, as we have called for him to testify and to explain to Canadians exactly how this airline intends to comply.

The latest example was from WestJet where a Paralympian was forced to lift herself up the stairs to the plane. It was reported that she commented that she was frustrated and humiliated, and there was a ramp within 50 metres.

All those situations are disturbing, disappointing and unacceptable for persons with disabilities to have gone through. Unfortunately, Bill C-52, which we are debating here today, does not provide solutions to eliminate the complaints backlog or set specific service standards within accountability mechanisms.

Federally regulated entities involved in air travel must also be held accountable for delays or cancellations. They include airlines, airports, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, Nav Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. However, this legislation falls short of those expectations.

While the bill addresses some aspects of accountability and transparency, it fails to hold all relevant entities responsible for ensuring smooth and reliable air travel. A comprehensive approach to accountability should encompass all stakeholders involved in the travel experience. One of the significant concerns with Bill C-52 is the concentration of power in the hands of the minister and the cabinet to develop regulations in the future.

While regulatory flexibility can be useful, this bill does not include concrete improvements in legislation. We see this often with the Liberal government, where so much is left to regulation, which leads to uncertainty and lack of transparency. We saw this with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, and with the disability benefits bill. Instead, this legislation relies on promises of future regulations, which raise concerns about vagueness and the potential for arbitrary decision-making. It is not even a band-aid. It is an IOU for a band-aid.

In a matter as critical as transportation where there is essential service provided, and the comfort and convenience of the Canadian people are at stake, it is crucial that regulations are well defined and not left to the discretion of the government and the minister of the day. The lack of this clear direction with specific remedies in this bill to address the long-standing problems in our transportation system is a significant shortcoming. While the bill aspires to enhance transparency and accountability in the transportation system, it fails to deliver. It fails to provide the concrete solutions to the issues that have been plaguing the system for years. As for the results and who will be held accountable, there are no answers in this legislation.

We need legislation that not only identifies problems but also provides tangible solutions. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that any legislation passed is effective and beneficial to the Canadian people. Bill C-52, as it stands, is lacking.

News Media Industry

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good ideas in Bills C‑11 and C‑18, but, for now, they are not working. They are not doing anything. That is why, pending the conclusion of negotiations with the web giants in the case of Bill C‑18, an emergency fund for the media is required. That is reasonable. It is essential to maintain the diversity of information in the short term. In the long term, much more will be needed.

Now, we can send a clear message to our media that we are taking action to save them. Will the minister quickly set up an emergency fund before we find out that other newsrooms are closing in our media?

Canadian Heritage

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 547 people working at TVA lost their jobs on Thursday, the darkest day in the history of Quebec television.

The federal government has to realize that Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 will not be enough. The government has to launch a $50‑million emergency fund for news media. It has to hold a summit next spring at the latest with all industry stakeholders to find long-term solutions to ensure the survival of our media outlets. Their future is at stake, and the time to act is now.

Will the minister create an emergency fund and hold a summit?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, once again, our thoughts are with the workers and their families, particularly as the holiday season approaches.

This situation could have been avoided and all of those workers would still have jobs if the Conservatives had not spent the past few years opposing Bill C-11. Yes, Bill C‑11 is enough. Yes, we are here with a bill that is in place to help save media jobs. We managed to get Bill C‑11 passed, and it will provide solutions to protect thousands of well-paying jobs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, a full-blown atomic bomb has dropped on the world of Quebec television. TVA, the most-watched television network in Quebec, will be laying off 547 people, a third of its workforce. We are losing extraordinary artisans of our culture. It is catastrophic.

It is catastrophic, but not surprising, unfortunately. If this is happening to TVA, all of our media are at risk. We have to rethink everything, if we want to save our media. A massive undertaking is needed.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage seriously think that Bills C-11 and C-18 are enough to save Quebec media?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, my heart goes out to the journalists and workers at Quebecor and TVA, all the 500 employees who lost their jobs yesterday. This is not good news for Quebec. This decision was made by a private company. We always support journalism and information sharing.

That is why Bill C‑11 is so important. We hope that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives will vote with us to support Canadian and Quebec journalism.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, first, our thoughts are with the more than 500 families who are affected by these job losses. We will be there for them, and we will also be there for the cultural industry and the media. The reality is that this is the reason why we need to continue our work on Bill C‑11. That is why we introduced that bill. The reality is that the Conservatives always oppose measures to protect the cultural industry, the media and even Canadian content.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said Bill C-11 was not about censorship. They said it was simply about going after big tech giants and making them pay their fair share.

Sneaky new regulations were pushed through on Friday. However, people are paying attention, and Canadians are aware that, in fact, their voices are being censored with a podcast registry. Is that not innovative? When it comes to attacking freedom, the Liberal government cannot help itself. It is absolutely committed to censoring what we can see, what we can say and what we can hear online.

I am curious: Why is the government so hell-bent on censoring people's freedom of speech?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, our government is proud to support our creators all over the country. They are among the best in the world. They are sharing our Canadian stories, and it is really important that we keep on supporting them.

This is why we brought forward Bill C-11. Through this new bill, we are going to bring in new revenue so that we could better support our creators in Canada.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here, back in the House. Today I will be speaking about Bill C-49, which is the act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I have listened to the debate today, and a lot of times, members opposite have said they want to know what it is that the Conservatives do not like about the bill. Therefore, I am going to tell them what I do not like about the bill, and I am one of the Conservatives over here.

Let us start off with the name change to remove the word “petroleum” and change it over to “energy”. I am not opposed to “energy” at all, but words are important, and we have had an entire history of a war against oil and gas in this country from the NDP-Liberal government. Continually it has shut down projects. There were 18 LNG projects on the books when it came to office, and it shut them all down. It has shut down pipelines and shut down various expansions, so I think the removal of the word “petroleum” tells us where it thinks it wants to take this direction in the future.

We just heard the minister from Newfoundland talk about the importance of petroleum drilling projects there, so I am very concerned about the bill and the change to get away from petroleum, because Canada could be self-sufficient. We import $15 billion a year of dirty dictator oil, and the government seems fine to continue that. That is the wrong direction. We should be taking our environmentally sustainable oil and gas and making sure we are self-sufficient here in Canada. The whole eastern part of the country could use that.

That is the first problem I have with the bill.

The second thing about the bill is that it would award new powers to the regulators. Today we have people who are regulators in the petroleum drilling industry. Now, with a wave of the magic wand, they would be regulators of offshore renewable energy. This is another example of the Liberals expanding regulators' scope when they are not experts in that area. They did the exact same thing with the CRTC when we were talking about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and the CRTC has said clearly that it had no experience overseeing digital media, but the government made it the regulator of it. This is an opportunity for disaster.

I am not opposed to renewables. When I was a chemical engineer, I worked in renewables. I worked on solar projects, wind projects and even offshore Lake Erie wind projects, so I am a fan of transitioning and coming to better renewable energy, but let us learn the lessons from Ontario. All of those solar and wind projects were done in a hugely subsidized way that drove the cost of energy in the province of Ontario from eight cents a kilowatt hour to 23¢ a kilowatt hour and made us totally uncompetitive.

I am thus very interested in the details of this offshore renewable energy and what kind of subsidization the government is going to do, because if it does the same it did to batteries and puts $31 billion of taxpayer money into trying to attract people to build a facility, then the taxpayer is on the hook, and this is not an economically sustainable thing. It is another concern that I do not see that detail here in the bill.

The most concerning element of the bill is the addition of a new layer of decision-making and the granting of ultimate authority to federal and provincial ministers. It would increase the timeline for a final decision to 60 to 90 days from 30, with the possibility of an indefinite extension as the call for bids is issued.

I have an issue with letting federal ministers have the power to, first of all, issue land licences in a province. The province's jurisdiction has to be respected, and we have seen numerous occasions where the government wants to overreach into provincial jurisdiction, with the carbon tax, for example, and with many of the other health initiatives the government has had where it has wanted to reach into provincial jurisdiction. Clearly the provinces have pushed back, as they should. We need to make sure that, if ministers are being given these powers, there is some kind of limitation on those powers, because we know that we have already heard concerns about the bill with respect to indigenous consultations being given to the regulators.

The regulators would have the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples. That is an abdication of the responsibility of the federal government. I am not sure that the regulators actually have the resources to do adequate consultations, which could result in court cases and challenges that would further delay and cause uncertainty in projects as they move forward. That is a concern to me, absolutely.

The other thing that gives me great concern is that the bill would give the federal cabinet the authorization to end any operational petroleum drilling on a whim. We have just gotten through saying that the government is against oil and gas. It is trying to shut down fossil fuels. Now we would be giving cabinet the power, federally, to arbitrarily, on a whim, shut down petroleum projects that we have heard from the minister from Newfoundland are extremely important to the province. This would be without the province's permission and without adequate consultation necessarily.

This is an obviously bad idea. We can see where this is going. The first initiative of the government would be to shut down as much oil and gas as it can. That is what it has done in Alberta. I am from Sarnia—Lambton, which accounts for 30% of the petrochemicals. Believe me, when the minister came to Sarnia to hear the concerns of the people about getting a transition, we were not even mentioned in the plan in the go-forward. That tells us exactly how much the Liberals care about the oil and gas workers at risk in this whole equation.

The bill would also create a new licensing system for offshore drilling. There is language in the bill that says the government would impose a 25-year cap on licences. Any licences would be limited. After 2050, everything would be off. Why would we do that to ourselves as a country? We do not know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. We do not know whether or not there will be wars or a need for those resources. Why would we arbitrarily limit our licences and cut them all off at 2050, especially considering the expression of indigenous people to have economic growth and get involved in projects? If they have a licence, is their licence going to be pulled as well after 2050, arbitrarily?

We do not need to restrict ourselves in this way. It is concerning to me that this would be in the bill, because there is no need to do that. If it is decided in 2050 that the situation warrants fewer licences, that is the government of the day's decision. Again, it is very troubling to see what is in here.

Today, petroleum activities are subject to a fundamental decision by the existing review boards in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. A decision on approving or rejecting a project allows 30 days for provincial or federal ministers to respond, or the regulator's decision is accepted. However, for offshore renewable energy projects, under this new process, the regulator would give recommendations to the federal and provincial ministers. Ministers would have 60 days to respond, with a 30-day extension allowed if given in writing, and with, again, the possibility of an indefinite extension if they decide a call for bids is issued.

This is exactly, once over again, Bill C-69, in which the government took the approval process for projects and made it longer, and made it possible, at a minister's whim, to restart the process as many times as necessary to frustrate the private investors and drive them out of the country. This is what has happened with multiple projects: the LNG and the pipeline projects I have mentioned. More than $80 billion of foreign investment has been driven out of the country. The uncertainty of having to spend billions of dollars and wait six years to get a project approved keeps anybody from wanting to do a project in Canada unless the taxpayer is willing to give them $31 billion to do it.

This is not moving in the right direction. We need to be nimble when it comes to our decision, responsible but nimble. Again, I do not agree with the red tape regime that would hinder both traditional and alternative energy development in the bill. The broad, unilateral, discretionary cabinet power for arbitrary decision-making increases timelines and adds uncertainty around onerous requirements that are already driving away investment.

I want to read a quote from Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who talked about the lack of consultation with provinces. He said, “They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity”. The provinces are concerned that they are going to see infringements from the government and I think, based on what has happened before, that they are right to think that.

There was a project that was a renewables project. It was in New Brunswick. It was the first North America tidal power project deal, and the Trudeau Liberals killed it. Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative—

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities).

Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois like to stress that a nation must not leave its own culture in the hands of its neighbour. That is exactly why I am tabling this bill today.

This bill provides that the CRTC must consult the Government of Quebec before regulating any aspect that relates to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec. It responds to a formal request made by the Government of Quebec during the debates around Bill C-11 for a mandatory and official mechanism for consulting the Government of Quebec.

This bill is also in line with the House's recognition of Quebec as a nation. It is a constructive response to the disturbing decision made by the federal government last year to end the long-standing practice of alternating between francophone and anglophone chairs of the CRTC.

The bill also provides that provincial governments must be consulted before regulations are made that concern French-speaking markets. That will no doubt be well received by every francophile in Canada and every advocate for cultural diversity in a broader sense.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Online News Act

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I rise today to speak about my concerns related to Bill C-18. This bill should be strongly opposed. We Conservatives believe that Canadian news media deserves to be fairly compensated, while the Liberals continue to fail to create effective legislation to support Canadians.

First and foremost, the Liberals claim that Bill C-18 would help smaller newspapers and media outlets. However, they fail to mention the fact that, according to the government's Parliamentary Budget Officer, more than 75% of the funding would go to large media outlets, such as the CBC. Less than 25% would be left for small media companies. The Liberal government claims to support small businesses, yet it continues to funnel tax dollars to its friends at media companies. Small news outlets' main competition is from corporations, such as the CBC.

We Conservatives proposed amendments that would level the playing field and support local and ethnic media. These amendments were rejected. The Liberals want to pick and choose their friends instead. Is $1.2 billion to the CBC not enough?

In the Senate, Senator Carignan tried to bring forth a motion to fix this. It was rejected.

According to former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies, “Bill C-18 will only perpetuate a market already distorted by subsidy and it will punish independence.” He said, “If Parliament values a free press, it will not approve Bill C-18.” Do the Liberals admit that they do not like a free press? The Liberal government continues to help its elitist friends in high places and big corporations, while it forgets about the local and ethnic media outlets.

Dwayne Winseck, a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication and director of the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project for Carleton University said, “Canada's largest media conglomerates—some with revenue multiple times higher than what Google and Facebook earn in Canada—will likely be the biggest beneficiaries of the bill”.

In December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses at committee, silencing experts from dozens of independent and digital news outlets who wished to speak. Rather than focusing on Canadian experts, the government relied mainly on non-Canadian critics of the digital platforms Google and Meta to tout Liberal talking points.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage deceptively stated that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. However, he failed to mention that the same study he was referencing showed that hundreds of new news outlets had opened during the same time period.

After criticizing digital platforms for not disclosing the details of existing agreements with news outlets, the Liberal and NDP MPs on the committee rejected a proposal brought forward by Conservatives to require greater transparency. Now they have brought on time allocation to silence Canadians' concerns. The Liberal-NDP government has no interest in listening to these concerns. It wants to silence anyone with opposing views.

Furthermore, Bill C-18 poses a grave threat to privacy rights. The bill includes provisions that would expand the government's surveillance capabilities, allowing it to collect and analyze vast amounts of personal data without sufficient oversight. This erosion of privacy is deeply troubling. We should have the right to live our lives free from unwarranted surveillance and invasion of our private affairs.

By giving authorities unchecked powers to collect and analyze our personal data, this bill would put our privacy at risk and set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into our lives. Just like Bill C-11, Bill C-18 would infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Conservatives believe in the importance of a free and independent press. This bill would have significant implications for journalistic independence. Bill C-18 would empower the CRTC to obtain any information it considers necessary, including confidential information from news organizations. Conservative MPs brought forward amendments to guarantee the freedom of the press, but they were voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Bloc Québécois.

Another concern is that Bill C-18 would impact small businesses and start-ups. The bill would introduce stringent regulations and compliance requirements that would disproportionately burden smaller online platforms. This would create a significant barrier to entry for entrepreneurs, stifling innovation and competition. We must foster an environment that nurtures small businesses and start-ups, as they are often the driving force behind economic growth and job creation.

By favouring large corporations, the bill threatens to consolidate power in the hands of a few, reducing consumer choice and limiting opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship. The bill would enable the CRTC to pick winners and losers among media; to no one's surprise, the Liberals' friends are going to be picked as winners. Conservatives brought forward motions to fix this. They were rejected.

Many experts feel that the bill is on a path to destroying Canadian media. They agree that the bill has deep flaws, which would lead to millions of dollars in lost revenue. This would set back media by years, and the projected losses that would be incurred because of Bill C-18 are greater than the funding and the tax credits.

The Liberals have extended the eligibility to foreign news outlets, and they have the audacity to claim that this will help Canadians. Broadcasters who are licensed by the CRTC but do not produce news are eligible.

From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Katherine Tai has warned that Bill C-18 would have serious trade implications for Canada. In a recent press release, a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy stated the following: “We have...concerns it could impact digital streaming services and discriminate against U.S. businesses”. The U.S. has warned of trade retaliation, which would likely be equivalent to whatever the U.S. believed U.S.-based digital news intermediaries had lost as a result of Bill C-18. According to the PBO, this would be $300 million-plus. The Liberals have found a way to give Canadian taxpayer dollars to American companies, while at the same time, making trade relations with the United States worse.

Any government intervention into the free press must be carefully considered, as there is a potential to warp outcomes, stifle innovation, determine winners and losers, and compromise journalistic independence. In its current form, Bill C-18, the online news act, fails this test, according to the independent online news publishers of Canada.

Furthermore, the vague and ambiguous language used in Bill C-18 raises concerns about potential abuse of power. The broad definitions and discretionary powers granted to government agencies leave room for arbitrary decision-making and selective enforcement. This undermines principles of fairness and due process, which are crucial to the functioning of a just society. We must demand legislation that is clear and specific, while respecting the rights of individuals and the rule of law. The Liberals intentionally used vague language to deceive Canadians so that they can interpret the wording in a way that will allow them to give more and more help and funding to their friends.

The legislation before us fails to address the needs of Canadian media outlets. Conservatives have brought forward amendments to fix these issues, but the Liberal-NDP coalition, along with the Bloc, voted them down.

Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians, stand up for small businesses and push back against the Liberal government giving money to its friends. Canada needs more common-sense legislation without ambiguous words. We need legislation that uses strong wording that can be easily interpreted.

In conclusion, Bill C-18 represents a disregard for small businesses, as well as the principles of fairness and due process. The bill would help neither those struggling to survive nor those trying to enter the marketplace. We oppose the bill and demand a more balanced and thoughtful approach that respects our fundamental rights and effectively addresses—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The NDP-Liberal coalition has been as sly as a fox and as slippery as an eel with this piece of legislation known as Bill C-18, the online news act. This is yet another Liberal attempt to control the online content available to the people of Canada. The government will pick winners and losers among our various media outlets with this faulty legislation if it passes.

When this bill was before our House of Commons' standing committee in December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses who wished to voice their concerns about the fairness for media outlets. These witnesses and media stakeholders who wanted to put forward their concerns were simply shut down. After hastily being pushed through the standing committee, Bill C-18 came back to this place, where the censoring Liberals called time allocation after just three hours and 20 minutes of debate. What utter disregard for the many journalists and media outlets whose livelihoods will be weighed in the balance should this law pass.

The NDPs who supported the Liberals, when their blushing brides wanted to rob witnesses of the opportunity to testify at committee, backed them again by shutting debate down and rushing to get this bill passed here and sent off to the Senate. This is what we have seen time and time again with these partners in crime when it comes to legislation that supports their socialist agenda.

Legacy socialist legislation, like Bill C-11, Bill C-21 or Bill C-35, routinely gets pushed through this House with no regard for the views of stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and the opposition party.

What is wrong with Bill C-18, one might ask? Why are we using our resources to oppose this legislation? How is it bad for the Canadian public? How is it bad for small and local and ethnic media? How is it bad for journalists who want to maintain their independence?

I will tell us a little bit about that.

While this bill was in our House standing committee, the Liberals' court jester, the Minister of Heritage, deceived the committee with fake stats. He claimed that news outlets are destined for extinction. He cited a study that showed that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. The conniving part of this testimony was that he left out a very important piece, also outlined in that same report, which was that hundreds of new outlets had opened during that exact same period, yet the jester claims that this bill is about supporting local media and building a fair news ecosystem. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This bill will favour darlings of the costly coalition like the CBC. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that more than 75% of the money generated by this bill will go to large corporations like Bell, Rogers and the CBC, leaving less than 25% for newspapers. Very little of that will be left over for local and ethnic media after big newspaper businesses take the lion's share of that 25%.

According to the PBO, the Liberal claim that this bill will help sustain local newspapers and ethnic media is completely false.

That is why Conservatives tried to fix this grave injustice at committee but the NDP-Liberal coalition, and the Bloc, voted against the amendment.

Conservative senators tried to amend this bill to stop state-backed broadcasters like the CBC from competing with private broadcasters and publications for this limited money when they already receive secure funding from taxpayers' dollars.

According to the PBO, this bill would generate $320 million, and of that amount, $240 million would go to the big broadcasters: CBC, Bell and Rogers. They would be entitled to more resources than they can possibly use, to help them increase their market share, while smaller outlets like the Toronto Star could disappear, heaven forbid.

Bill C-18 is another greasy attempt at online censorship. It walks hand in hand with Bill C-11. The other place sent this bill back to this place with amendments made by its independent senators, while amendments proposed by Conservative senators have been completely disregarded. Witnesses at the Senate committee painted a grim picture for most journalism in Canada, but that testimony was disrespected and trashed, along with the amendments that arose from it. The Liberal government is determined to control what we see online. According to witnesses from The Globe and Mail, News Media Canada, La Presse, Le Devoir, CANADALAND, The Line, and Village Media, this bill would create enormous risk for the independence of the press, for the bottom line of news outlets and for the future of digital media across this country.

The government has disguised its eagerness to control what news can be shared online with its appearance to want to straighten out big tech, like Facebook and Google, and to protect small media. Does that sound familiar? The same Minister of Canadian Heritage used these exact same tactics with Bill C-11 by touting his protection of Canadian content; however, at the same time, he cut small media's global revenue streams.

The government is enlisting the help of the CRTC to determine what is news and what is not. When something is created to share information about something new, otherwise known as “news”, it would be up to the CRTC whether it can be seen online in this country. Who asked for this bill? Legacy media asked for this bill, and the Liberal government has responded. The bunch on that side of the House will make sure that their story, their narrative, their agenda and their propaganda get out, and that opposing viewpoints are silenced. That is what this is all about. The government will use this legislation to choose winners and losers in the information world, and if it does not match its socialist agenda, news will not see the light of day. Good journalists and independent news media risk falling by the wayside if this legislation receives royal assent.

Conservatives will fight censorship and stand up for freedom of the press, which is now much broader than what it once encompassed. This is a new world, and a new approach is required to fight censorship. Censorship can be easily enacted in the online world without anyone ever suspecting it. On this side of the House, we stand for freedom and for protecting the public from legislation which would restrict the news content they would see. This bill to protect legacy broadcasters would drastically impact what news Canadians can see online, and Conservatives will not go on the record as supporting it. Censorship is censorship, however one slices it, and I will not vote for a bill that supports it in any way.

To conclude my remarks, my thoughts are with my colleague from Lethbridge, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues, has been censored. She has been treated unfairly. It rushed to my mind as I was speaking so much about censorship. Hopefully, my colleague will receive justice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the deputy leader of the Conservative Party taking this position and leading the fight against Bill C-18. Whether it is Bill C-18 or Bill C-11, a great deal of consultations have taken place. One sees that New Democrats, a member of the Bloc, a member of the Green Party, obviously the Liberals and even the former Conservatives, when the Conservative Party was under different leadership fewer than two years ago, supported the legislation.

What has changed, outside of the leadership of the Conservative Party? Why is the Conservative Party moving so far to the right? I would suggest it is going even further right than the Reform Party.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to give a shout-out to my colleague from Lethbridge for fighting the heavy hand of big, bossy government, which has struck again with this bill. It has almost become a cliché, and its latest offender is this bill, Bill C-18. It is sad to see the Liberal response to an important and relevant modern issue concerning the place where bureaucracies, news providers and digital technology intercept.

We are here to debate a bill that would fix one problem, instead of the one that actually needs it. It proposes solutions that would not work, and is backed by a minister who has yet to accomplish an actual win during his tenure. In other words, it is business as usual from this minister and the government. The incompetence is often confused with malice, and I can assure members that it can be both. On the surface, Bill C-18 seems like a pretty innocent bill. The gist is that small independent news providers should have a chance to compete with the big fish and earn their fair share of revenue in a free market. That is fair enough as a concept, but when we dig deeper, we find that this piece of legislation is deeply flawed, and it would not accomplish the stated goal.

Over the past eight years, we have witnessed an unprecedented erosion of freedoms under the Liberal government, particularly with Bill C-11, the censorship bill, as just one example. It was among the worst bills ever brought to the House, with an alarming opposition from industry, experts, creators and even their own friends, not just once, but twice, thanks to the member of Parliament for Lethbridge, who is not allowed to speak.

During those same eight years, we have also seen an alarming growth in the size and the power of the federal government here in Ottawa, with new abilities to regulate, to give and take away, to pick winners and losers, and to define right and wrong. A government that is big enough to do anything or to be anything is the same government that is big enough to take anything or everything away.

The overbearing approach, whetted with incompetence, adds icing to the cake of this Liberal failure. Because there are no longer proper safeguards in the new powers that the government has given itself, there is no justification on any of the decisions. Some of the most senior ministers do not read emails. Others are not briefed, and some simply are place holders in organizations where it seems like nobody is in charge.

There is no accountability, and Bill C-18 is the epitome of this. It is big government, limited freedom and crippling incompetence all combined into one bill. The political calculation here was that the Liberals might be able to force Google or Facebook to pay for links and to pay their fair share, saying at times that upward of 30% of the costs for every news outlet would be covered by these two companies. However, when we dig into the bill, we see the opposite is true because the publishers post links themselves to increase traffic and get more revenue. We heard that, over and over, at committee. It never made much sense to begin with, but when we found out from Facebook that news is only 3% of its overall feeds, it now makes even less sense.

Beyond the minister's initial miscalculation, he has no answer as to how he would deal with Canadians overall getting less news as a result of this bill, unless, of course, he is going to stop all of the government advertising or, even more ludicrous, the Liberals are going to stop Liberal Party advertising, let us say, during a campaign. Of course, the minister is not going to do that. Even if he were threatening to do that, it is a completely empty threat. It is more empty rhetoric and bluster that Canadians would end up paying for.

Let us go piece by piece and break it down. My first point is big government. Here in Bill C-18, the CRTC would be back on centre stage, much like it is with the censorship bill. Bill C-18 would give this unelected, unaccountable body of bureaucrats sweeping new powers. It would be responsible for ensuring that big social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, reach licensing agreements with various new outlets and, if an agreement cannot be reached, it would have the power to step in to appoint a mediator, and then an arbitrator, to do the job, giving the government the power to pick the winners and losers, in a free market.

Who would benefit from these deals? It would not be the small and local independent organizations that actually need our help. Rather, it would be large, established groups that can afford the high-priced lawyers and can curry favour with the CRTC and, by extension, the government.

In fact, many outlets, such as The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Le Devoir and more, have already reached deals. These big media groups might have the ability to negotiate with Facebook or even the federal government. Small mom-and-pop shops find themselves in a very different position. We have had confirmation of that already.

Lobbying records show that there was one meeting about Bill C-18 every four days over the span of eight months. We have had confirmation from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, too. He said that 75% of the money in this bill would go to CBC, Rogers and Bell, leaving only 25% for everybody else, precisely the opposite of the result one would want.

My second point is on limited freedom and forcing companies to pay for news access by mandating agreements in the free market. There would be less news, choice and independence. We have already seen the effects of that. Facebook recently shut down news-hosting services for some Canadians as a result of this legislation. That is a preview of what is to come. It is the most obvious thing that was going to happen.

If Google were to decide to do the same, it would again hurt the small independent producers. Large outlets, such as CBC, CTV or the Toronto Star, would not be affected. One can hardly say the same about the thousands of other independent broadcasters in Canada. The heritage minister can say this is not the intention, but the outcomes remain the same.

That brings me to my third point, which is incompetence. I will be frank. Only in this government could a heritage minister do no consultation, ignore opposing voices on not one but two laws, and fail so spectacularly without consequences. His record leaves much to be desired for anyone who looks critically at the issues and wants to do anything to solve them, whether in the House, in committee or in the Senate.

In front of committee, only a few weeks ago, the heritage minister could not answer basic questions about the legislation. From that bewildering appearance, we gather that he seems to believe the Internet is the problem. That is why he wants to regulate it with Bill C-11 and tax it with Bill C-18. He does not realize that the great equalizer, the Internet, is the place where all voices are heard, where people big and small can spread their ideas. It is the very outcome he wants to achieve.

The bill threatens that. Beyond the minister's crusade, this bill is extremely vague and unclear. It removes the certainties and the safeguards that anyone looking to Canada relies on. The minister likes to claim that he is working for the little guy, that he will not let Canadians get bullied by media giants. Again, that is exactly the opposite of what is happening. He is not working for the little guy. He is working in no way to rectify an issue. He is working to make the government, the CRTC, big media groups even more powerful and less accountable.

One cannot possibly be for big government, higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy, and for the little guy. One cannot have it both ways.

If the bill truly helps independent media, then why on earth would organizations keep speaking against their own interests? We have heard this debate all day long. They would not.

Here is what they do say. Phillip Crawley of The Globe and Mail called Bill C-18 a “threat to the independence of media”. Canadaland's Jesse Brown, no friend of the Conservatives, underlined the risks Bill C-18 poses to Canadians' trust in news providers. Witnesses at a recent Senate committee admitted that this bill would devastate the Internet traffic that media groups rely on.

Canada's Conservatives believe the Canadian news media should be fairly compensated for the use of their content by platforms such as Google and Facebook. The Liberals' approach to this issue through Bill C-18 is absolutely devastating. Not only will it not work, but it also creates a problem we did not have before.

Conservatives have listened to feedback. We tried to implement amendments to level the playing field at the CRTC, ensure journalistic independence and target aid to the smallest, most deserving broadcasters, the person starting their Substack out of their own home. At every step of the way, we were voted down.

This bill should be called the “no online news act” instead of the online news act. That is what it will do in practice. I will proudly vote against this bill. I will vote on the side of the independent media, which will be killed at the expense of a government again protecting its friends in legacy media.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting thing again. The Bloc tonight and the NDP, again, are supporting the Prime Minister. All I have said tonight is about holding the Prime Minister to account and limiting what he has for power. He is seeking more power and not less. He not only wants to be able to censor online content, but everybody who has actually read Bill C-11 will see that user-generated content would now be censorable by the CRTC, the cabinet and the Prime Minister. I guess I am just a bit surprised that the NDP, once again, instead of caring about democracy and free speech in this country, supports a corrupt Prime Minister.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, talk about being paranoid.

It is interesting. The member talked about Bill C-11 and how the government wants to censor everything. He then went on to Bill C-18 and said we are going pay off the media so that the media will give us nothing but positive stories. The real manoeuvre, no doubt, is the fact that we were able to fool the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens into supporting the Liberals in bringing all of this together to pass this kind of legislation so that the Prime Minister of Canada would be almighty and powerful. That is the type of tinfoil hat talk that I think we are seeing across the way.

Does the hon. member really believe what he is talking about? Is this the type of thing he is promoting through his social media?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18 tonight.

The question I have for Canadians watching this evening is this: Does the Prime Minister want to control what they see and hear about him on the Internet? My colleagues have already mentioned what the Prime Minister has done, with previous examples. Jody Wilson-Raybould is a classic example of trying to control people in this House. He has also overlooked foreign interference to win elections, frozen the bank accounts of protesters and established mandates. There are countless other things showing that the Prime Minister's ultimate goal is control. He is not quite comfortable unless he has full control.

The predecessor to Bill C-18 is Bill C-11, the way I see it. Legislatively, the Prime Minister has already implemented a censorship bill. It has been called that by many people, including the Conservatives, and he rammed it through the House. I became very familiar with the previous iterations of this bill, Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, and he has now censored by law, through the CRTC, user-generated content. He wants to control it. He might not like the video that I post on YouTube. Freedom of speech still reigns in this country for now, but the Prime Minister may say he does not really like what the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is saying, so off he goes and he can no longer be on YouTube or social media.

We already see that the Prime Minister is gaining control by censoring Canadians, but let us look at what Bill C-18 would do, not in an opposite way but in another corner of what censorship does. This is by influencing what big media have on their newscasts.

The question is on censorship and what the Prime Minister considers he is doing in a positive way to influence media in his favour. This is the way I phrase it: Who does not get the money and who gets the money? This is from an article entitled “Sue Gardner: Bill C-18 is Bad for Journalism and Bad for Canada”. On who does not get the money, she says, “This process will benefit big legacy media companies at the expense of startups and indie publishers.” She goes on to say, “Meanwhile, many small and indie publishers are actually excluded from C-18; the bill excludes operations that employ fewer than two journalists, and excludes those ‘primarily focused on a particular topic’ in favour of those that make general interest news.”

That is a question we have to ask when talking about control. Small publishers are much harder to control, and big media is a lot easier to control. Just give them millions and billions of dollars and away we go.

Let us talk about who is getting the money. The same article says:

If news organizations became dependent on money from the platforms to sustain their operations, as they surely would with the passage of Bill C-18, this dependence would create an incentive for them to pull their punches in how they covered the platforms.

That is an example where media might say it does not want to go after someone because, after all, they are writing the cheques.

What is even more concerning, based on what I have alluded to regarding the control of big tech, is the control of government. This is from the same article:

For journalism to be trusted, it needs to be—and perceived to be—independent from government, and willing and able to be critical of government.... Bill C-18 deepens government involvement in the industry. This creates an incentive for the industry to be soft on the government, and it will further reduce trust in journalism.

That is not from me; that is from this writer. They continue: “And anything that reduces trust in journalism is dangerous—especially right now.”

I started by talking about who gets the money. Let us look at what the money looks like.

I have an article by Samantha Edwards entitled “What to know about Bill C-18, the proposed law that could affect Canadian news publishers”. It states:

A report from the PBO said of the around $329-million the bill would generate for news outlets, around $247-million would go to broadcasters such as the CBC, Bell, Shaw and Rogers.... “The fact that three-quarters of the money will be going to broadcasters, some of which are the richest companies in Canada, plus the public broadcasters which are heavily subsidized already, undermines the government’s whole premise of the bill”....

What is the temptation? I have already talked about it. The temptation, of course, is about somebody writing cheques for millions and billions of dollars: Is the media going to be as truthful to the public as it should be when reporting about them? What is its first goal? Is it to provide news and truthfulness to Canadians? Right now, the government is saying that if the media wants a big cheque, they have to say this or that. We know the Prime Minister is already about control and wants to control what people say about him. Will he use this as a heavy stick? I believe he will.

We have already talked about the control that Bill C-11 gave to the CRTC. The CRTC is influenced by the Prime Minister and cabinet. It says it clearly right in the bill. I have an article from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute entitled “Extortion, Dependency and Media Welfare—The Liberals’ Bill C-18”. About halfway through, it states, “Those in favour have no qualms about creating a news media industry permanently dependent upon the good graces of the two most imposing powers in the lives of citizens these days: Big Tech and Big Government.” As a former chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, I saw how powerful big tech was and is, and the government working together with these guys is a really scary thing for those who care about freedom in the country. I will go on: “All involved will huff and puff self-servingly, while the [Prime Minister's] government happily renders media companies ever-more dependent on federal funding.”

It is not me saying this but articles that are concerned about the very same measures that this controlling Prime Minister, who has already implemented a censorship bill, is now trying to use to covet those two big entities so as to have the narrative go his way.

One interesting bit of testimony I saw when I was doing some research, because I knew I would be speaking to this, was from Liberal Senator Paula Simons in her speech from the Senate debate. Here is a clearly Liberal senator, a former media person, who is very concerned about what this bill brings if passed. I will read a couple of her quotes.

“More than that, I’m asking if it’s wise. How independent can the Canadian news media be if they are so deeply beholden to the goodwill and future economic success of two foreign corporations?” She is referring to big tech in this instance.

She goes on to quote Mr. Greenspon, from 2021, at a Senate committee: “...inviting the platforms to negotiate deals with individual publishers can badly distort the information marketplace. People have expressed concerns for decades that advertisers influence news agendas.” This is exactly what I have been saying. This is a person who has been in the industry her whole life. He went on: “They have massive public policy agendas of their own, including tax policy, regulatory oversight, data, et cetera.... You are here to strengthen the independent press, not to create new dependencies.”

Here is another quote from the senator: “And are we comfortable giving unprecedented new regulatory powers to the CRTC to intervene in the business of print journalism and to require mandatory media codes of ethics, given the free press has never before been subject in any way to the authority of the CRTC?”

I will finish with this. Who controls the CRTC? We already heard that it is cabinet and the Prime Minister. Members heard my question, the question that I started with: Does the Prime Minister want to control what we see and hear about him on the Internet? Absolutely, yes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am returning after the hour of PMB. I would like to thank my colleague from Niagara West for presenting that piece of legislation to the House. I would also like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

I left off saying that, for many reasons, I am very concerned about the direction of Bill C-18, for the reason that it would create risks to the independence of the press. My conclusion from all the items I listed prior to coming to that conclusion was a larger conclusion, which is that the government likes to control everything.

I gave some examples that were provided to me through different media sources, and I will continue some of those examples now. This is very interesting commentary that Canadians have left on the Substack of Michael Geist, and these comments include the following: “I wonder if the Liberals view C18 as a win-win situation. If Google and Facebook pay then the media will be more likely to support the Liberals in the next election.”

We have seen this happen before, of course, where the Liberals pay the media and then it feels compelled to report positively on the government of the day. In fact, we just heard the deputy House leader make reference to an article. We know, not off the top, if this journalist would have been subject to this type of situation, whereby they felt compelled to print something positive about the government of the day.

Another comment reads:

The potential consequences of this bill are deeply concerning. Even its supporters acknowledge the serious flaws that could lead to significant losses for Canadian media, including lost links and deals. The fact that the government is willing to silence criticism from local media organizations raises alarm bells about the lack of accountability and transparency surrounding this legislation.

This is similar to what we saw with Bill C-11. The comment goes on:

If passed as it stands, it could result in reduced access to news for Canadians and diminished revenues for Canadian news organizations. It is crucial that we address these issues and strive for a balanced solution that supports the sustainability of Canadian media while preserving the public’s right to information.

Another comment off the Substack of Michael Geist, who has been a strong commentator on the negative aspects of Bill C-18, is from a Canadian named Brian, who writes:

Haha. The driving of the final nail into the Canadian news media coffin has begun. Once the referrals to news sites from social media and web searches stops, so will the traffic to those sites stop and so will the advertising revenue they enjoy from that traffic. The last revenue stream for those news organizations will dry up faster than a puddle of water in the Sahara desert.

Michael Geist himself makes a comment, which is really damning, on the government cutting off debate, which is nothing new for us. Unfortunately, we have experienced time allocation several times in the House. He says, “The government cut off debate at second reading, actively excluded dozens of potential witnesses”; this is pretty par for the course as well. It “expanded the bill to hundreds of broadcasters that may not even produce news,” which is interesting considering that they accuse us over here of providing misinformation. It “denigrated online news services as ‘not real news’, and shrugged off violations of international copyright law.” This is a larger problem altogether.

In fact, I believe it was the member for Hamilton Mountain who said the quiet part out loud in committee by claiming that online news outlets were not news. That is news to me. After apologizing, she never spoke up again at committee, but she chose not to maintain her silence in the House today.

DB writes, “After Bill C11 and C18 why should anyone trust this government? It's clear they value the interests of media organizations over the interests of Canadians.” That is my point, as I go to close here. The Liberal government wants to control everything. It wants to control our democratic systems, as we have seen with its hesitancy to do anything about the situation regarding foreign interference and call a public inquiry. It wants to control the cycle of our economy, keeping Canadians in poverty with higher taxation but giving back tiny bits. It wants to control our day care systems, in terms of providing no solutions for different types of families and taking away work from female entrepreneurs.

The good news is, in the member for Carleton, we will have a prime minister that will allow for freedom, and we will see all these things go the way of the dodo bird.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House and address not only my constituents in Calgary Midnapore but also Canadians. The matter at hand today is Bill C-18, which seems to go hand in hand with Bill C-11, the unfortunate legislation we saw this House pass that attempts to silence Canadians.

Before I get to my speech, I want to take a moment to recognize the member for Lethbridge, who, as the Conservative shadow minister for heritage, has done an incredible job of standing up not only for content creators and all Canadians, but especially for those who want their voices heard, whom the government, hand in hand with its government partner the NDP, is not allowing to be heard. Let us hear it for them being the opposition someday soon. It will happen when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister.

Today we are discussing Bill C-18. I am not as familiar with this bill as the member for Lethbridge, who, again, has done such a fantastic job of championing our opposition to this bill and to Bill C-11, but after my review of the bill and the information I have seen online, which I do not believe is misinformation, I have some significant concerns. It seems that the government's reasoning for this bill is in alignment with a lot of its other legislation. I am going to go over some troubling points that I see and then conclude with how I feel this points in the same negative direction that we see the government often take.

Apparently, according to this bill, the government would be able to determine who eligible news businesses are. That is very unfortunate, because if anyone has something to say, then that is news, that is their news and that is their voice. It really should not fall to the government to determine who eligible news businesses are. The government would also mandate payments for links, so in addition to controlling who is saying what and what they are saying, it is controlling the money of who is saying what and what is being said.

Also, the CRTC would be judging the agreements. The CRTC has been given incredible oversight, and I would almost say overreach, with Bill C-11, and this is continuing with Bill C-18. I have seen several articles that indicate Bill C-18 risks creating no independence within the press. That is also very concerning.

What all of these concerns I have just listed point to is a theme with the Liberals: They want to control everything. That is exactly what they do. They absolutely want to control everything. Whenever there is something they do not agree with, they label it as misinformation. This is what they do, and Bill C-18 is just another example of the government's attempt to control Canadians.

However, members should not just take my word for it. Michael Geist noted, “The Globe and Mail's Phillip Crawley warned against the intrusion of the CRTC into the news business, calling it a “threat to the independence of media”, something I just mentioned. Virtually everyone admitted—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity again to address Bill C-18 in the House.

I am pleased that the Senate has exercised its judgment as the place of sober second thought and sent this legislation back to the House for further work.

Right off the top, I will say that there are three areas where all members of the House are in agreement. First, we all agree that there should be some mechanism whereby tech giants are taxed, and that we do so in a way that does not negatively affect Canadian consumers. Second, we all agree that there must be some mechanism in place to deal with online misinformation and disinformation. At every one of our offices, we deal with this issue on a daily basis. Third, we all agree that we must create a framework to regulate AI or artificial intelligence.

We agree on these three principles. The issue, as is usually the case in the House, is how we go about doing that.

How do we make tech giants pay their fair share? How do we regulate information online and, perhaps more pertinent to our conversation today, particularly in light of the events of the past three years, who determines what is misinformation? How do we differentiate between fact and opinion?

In our postmodern world, or what some have called a post-truth world or a world where truth has become a relative or entirely subjective concept, how do we, as governments and media, differentiate and adjudicate between truly evidence-based information versus that which is driven by ideology and political expediency? Finally, how do we even begin to deal with the challenges posed by artificial intelligence?

In the Bible, we have the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have the story of the Tower of Babel, where people believed that by building a tower to heaven, by storming God’s dominion, they could themselves become God. We have heard the story of Pandora’s box, or jar if we want to be exact, and the story of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods.

Almost every ancient civilization has some story of humanity receiving or taking knowledge from the gods, knowledge they were not ready for, that they were ill-equipped to handle and that ultimately leads to chaos.

With the advent of the technological revolution and, in particular, artificial intelligence, humanity has come full circle to a truly frightening reality. It is good that we are beginning to address these important issues. It is good that we are at least largely agreed on what those issues are.

Unfortunately, as is always the case with the government, the flaw is in the details. There is a reason that the Senate sent this back. It could have chosen to just approve it. It sent it back and that is because this legislation, like its sister legislation Bill C-11, is deeply flawed.

Conservatives maintain that the government has misled Canadians about what the true objectives of Bill C-11 are. In short, it gives the government the ability to control what people see and post online. That is why Conservatives have committed to repealing it. I suspect that we will do likewise after Bill C-18 has been passed, and we are sitting on the other side of the House.

Like Bill C-11, at first look, the legislation looks fine and prudent, but then one starts to dig a little deeper. The flaw is in the details. One of those first pesky details is the issue of accountability. The government says that tech giants need to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians, which is the pot speaking to the kettle.

I agree. I am pretty sure my colleagues agree with this statement. Tech giants, like all multinational, plutocratic entities, do need to be held accountable. If they wish to operate within the jurisdiction of a country, those individual nation states must find a way to temper the unprecedented power, influence and wealth these entities have amassed.

When it comes to transparency and accountability, the government has very limited credibility. How the government can have the audacity to tell anyone they need to be more accountable and transparent shows its utter lack of self-awareness and the level of narcissism we are dealing with here because there has never been a government that has been so secretive. This government has so actively shunned accountability.

When, in the long line of scandals and failures of the Prime Minister and his ministers, has even one of them ever taken responsibility? I think the record clearly shows that the answer to that question is never. I could stand here and, one by one, list the scandals and failures of this government, but we would be here all night, and I know we have other work do get done here.

There is always an excuse, always someone else to blame. The government never takes responsibility. No minister has ever been held accountable. Actually, that is not quite true. We may remember that the Prime Minister did fire a minister. What did she do? Did she fail to execute the basic functions of government? Did she create chaos in her department? Did she misappropriate funds? Did she lie about a matter of national security? No, she did not. Her crime was that she tried to hold the Prime Minister accountable. She was the first indigenous woman to be minister of justice and attorney general, and the Prime Minister fired her because she refused to be party to his misdeeds or to capitulate to his unlawful demands.

When it comes to accountability, the Liberals have no credibility. Therefore, how can Canadians trust the Liberal government to enforce the very thing that the government itself refuses to do? That same statement from the heritage minister’s office states, “Canadians need to have access to quality, fact-based news at the local and national levels, and that's why we introduced the Online News Act.” I agree with that sentiment. The problem is that it is really difficult to take the government at its word when it has spent the past seven and a half years subsidizing media outlets that are friendly to it, intentionally parrot government talking points as “facts” and brand everything else as “misinformation”.

The Liberals gave legacy Liberal media $650 million and continue to fund the CBC to the tune of $1.24 billion per year. Why do they need to do this? First, it is to buy positive coverage, and they have gotten excellent bang for their buck. There is always a cost-benefit analysis, and the benefit seems to have been worth the cost of taxpayers' dollars. Second, they have done so because those friendly outlets are dying. They are trying to prop up a dying industry.

With the exception of a brief renaissance during COVID, when flush with Liberal government dollars, the media spouted government talking points and spread fear and division among Canadians. They have ceased to be relevant. We can bemoan that fact all we want, but I would ask, as I believe my colleagues have adequately done, what members' primary source for their news and entertainment is? Chances are that it is something online. I think this is really at the heart of the issue. I would pose this question to the government: What is a better indicator of what people actually believe, what they say or what they do? I would argue that it is what they do.

In the same way as the government’s track record, its behaviour has shown that it does not really believe in accountability. It also does not care about what the media prints or posts as long as it is favourable to the government. However, Canadian consumers have also spoken by their behaviour. If we were to ask a group of Canadians to define “Canadian content”, it would be difficult to get consensus. The platforms that Canadians subscribe to, the shows they watch and the content they consume would probably not be considered Canadian content by all Canadians.

Maybe listening to Canadians rather than dictating to them what the government wants them to see as Canadian content would poise the government to better serve Canadians. If we were to ask a group of Canadians how important Canadian content in media is, I suspect about half would say it is important. If we were to ask that same group how much Canadian content they actually consume, what platforms they subscribe to and what shows they watch, the answer would most likely be pretty different.

Perhaps, for once, rather than dictating to Canadians, the government that supposedly represents their interests ought to take the novel approach of listening to them. While it is listening, it should ask them what they think about the carbon tax, the cost of living, this so-called green and woke agenda, their media priorities and whether they feel safe on the streets. This is Conservatism 101. The market is the best indicator of what Canadian people want, because it is driven by Canadian people. Rather than accept this reality, the government that thinks it knows better than Canadians how to spend their money, consistently pushes back against the market to achieve its own ideological purposes.

At the end of the day, the market determines the viability of a product, including media, so we need to address these issues. Conservatives agree with that, but the weaknesses of this legislation are secondary to the sad reality that the government lacks credibility. It is a serial offender, guilty of doing the very things it claims this legislation would address.

Only a new, Conservative government would be able to address these important issues, and we will address them head-on—

News Media Industry

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question and her absolutely great work.

Bill C‑18 is crucial to save our newsrooms and make web giants pay their fair share. However, at every step of the process, Conservative politicians have filibustered to block passage of Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, because they would rather defend web giants than defend Canadians, jobs and our freedom of the press.

On this side of the House, we will continue to stand up for our democracy. We did it in the past, we are doing it today, and we will continue to do it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a free and independent press is vital to our democracy. Last week, we learned that 1,300 families were affected by Bell's layoffs, while the online platforms and web giants benefit from access to the Canadian market, but have no responsibility towards our artists, creators and local Canadian media. That is another example of why we need Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to make the web giants pay their fair share to our local media.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House how our government made a commitment to defend our democracy?

Online News Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the legislation that the member is referring to is Bill C-11; on that bill, the Conservatives said that we were trying to muzzle Canadians, that we were not going to let them upload their cat videos and things of that nature. It is about misinformation.

Of course that was absolute hokum, misinformation. I suspect that the Conservative Party made a lot of money on Bill C-11, in terms of fundraising, by spreading misinformation. I do not know how long that particular piece of legislation was held up for. I think it was a record in terms of how long it was held up in the Senate.

The bottom line is that this is good legislation. All they need to do is read their election platform to see what they told Canadians in the last federal election, recognize the true value of this legislation and support it. It is not too late. One can always flip-flop again and support this legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. We certainly did work hard on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with the other committee members. In general, we worked in a very constructive manner. I really appreciated that.

In September, I had the privilege of attending Mondiacult, a world conference on culture, in Mexico City. While I was there, I met with representatives from African countries, who told me that they were keeping an eye on the work that we are doing here in the House of Commons to regulate the news sector and the cultural sector with respect to the web giants. They told us that they are watching us because they do not have the same weight as Canada in terms of negotiating deals and in taking measures. They told us to stay strong.

Now we are seeing Google and Facebook threatening to remove or block access to Canadian news content. That is what Meta recently did. I would like to hear my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby's opinion on this. How important is it to take a firm stance with the web giants, knowing that we are setting an example for other countries and other nations that will soon have to make their own laws?

Bill C‑18 — Senate Amendments

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pick up where we left off last night.

I have to say I was a little disappointed. We had a great opportunity to debate Bill C‑18 last night, but we were cut off at about 6:30 p.m. in the middle of my speech. I had about 12 minutes to go. The classy thing to do would have been to let me finish my speech before interrupting the proceedings. Let us not talk about that right now. Let us talk about Bill C‑18 for the time we have left because, as everyone knows, the House just voted in favour of time allocation.

During the debates on Bill C‑18, there was a lot of talk about money. Basically, people talked about the financial difficulties news outlets have been experiencing for decades, ever since the web giants came on the scene and helped themselves to the lion's share of advertising revenue. People have talked a lot about money, which is certainly important because that is the crux of the matter, obviously. That is what news outlets need in order to succeed and keep providing the essential service they provide: high-quality, independent, fact-checked, thorough information; essentially, news that meets recognized journalistic standards.

Bill C‑18 will benefit the news sector. It will most likely help save many news businesses. That is the objective of the bill, and I think that it will largely achieve that objective. Today, I also wanted to talk about something else that Bill C‑18 will help preserve or even save, and that is journalism itself. We have heard all kinds of things about eligible news businesses and which businesses would benefit more than others from this bill and from the regulations and regulatory framework that will be put in place by Bill C‑18. However, we are forgetting to define and discuss journalism itself.

With the advent of social media and digital platforms, it is true that we have seen the emergence of new types of news media, new types of businesses, new ways of disseminating information. However, we have also seen more news businesses engaging in what we might call advocacy journalism. In some cases, it could even be described as activist journalism, a form of journalism that involves embracing a cause and using the medium to provide news to the public in a way that is biased in favour of that cause. One example would be environmental journalism. We agree that the cause is worthy, but environmental journalists will always deliver the news with an activist slant. I have nothing against that, but is that journalism in the true sense of the word? No, not really, in the same way that a certain type of media outlet might have a political bent. I know some people will say that CBC/Radio-Canada has a pro-government, pro-Liberal bias.

What is journalism, really? Journalism is a profession that demands a lot of meticulous work and a lot of passion. It has certain standards, certain rules that I would hazard to say are accepted around the world. Its first guiding principle is independence. What does independence mean for journalism and for journalists? It means the ability to work unfettered by the influence of a government, company, movement or cause. That is what journalistic independence means. The second guiding principle is handling the news in a meticulous way. That means having an almost obsessive passion for truth-seeking and fact-checking, while remaining objective.

The other guiding principle is respect for individuals and groups and respect in handling sources.

These are the guiding principles of the journalism profession. I am not saying that advocacy journalism, activist journalism or opinion journalism are bad. However, they are not necessarily what we are trying to protect through Bill C‑18. That is why we included eligibility criteria in Bill C‑18. News outlets eligible under the regulatory framework proposed by Bill C‑18 will have to espouse a code of ethics. The code in question may not necessarily mirror the journalistic standards and practices of CBC/Radio-Canada or the ethics guide of the Quebec Press Council. However, the media outlet would need a code, even one scribbled on a piece of paper, that reflects its commitment to complying with the guiding principles of journalism.

I think this should offer some comfort to people who think that Bill C‑18 will favour certain large media outlets that they believe show a bias for the government and could act as a conduit for the government's opinions.

I do not think that what I am about to say will be a big surprise to members who did not participate in the debates on Bill C-18. My Conservative friends were not very supportive of this bill and they do not generally like what we call the mainstream media, the major news media outlets. I am talking about traditional media companies like CBC/Radio-Canada, Vidéotron, Bell Media and Québecor, of course. I am talking about these major companies that produce the news. The Conservatives find them biased because, in general, they take positions that are not relayed as the Conservatives would like, for all sorts of reasons. Generally, the populist spin gets filtered out in the mainstream media, which adopt journalistic standards and adhere to broad journalistic principles.

I will now digress briefly, since we are talking about CBC/Radio-Canada. I know someone who has worked in the news service for a good part of his career and who received complaints from the public. On the French side, Quebec separatists have often accused Radio-Canada of being federalist and not reporting the news or doing so in a biased way when it comes to the separatist cause. Conversely, Quebec federalists find that Radio-Canada is a gang of separatists. This person I know told me that when it comes to the news, if he receives the same number of complaints from people who complain that they are being too federalist relative to those who complain that they are being too separatist, he feels that they did a good job, that they worked objectively and that they were “on the right track,” as my friend, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for La Prairie might say. In short, it is all a matter of perception.

However, there is something that is different about the mainstream media. I do not want to advocate for CBC/Radio-Canada, but in general, these major media companies are objective. Obviously we see biases from time to time, but not serious ones. These major media outlets must change course and correct the situation when they make a mistake, when they err, when they are, for example, partisan, or biased, or handle a news item badly. They all have mechanisms for receiving complaints, processing them and making retractions as needed. Knowing how to make retractions after recognizing that a mistake was made is also one of the major principles of journalism.

I am talking about mainstream media, but I also spoke earlier about the new media, new forms of news media that we have seen emerge, media of all kinds. There is a lot of opinion news, as I said. I wondered whether these media had to be neglected. The answer is obviously no.

Changes are happening in the news sector. Everyone acknowledged that when we studied Bill C‑18. A lot has changed. The fact is that news companies need to adapt, transition to digital technologies and make sure they reach people where they are.

Consumer habits have changed in recent years when it comes to the news. People get their news on social media. They go on Facebook, for example, or they search for a particular piece of news or subject using Google. These are now the ways we get our news. What is more, these outlets and general content companies sell huge amounts of advertising, since 80% of advertising is said to now be in the digital sector. I think it is normal that these outlets and these companies, which profit heavily from the news sector and the content generated by newsrooms, contribute to the content they are benefiting from. It is the least they can do.

I am well aware of the fact that Bill C‑18 will not solve all the issues with the news sector, the media in general and culture, the latter being addressed more specifically in Bill C‑11. Bill C‑18 will not solve everything. There will still be problems and challenges. In my opinion, it is normal that governments come to the aid of a sector as fragile as the news sector. It is a fragile sector, but it is essential.

Clearly, we will need more tools to help the media. That is obvious. The fund the Bloc Québécois is proposing would be a very effective tool, allowing us to collect royalties from the digital giants that are making outrageous profits and use them to support more fragile media, such as regional media. I think that would be a good solution.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is the party proposing solutions rather than simply opposing suggestions and obstructing Parliament. I would be very pleased to discuss this with my colleagues and to make a more detailed proposal to the government.

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important question. I want to thank my colleague for his work on this bill and the overall work of the government. He is a key member of the government team.

Sometimes, it is necessary to use time allocation. With this official opposition, it may be used more, because they like to filibuster. The opposition likes to play with the tools it has to hurt our democracy.

Bill C-11 is an amazing bill that is asking the streamers that we all love, such as Disney, Netflix and others, to contribute to Canadian culture, which is a good thing. Normally we would all agree on this. I know the NDP agrees. I know the Bloc agrees. The Conservatives are not too sure. That bill spent more time in the Senate than any other bill in the history of this country, because it was blocked by Conservative senators under the order of the leader of the Conservative Party. That is totally unacceptable.

The Conservatives are trying to do the same thing on Bill C-18, with the budget and other bills. They are hurting our democracy.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to this closure motion. It is very disappointing, yet nothing new, that we are seeing this from government, since it has consistently used every opportunity it can, in coordination with its coalition partners, to silence not only members of the House but also the Canadians they represent.

We do not have enough time to present our opinions. I want to say that again for both English- and French-speaking Canadians because our debates are held in both official languages. Unfortunately, this process is not new to this House.

It is not surprising, unfortunately. We have seen this with a number of other bills. In addition to limiting speech, and we certainly know that we are going to have an opportunity to talk about the limitation of speech with Bill C-18 also coming forward in the House, we also see the limitation of democracy across the country, not only with foreign interference but also with Bill C-11.

The silencing of members of the House, as well as of Canadians, is nothing new, so I would like to say that it is very disappointing, especially as we go into the summer holidays. We are very limited in the amount of time that we have to have these important conversations for Canadians.

News Media Industry

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our government will always be open to new solutions. We will always look at what more we can do and what we can do better.

However, when we introduced the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, the Conservatives were against it. When we created the Canada Media Fund for the regions, the Conservatives were against it. When we introduced Bill C‑11, the Conservatives were against it. When we introduced Bill C‑18, the Conservatives, again, were against it.

Do they understand that their actions have real consequences?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with all those who have lost their jobs, and with their families. It is always worrisome when radio stations shut down and journalists lose their jobs. That is why we have been there from the start. We worked with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to study Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, but the Conservatives did everything they could to delay the passage of those bills.

Do they finally understand that their actions have consequences?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 1,300 people learned yesterday that they would be losing their jobs at Bell Media. Six radio stations are going to stop broadcasting. When even a giant like Bell can no longer protect its media and newsrooms, the situation is dire. The entire news industry and the people who work in it are all under threat.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to have contributed to Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18, two very important bills. However, I think the minister is beginning to realize, as I have, that this will probably not be enough.

In light of these new job losses, does the minister have anything to suggest in order to better protect the diversity of information?

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect. We had not proceeded to clause-by-clause until the Liberals brought in a guillotine motion in the House of Commons. To say that we were filibustering clause-by-clause is 100% inaccurate, so perhaps the member could refresh her memory, because that is not what happened. They came with a guillotine motion, literally in the dead of night, to force every clause through without debate or discussion. Every debate was debated in the dead of night.

To remind members who are wondering at home, the bill in question was Bill C-11. This was the Liberal effort to regulate the Internet and to try to force user-generated content to be subject to CRTC regulations. We all know that if we want something to be done poorly, we give it to the CRTC.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour to rise in this House, but I do so today on Government Business No. 26 with some degree of disappointment. There is disappointment because we are debating a motion that does not have the consensus of this House of Commons. It does not have the consensus of the recognized parties. The government and the government alone is trying to unilaterally change the accepted rules of this place without the consensus of all parties.

When provisions for hybrid Parliament were first introduced in this place, they were done so as a temporary measure so that members could participate in the proceedings of Parliament at a time when travelling and gathering in large groups were not permitted due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. They were never considered a long-term change to how we conduct business as a House of Commons.

The proposed changes being debated today are not in the interests of Canada's Parliament. I am reminded of the words of a great Nova Scotian, one of the great parliamentarians of his generation, the Right Hon. Bob Stanfield, from Truro, Nova Scotia. I know the Speaker is a proud Nova Scotian. Bob Stanfield, in a memo to his caucus, focused on the importance of certain institutions, certain principles among parliamentarians, that we ought to hold dear. He wrote, “Not only is it unnecessary for political parties to disagree about everything, but some acceptance of common ground among the major parties is essential to an effective and stable democracy. For example, it is important to stability that all major parties agree on such matters as parliamentary responsible government and major aspects of our Constitution.”

In the past, that has been accepted. It has been accepted among all political parties and different political parties that when major changes are made to how we operate as a Parliament, as a House of Commons, it is done with a common understanding among parliamentarians. Indeed, during the Harper majority government, a process like this was led by then parliamentary secretary Tom Lukiwski, who ensured that the multiple major changes made to our Standing Orders were made with the consensus of all political parties at that time. That is the process that worked then, and that is the process that ought to work going forward.

I want to quote my friend and geographic neighbour, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The member was recently at a parliamentary committee testifying on a different matter, but the point he made applies to this place. He said:

In Canada, there is only one federal electoral process, and that is the process whereby Canadians get one vote for their local member of Parliament. Everyone else in our system is appointed. The Senate is appointed. The Prime Minister is appointed.... The cabinet is appointed. Everyone else is appointed. The only electoral process federally in our system is for the House of Commons. It's the only part of our system that has an electoral process. It's the only part of our system that is democratic. It's the only part of our system where Canadians get a vote, and that is for the House of Commons.

The changes the Liberal government is proposing would give even more power to the whips and party leaders, and take away the rights and privileges of individually duly elected parliamentarians. It is a fundamental principle in this place that the Standing Orders ought to be respected, and up until now, the changes ought to require consensus. It is clear from the debate thus far that the government does not have that consensus.

I want to draw members' attention to some history in this place. On May 18, 2016, the then leader of the government in the House of Commons, now the minister of democratic institutions, introduced government Motion No. 6. Back then, when the NDP was still operating as an opposition party and holding true to its principles, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby raised a question of privilege in which he called the motion “a motion that rewrites our Standing Orders in more than 17 different ways so that the executive has unilateral control over all of the procedural tools in the House.”

That was when the member for New Westminster—Burnaby had principles and held the government to account. Unfortunately, now the New Democrats have joined the Liberal coalition and are no longer using the tools at their disposal. Motion No. 6 was eventually withdrawn, but only after the united concerted efforts of the opposition parties to make it clear that changes ought only occur with a consensus.

Then in our walk down memory lane, we move to 2017, when the then leader of the government in the House of Commons, now the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, instructed the Liberal members on that same committee to introduce a motion that would have given the government the ability to change the Standing Orders in a way that was only approved by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons. This resulted in what was then known as the Standing Orders standoff, in which the 55th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs lasted from March 21 to May 2, 2017, when the Liberal government eventually backed down.

That was certainly a challenging time, but when I look back at it, I do so with pride, because it was a time when Conservative, New Democrat, Bloc and Green members were all united against the unilateral Liberal government actions. I remember at the time the outrage so eloquently expressed by the NDP member David Christopherson. In one of his 303 interventions in that meeting, he said, “I don't understand how the government thinks they're going to win on this, or how they think that ramming through changes to our Standing Orders is going to make the House work any better.”

More than six years later, here we are again, with the Liberals trying to ram through changes, having not learned a single thing. Unfortunately, this time the NDP is driving the getaway car.

It reminds me of another quotation. In a speech to the Empire Club, an individual said this:

It is the opposition's right to insist at all times on the full protection of the rules of debate. The government is entitled to that same protection, but in addition it has its majority with which to establish its will. The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules.

Who said that? It was the late great Stanley Knowles, one of the great NDP parliamentarians in this place, who, even after he left office, continued to have a seat at the clerk's table until he passed away. That is how dedicated he was to this place and to parliamentary democracy. Sadly, the NDP is no longer living up to the great expectations set by the late great Stanley Knowles.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the provisions for hybrid were brought in as temporary measures during the lockdowns of COVID-19. They were only there as a matter of necessity and should not be a permanent change so that members of Parliament can avoid this place.

Frankly, I remember that in April 2020, when we first started looking at temporary changes to the Standing Orders, it was done with a clear understanding that they were temporary. When the procedure and House affairs committee made its recommendations at that time, it included phrases such as “during the current pandemic” and “during exceptional circumstances”. This was never thought to be a part of the normalized operation of this place.

In fact, the committee heard from former acting clerk Marc Bosc, co-editor of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the person who quite literally wrote the book on procedure in this place. On June 4, 2020, he said:

...I would say that I agree with Mr. Blaikie that the changes made so far relate to a pandemic situation. I think that has to be the lens through which you look at this particular exercise. The speed with which the hybrid model for the committee has been adopted, to me, is not a particular concern, but as Mr. Blaikie pointed out, if the tendency or the temptation is to make these changes permanent, that's a whole other issue.

As clearly shown at the time, these changes were never contemplated to be wholesale changes but rather temporary measures for a temporary situation.

We, as parliamentarians, especially opposition parliamentarians, hold a fundamental purpose in holding the government and the executive branch to account. What is often forgotten by Liberal backbenchers is that they share the same responsibility. Liberal backbenchers are not members of the government. They are members of the government party, but they are not members of the executive branch, and they ought to share the same concerns as opposition members in their role of holding government to account.

Unfortunately, hybrid Parliament makes it easier for Liberal ministers to avoid accountability in this place and at committee. What is more, as much as we may not always like what our friends in the media may write or say about us or our party, the media, too, holds a fundamental role within our parliamentary democracy. However, when a minister of the Crown participates virtually, either in committee or in the House, they avoid the interaction with our friends in the media and thereby avoid that effective way of accountability. When ministers participate in committee virtually, it takes more time and eats up more of the opportunity for opposition members to ask questions and have an effective restraint on the actions of government.

As I have raised a couple of times in questions and comments, the challenge of committees is very clear in a hybrid setting. I had the great honour and privilege to serve for nearly a year on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. At the time, we were undertaking some very important studies, one of them on the absolutely horrendous state of affairs at Hockey Canada. I might add that is now ongoing with many other sports, which frankly, has not been adequately addressed. Sport Canada, as an organization, should be ashamed of itself in view of those allegations against Hockey Canada back in June 2018. It did nothing for four years, but I digress.

At committee, we were also studying Bill C-11 and we were undertaking clause-by-clause. In both of these situations, having a chair who was entirely virtual led to a gong show of a committee. The committee was unable to function because the chair could not see the room. The chair could not understand what was happening in the room. Quite frankly, the chair was constantly saying that she did not know what was happening in the room because she was not in the room. That is one of the major failings of the hybrid system, particularly as it relates to committees.

Now, I do recognize that, in these provisions, the presiding officer must preside in person, and perhaps we could call that the Hedy Fry rule, but that is what is happening—

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is what happens when it is in fact the government that is spreading misinformation, not the people. Is it not then more dangerous to have concentrated the power over what is seen and said in the hands of those few people?

It goes back to the fundamental and basic question: If a man is not capable of governing himself, how can he govern others? That is the basic and fundamental question and the contradiction that those who believe in the superiority of the state over the citizen fail to answer.

If everyday humans are so flawed that they cannot decide for themselves, how can those same humans decide for anyone else? Well, their answer over there would be that there is this small group that are made of finer clay, that have intellectual and moral superiority, and therefore, if we just hand over all of our decisions to them, they could correct all the flaws and frailties of humankind. However, we know that the opposite happens: When we concentrate more power into fewer hands, we attract power-hungry people who are more flawed and less capable, more incompetent and with less common sense, who then inflict all of their failings and bad behaviour on the rest of society. That is why a limited and smaller government is always better: It because it allows everyday individual people to make their own decisions and to have personal responsibility and personal freedom in how they do so.

That is why one of my first actions as prime minister will be to repeal Bill C-11. I will repeal the censorship law to let people express themselves online. Let freedom of debate reign so that everyday people can hash out their differences.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are getting close.

There are 37,000 of them. As I said, to be redundant, many of them are big, ugly and empty buildings. Why do we not sell them off and turn them into housing and use the proceeds to pay down the deficit? This is common sense. We are going to take that money and we are going to pay down the deficit. We are going to turn the buildings into housing so young people have a place to live.

We are going to bring in faster immigration for the building trades. I am going to allow the unions to sponsor immigration so unions like LiUNA can bring in labourers from other countries to fill the 50,000 job vacancies that desperately need to be filled. That will mean more builders in this country.

I am going to give parity of esteem. I am going to give the same respect and funding for the trades that we give to the universities. We should honour the people who build stuff, fix stuff and move stuff. They need the same support as our professionals. This is the common sense of the common people.

That is how we are going to bring home powerful paycheques and bring homes people can afford by getting government out of the way, but still we are going to need people to have bigger and more powerful paycheques, so how are we going to do that?

Let us look at immigrants. There are 20,000 immigrant doctors and 32,000 immigrant nurses banned from working in our hospitals because they cannot get a licence to practise even though many of them actually have practised in more sophisticated health care systems in places like Singapore. The gatekeepers block them from getting medical licences.

The federal government is not responsible for regulating those sectors. However, the federal government does provide money for both immigration resettlement and for health care. I believe we should use that money as leverage to get all the provinces to agree with a common national testing standard for all the regulated professions.

That would allow Canada's brilliant immigrants to take a test, not to get a shortcut but to take a test, to prove they meet the Canadian standard and that within 60 days of an immigrant applying to work in their profession they should get a yes or no based on their tested ability and not based on where they come from. I call this the blue seal standard. We have a red seal for the trades. Let us have a blue seal for the professions.

What has the federal government done? In the last eight years, it has done absolutely nothing. We at least, in the prior government, were able to reduce the wait time for an immigrant applying to work in their profession to one year, which I admit was too long but it was shorter than prior. Since that time, there has been no progress whatsoever and the list grows longer and longer of engineers, architects, nurses, personal support workers and doctors who could be helping our economy and serving Canadian patients but who are left on the sidelines in low-wage jobs because there is no simplified, streamlined process to accredit their abilities.

By the way, I will back up 30,000 small study loans so working-class immigrants who need a few months off work to study up to the Canadian standard can do so. Then they can get licensed, get practising, get a bigger paycheque, pay back the loan and that same money can then be lent out to the next deserving immigrant, who can then be propelled to a wonderful paycheque of opportunity serving Canadians.

This is just common sense. I would love to say that this is some work of art I am presenting to the House of Commons, but really it is the common sense of the common people I hear out on the streets when talking to those people every day.

Speaking of common sense, we need to bring home safety again. There is no way we can have a secure economy if we do not have safe streets. Crime has been raging out of control. Drugs, disorder, crime and chaos have become common in our streets under the Prime Minister. He has brought in catch-and-release, which allows the most violent repeat offenders to be released again and again and again onto our streets.

In Vancouver, the same 40 people were arrested 6,000 times, or 150 arrests per offender per year. If those same 40 offenders were just behind bars, we would have had 6,000 fewer people hit over the head with a baseball bat, stabbed with a knife or thrown onto a train track. Why not focus on putting those same repeat violent offenders behind bars?

I believe in second chances. I believe in redemption. I do not believe in a 75th chance. If one has committed 75 crimes, one belongs in jail. One should not have bail. One should not have parole after that many offences. The public's safety is more important than the criminal's right and we should protect the people and keep them safe. That is what we will do with a common-sense criminal justice reform.

We are going to bring home our loved ones recovered from drug addiction. We know that drug addictions have raged out of control under the Prime Minister. He has unleashed a wave of drug addiction since he became Prime Minister. Maybe he is trying to medicate poverty. Maybe he is trying to tell people that they should simply take drugs rather than have a future, because so many people are feeling hopeless and helpless after eight years of his leadership. They lose their jobs and suffer the pain of being unable to pay their bills. They are losing their homes. Many of them cannot take the suffering and end up addicted to drugs, drugs that were originally prescribed by doctors and pushed by powerful pharmaceutical companies.

Under the Prime Minister, there has been over a 200% increase nationwide in the number of drug overdose deaths. His solution has been to give people more tax-funded drugs, tax-funded narcotics like hydromorphone, an opioid more powerful than heroin, now handed out with hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian tax dollars. We now know that those drugs are being resold by addicts who no longer find them powerful enough to get them high. They are selling to kids and the kids get addicted to those. Then they sell them to other kids and use the profits from selling these free government-funded drugs to buy more powerful fentanyl.

Thus, the places where this experiment has been most enthusiastically tried, like Vancouver, have been the places where the overdose rates have been the highest. There is a correlation both across time and across space of people dying, the more these government-funded drugs are available. The current approach is not working. The answer is, yes, I will shut down taxpayer-funded drugs and I will put all of the money into recovery and treatment.

Recently, I visited an incredible treatment facility in Winnipeg. The story has a tragic beginning, but a happy ending. The story starts with a young man, Bruce Oake, who died of an overdose in Calgary. His father, a legendary sportscaster, Scott Oake, said he was going to make it his life's mission to make sure that no other parent would suffer the same tragic loss that his family had suffered, so he raised the money to create a beautiful, gleaming place where people who had lost all hope and were addicted to drugs could go and have counselling, detox, job training, reconciliation with their families, sweat lodges, yoga, mandatory exercise. They helped them to regain their health and cleanse their bodies of poisons. Not only that, sober homes were built attached to the treatment facility so that when the graduates come out of treatment, they go into an apartment that is right next to the treatment facility, where they can go back any time to see a counsellor or maybe to mentor a new person who is coming in.

I was amazed to find out that most of the people there doing the work, right up to the accountants and the administrative staff, were all recovering addicts themselves. They said it is one thing to have book learning, but it is much more powerful to have real-life experience when sitting down with someone who is an addict, who is going through the desperate pain of withdrawal. When all they want is one more hit that will relieve their immense suffering, they want to be able to talk to someone who knows what they are feeling. The word “compassion” comes from the Latin word pati, to suffer. Passion is to suffer; compassion is to suffer with someone else.

They sit together in those rooms in that wonderful facility and share in each other's suffering, knowing that when suffering is shared, it is relieved and replaced with hope. We are going to replace people's pain with hope by ensuring that places like the Oake Recovery Centre are replicated hundreds and maybe even thousands of times across the country so that young people can go into those places, cleanse their bodies, get their lives back and then mentor the next crop of addicts to give them their lives back.

This cycle of hope will be repeated again and again and again, as a Conservative government gives people the chance to bring home their loved one drug free. I was just reminded by the member for Brandon—Souris that they have a big beautiful gymnasium in there where they do their exercises and play some sports. They have jerseys and every graduate has a jersey raised up to the ceiling with their name on it after one year of being clean, with the number one on the back of every jersey to recognize the single year, the full year, they have gone drug free. They told me this. There was pride on the faces of those young men when they saw their names go up on that jersey, up in front of all their families. They were able to say, “That jersey means that I won, that I scored the biggest goal in the history of the game of life. I got my life back. I've been through hell. There's nothing more that life can throw at me that I have not already been through”.

That is not weakness, that is a superpower, one that we should celebrate and recreate right across this country. That is what I want for anybody who might be listening tonight because I know that there are a lot of people suffering across this country. I meet these people.

One of the things that I find most emotional about being a leader of a political party is how much people vest in the leader, how much they rely on the leader's success that they have to come through for them. Most times when there are elections, we are really just debating about who is going to manage, who is going to run the store. The differences are fairly small on most occasions, but we are in an unusual time right now. People are suffering like I have never seen. It is really bad out there. I hear stories from people who come up to me at the gatherings I hold, people in tears who tell me I am their last hope, that they do not know what they are going to do because they are just hanging on by a thread. I want those people to know to hang on, keep on fighting. There are better days coming. Help and hope is on the way. That is what we are going to deliver to all the Canadian people who are thinking about giving up. Do not give up. Never give up. Better days are coming ahead.

I want to take a moment now to talk about why this has been such an extraordinary country. I am deeply grateful to this country. This country has been very good to me. I think sometimes that we talk about the country in a modern sense. Modern ideology lacks gratitude. It has become very trendy to talk down our history, talk about all of the horrible things that we as Canadians have represented. I think that is the wrong mentality. Yes, we must acknowledge the flaws and failings of history to correct them, but we do that not by deleting parts of our history but by painting in the entire story, the good and the bad, being honest and debating all of those parts of the story, but also about being grateful and showing gratitude for what this country has offered them.

Why is it that 300,000 to 500,000 people a year would want to come here if this is such an awful place, if we were such an awful country that is so filled with injustice? The answer is they would not. They come here for the promise of freedom. They come here not because there is anything special in the water that we drink, not because of the land or because the weather is more inviting than any other place. There are more tropical and sunny environments where they could go, but they come here for the unique foundation that we have in the form of our freedom.

The great former prime minister Wilfrid Laurier was asked to define our country. He was a good Liberal. I will give him credit. He would not be in that party today. He would not recognize the Liberal Party of today, because he was a Liberal who believed in liberty. He understood the meaning of the word, the real word, as it was meant in its origins, not the illiberal, wokist liberalism that we have on the side of the Prime Minister today.

Listen to what he understood about this country. He was asked what Canada's nationality was. In most countries, this would have been a very easy question to answer. If he had been in France, he would have said “French”; if in England, he would have said “English”; if in Scotland, “Scottish”, and so on. Most places define their nationality by the ethnocultural makeup of the country, but that was impossible, even back then, because we were already mixed up. We had Scots, Irish, indigenous, French, English, Catholic, Protestant, people from Asia and Africa back then, a century ago, so it was impossible to define our nation or our nationality on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion. What he said was, “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality”, and so it is today. It is our freedom that fundamentally distinguishes us from so many places on this Earth. That is the reason people come from such far distances to live here in this country. It is not because of any new grand invention the Prime Minister has created; it is because people want to come here to live their own lives and make their own decisions. That is what I want to empower them to do.

When I was running for leadership of the party, some people asked me whether, if I could win power, I would take power. The answer is that I do not want to take power; I am running for prime minister to give power back.

I do not believe there is a special species of humans who are able to make decisions for everyone else. I believe that every human being is endowed with their own ability to make judgments about their own lives. When I go around the country and I meet with the mechanic who can take apart a transmission and put it back together; the farmer who can master meteorology, economics and soil chemistry; the waitress who can balance 10 plates on her hand, deal with 15 tough customers at once, go home and teach her kid math, and balance her budget on a minimum wage salary, I look at these people and ask myself what business I have running their lives. They know how to do that better than anyone else in this House of Commons.

I do not want to run their lives for them; I want to give them the freedom to make their own decisions.

That is why immigrants come here. They do not come here because there are these really brilliant politicians who can decide for them; they come to get away from politicians who think they can decide for others. That is why they come to our country. It takes a different kind of humility to be that type of leader, because if the government is small, then the leader's power is small and his reach is small. That is not what the Prime Minister wants. He wants big and powerful government because he thinks that it will make him big and powerful. It takes humility to be a leader who withdraws his control so that he can seed it back to the people to whom it truly belongs. It takes humility to lead a small and lean government, a small government with big citizens. That is the kind of humility that we need back in Ottawa, a humility that accepts the wisdom of the common people to decide for themselves. That is the fundamental essence of why I am running.

What does this come down to in the specifics? It means limiting the government's role in the economy. It means not throwing away money on corporate welfare, but rather lowering taxes for all productive businesses. It means allowing workers and parents to spend their own money, rather than having politicians spend it for them. It means allowing people to see and say on the Internet what they think, want to see and want to say without censorship by the state. Everything that is legal in the real world should be legal on the Internet and everything that is criminal in the tangible world should be criminal on the Internet, but no special censorship should be imposed on the people's thinking on the World Wide Web.

The Prime Minister passed Bill C-11, a law that empowers the bureaucracy at the CRTC to manipulate the algorithms of the Internet to control what people see, to give a bigger voice to the government's favoured broadcasters—

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Criminal Code

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the speech he just gave. It was very heartfelt. It came from the depths of his being.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House to represent the people of the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which is home to many hunters, fishers, sport shooters and farmers. There are also some indigenous people. I am very proud today.

My first reaction when I learned of the amendments made to Bill C-21 by the Liberals was simple. They had missed the mark. They were taking the wrong approach.

We are used to the Liberal government's inconsistency, whether it concerns Bill C-11 or Bill C-13, the bill to which I have made an active contribution over the past few months. Yesterday, we passed this bill. The Conservative Party supported it, but we wish the government had done more. Nevertheless, we align ourselves with the intentions of the Government of Quebec and official language minority communities.

Now we are talking about Bill C-21, which also demonstrates the inconsistency of the Liberal government. The government is not walking the talk. I will use the same expression as the Bloc Québécois leader, who said earlier in the House today that he will explain to the Liberals what this expression means one day. I urge him to explain it to them as soon as possible, because it is quite obvious. We have noticed the same thing.

I believe that all parliamentarians in the House agree on the objective of this bill, which is to improve public safety in Canada. This is critical, because after eight years of this government, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related homicides have doubled. I am not making this up. This is not me saying so. It is not partisan rhetoric. It is not the evil Conservative Party attacking the good Liberals. This is a fact. I do not understand how they can defend this.

The Liberal government's approach to achieving this goal is completely out of touch with reality. As I said, the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is an area with many hunters, fishers and farmers. It is largely rural. As in many other rural and semi-urban ridings in Canada, hunting season is a highly anticipated time of year. For many, it is a tradition, while for others, it is a family activity. It is a hobby. Young and old gather to practise this sport that has been passed down from generation to generation. Some hunt purely for pleasure. For others, it is an outright necessity in order to feed themselves, as a result of the Liberals' inflationary practices that are leaving Canadians hungry.

Two weeks ago, I was attending the annual convention of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs. I did not see any Liberals there. It took place in Saint-Jérôme. What I heard from the people I met at the annual convention was clear: They are worried about the consequences of this bill. This federation is not a run-of-the-mill organization. It is a solid institution that represents hunters and anglers throughout Quebec. Its mission is to represent and defend the interests of Quebec's hunters and anglers, help teach safe practices and actively participate in wildlife conservation and development to ensure that resources remain sustainable and that hunting and fishing continue to be practised as traditional, heritage and recreational activities.

I have a question. What is criminal about that? Absolutely nothing. These people simply want to enjoy nature and engage in an activity that has existed for millions of years. It is important to remember that, in the past, people bartered with what they hunted. They would trade pelts for mirrors. This is nothing new.

Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I want to point out that the federation's head office is located in the most beautiful riding in the Quebec City region—I will make the area a bit smaller—Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I want to commend the federation president, Marc Renaud.

I would like to read an excerpt from a news release issued by the federation after the government tabled its new amendments on May 1. It says, and I quote:

The federation understands the importance of public safety and supports the government's efforts to keep Canadians safe. However, we have raised concerns about how effective the methods proposed in Bill C-21 will be in meeting that objective. We believe that gun violence is a complex problem that requires a holistic approach, one that takes into account underlying factors such as poverty, mental health, organized crime, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We also recognize that firearms are not the only source of violence, as demonstrated by recent events in which other tools were used to commit crimes. We are therefore calling for a comprehensive review to come up with meaningful, intelligent and lasting solutions to these complex social problems.

To me, this is a call for a common-sense approach. Let us not reinvent the wheel. Again, as I was saying from the outset, this bill misses the mark.

Let us be clear here: Hunters are not the reason the crime rate in urban centres is higher than ever. We need to address organized crime and violent reoffenders to make the streets safer across Canada. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.

When I attended the convention two weeks ago in Saint-Jérôme, I felt very comfortable. These people are cordial, polite, civilized and intelligent, and I enjoyed meeting them. I did not feel like I was in danger. These are not criminals. Again, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.

When we talk about criminals, we are talking about people who break the law. We could bring in a whole host of laws to have one model over another, to allow or not allow a certain model or to allow it with some exceptions. We can do that, but the criminals will never respect these rules. We need to address the problem differently.

A Conservative government will invest in maintaining law and order and securing the border rather than spending billions of dollars to take guns away from law-abiding Canadians.

Today, we have repeated over and over that amendments G-4 and G-46, the amendments that sought to ban firearms used by hunters and sport shooters, were withdrawn. Why were they withdrawn? It is because the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in Ottawa, did its job. The minister boasted about those amendments and vigorously defended them, but he retreated when faced with common sense because the Conservatives made him see the light. I must say that they had other accomplices from other parties here in the House of Commons. It was not the Conservatives.

The government's new amendments are just a way of getting the work done through regulations. It is not meeting the target. We are not fools. We are used to these government tactics. I will repeat what we have said all day long: The Conservative Party is the only party to protect Canadians across the country, whether they live in large cities or rural communities.

This is a very technical bill. We worked very hard in committee to study the amendments, despite the time constraints imposed by the Liberals.

We want to do a good job on this bill, as we do on many others, but unfortunately, we are being muzzled. We are doing some work, but we could do so much more.

When we are in government, we will stand up for hunters and workers, because these individuals have rights, and we will work to protect them.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was December 6, 1989, at École Polytechnique de Montréal, January 29, 2017, at the Quebec City mosque and so many other dates. Those dates need to resonate with my colleagues when they consider voting on this bill.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-21. We can say without hesitation that the Bloc Québécois's contribution is undoubtedly why this bill is finally acceptable. I would like to note the exceptional work of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, without whom this bill would certainly not have progressed in the same way.

That said, it is far from perfect, as it was initially botched by the government. We can see that, as with Bill C-10, Bill C-11 and so many other bills, the Liberal signature is to introduce flawed bills and be able to brag about having done this and that. In reality, it is others who improve them and deal with the problems and shortcomings of each bill that the government proposes. Bill C-21 is a flagrant example.

The bill was tabled in May 2020. It was essentially a freeze on handgun acquisitions and a grandfather clause. In that respect, the government did in effect prohibit most models of assault rifles with its order in council on May 1, 2020, which was issued quickly, a short time after the killings in Portapique, Nova Scotia, but several models were not covered, while new models continue to enter the market. Also, the prohibition on May 1, 2020, did not cover all “modern” assault weapons, thus allowing weapons like the very popular SKS, which is frequently used in mass shootings in Canada, to remain legal.

In the briefing to members and political staffers, officials also confirmed that the government planned to amend the bill to add other measures, which was unheard of for a newly tabled bill. There was no rhyme or reason.

In other words, the bill was not at all ready and the government only tabled it to ride the wave of support for gun control following the latest unfortunate shooting. That is called opportunism. I would even add a real lack of desire to be truly effective. In short, the government was not necessarily able to bring forward a fair and reasoned bill, but action was required because it was the right time and looked good. The results are there.

In fall 2022, the government tabled a package of amendments to its own bill. More than 400 pages of amendments were submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, although the studies were already completed. These amendments included new measures to combat ghost weapons, but also a definition of a prohibited assault weapon and a list of more than 300 pages of prohibited weapons.

Here is another demonstration of what the Liberal government has made us accustomed to: anything. These amendments were tabled without explanation, without briefing and without a press scrum. Even Liberal members of the Committee seemed unable to explain these amendments. The various positions of the advocacy groups have become entangled—that is normal, of course—in a mish-mash of various readings and interpretations, most of which were justified or unjustified, since we were in a sort of grey area.

By drawing up this list, the government created a host of ambiguities and possibilities for circumvention, and, at the same time, penalized hunters and airsoft sport shooters. This does not include the weapons market already trying to circumvent the list. The concerns kept growing.

Hunters' fears are a good example. The Bloc Québécois listened to hunters. We therefore proposed reopening the study so that experts could be brought in to testify on the matter of assault weapons. The Bloc Québécois opposed the list in the Criminal Code because it made it needlessly long. The Criminal Code is not a real-time reflection of models of weapons and their classification.

It is my colleague from Avignon—La Métis—Matane—Matapédia who was a guiding light and kept the reason for logic throughout the process. Through pressure from all over, her team's research and her consultations with scientists and advocacy groups, she and the Bloc Québécois research team made a big difference in the study process of this bill.

It makes me very proud, today, to take the floor and re-tell the entire story. The government then tabled a gag order to quickly conclude the study of Bill C-21.

However, the government itself is responsible for the slow progress of Bill C-21. It preferred to bring forward an incomplete bill quickly after the killings rather than take a few more months to table a complete bill.

Despite these shortcomings, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-21. Initially, the bill was criticized by hunters, pro-firearms control groups and air gun enthusiasts. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, it was improved and satisfied most of the groups. Again, the Bloc was proactive and made such fair proposals that they could not be refused.

The government has acted softly for years, leading to gun violence everywhere, particularly in Montreal. Prohibited weapons are circulating illegally. Bill C-21 is a poultice on a wooden leg, as my father would say. It is not nothing, but it is little, and the time wasted with the parliamentary exercise of cobbling together a badly designed bill does not save time. However, time is running out.

It was a mistake to try to create a bill full of shortcomings, that practically put hunters, sports enthusiasts and killers in the same boat. What a lack of will and respect for the afflicted, the victims, and for the innocent. In fact, the ultimate urgency was to table a bill developed by experts and scientists and improved by consultations with associations and as many representations as needed. The government is proposing quite the contrary, and that is unfortunate.

As usual, the Bloc is being valiant. We have done the work by bypassing and adapting the limitations and mistakes of the government. The next step is urgent. Weapons are flowing into Canada. What will the names of the next victims be? Who will lose a mother, a father, a daughter or a neighbour? What does the Liberal government plan to do to prevent illegal weapons from crossing the border?

I hope it will learn from its mistakes. Above all, I hope that the next steps in the fight against crime will be firm and frank gestures, based on clear legislation and taking into account the realities and needs of organizations that oversee, that work and that intervene in the area of public safety.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take it upon myself to deliver to the Government of Quebec the message given by my colleague, who just finished his speech, that it should pull up its socks on the immigration file. I think it might appreciate the message, but I am not sure.

I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Terrebonne.

Our motion today is very simple. I think it has been a few minutes since we repeated it. It states:

That, given that,

(i) the Century Initiative aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100,

(ii) the federal government's new intake targets are consistent with the Century Initiative objectives,

(iii) tripling Canada's population has real impacts on the future of the French language, Quebec's political weight, the place of First Peoples, access to housing, and health and education infrastructure,

(iv) these impacts were not taken into account in the development of the Century Initiative and that Quebec was not considered,

the House reject the Century Initiative objectives and ask the government not to use them as a basis for developing its future immigration levels.

It is not a very complicated request. It only makes sense. It is a question of understanding each other.

This objective of increasing Canada's population to 100 million by the end of the century is something that worries me. I must say that I am finding the ruse to be less and less subtle. It is difficult to believe that the hidden agenda is not basically to put an end once and for all to Quebec's never-ending demands, which certain self-righteous federalist thinkers see as a fly constantly buzzing around their heads.

There are two ways of looking at this. The first is to see bad intentions. The government and its policy-makers know full well what they are doing to Quebec by setting immigration targets that are much too high for the province to absorb. They know that by doing this, they are ensuring that Quebec's francophone culture, the Québécois culture, will be completely snuffed out.

How will that happen? It will be because of the massive influx of newcomers who, even if they speak French, will not be welcomed as Quebec likes to welcome its immigrants. They will not be able to integrate into Quebec society properly because the infrastructure and services are insufficient and ill-equipped to receive such an influx. What happens when a host society is unable to welcome and integrate its newcomers? This leads to ghettoization. Newcomers gather where they feel safe, where they feel a sense of familiarity, and this creates ghettos. This leads to what we have already seen around the world, including in some Canadian cities. This is not what Quebec wants.

Quebec wants large numbers of francophone immigrants so that the common language, the language of work, the language of everyday life, is French. Quebec wants to welcome and integrate its newcomers based on a model that is not one of multiculturalism. Quebec's specificity is precisely that it has a language to protect, a language that is constantly at risk of disappearing in an ocean of some 300 million anglophones in North America.

There is also the issue of Quebec's political weight, which is mentioned in today's Bloc Québécois motion and is fuelling this discussion and debate. If Quebec loses political weight within the Canadian federation, it means that the various laws that protect the specificity of the Quebec nation will be open to more vigorous attacks, and Quebec will be even less able to defend itself. Consequently, Quebec will continue to dwindle gradually, little by little. It is a bit like putting a frog in a pot of cold water and then turning on the heat, letting the frog slowly get used to the heat as the temperature rises until, well, we know the rest of the story. I am not sure that has been scientifically proven, but everyone gets the picture.

In short, Quebec will fade away and accept its fate, telling itself that a known misfortune is probably more comfortable than an uncertain happiness. We will then find ourselves in the ocean of multiculturalism that Trudeau senior dreamed of all those years ago. I will not be fooled into believing that protecting the French language was part of that particular dream.

That widespread lack of sensitivity is disappointing, but it also makes me realize that this is one of multiculturalism's adverse effects on French.

We know that Quebec culture is gradually drowning in the Canadian and North American cultural maelstrom. Those who champion French are increasingly viewed by many in the rest of Canada as old grey-haired reactionaries straight out of what they wish was a bygone era. I have to acknowledge that I myself might be an old grey-haired reactionary not unlike my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. No doubt he approves.

If we allow things to carry on as they are, speaking French will eventually become a mere curiosity. A comparison comes to mind that deeply saddens me. It will be a bit like the first nations we hear about, where the language is still spoken by some elders but has disappeared from everyday use. Young people are trying to resurrect those languages. I recently talked to an Abenaki woman who told me she was trying to relearn her grandparents' language, which is no longer being spoken. Maybe one day my great-grandchildren will ask their grandfather, “Grandpa, say a few words in French.” It will be cute and quaint, but also pathetic and sad.

That is what we are trying to protect. We are not trying to sow division or stir up trouble, as our friends on the other side like to say. We are trying to protect something that is dear to us, namely our culture, our language, our specificity.

We talk about political weight. Sometimes people say that Quebec's political weight boils down to the number of seats it has in the House of Commons. It seems that some people do not appreciate the importance of that. What is the effect of Quebec having less political weight? In future elections, if we do not correctly adjust the number of seats that go to Quebec, if we do not give Quebec a minimum number of seats, as is the case for other Canadian provinces, we will once again lose the influence we can have here in the House of Commons. We will lose the number of seats held by Quebec members of Parliament. I am not even considering the political affiliation, because the Quebec seats lost will not just be the ones held by the Bloc Québécois, but also those of Conservative and Liberal members of Parliament. There will be fewer of them because there will be fewer seats available for Quebec.

Would it have been possible to protect supply management, for example, if there had been fewer members of Parliament from Quebec? The work of my colleague from Berthier-Maskinongé and the Bloc Québécois on this file should be noted.

Bill C‑10 also comes to mind. It was tabled in November 2020 as a modernized Broadcasting Act and was later rebranded as Bill C‑11 in the next Parliament. It contained nothing for Quebec culture. Without a strong Quebec caucus and the Bloc Québécois's unwavering determination to add measures to the bill to protect the French language and content created by our artists, I am not sure if the new Broadcasting Act would have provided any protection for Quebec's francophone culture. Quebec's political weight made all the difference.

The more influence that Quebec loses within the Canadian federation, the more Ottawa can push its centralizing agenda and keep sticking its big fat nose where it does not belong. On February 8, 2022, the House had a great chance to show Quebec that it believes in the need for Quebec to preserve its culture and acquire tools to protect the French language. On February 8, 2022, I had the honour of tabling, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, a bill to amend the Constitution Act. Yes, while awaiting independence, a Bloc member is trying to amend the Constitution Act.

We simply wanted to add a provision that would guarantee Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. That would have been a game-changer because, with a threshold of at least 25% of the seats, we would no longer have to worry about the political weight of Quebec being at risk and the consequences that would bring, regardless of any demographic changes that might occur in the coming years.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is moving a motion today to reject the immigration levels proposed by the Century Initiative, which the government seems to be following very closely. This is a good opportunity to debate that, but it is also a good opportunity to understand why the Bloc Québécois wants to reject those objectives.

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament who represents a great many anglophones, a minority community with unique needs in the Quebec context, I have studied Bill C-13 with a critical eye.

First, I would like to say that my community is not impressed by the Quebec government's pre-emptive, and one could say almost perfunctory, use of the notwithstanding clause to escape judicial and political scrutiny of its recent language legislation, Bill 96, and its law on religious symbols, Bill 21.

Quebec anglophones have a unique political perspective because they are a minority within a minority. This makes the community particularly understanding of the importance of minority rights, including francophone minority rights. This perspective leads to an inherent sense of fairness and moderation among Quebec anglophones that makes the community wary of government overreach that can harm not just minority-language rights, but minority rights generally.

My colleague from Mount Royal has put it well. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for an override of rights where reasonable in a democratic society. Recourse to the clause when section 1 is otherwise available but deemed insufficient by the legislator is by definition a tacit admission that rights are being unreasonably suppressed.

The timing of Bill C-13 unfortunately intersects with the Legault government's heavy-handed approach to a legitimate objective, which is the strengthening of the French language against unrelenting pressures in the proverbial sea of English, pressures heightened by the new Internet-based communications technologies, a challenge our government is addressing through Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

I believe Bill C-13 and Bill 96 have been conflated and a narrative has taken root that obscures key facts about this legislation and minority-language guarantees in Canada. Anglophones in Quebec have legitimate grievances with aspects of Bill 96, but Bill C-13 is not Bill 96.

As former Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache said, the objective in Bill C-13 is to give special attention to the French-speaking minority outside Quebec and it is not inconsistent with the interests of the anglophone community in Quebec. Let me quote the former Supreme Court justice:

I don't really know what it is in the bill [Bill C-13] that worries them. I don't think that promoting French takes anything away from anglophones.... One can help a community in trouble [that is, francophones outside Quebec] without harming another.... I don't think the anglophone issue in Quebec has anything to do with the federal government, but rather the Quebec government.

That said, in my view, we could have done without the preamble in Bill C-13, with its reference to the Charter of the French Language, and the confusion and controversy this has sown. In fact, there was an attempt to remove the reference, but that attempt was blocked by the opposition parties in committee. One would not expect co-operation from the Conservatives or the Bloc, but the lack of support from the NDP was disappointing.

Bill C-13's preamble refers to the fact of the existence of the Charter of the French Language, just as it also makes reference to iron-clad constitutional guarantees for minority-language communities across Canada, including the anglophone community in Quebec.

For example, the preamble states:

the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities—taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society—as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;

Preambles, however, are not the substance of a law. They are not normative, nor determinative. In fact, they have not always been included in Canadian legislation. According to an article by Kent Roach in the McGill Law Journal, between 1985 and 1990, only nine statutes had long and substantive preambles. Since then, there has been an increasing trend to incorporate preambles into legislation. As Mr. Roach puts it, “Once departments and ministries saw their colleagues using preambles, this created a demand for more preambles.”

The same article outlined different types and uses of preambles. In some cases, preambles are meant as a recognition of “the complexity...of modern governance” and as “an appeal...to embrace tolerance and diversity as part of what it means to be Canadian.” Roach gives the example of the preamble of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which states that “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society”.

He continues by saying, “The symbolic nature of preambles means that they are often concerned with the politics of recognition” and they “frequently recognize goals that are in some tension with each other.”

He then adds, “By definition, preambles will be better in securing expressive as opposed to instrumental purposes because they do not impose rights and duties.” Here is a final quote: “courts have frequently been reluctant to give great weight to preambles.”

This all sounds a lot like Bill C-13's preamble. I will quote from the preamble: “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of the provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”.

In response to those who argue that preambles are interpretive, I would say that this is typically the case only when the body of law in question is not clear, which is not the case with Bill C-13. I will quote British case law in Attorney-General v. Hanover: “It is only when it conveys a clear and definite meaning in comparison with relatively obscure or indefinite enacting words that the preamble may legitimately prevail.”

I will quote Ruth Sullivan, from her book The Construction of Statutes, in chapter 14 on page 445: “Preambles must be measured against other indicators of legislative purpose or meaning, which may point in the same or a different direction. If there is a contradiction between the preamble and a substantive provision, the latter normally prevails.”

Finally, I will quote former Supreme Court Justice La Forest: “it would seem odd if general words in a preamble were to be given more weight than the specific provisions that deal with the matter.”

Bill C-13, in its body, is specific in its language, including with respect to the need to protect the interests of Quebec's anglophone minority. This would avoid any confusion that would otherwise require the courts to rely on the bill's preamble for interpretation.

For example, Bill C-13 would add, in black and white, the following to section 3 of the Official Languages Act: “For the purposes of this Act...language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation”. The body of the text also reiterates phrasing from the preamble on the federal government's commitment to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development.

This brings me to the fear that Bill C-13's preamble endorses the pre-emptive use of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause.

Some contend that the reference to the Charter of the French Language in the preamble of Bill C-13 endorses the Quebec government's pre-emptive use of the clause, but the federal government has been clear that it does not approve of the pre-emptive use of the clause, whether against organized labour in Ontario or in both Bill 96 and Bill 21. The Attorney General has said clearly that the federal government will argue the point in court, specifically when Bill 21 reaches the Supreme Court.

Parliament also made its view known when it recently voted against the Bloc motion seeking to affirm the legitimacy of the pre-emptive use of the clause. I note that the Conservatives voted with the Bloc to support the motion affirming pre-emptive use. However, both together failed to carry the day.

These official parliamentary and governmental expressions of opposition to the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause matter. As the Supreme Court said in 2023 in the case of Murray-Hall v. Quebec, “To analyze the purpose of a law, courts rely [also] on...extrinsic evidence, such as parliamentary debates and minutes of parliamentary committees”. This would include, in my view, statements by the government and votes in Parliament.

As such, there should be no confusion in a future court's mind that the federal government has no intention of legitimizing Quebec's pre-emptive use of the clause by referencing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13.

Finally, something that has been lost in this debate is that the notwithstanding clause cannot override minority-language education rights, nor the right to speak English in Quebec in the courts or in the National Assembly.

Some suggest that Bill C-13 would allow the Quebec government to ignore obligations to the anglophone community under federally funded programs delivered through negotiated agreements with the province, but those agreements are governed by section 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which refers to the right of the public to communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in English and French, and by part IV of the Official Languages Act, which is meant to implement section 20.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the observations I have made during my time in this place is how much the Liberal government loves to hinder Canadians and their freedoms.

We saw Bill C-11 get rammed through the House. We more recently saw how Beijing interfered in our elections in this country. An hon. colleague of mine, and his family in Hong Kong, were threatened and intimidated, and the government did nothing. We have seen the government move time allocation on bills over and over again to ram them through.

Specifically, with Bill C-21, we see a government that wants to take away rifles from hunters, again wanting to thwart the freedom Canadians have, and not entrust them with the tools for a basic lifestyle. I am curious as to why the government is so distrusting of Canadians.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too want to add my voice to the conversation we are having here today in this debate on privilege. The issue of a member's vote in this place is really what we are after today. Our ability to vote without influence from other countries is very important.

I would note that the vote in question had to do with the recognition of the genocide of the Uyghur people in China. The Beijing government has been focused on repressing the Uyghurs through things such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, re-education camps and concentration camps. Members may have seen the photos of Uyghur folks lined up at the bus terminals and being loaded onto the trains. We have stated often in this place “never again”, and here we are watching “never again” happen again.

That vote that took place in the House of Commons was historic. The Canadian Parliament was one of the first parliaments around the world that voted to recognize that. It was something many members had worked fairly hard on, and we had also felt pressure from various corners to ensure that we got that right.

What is fascinating is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills voted for that motion while the entire Canadian cabinet did not. That is telling, perhaps, as to the weight of that vote. However, it also raises the question of foreign influence happening here in Canada. What kind of influence is that having on the Canadian cabinet, given the fact that we have discovered now that the government knew for over two years that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' family was being harassed because of this particular vote? What was happening to members of the cabinet in their personal lives and how was that being influenced? That is what this whole debate is about. It is about the privilege of members of Parliament to be able to do their job.

Probably one of the most important things we do as members of Parliament is to vote from our seats in this place. That is what we are elected to do. We are elected to take our seats in this place to vote on things. Votes are a moment in time. Votes are a very binary thing. We vote for something; we vote against something.

In many cases, when we have a vote, those are weighty moments. Members must consider all the ramifications and impacts of the position they take on that. There is nothing that brings more clarity into a situation than having a binary vote on a particular piece of legislation because that is when we get to find out about who is affected, what the ramifications are and all of these kinds of things. Particularly if people are upset about that vote, we get to hear about it after we cast that vote. Our ability to vote in this place is incredibly important.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has been a stalwart defender of democracy. This may be due in part to his roots, as he comes from Hong Kong, so he has a firm understanding of the relationship with the Beijing government and the world. Just due to the nature of his heritage, the member has some fortitude when it comes to understanding how democracy works, and he has worked very hard in this place to ensure that democracy works better. He has a very good grasp of the history of this place and the history of our mother Parliament over in England. He worked on the Reform Act, which is an act that has empowered individual members of Parliament. That is something that the member has been passionate about.

He has argued for increased members' budgets. He has argued for more members of Parliament, so we have more representation for individual Canadians. His allegiance to democracy, parliamentary democracy and the House of Commons is unquestioned.

I want to thank him for that. I know his passion and diligence on these democracy issues are so important. That is perhaps the great irony of this particular situation. Of all members of Parliament for this to fall upon, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has impeccable credentials in the defence of democracy. That is why it is so frustrating to see that the government sat on this information for over two years, only for us, as individual members of Parliament, to find out about this through the press. That goes to show why the freedom of the press is so important.

This is something the Liberal government has been undermining over the last number of years, just as we have seen with Bill C-11. We see how voices that may disagree with the government may be repressed online. We see that with the funding of journalism across the country. We see this with the subsidization of CBC, how that money influences the reporting that we get.

This particular instance shows that the freedom of the press, the ability for the press to be unencumbered by owing the government a favour of any sort, is necessary. We see, with The Globe and Mail and Global News, that if it were not for the work they had done, we would never know about this. We would never know that, for over two years, the government and the Prime Minister sat on the information that a member of the House and his family were being threatened because of a vote that had taken place here.

We have heard, over the last couple of days as we have been having this debate, over and over again how the Liberals are trying to spin this, and it is classic gaslighting. My working definition of “gaslighting” is that whatever someone is doing, they accuse their opponents of doing the same. I would like to address a couple of those things.

One of the things they say is that the Conservatives did nothing when they were in power. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have done nothing to stop this. They have allowed it. They have watched it grow. They have watched the foreign influence grow in Canada and have done nothing to prevent it over the last number of years.

The other thing that is interesting is that, under Stephen Harper, there was a different leader in China. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there was a different leader. China had a different outlook on the world under the other leader. There has been a significant shift.

If someone wants to look it up, they can google “wolf warrior”. The current leader of China, Xi Jinping, has openly stated that China is moving into a wolf warrior pose in the world. Instead of biding its time, which was the previous leader's line, it is looking at being a wolf warrior. They are looking to be dominant in the world. There is no doubt about that. They are much more aggressive.

That is a completely different context. I know the member for Winnipeg North will probably stand up to talk about Stephen Harper and the great job Stephen Harper did when he was the prime minister. The point is that, when Stephen Harper was the leader, Canada was seen as a strong player on the international stage. We were convening meetings to take on ISIL. We were a valued partner of the Five Eyes. Australia, the United States and the U.K. looked to Canada to provide a leadership role in many of these discussions. Now we are ignored, sidelined and not trusted by the international community when it comes to dealing with things like China.

The Beijing government worked much more carefully. It was much more concerned about what Canada had to say about what it was up to. Today, we have a completely different context.

Today, we see the Chinese run roughshod over Canadian values and institutions. They have set up police stations on Canadian sovereign soil. We have seen this over and over again. We just know that a lot of this is about posture. We know that, under Stephen Harper, Canada had a proud posture on the international stage. We had a posture that said we were open for business but that we had rules that everybody had to follow. Canadian sovereignty was something we were very concerned about.

In fact, we spent a lot of time mapping the north. The entire search for the Franklin expedition was a mapping exercise to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north. This was a nation-building exercise. It was something that we told the Canadian people about. It was a source of pride for Canadians. However, we also said we needed to establish Canadian sovereignty in the north because of threats from China.

Threats from China were something that the Harper government took very seriously. It was something that we went into with both eyes open. We dealt with China, but we said that we knew it was a Communist country and that Communism is not something that is equivocal. We cannot make equivalencies between Communism and democracy, and therefore, the rules of engagement that we deal with when dealing with France, Germany, Holland or the United States are going to be different from those we have when we are dealing with China.

Because it operates on a different system, we need to ensure that we deal with China appropriately. To some degree, this comes back to ideas around humanity and whether people are basically good. Maybe it is postmodernism that the government really espouses, with ideas around equivalency, and we just have to basically trust that everybody is good. There are evil actors in the world. There are nefarious actors, and China is one of them. China has not been a force for good in the world over the last number of decades.

That is a major difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals have a naive view. They want to equivocate. They want to say that it is a different system, but it is just as good. I would argue that this is not the case and that there are threats and nefarious actors in the world. These are threats and actors that we must take seriously and challenge. We must stand up for democracy and make the arguments for why democracy is better and why the Western systems are better.

Those are important things to do, and I do not think it is good enough to say, “You do it your way, and we will do it ours.” I think we should say, “This is the way we do it because it is better, because it is moral and because it is the right way to do things.” I see this postmodern idea that there is no truth, or that the truth is relative, as a failure of the current government. All of these kinds of things have really been worked into it.

The other area of gaslighting I see happen through this debate, particularly in questions from the Liberals, is how this is the member's fault and how the member should have known about this. Of course—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, listen, if I had my way, there would be no dinners that are pay to play. There should be no $1,000-a-plate dinners. However, come on. Let us not pretend that the Conservatives do not do the same thing. Let us not pretend there is not fundraising being done on the backs of bills like Bill C-11, and that there is no politicization of them. That is not accurate.

In terms of making sure the government acts seriously, I have to say that I agree with the member on that. It feels to me like the government has had to be dragged to do the right thing, kicking and screaming. We brought the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the foreign affairs committee, and basically she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the things that are so easy to do, like expel this diplomat. Frankly, this diplomat is not expelled, of course. He has just been listed as persona non grata and is no longer protected. However, for these things the government should be taking action on, it is not. It is not acting fast enough. It is not participating in building a stronger democracy in ways I would like to see.

Canadian Heritage

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Bill C‑11 received royal assent. It was a painstaking process and, as we know, the Conservatives and their leader chose to support billionaires and web giants instead of supporting and defending the interests of our Canadian artists.

Now that Bill C‑11 has passed into law, can the minister tell us the impact it will have on our Canadian culture?

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and add my voice and those of the constituents I represent in raising concerns with both the budget and Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

This bill is the legislation by which certain provisions in the budget will be implemented. We have already voted against the budget, which includes over $40 billion in additional spending that will have to be paid for by taxpayers through taxes. It demonstrates the abject failure of the government to address the affordability crisis it has created.

Earlier this week, I stepped into an elevator with a Liberal member of Parliament who, in making small talk, asked me, “How are things in Saskatchewan?” If I had had more time, I would have told him about my spring tour, which I held during our recent riding weeks. While we cannot go everywhere in two weeks, we visited 19 communities and toured a number of businesses. It was great to visit with hundreds of residents from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek over a cup of coffee. If I had had more time, I would have shared with that MP the issues that were raised, over and over again, that relate to this budget discussion, but one floor up did not allow for all that, so I am going to share them now. I guess I could have given him the one-floor elevator speech, which is that the consensus in my riding is that everything is broken.

The first concern is the huge federal debt and the ever-present, ongoing Liberal deficits. People are absolutely blown away by the figure of $1.22 trillion in projected federal debt, a figure that has ballooned under the current Prime Minister, causing the highest inflation in 40 years by doubling the national debt. Additionally, people are gravely concerned by the $43.9 billion, which is the amount projected to be the cost of servicing Canada’s national debt this fiscal year, a figure that has almost doubled in one year. They understand that this amount is only likely to increase, as more of Canada’s low-interest debt matures and Canada is forced to renew those loans at higher interest rates.

Deficit spending, inflation and higher interest rates are a big deal to seniors living on fixed incomes, families struggling to make ends meet and young people desperately looking for an affordable place to live. Unlike the Prime Minister, who does not think about monetary policy, Canadians who do not have a trust fund are very engaged on the ramifications of the Liberal government’s poor management of Canada’s economy. The actions of the current government are having a direct negative impact on their quality of life, which brings us to the ever-present and ever-increasing carbon tax.

For residents of Saskatchewan, especially those living and working in rural Saskatchewan, this Liberal tax is a source of deep frustration. Besides increasing the cost of everything, the carbon tax is a symbol in the minds of rural Saskatchewanians of the incredible disconnect between the reality in which we live and the Liberal elites and their ideological policies.

They also understand that the carbon tax is a tax plan and not an environmental plan, which is why a commonly asked question I have heard is this: “With the Liberals having spent us into such a deep hole, will a future Conservative government be able to afford to cut the carbon tax?” While I do understand the question, I remind them that a Conservative government will absolutely axe the carbon tax.

I also had the opportunity to visit with mayors, reeves and councillors. They, too, noted the negative impacts of the Liberals' carbon tax and inflation-inducing policies on their budgets. They expressed concern over how federal infrastructure programs are designed with big cities in mind and with a win/lose lottery-style methodology. They confirmed that municipalities need stable, reliable funding programs enabling them to do their work rather than dictating the infrastructure priorities the federal government wants to fund.

We also discussed the housing crisis. CMHC data for January 2023 showed that new housing starts were at the lowest level since 2020, and while they are down in large urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver, we are feeling the housing shortage in smaller communities in Saskatchewan as well.

Constituents and elected representatives also brought up labour shortages, rural crime and the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, as well as Bill C-11 and the government's unrelenting focus on controlling what Canadians watch and post online. I again want to thank the hundreds of residents for coming out to share their thoughts and concerns with me.

For the purposes of this evening's debate, I also want to address the mismanagement of our country’s finances, which has led to incredible waste at the expense of Canadians. Canadians are rightly asking what exactly the government has been spending their money on, and it is their money, as the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition pointed out. They are also asking what they are getting for the money the Liberals are spending, whether life is getting easier or getting better, and whether they are getting ahead. The resounding answer is no. Never before has a government spent so much to get so little.

Let us just take a look at a few examples. There were CERB cheques going to prisoners and organized crime, and $94 million was spent on hotel rooms for asylum seekers in the last eighteen months. There was a $237-million contract for ventilators given to a Liberal insider and $54 million for the “ArriveSCAM” app. There is the Phoenix pay system. It has been seven years since the Liberals launched the Phoenix pay system, and it has been a disaster.

In my role as the shadow minister for public services and procurement, it has become all too clear that the government has very little respect for Canadians and their tax dollars. While it is necessary for the issues with the Phoenix pay system to be fixed, there is an additional $1 billion dollars in the budget to continue to address the Phoenix pay system, and there is no end in sight. That is on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in damages for the government's mismanagement.

What was the Liberals' solution? It was to hire their friends at McKinsey, giving them a contract, which after three amendments, reached a value of almost $28 million. What was the result after McKinsey was contracted? The backlog increased.

The continually increasing outsourcing by the government while it rapidly expands the public service is incoherent. One would think that, if the public service is expanding, outsourcing would be needed less. Instead, it increased just as rapidly, and when we have asked for answers on the extent of the outsourcing in our efforts to ensure that Canadians are getting good value for money, we are stonewalled by Liberals on committee, ministers and their departments.

The Liberals have found great friends and partners in the NDP. At a time of record spending and 40-year highs in inflation, Canadians are struggling to pay their bills, while well-connected Liberal insiders have never had it so good. There are 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. One in five Canadians is skipping meals because food is too expensive. With mortgage payments and costs associated with buying a home doubling, home ownership is an elusive dream now for nine out of 10 young Canadians. Rent has doubled as well.

The reality is that the country is worse off after all the government's reckless and wasteful spending. Seniors, families, young people, farmers, business owners and workers all know this is true, and the NDP just keeps supplying the Liberal government with more shovels to dig a deeper hole for Canadians, all while claiming it is holding government to account.

As I said, Canadians are struggling, and they need hope. They can count on Conservatives to turn the hurt that the Prime Minister has caused into hope. It is time for a change, and we are ready.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we often talk about budgets as if we are just talking about money, as if it is just a spreadsheet full of cash, but we have to take a step back and ask where that money came from and why it is being spent. The answer to that, of course, is people. The money came from people and is supposedly being spent in support of people. Interestingly enough, it is the same people who pay in as benefit.

When we talk about this, we are talking about the nation of Canada. We are talking about the people who call this place home. The government is entrusted to take their money and spend it on their behalf for things that are supposedly supposed to benefit them, so let us talk about the people.

When I think about the budget, I think about Raelene, one of my constituents. She goes to the University of Lethbridge. She studies really hard, takes a full-course load and works a part-time job. She is optimistic about her future because she is confident in herself. She is confident in her skills and abilities and in her work ethic, but when she thinks about her future in terms of finding a job or being able to purchase a home, she begins to have doubts, because the government has done little to nothing to remove the gatekeepers or to bring down the cost of living that would prevent her from being able to buy that first home.

I think about John, who is a local beef producer in my riding of Lethbridge. He lives in the county and operates with his sons. He hopes to pass his business down to his family and, in the meantime, is looking to not only make ends meet, but hopefully generate a bit of a profit and be able to provide jobs. That is not to mention that he is producing food not only for our area but for the world. When I think about John, I think about the red tape that has been put in place and the language that is used against him as a farmer. I think about the carbon tax and the implications that it has on him and his business. I think about the overall lack of gratitude and the misconceptions that are put toward him.

I think about Tannis. Tannis is a mom to two young children. Tannis just started a new business in the last few months and she is hoping to make a go of it, but she recognizes that the input costs are only going up. She wonders whether or not it is feasible to keep going, but she still dreams of big things and has a fantastic work ethic. She will continue to work hard and hopefully she will make a go of it, but she is worried. She is worried about affordability issues, whether it is putting gas in her car, being able to heat her home or being able to put groceries on the table for her family.

I think about James. James wrote to me with regard to Bill C-11. He is a digital first creator. He wonders about his future and whether or not he can make a go of it. He knows that under Bill C-11, the government is going to look to control what people can see and hear and post online. He knows that this is censorship, that it is a far overreach of the government. James is worried about his future because the government is, in effect, building a firewall around him and preventing him from being able to reach the global audience that he hopes to reach. James wonders about his future.

I think about Marj and John, an elderly couple who came into my constituency office not too long ago with their heating bill in their hands and tears coming down their faces. The image will forever be in my mind. Why? Because Marj and John are people, people who are trying to make ends meet on a fixed income. Marj and John are having to make a choice between filling their prescriptions, heating their home or eating proper meals. That is not a choice someone in their late seventies should have to make when they are supposedly supposed to be enjoying their golden years.

I think about Allan. Allan is a law-abiding firearms owner in my riding who enjoys hunting with his buddies. He enjoys putting deer in his freezer to be able to feed his family and maybe being able to share an elk steak with friends. I think about him and his responsible use of his rifle, and then I think about the government demonizing him, as if he is the criminal. Meanwhile, the government turns a blind eye to our borders and very basic security. I think about the fact that crime has gone up by 32% since the Liberals took government. I think about the fact that street gang murders have gone up by 92%, and yet Allan is the one being treated like a criminal.

These are just a very few of the people and faces that I think about when I consider this budget and its implications for Canada.

Budgets are about people. They are not about a spreadsheet. They are not about a number. They are not about a percentage. They are not about debt. They are not about GDP. Yes, all of those factor in, but at the end of the day, the budget is about people. It is about whether the government understands what is required to support the people of this country.

Imagine we have this wad of cash in our right pocket and someone comes along and takes it out and puts a few nickels and dimes into our left pocket, and they expect to be applauded as if they have just done us a favour when in actuality we are far worse off. Budget 2023 feels a little like that. It feels like the government is wanting accolades for taking a wad of cash out of the pockets of Canadians and replacing it with a few nickels and dimes, as if it has done the Canadian population a big favour.

Meanwhile, the affordability crisis continues. Meanwhile, the housing crisis continues. Meanwhile, crime continues to skyrocket. Meanwhile, business investment is being driven out of our country, yet the government stands back and says, “Applaud us. Look how well we have done.”

The government forgets where that money came from. It forgets it took it out of the right pocket to put it into the left pocket. Of course, not all of it went back into the left pocket; only a few nickels and dimes did. The government forgets the people who entrusted it to govern. In doing that, it has lost sight of the most important things.

In this budget, Canadians were looking for lower taxes. In this budget, Canadians were looking for spending to be reined in. In this budget, Canadians were looking for effective measures around housing prices and affordability. That is what Canadians were looking for in this budget.

Instead, what Canadians received was a government that decided to pour gasoline on a fire, and that fire is called inflation. We already have the highest rates of inflation in 40 years. That has to do with our Prime Minister and the fact he made the determination to incur more debt than every other prime minister combined. In all of Canada's history, all debt combined, our Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, managed to spend more, and so inflation continues to rise. As inflation rises, so does the cost of living, and as the cost of living rises, Canadians become less and less hopeful.

The government likes to brag about its grocery rebate. I suppose some might call it the sexy item of the budget. It is the thing the government was hoping would save it and Canadians would applaud the government for. Again, take a big wad of cash out of one pocket and put a few nickels and dimes into another. “Applaud us, applaud us,” the government says.

Let us talk about the grocery rebate, shall we? Let us talk about the fact that because of inflationary measures groceries are going up by about $1,100 per family this year. Let us talk about that grocery rebate and the fact it is less than $500 for that same family. Do the math. The government is making decisions that is driving up the cost by $1,100 and giving $500. Are Canadian families better off? Absolutely not.

“Applaud us, applaud us,” the government says. “Send accolades our way,” it says, while it takes the wad of cash from the right pocket and puts a few nickels and dimes in the left.

What the government does not understand is a healthy economy, where people are working, thriving and contributing, cannot be replaced with government spending. Canadians deserve so much more. They are the problem solvers, the solution makers and the wealth generators this country needs, and they are the ones—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 27, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 27th day of April, 2023, at 6:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Maia Welbourne

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day—Chapter 5; Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985—Chapter 6; Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)—Chapter 7; and Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 8.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that, in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments and does not insist on its amendments to which the Commons disagreed.

The Senate takes note of the Government of Canada's public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, accordingly.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, when the Liberal-NDP coalition was trying to shut me down on this, I was barely a minute into my speech. These members need to let me get to the point I am trying to make, instead of just trying to silence me, as the government is doing with its censorship bills. This is what we are dealing with here, being silenced.

Instead of debating the budget, as we are supposed to be doing, the NDP put something forward called a concurrence motion. That is what we are debating right now. The concurrence motion is to deal with a very tricky bit of Liberal-NDP machinations, which is actually really harming people and delaying the help that Bill S-245 would provide.

Instead of debating the budget, we are debating a concurrence motion on something that happened, and I want to break down what happened. Bill S-245 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It went through the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Yonah Martin to deal with a very narrow scope, dealing with something called “lost Canadians”. It was very narrow in scope, and because it was so narrow in scope, it sailed through the Senate, on the understanding that it would stay narrow and it would go through the Senate.

It came to the immigration committee. What ended up happening was that, first of all, before moving this in the immigration committee, the member for Vancouver East went and did a press conference, pre-positioning herself to do this.

The Liberal-NDP coalition got together and did two things. It moved a motion to extend amendments to the bill by 30 days, which delayed action for people who would have been impacted by the bill, and then it also moved a motion to extend the scope of the amendments that would be debated well past what was in the bill itself.

For those who are watching who may not understand what this does, it allows members, in a private member's bill, which is supposed to be very narrow in scope, to put forward any amendment they want. What that does, in effect, and the reason why I do not think we should have done that, is forces the bill to go back to the Senate yet again.

This is going to delay justice for the people who we had non-partisan, all-party agreement to deal with. That motion itself, to do what the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do, passed in the citizenship committee with its support. Even though it passed, it introduced this concurrence motion in the House of Commons today, and it is doing what? It is eating up time to debate the deficit budget issue because it doesn't want to talk about it.

If it is saying, oh no, nobody should talk about this and then we go back to the budget, we actually gave it an opportunity to go back to debate. My colleague from Calgary Shepard rose to move a motion about an hour ago to move on from the debate, yet it voted against that.

That is the agenda here. The agenda here is to curtail debate on the budget while it is supporting the passage of Liberal censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. These are the types of tactics that we are going to see over and over and over again from this Liberal coalition because it does not want to stand up for what Canadians need, either in the budget or in Bill S-245.

When the Liberal and the NDP coalition decided that it was going to delay the passage of the bill through the committee and delay justice for people who were in that bill, who we all support justice for, and open up the scope of the bill, it forgot one thing. It forgot that, if it opened up the scope of the bill for its one issue, which the senator and the Senate did not want because they agreed to sail it through on a small amendment, it forgot that maybe other people would want to put forward amendments too, such as me and my colleague from Calgary Shepard.

It then had the audacity and the gall to stand in this place during this debate, which it did not need, and which it put forward to waste time on debate on the budget because it does not want to talk about how much deficit spending money it puts forward, which has caused an inflationary crisis in Canada, all while it is putting forward censorship bills. Because it does not want that debate to happen, it puts this debate forward.

Now it is saying that it is because the Conservatives want to put forward amendments to the Citizenship Act. Well, guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supporting censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to shut down conversations in the Canadian public, are using a concurrence motion to shut down debate in the House of Commons, we are absolutely right that Conservatives will be putting forward motions beyond the scope of the bill. It is as simple as that.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wants a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then let us giddy-up and do it. I have a lot of great ideas, which I will definitely be bringing forward. This does nothing to help the people who could have been helped if the NDP had just let this go.

The other thing I can show is why we should not be delaying this bill and why the scope of the amendment should not be put through. It is not just because it delays justice for people within this bill; it is also because the NDP is propping up a government that has refused to do this in its own government legislation. If the government had actually wanted to do anything else, it has had nearly eight years to put forward, through its own government legislation, what my colleague from the NDP wants to do.

The NDP is actually in a coalition with the government. I do not know if the NDP wants to go to an election, but I know the Liberals do not. Considering what the polling numbers show today, I do not think there are a lot of people on the Liberal backbench who would want to go to an election today.

The NDP could be using that coalition agreement to say that, within a piece of government legislation, we need to do this. However, they do not actually have the leverage they claim to have over the government, so what they are trying to do is sneak through committee what they cannot get the government to do in the House.

To people who are watching and are impacted by this bill, I say that the Liberals delayed the passage of the bill because they did not understand what they were doing. That is brutal. It is terrible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe they would not do what we all agreed to do in a non-partisan way, as the Senate did, which is to get Bill S-245 through.

Today, we are debating the concurrence motion and the substance of the motion, and we are using House of Commons time that we could have used to debate the budget. The Liberals moved this concurrence motion even though the bill has already passed through the immigration committee. They actually ate up hours of critical, precious House debate time, which we could have used to talk about the budget. This is a path to ruin that the government, the Liberal-NDP coalition, put us on by inflationary, deficit spending in the budget bill. That is critical.

People cannot eat. People in Vancouver, the member's home riding, are eating out of dumpsters because of the inflation crisis and the affordable housing crisis. Today, she moved a motion that would essentially cut off debate on the budget today, even though it has already passed through the House of Commons.

If my colleague wants to open up the scope of the bill so that it is going to have to go back to the Senate anyway, through her actions, not mine or those of any of my Conservative colleagues, then we will be putting forward other amendments as well. One of the amendments I would like to put forward, given that we are now reviewing the citizenship bill, has to do with the fact that the Liberals said they were going to do away with the need to have in-person citizenship ceremonies. This is something that has received wide, cross-party condemnation. I have an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star on April 10. The title is “I'm horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”. It goes through quotes from non-partisan people, including Adrienne Clarkson, a former governor general; a Syrian refugee; and others who are saying the government should not be doing away with the requirement for in-person citizenship ceremonies.

I would like to amend the Citizenship Act to ensure that, rather than doing away with the ceremonies because the government cannot figure out how to get services to where people want them, the government would actually be required to make sure new Canadians have the right and the ability to go to an in-person ceremony, take the oath with fellow new Canadians and be welcomed into the Canadian family in such a glorious way, instead of doing what it is doing now.

Members in this place have used up precious House time. I am speaking here because members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against a motion to end debate on this and move forward. They gave me an opportunity to speak. For once, instead of speaking on Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, the censorship bill, I am, they are darn right, going to speak in this place. I am certainly also going to be putting forward amendments. I do not know if they have forgotten how this place works or have forgotten that each of us has our own individual rights to work within the process that they put forward.

They stand up and say that one person can put forward an amendment that is completely out of scope, but they are going to use that to justify delaying justice for the people in the bill and use that to delay debate on the government's inflationary budget deficit crisis bill. Therefore, yes, I am going to put forward amendments that make sense for my constituents. My constituency is a diverse community in north central Calgary where the Citizenship Act matters. If the member for Vancouver East is going to use her Liberal-NDP coalition position to try to get the Liberal government to extend the scope of the bill and, in doing so, delay justice for people, while delaying debate on the budget, then yes, I am going to be putting forward amendments to amend the Citizenship Act.

To the people and stakeholders watching this, this bill could have been through our committee already. It could have been sailing through the House. However, what is the Liberal-NDP coalition doing? Instead of the government putting forward its own legislation to address any additional issues, the NDP is proposing a motion to extend this by another 30 days, plus have a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. It is plus, plus, plus. They did not think through the process. I am sure that when they were talking to stakeholders, they did not talk to them and were not honest with them about what could or might happen if this path were undertaken.

If I had been meeting with those stakeholders, I would have said that this is something we need to lobby the government for in different legislation, because the senator who put it forward in a private member's bill had agreement among her peers on a narrowly defined scope in the bill in order to get it through and get justice for people. If we do what the member for Vancouver East is suggesting, we would delay it for another 30 days. Then it would probably have to go back through the Senate. The Senate takes a lot of time to look at things. Then it would have to come back here again. That would be months and months of delay, when it could have been done maybe before June. Now we do not know when it is going to be done.

That is why I opposed the approach in committee. Frankly, it is why I oppose using all this time in the House to continue a debate that the NDP-Liberal coalition settled at the immigration committee, an unwise course of action, only to vote against it. They just voted, an hour ago, against moving forward. Also, as we saw at the start of this debate, time after time my colleagues were getting interrupted by points of order, with members saying we should not be allowed to raise the issue of the budget. Absolutely we should be able to raise the issue of the budget, after the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against a Conservative motion that would allow us to move forward to debate the budget.

However, here we are, and if members have given me the opportunity to speak by not moving on that, absolutely I am going to speak about it. Of course, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want to talk about that inflationary budget, that big, expensive nothing burger that would cost Canadians more, that would lead to food inflation and that is not addressing the core issues facing this country, because it is an embarrassment. They do not want an election because they are all afraid of losing their seats. Canadians are on to them, just as I am on to them right now.

I am tired of this. I am tired of these games. We did not need to have this debate in the House. This could have gone forward to the immigration committee. What we have done, in effect, is delay justice for the people in Bill S-245, delay debate on the budget and, in doing so, delay justice for all Canadians, who are dumpster diving in Vancouver East to eat and who continue to not be able to afford places to live.

This is a hard truth. It is an inconvenient truth for everybody in this place. However, it is time coalition members are confronted with it. There are consequences for the actions of the coalition and its backroom dealings. They lead us into places like this, where they make mistakes on parliamentary procedures and where they do not explain the implications of their actions to stakeholders who are advocating for change in this bill. Again, the government could have done this.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my privacy-loving constituents in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Bill C-27 is another piece of legislation that had to be resurrected after the Prime Minister called his superspreader pandemic election. Originally, this was supposed to be a long overdue update to the Privacy Act, and it has since morphed into Bill C-27, the data-grab act.

Everything about Bill C-27 should leave the Liberals feeling embarrassed. A Canadian's right to privacy is fundamental. Sadly, Canadians' privacy rights are not a priority for the government.

This bill has languished for years. It was first introduced immediately after the original online streaming censorship act was introduced. However, when the Prime Minister called his pandemic election and reset all legislation, what did the Liberals make a priority? Was it the privacy rights of Canadians? No. Was it securing Canadians' ownership over their data? No. Instead, what the Liberals prioritized was a bailout for big telecom and a bailout for the legacy media.

Not only does the government care more about padding the bottom line of Postmedia, but it also adopted Rupert Murdoch's false narrative about tech profiting off the content produced by the news media. Social media companies and search engines do not profit off the news media. They profit off us. These companies profit off our data, and the Liberals know the truth. Unfortunately, this legislation seeks to make it easier for companies to profit off our privacy.

If Bill C-27 is not significantly improved at committee, then together with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, the government will have entrenched the surveillance economy in Canadians' lives. By combining the updates to the Privacy Act with the creation of a new artificial intelligence act, the Liberals have actually illustrated the brave new world we live in.

The Privacy Act and the way we talk about privacy even today are holdovers from the industrial era. We do not live in that world anymore. In the industrial economy, privacy rights were concerned with the ability to control what information could be shared. The goal was to prevent harm that could come from our personal information being used against us.

In effect, information was personal and an economic liability. We spent money on shredders to destroy personal information. The careless use of our personal information could only have a negative value, but then the world changed. Our personal information stopped being a liability and became an asset.

It started out slowly. Early examples were Amazon recommending a new book based on previous purchases and Netflix recommending what DVD rental we should next receive by mail. Google then began displaying ads next to search results. That was the eureka moment: Targeted ads were very profitable.

However, the targeting was pretty basic. If someone searched for shoe stores near them, Google returned search results alongside ads for shoes. Then it became ads for shoes on sale nearby. Then came Facebook and millions of people signed up. In exchange for an easy way to connect with friends and family, all someone had to do was share all their personal information, like who their friends were, how many friends they had and their geographical proximity to friends.

With the addition of the “like” button, the data harvesting exploded. If someone liked a news story about camping, they would start seeing ads for tents and sleeping bags. Every action Canadians took online, every single bit of their data, was commodified. Our privacy was turned into property and we lost both.

Not only does this bill not secure privacy rights, but it effectively enshrines the loss of our property rights with just two words: legitimate interest. Proposed subsection 18(3), entitled “Legitimate interest”, has this to say:

(3) An organization may collect or use an individual's personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for the purpose of an activity in which the organization has a legitimate interest that outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual resulting from that collection or use

Is “legitimate interest” defined anywhere in the legislation? No. It is just another example of the vagueness found throughout the legislation.

Even if we accept the plain-language definition and that private business really somehow does have a genuine, legitimate reason to collect private information without consent, it is weighed against the adverse effect. However, this is industrial-era thinking. It views personal information only as a potential liability. Businesses have a legitimate interest in making money. With the Internet and mobile phones, much of our private information can be collected without any adverse effect. This legislation turns the private information of Canadians into the property of corporations and calls it legitimate.

I mentioned earlier that combining the privacy legislation with the AI legislation actually puts a spotlight on the issue of private data as property. However, as important as it is to highlight the connection, it is more important that these bills be separated. The artificial intelligence and data act has been slapped onto previously introduced privacy legislation.

With the privacy portion of the legislation, the devil is in the details. Overall, however, the bill reflects a general consensus developed over countless committee studies. That is not to mention the contributions to the privacy debate from the federal and provincial privacy commissioners. The issue has been well studied, and the minister has indicated that the government is open to responsible amendments. I am sure that the committee is well equipped to improve the privacy sections of this bill.

The same cannot be said about the artificial intelligence section of the bill. It seems rushed, because it is. It is intentionally vague. The Liberals claim the vagueness is required to provide them with regulatory flexibility and agility. The truth is, they do not know enough to be more precise. I have been trying to get a study on artificial intelligence in the defence committee for years, but there was always a more pressing issue. AI was treated like nuclear fusion technology, something that was always just over the horizon.

Since this bill was introduced 10 months ago, we have gone from ChatGPT to open-source GPT models, which any teenager can apparently run on their personal computer now. AI programs went from producing surrealist art to creating photorealistic images of the Pope in a puffy jacket. We have gone from short clips of deepfake videos impersonating real people to generating fictional people speaking in a real-time video. When we all started to learn Zoom in 2020, how many people thought the other person on the screen they were talking to could just be a fake? Now it is a real possibility.

The speed at which AI is developing is not an argument for delaying AI regulation; it shows that it is imperative to get the regulation right. Would this bill do that? The only honest answer is that we do not know. They do not know. Nobody truly knows. However, we can learn.

We should split this bill and let the stand-alone AI bill be the first legislation considered by one of the permanent standing committees, adding artificial intelligence to its official responsibilities. Artificial intelligence is not going away, and while much of the media attention has focused on chatbots, artistic bots and deepfakes, AI is unlocking the secrets to protein folding. This has the potential to unlock cures to countless different cancers and rare genetic diseases.

A paper was just published describing how an AI trained on data about the mass of the planets and their orbits was able to rediscover Kepler's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of time dilation. If we get this wrong, Canada could be left behind by the next revolution in science and discovery.

Given the government's track record on digital technology, Canadians should be worried about the Liberals rushing vague legislation through to regulate an emerging technology. Rather than modernizing the Broadcasting Act, they are trying to drag the Internet back to the 1980s. With Bill C-18, they claim that linking is a form of stealing.

The Liberals and their costly coalition allies do not even understand how broadcasting technology or the Internet works. They see people's personal data as the legitimate property of corporations, and now they are seeking the power to regulate a revolutionary technology. They did nothing while the world shifted below them, and now they are trying to rush regulations through without understanding the scope and scale of the challenge. Protecting Canadians' privacy and establishing property rights over their personal data should have been prioritized over bailing out Bell and Rogers.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague, who is always fighting for those important artists and cultural curators in our country. The government absolutely failed. This is the most impacted sector in our economy from COVID, which was left hung out to dry. We have even been asking for the CEBA loan to be extended for many of them, but many did not even qualify for it, so the government failed.

We know Bill C-11 will bring forward some important funds and resources to support those artists, but it is not quick enough. In this budget, the Liberals should have been bridging the gap with some resources for that.

I am disappointed to not get a question from the Conservatives on housing, because their free market approach has failed Canadians. It has left them hung out to dry.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe I answered the question adequately: Bill C-11 and the regulation of social media and newsfeed algorithms—

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would say Bill C-11, with the new government policy of regulating social media newsfeed algorithms, is a very clear example of something the government has no need to do, no business doing and no need to even contemplate doing. If we were not so focused on Bill C-11 and social media newsfeed algorithms, a lot more federal civil servants could focus on issuing passports and doing the things that government should be doing.

I would also add the confiscation and buyback of hunting rifles and shotguns and the fertilizer restrictions on farmers. There are lots of things the government does that it does not really need to do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Clearly, we are not going to agree on certain things, such as Bill C‑11 and all the disinformation around it. No, Bill C‑11 will not infringe on freedom of expression. However, we do agree on the issue of security, and I am very interested in hearing her talk about that. For example, it is deplorable that there is still no independent inquiry on Chinese interference, which is quite serious. We might have expected an announcement about some action being taken on this issue. Concerning arms trafficking, there are no measures to strengthen the control of gun smuggling across the border. That is very worrisome.

I would like my colleague to talk about that.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to budget 2023, which is yet another high-spend budget that will likely make life more expensive for Canadians.

I have spent time over the last couple of weeks talking to people across my amazing riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to hear their opinions on this budget. I have heard from families, individuals, businesses and organizations alike that are struggling to make ends meet due to record-breaking inflation, and they are really having a hard time right now. Their paycheques do not stretch as far as they used to, between the increased cost of heating, the skyrocketing grocery prices, and the overall cost of living, which seems to be ever-increasing. These hard-working people I have chatted with just want to see lower taxes. Specifically, the thing I hear resoundingly throughout Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is that they want to see the carbon tax axed because it is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. It is inevitably going to raise the price of everything, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown it has already done and will continue to do as we go forward.

One thing I hear loud and clear from people across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is their concerns about the ever-increasing crime. For far too many years, families and individuals across rural Alberta have been complaining about the revolving door of criminals being caught and released back into their communities without so much as a slap on the wrist. The catch-and-release policies of the Liberal government mean that more Canadians do not feel safe in their homes, their communities, their streets and their country. Recently, we have been seeing an ever-increasing rate of high-profile violent crimes in the news. These are now happening in cities and are random. There are random stabbings happening on transit and in the streets. This is not gang-related violence that is terrorizing everyday Canadians, but just random crime.

One thing that is so terrifying and that I have heard so many people say they are concerned about is the fact that many of these crimes were committed by people who were released on bail or out on parole. After eight years of the current Prime Minister and his soft-on-crime policies, our communities just feel less safe, and the Liberal government is doing nothing to stop it. Sadly, it is making it worse. Violent offenders are thrown back into the streets, sometimes within hours of their arrest.

Conservatives believe in jail, not bail for violent repeat offenders, and I think it is really important to stop this revolving door of catch-and-release criminals. In the eight years since the Prime Minister has taken office, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. Conservatives will restore their trust in the legal system and ensure that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars, where they belong.

The people I talked to were also really concerned about government censorship. Specifically, their concerns were with respect to Bill C-11. They made it clear to me that they do not want the current government, or any government for that matter, making a decision as to what they can see or say online. We now have proof that the current Liberal government has unashamedly asked tech giants to make news articles that it does not like simply disappear. We have proof that this has been happening under the current government. Bill C-11 would make that much easier, and the government would be able to control more of what we can see and say online.

I am proud to say that a Conservative government will repeal Bill C-11 and protect the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. It is a shame that the Liberals are more concerned with catchy talking points than addressing the real issues facing Canadians. They are more concerned with keeping their partners in the costly coalition happy than helping everyday Canadians.

Conservatives made three requests of the federal government in order to gain our support for the budget: one, lower taxes; two, end inflationary deficits that would increase the cost of goods; and three, remove the gatekeepers that would prevent more homes from being built, allowing home prices to drop. However, none of those conditions were met, not a single one of them. As such, it is pretty clear that Conservatives simply cannot support this big-spend budget.

It is truly time to speak out against the injustices we face under this current administration. With budget 2023, the Liberals are continuing their war on work and imposing higher taxes that are punishing hard-working individuals, rather than listening to the needs of real Canadians. It has never been so good to be a Liberal insider, and it has never been so bad to be an average Canadian. That is wrong, and it should not be the case in 2023.

The price of food and groceries has skyrocketed. I am not sure if the Liberal members hear the same thing I do when I am back home, but just about every person I talk to talks about how expensive gas is and how expensive groceries are. I constantly see posts on social media from friends of mine who have kids about how their grocery bill has gone up by another $100 this week.

Living in an isolated, rural community, I see even more expensive groceries than what many of my city counterparts would see, just by the nature of the fact that the groceries need an extra five hours to get to where I am, which is an end-of-line community.

The carbon tax actually adds a unique perspective. Not only are the farmers taxed to make the food, and then the people who produce the food are taxed on all the energy it takes to manufacture it, but the hard-working truck drivers who bring the food from distribution centres and farms to my community are also taxed. The grocery stores have additional carbon tax. That little bit of carbon tax, which is just a tax plan, is multiplied so many times over, and the farther Canadians are from a distribution hub, the more that has an impact on them.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that Canadians will, in fact, pay more than they receive back in this carbon tax scheme. In fact, for the average Alberta family, the net cost of the fuel charge is $2,773. It is $1,723 to the average family in Saskatchewan, another $1,490 to the average family in Manitoba, an extra $1,820 to a family in Ontario, an extra $1,513 to a family in Nova Scotia, an extra $1,521 to a family in Prince Edward Island, and an extra $1,316 to a family in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I repeat those costs because it shows that families are not better off, if the average family in that many provinces is going to be paying that much more. Most of the families I have talked to over the last two weeks do not have an extra $2,700 lying around to pay for the extra cost of the carbon tax. They do not have it. They are already struggling. They are already making the hard choice of whether they are going to pay their heating bill, pay for gas so they can get to work, or put groceries on their table.

We have a record number of people skipping meals in this country: one in five Canadians is skipping meals. We have a record-breaking number of people visiting food banks right across this country every single month so that kids get nutritious food. We are in a crisis right now with affordability, yet the government seems to think that this is not really a huge problem. It did put forward a small win with a grocery rebate, but with the additional costs I cited, that will evaporate before a couple of months is up.

While it is definitely going to help in the short term, in the long term families will still be worse off than they were before. That is not even taking into account that because of all the extra spending in this budget, the average family is going to have an extra 4,200 dollars' worth of costs to pay for all the spending in this budget. Most of these families do not have that kind of money.

This is the part where I think there is a huge disconnect between the talking points and the reality. Canadians are struggling today and the solutions are not here. I will be voting against this budget.

Social Media Content

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House in order to make a request with regard to an emergency debate concerning revelations that the government has pressured social media platforms to edit or remove content that it considered embarrassing. These attempts at what can fairly be described as government censorship of the news, and the Internet more generally, came to public attention through a response that my colleague, the member for Niagara West, put forward in an OPQ.

The response, which has been tabled in the House of Commons, reveals that the government pressured social media platforms a total of 214 times over a 24-month time period and that this pressure was applied simply because the government did not want this information made public or it felt embarrassed by this information.

We know that there were many times when the platforms were able to successfully push back. However, we also know that Bill C-11 is currently in the Senate; if it should pass, it will actually legislate the government's ability to engage in this type of censorship going forward. One can imagine just how scary this is for many Canadians who count on the fact that we have a charter in this country that protects their freedom of speech, and therefore, freedom to access information that they wish to listen to or watch or access online. Therefore, given that we have now seen it come to light that the government applied pressure 214 times, we would ask that the House be able to engage in a debate with regard to this important matter.

I acknowledge that the Chair normally affords a wide latitude for contributions during the budget debate, which is the current debate taking place here today. I recognize that this type of request might not normally be granted under the emergency debate opportunity. However, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that these issues touch upon one of our fundamental freedoms, which is freedom of speech, and further, that censorship of the news and Internet is decidedly not an economic question, as the budget is. Therefore, it could not necessarily be addressed through financial initiatives.

To suggest that this issue can simply be raised within the context of the current debate seems perhaps reckless, and so I would respectfully allow my question to stand: Could we be granted an emergency debate with regard to the government's decision to apply pressure 214 times to social media platforms across this country?

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know the government is abundantly committed to censoring what people can see, post or hear online. However, what we just learned is that the Prime Minister actually got a head start. According to government documents that were tabled in the House of Commons, the Liberals actually pressured social media companies a total of 214 times over the period of 24 months. Talk about heavy-handed. Why is the government so committed to censoring speech?

Social Media

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know that the government is committed to censoring what people can see, hear and post online. However, what has just come to light is that it is so committed to this that it has actually gotten a head start. It has been trying to censor social media platforms for quite some time.

Thanks to the question put forward by the member for Niagara West, we now have documents, which have been tabled in the House of Commons, and they show that the government pressured social media platforms 214 times in a 24-month period to get them to take down content. Sometimes this was valid due to impersonations or copyright violations, but many times it was simply because the government found the content to be embarrassing.

If adopted, Bill C-11 would take this type of pressuring tactic and make it legal, which means the social media companies would not be able to push back. They would simply have to comply.

Canadians deserve to have their freedom of speech protected. The government needs to back off from censoring speech. We will be calling for an emergency debate.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, it is important to be vigilant when talking about money. We often see bills in the House whose purpose is precisely to help the economy. Bill C-11, the online streaming act, and the bill on supply management come to mind.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservative government will agree with something here in the House, but then change their minds and drag things out at committee. This should help us respond to the current challenges.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I say good day to everyone. It is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to talk about Bill S-202, an act that would amend the Parliament of Canada Act and that is better known as the parliamentary visual artist laureate.

This Senate bill proposes to establish a new officer of the Library of Parliament called the parliamentary visual artist laureate and to give that position a term of up to two years. This new officer would be tasked with creating works of art for Parliament and engaging with visual arts communities from coast to coast.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer assumes that the overall cost of a visual artist laureate would be in the neighbourhood of $100,000. This is based on the cost of the established parliamentary poet laureate position we already have.

My Conservative colleagues and I support the arts in this country, as well as the culture and diverse heritage of Canada. Through my work over the past eight years on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have had many opportunities to learn from Canadians and demonstrate that support. My colleagues on this side of the House and I, on the heritage committee, have heard many witnesses testify from the arts community who are struggling financially. We have made common sense suggestions to the government for legislation to support these artists in our country.

Unfortunately, I have been disappointed by the lack of support by the Liberal government for online content creators; let us make no mistake, they are really artists themselves. Bill C-11 threatens some of these artists, and no amount of testimony or discussion has caused the government to even give this issue a second look. This is an avoidable mistake.

Many artists came to committee to talk about the online streaming bill that gave them the opportunity to connect not only in their community and this country of Canada but worldwide. These are the same artists and creators who have made a name for themselves but are now being censored, and last night, the government moved closure on Bill C-11.

The Senate looked over Bill C-11 for months and recommended 26 amendments. Even the Senate agreed that this was a huge issue in the red chamber. However, the government refused eight amendments that dealt with censorship. These are artists who may never have a chance to make $100,000 a year, but like this Senate bill, it is all about freedom of expression.

It is interesting that Bill S-202 does not refer to it, because when another creative bill was being studied, it was all about limiting the freedom of expression. With regard to this legislation, Bill S-202, I will remain optimistic and open-minded. I will listen to members, who will no doubt deliver thoughtful remarks, and I will listen to all Canadians. However, I will remind everyone that it is Canadians who will bear the brunt of the cost of this bill, and I will listen closely to hear their thoughtful views.

I regularly send information into my riding requesting feedback. I am never disappointed by the range of opinions and carefully considered comments we get back. I learn something every time we send out a mailer and interact with constituents. Canadians, as we all know, are very smart, and I trust them to make good decisions about how we spend their money here in Parliament.

We will get the opportunity to hear from Canadians when this bill goes to committee. We will hear from witnesses and gather more information. For example, was there a demand for the creation of this position in the first place? What work is expected to be produced by the individual in this position? How would this individual be selected? Would the work produced reflect Canadian values we can be proud of? Are there any limitations on their work?

Some of the questions we are talking about here today are about what we need to find out in committee. These are just a few important considerations. As we all know, Canada is rich in talent in every artistic field.

I have been privileged to travel to every coast of this country, and I can say that Canadians are creating art every day in every way across this great country. My office in Saskatoon, in fact, is decorated with meaningful art pieces by talented Canadians, including my own wife, Ann.

The late Bob Pitzel from Humboldt made a number of paintings that I have in Saskatoon and here in my Ottawa office, and I cherish them. Ann and I have supported artists for years by buying their treasures and helping non-profit organizations like Artists Against Hunger, which raises money for local charities in our city of Saskatoon.

There is no shortage of creativity and talent in Canada. In fact, I had an opportunity to visit Stornoway just before Christmas. That is the residence of the Leader of the Opposition. On the wall, I was pleased to see a painting by the late Allen Sapp, an artist from Saskatchewan. It was a painting from his catalogue that I had tried to purchase for myself, but it was not available; then I saw it on the wall at Stornoway. I guess I cannot take that picture back home with me.

Allen Sapp, who unfortunately passed away in 2015, was an indigenous artist; he really set the table in our province for art. In fact, in the city of North Battleford, there is a museum that all Canadians should go to. Allen Sapp was one of the finest painters that this country has ever seen.

Could a collection of artists who are already creating art contribute their work in order to fulfill the goal of Bill S-202? I just throw that question out there. These are options that we might consider before creating a new exclusive post.

This bill proposes mandating a visual artist laureate to promote arts here in Canada. Canadians have been doing this since the birth of this nation, some 150-plus years, without a mandate. Art is an amazing thing. Creativity does not need to be mandated.

COVID was particularly difficult for artists in this country. It was difficult for everyone, but certainly in the area of the arts. Artists could not show their work, and it was very tough on them. We heard from them at heritage committee. This is a sector that I would like to hear from on the idea of a visual arts laureate. They would provide a level of understanding that should be heard.

With the reckless spending and the runaway debt under the current government, it makes sense to hear from Canadians what they want. Do they feel this is value for money, or do they have other priorities for arts funding in this country? Is this the best way to support artists in Canada, and is it the best time to create new expenses?

I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the other place, the senator from Manitoba, for this bill. I think we can all agree that members in the House support the arts, culture and diversity. There are many ways to support that priority in Canada.

I would like to thank some of the artists from my city. There is the late Hugo Alvarado. Cam Forrester has a group in our city called Men Who Paint. It has several exhibitions. It is a fabulous group of artists in Saskatoon. It does tremendous work, and its members volunteer their time for workshops, which helps younger artists get involved.

We have Cheryl Tuck Tallon. Ernie Scoles is indigenous, and he does so much in our city, like volunteering items for promotion at fundraising events. We also have Lorna Lamothe, Laurel Schenstead-Smith, Marian Phaneuf and I could go on.

I thank members for their time on Bill S-202.

Online Streaming Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 8:17 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Motion No. 2 relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C‑11 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do need to kill Bill C-11. There is no question.

It is interesting because even the Prime Minister's appointed senators brought up concerns about this bill. Again, it is not simply Conservatives who are concerned about cat videos like the member opposite suggested, but it is a growing chorus of folks from across the country who are saying that this is not the right direction for our country. I would note that over the course of the study that took place in Canada's Senate, we heard time and time again from Liberal-appointed senators. It was not simply Conservatives who were appointed in the Senate. It was a chorus of Liberal-appointed senators and they were tired of the propaganda that the Liberals were trying to sell.

I know that my colleagues have done a great job of unpacking various elements of that here this evening, but certainly when it comes to some of the specifics, we see a number of examples where senators endeavoured to make a bad bill a bit less bad, in an earnest attempt for democracy to be able to play its course. Those voices, in the other place as we refer to it, those senators, include those whom the Prime Minister appointed and some of whom were artists themselves, ironically. They endeavoured to make this bill less bad, so they sent it back as is tradition and procedure and yet here we have the government rejecting most of those amendments. They were the way that the Liberals would have the opportunity, a “get out of jail free” card, to address some of the most egregious concerns that certainly Conservatives have highlighted but also that experts from across the country have highlighted.

The Liberals were given an opportunity from Liberal Prime Minister-appointed individuals. Here was how they could have helped them get a pass so that they could have exempted some of the biggest concerns that experts from across the country had brought forward and yet what does the government do? Margaret Atwood is no Conservative and certainly not a traditional Conservative voter, although we will see what happens in the next election. We see a “creeping totalitarianism” where all the Liberals want is control. It seems that they will stop at nothing to control what Canadians see online.

Let me take a bit of a step back, if I could, and describe what is so sneaky about this bill because we have here not a frontal assault. We have examples throughout history of direct assaults on freedom of expression. There are numerous examples that one could point to from around the world where governments specifically say individuals can or cannot believe this. There are many examples where this Prime Minister will certainly call out anything he does not like and call people un-Canadian or a fringe minority or those with despicable views. He is certainly a purveyor of that sort of divisive language that divides Canadians.

However, this bill is sneaky. Let me unpack for members why it is so sneaky. It does not say that a regular Canadian or a content creator, or whatever the case is, cannot post something online, that they cannot go onto YouTube or cannot participate in a social media platform of some kind. The bill does not say at all that they cannot post something. That is where it is sneaky. Certainly the members of the Liberal Party have bought into this. I would hope that they simply do not understand what they are actually promoting and trying to pass into law in this country because of how terrifying a precedent it sets, but here is what is really terrifying. The bill does not at all say that people could not post it. What it does do is say very clearly that the government could control who sees it. As I describe this to many constituents who rightly are concerned, we see that it is backdoor censorship at its finest.

We see that it is the government using a sneaky mechanism and increased government bureaucracy to endeavour to control what Canadians can see. In the guise of the government saying it will never limit what people can say, it will simply limit what they can see. It is terrifying that this is something that would be debated in the 21st century in this place.

It is the sneakiness. I would implore all Canadians and all members of this place to stand up against that sort of sneaky, creeping totalitarianism because it sets a terrifying precedent that the government can control not necessarily what people can say as they allowed to think and say whatever they like, but it will control who can see it and what they see. That is an absolutely terrifying precedent that is being set.

When it comes to the bureaucracy that has been proposed, there are many examples where government fails. In fact, I would suggest the government is not really that good at delivering much and certainly the Liberals have demonstrated time and time again that they are not very good at delivering anything, let alone the promises they make either during a Parliament or during an election, whatever the case is.

The Liberals' response to the mechanism that they will use to control the information on the Internet is the imposition of broadcasting-like codes into the way that streams and algorithms work online. The way they are going to do this is to use a government agency. The government is saying to just trust it, do not worry about it, there is no reason to be concerned, people can certainly trust anything and everything the Prime Minister says, who has demonstrated himself to be less than truthful on more occasions that he can count. We see that Liberals are saying to just trust them when the reality is that Canadians cannot. Let me unpack that a little.

By using the CRTC, Liberals are giving a tremendous amount of authority, albeit at arm's length, to individuals who are subject to cabinet orders and approval, who are subject to appointments that are made by the Governor in Council or by the Prime Minister, in essence. We see the fingerprints of the Prime Minister, this backdoor type of censorship, that would limit the ability of Canadians and gives an incredible amount of authority to a bureaucracy that does not necessarily have the best interests of Canadians in mind.

I want to provide a bit of a paraphrase of part of the debate that I had with former minister of heritage, now Minister of Environment. He certainly has a checkered record when it comes to his activism and whatnot, but during the previous debate on Bill C-10, the comment was made that as long as it is the right sort of information, then it must be okay. In fact, I think it was a Green Party member who no longer sits in this House who had made this assertion during questions and comments during a late-night sitting when the Liberals were again trying to force and censor the debate around censorship. It seemed to be in the eyes of some within the left that it was okay to censor as long as it was censoring the views that one did not like.

Let me state definitively and categorically in this place that freedom is something that cannot be dictated. Freedom is something that exists because people are free. Freedom of speech is something, as is very clearly outlined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that requires the full scope of what that means. When there is a very clear attempt, a precedent that has been set, examples of the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal Party who have demonstrated a willingness to use the authority and the power of government to get their way, to cover up their scandals, to use the massive infrastructure of government and the associated bureaucracy to influence the direction of Canadians, it is not something that Canadians want, whether they support the Conservatives or not. This is where there is a growing number of individuals.

I think that directly related to the Liberals' shutdown of debate, their censorship of the censorship discussion, we have what I suspect is a growing message that Liberal MPs, backbench and otherwise, are likely hearing from their constituents who are asking questions. They are asking what the deal is with this. Instead of Liberals being honest with those constituents, addressing those concerns and taking a pause on what would be massive government overreach, they are buckling down.

Instead of being honest and instead of representing their constituents, they simply slam the door on debate and push the bill through for royal assent so that they can have the control they so much desire.

We have seen this before. It is incredibly troubling that they are using the heavy hand of their coalition, in which nobody in either the NDP or the Liberal Party were elected. The Liberals are using that confidence and supply agreement, a fundamentally undemocratic agreement, as a weapon to try to control what Canadians can see on the Internet. I will tell members that it is wrong and it needs to be rejected.

This will be the last chance for members of the House to take a stand for Canadians and for freedom. There is so much that can, and I believe needs, to be talked about when it comes to the myriad circumstances surrounding Bill C-11. I would like to talk about the idea of Canadian content.

As the Leader of the Opposition articulately stated earlier, this is one of the sneaky ways that the Liberals are able to massage the debate around this issue to somehow suggest that Conservatives are the ones who are somehow offside with regular Canadians. On the question of Canadian content, clearly it is the Bloc that shows that the Liberals are absolutely full of it when they try to hide behind this idea. Let me unpack that a little.

It would be nice to know what Canadian content is. I think that the Conservatives, over the course of this debate, have been asking that question: “Give us a definition of what Canadian content is?” However, the Liberals seem unwilling to have that discussion, let alone meaningfully engage on the issue.

The question must be asked: Why is that significant? It is because it comes back to who is in control. When we are basing a bill on so-called Canadian content, it sounds great. Who does not love maple syrup? Who does not love being proud to be from Alberta, and the western heritage there? Who would not love to watch the Calgary Stampede for those 10 days? There are numerous examples, such as country music. Not everybody may agree with me on the best form of music, but it certainly is country music.

We see how the Liberals talk about Canadian content. I think they are endeavouring to ensure that Canadians think of the motherhood and apple pie-type messages: maple syrup, the moose and the fond memories of childhood. Those are related to various elements that people may associate with what they might call Canadian content.

What is concerning is that we see a direct attempt by the government to manipulate that term to serve its political purposes. The government is not defining Canadian content in the bill, in fact, if members can believe it, it is not even mentioned in the bill. However, the Liberals talk about it in such a forward way that it provides this, what I would suggest, massive funnel where they can say, “Okay, here are the only things that can fit” in what they would determine is the type of Canadian content they would deem acceptable.

Is that coming from a directive from the Prime Minister's Office? I do not know. However, for the Liberals to suggest that it is or it is not comes directly down and back to the question that I asked earlier as to whether or not we can trust them. I think Canadians increasingly are speaking very clearly on this issue that “we cannot”. We cannot trust this Prime Minister, we cannot trust this cabinet, and we cannot trust these members of the coalition, when they have demonstrated time and time again that they simply cannot be trusted.

Where does this leave us, as we come down to what is literally the end of debate, where we will be, once again, voting on the bill? It is the last chance. I think the solution is actually quite simple. Canadians have a choice: creeping totalitarianism and a respect for a basic dictatorship, or the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is willing to bring home freedom for every Canadian, so let us bring it home.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to the people whom I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot across east-central Alberta, and also to ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard within this place. Certainly, when it comes to the amount of correspondence and calls I receive, or the people who come up to me in the grocery store or on the street, or who walk into my office on the main street in Camrose, or when I chat with them across the many communities I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot, time and time again I hear from constituents who share their concern and who share their dismay at the fact that the Liberals and the Prime Minister would perpetuate a type of censorship that would limit the ability of Canadians to express themselves online.

It is unbelievable that in the 21st century this would happen in Canada, yet we are seeing it now, not only through Bill C-11, but we saw it through the previous Parliament's Bill C-10. Liberals seem to stop at nothing to control what Canadians believe and think, control everything to do with their lives. My submission to this place today, on behalf of so many constituents, is to plead with the government to reconsider.

As we discuss specifically the bill, which has been studied thoroughly, what I find interesting, now that it is back before this place, with the government's response to a thorough debate that took place in the Senate, is that we see so clearly that there is no consensus on the path forward for the bill, which is very contrary.

In fact, I would like to call out a very significant falsehood that is often perpetuated by members of the government. They somehow suggest, and in fact in question period earlier today they said it very clearly, that every Canadian supports the bill and that nobody is opposed to it. They asked the Conservatives what we are doing and said that we stand alone. I will definitively answer that question and say categorically that it is a falsehood, because of what we have heard throughout the course of this study. I know for a fact that there are some Canadians who live in constituencies represented by Liberals and by New Democrats who have reached out to me and other colleagues and have said unequivocally that they do not support Bill C-11.

I want to call out that falsehood in this place today, because government ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other talking heads of the government stand and say it is only the Conservatives who are somehow opposed to this great idea called “Bill C-11”. They forget to talk about the substance of it; rather, they would simply make the case that everybody is on their side and that nobody opposes them. That is categorically false, and I am going to call out that falsehood here today, as my constituents expect me to.

We face a unique circumstance. We are facing not only a censorship bill that is before this place, in the form of Bill C-11, but we are facing the limiting of debate. Can members believe it? We see that not only does the government want to control the online feeds of Canadians, but it is truly stooping to a new level by limiting the debate in the people's House of Commons.

Can members believe it? The Liberals, with their coalition partners in the NDP, would do everything they can to silence opposition voices and to silence the voices of so many Canadians. It is not just Canadians we have heard from on this matter. It is not just regular folks who are living their daily lives, but we have seen that there is certainly no consensus across the artistic community in Canada. In fact, we have heard from many of Canada's most talented individuals, those in the more traditional spaces like art and writing, as well as television stars and that sort of thing, but we have also seen, incredibly, the rising digital creator class speak so clearly in opposition to the bill.

In fact, I remember the previous iteration, Bill C-10. It can get a little confusing for those watching, and I am sure there are many watching this egregious attempt by the Liberals to censor not only members of Parliament, but all Canadians. The previous iteration of the bill in the last Parliament was called Bill C-10, and I remember chatting with the president of a digital film festival. I can assure members that this person was not a natural Conservative.

This was not somebody who would be predisposed to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, but the plea from this pioneer in the creation of digital content was to say to stop it, stop the Liberals from being able to control our feeds and stop the Liberals from being able to introduce a massive government bureaucracy that would endeavour to control what we see online. I am proud to stand in this place with my Conservative colleagues as the only party that stands for freedom and democracy and against censorship.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have not been surprised, I guess, by the Conservative rhetoric during this debate on Bill C-11. They are quite repetitive in their interventions. They have not shared any real interventions on the actual text of the bill, including on discoverability, which in this act will be to ensure that cultural content created by artists is accessible and promoted and that discoverability requirements will not authorize the CRTC to impose conditions that require the use of a particular computer algorithm or source code.

I wonder if the member can explain to us what the Conservatives understand the discoverability clauses to be in the bill.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague that I listened to his speech. Frankly, I did not hear anything different from what I heard the other night when we sat here in the House until midnight. However, that is what freedom of speech looks like.

I am a member of Parliament for a riding in Quebec that is home to creators, artists, people who work in the film industry. It is very important for me and my constituents that Bill C-11 be passed by the House.

I would like to know why my colleague insists on continuing this exercise.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

Democracy does, indeed, die at night. We are sitting here dealing with amendments from the Senate on a deeply flawed and deeply controversial piece of legislation. I have not been in the House all day, but for the last couple of hours. I have heard the debate and the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a profoundly convincing argument that he made as to why this piece of legislation should not be passed.

However, it is not just the words of the Leader of the Opposition that tell us why this piece of legislation needs to be, at a minimum, overhauled or, better yet, halted at this time. The concerns of Canadians, the concerns of digital content creators, those who understand this space, those who have looked at this piece of legislation, those who have taken the time to appear before committee to express their views and all of their concerns, including the Senate amendments, to deal with one part of this deeply flawed piece of legislation are being ignored by the government, which is certainly being aided and abetted by other opposition parties.

What I thought I would do tonight is take a different tack from where this debate has gone today. There have been, like I said, hundreds of thousands of voices. There is not one issue, perhaps other than Bill C-21, the firearms legislation that I heard more about from my constituents than Bill C-11. Like the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, I am an elected member of this place, I am the voice of the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil and I am going to share their voices this evening. I am going to share the voices of other eminent Canadians who have expressed a concern about this piece of legislation.

I received an email from Kim, who said, “Dear Mr. Brassard, The passing of Bill C-11 will be a sad moment in Canadian history. Please consider making sure this bill does not get passed. This kind of censorship should not come from our government or any free society.” Violet said, “Dear Sir: I want the brakes put on this Bill now! I am not a fan of this ridiculous Bill.”

Rose said, “This bill is an overreach. It needs to be scrapped. Anyone who has been following this bill understands that we do not need the government to tell us what we can read/see [online].” Peter said, “Hello John, Regarding the above, my opinion is Bill C-11 should be scrapped and the [...] government keep their hand off of our social media. I hope you are [doing your] best to keep this Bill from being passed. Hopefully the Liberals will be ousted in the next election.”

John and Corrine from Barrie said, “Trust all is going well with you and your family. We ask that you vote 'no' to Bill C-11. This will hurt and restrict healthy free speech and debate which is the democracy our nation is founded on. This is a great concern to us. As our constitutional freedoms and rights are restricted, this opens doors to tyranny and dictatorship which is dangerous to every level of our nation.”

Another says, “Good afternoon Mr. Honourable Brassard, I know you're busy so I'll be brief.” This is from Brent in Barrie. “I'm very much against Bill C-11. I don't want an unelected government official/body determining what my family can watch. Margaret Atwood is against it. The previous CRTC commissioner is against it. This bill will stifle freedom of speech and shut down contrary views under the threat of 'misinformation and/or disinformation'. Please fight for our freedom of speech.”

We have certainly heard in the arguments from the opposition, the NDP and others about this being an issue of disinformation. In fact, I would suggest the ones spreading the disinformation are those on the government side.

The other person who has been directly involved in this entire debate has been Michael Geist, who is a law professor at Ottawa University. Interestingly, I was going through some his posts earlier today and he has been watching the debate intently in this House of Commons. He made a post earlier that said, “Bill C-11 is not China, Russia or Nazi Germany. As I’ve stated many times, it does not limit the ability....[of] implications for freedom of expression but it does [not] turn Canada into China.”

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I listened with confusion to the member's brief history of time, the fictionalized version. I note that it had very little to do with the bill at hand, so if the member does not mind, I am going to bring us back to Bill C-11.

When the dust settles and Bill C-11 is passed, we will come to realize that the only thing changed in Canada is that Canadian creators are better supported and that there is more Canadian content entering Canadian homes. We will realize that the outrage we have been hearing has been manufactured with the nefarious purpose of raising money. This is a manufactured crisis to raise money for the Conservative Party.

When this bill passes and the changes are seen as positive, and none of the ludicrous predictions the party opposite has made come to pass, will the member apologize to Canadians? Will his party apologize to Canadians? Will you return every dollar to every hard-working Canadian you have snookered with this nonsense?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, this harassment from the parties that simply do not want to hear the truth is incredible, especially from the member for Winnipeg North, who is known for rambling on and on in debate in this House. His speeches have become less and less relevant over the years. I look forward to tying this all together so that we can understand what I am speaking about.

It is not just that we are speaking for Canadians who are concerned that their access to what they view online may be restricted by the government. It is about an even greater concern over what the government will do to hide its backroom deals, corruption and scandals if Canadians are not able to share and view things online without government censorship. The Liberals' track record, which I just laid out only a portion of, shows that they cannot be trusted to do what is right and what is ethical.

Bill C-11 is a piece of legislation that would impact every single Canadian who has a cellphone, a television or a computer in their home and who enjoys online streaming and viewing and listening to content online. Through this piece of legislation, the government is about to give itself the ability to control what Canadians have access to, can listen to online or can watch online. Instead of viewers deciding what they want to watch, the government would control the algorithms, which will put things in front of them that the government determines it wants them to see. People go online to see what they want to see, not what the government wants to see.

I have been asked to do all I can to stop this bill and I will. However, in turn, I ask Canadians to do what they can by contacting members of the Liberal-NDP government, MPs and senators from the other House to voice their concerns with Bill C-11, and join us as we fight on their behalf to maintain freedoms in Canada. They should tell the government that what it is doing is wrong. For the government to take control over what people can post online, view online and promote online is wrong.

I have trust in Canadians to do what is right more than I trust the government. The government has shown a propensity to hide the truth. I have given many examples of that this evening, even though members tried to shut me down with their point of order interventions. I trust Canadians to do the ethical thing, but we cannot do this alone. As Conservative members in this House, we will lead the charge. I hope Canadians will fall behind us in leading the charge to end this bill and this draconian measure.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am just wondering about the relevance of what the hon. member is discussing right now, so that we could get back on track for Bill C-11.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise in the House as the representative of the awesome people and beautiful area of the North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I rise today to debate Bill C-11, what has become commonly known as the Liberal government's censorship bill. I rise on behalf of a long list of people who contacted me by email, social media, handwritten letters and on the streets, asking me to do all I can to oppose this draconian bill that would control what they will see online and what they can post online, all controlled by a government deciding what government wants them to see and post, not what users choose to see and post.

As I rise today, the government has already taken other steps to limit what Canadians can say about this bill. Today, the government has decided to further censor open debate on Bill C-11 by forcing closure of debate on the bill and, in doing so, deny any further debate in the House today and force a vote on it tonight.

More and more Canadians are realizing the government cannot be trusted. Its actions are becoming more egregious on a weekly basis and Bill C-11 is just one more example, yet it expects Canadians to believe it, to trust it. It is no wonder we, as His Majesty's official opposition, as well as Canadians en masse, simply no longer trust the government.

When we look at the government's track record on transparency, or lack thereof, the examples are becoming too numerous to mention. I will mention a few, but there are so many instances of the government censoring the information Canadians deserve to receive, that the trend of excessive censorship is very clear.

The first significant issue was during the controversy of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the removal of a justice minister, and the attempts to hide the truth from Canadians. That minister chose to speak truth and the Prime Minister chose to silence her. Then there was the Prime Minister’s ethics breach with his trip to the Bahamas, when he refused to answer questions until the truth was dragged out and he was found guilty of that ethics breach. There was also the WE Charity scandal that eventually lead to the proroguing of Parliament because the government did not want the facts to come out, so it censored what could be heard by shutting down Parliament.

We also learned other facts the government would have preferred to kept secret from Canadians, that the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I do not always give a title to my speeches, but there was a movie released back in 2020 that I managed to draw my inspiration from. This is the movie called The Social Dilemma. As we know, it is about big tech using social media as a means to manipulate and influence people.

The public was outraged about it, and rightly so. The government apparently was too, but the problem was that it did not think of it first. That is what we are going to see with this bill as it goes through. I think I have a title for my speech. I am going to go with “The Liberal Dilemma” in the same vein as The Social Dilemma.

It has been amazing to see the strong response we have gotten from the general public, which has reached out to many members of Parliament. Lots of us in the Conservative caucus have heard from a lot of people. We heard from experts, both at committee and out of committee, demanding that the Liberals stop what they are doing. Sadly, the voices have been repeatedly ignored.

What is more troubling is that these same voices might eventually be silenced. However, the Conservatives have been listening to them. We have been raising the alarm and opposing the bill while it passed through this House. The other place has also taken these concerns seriously. Bill C-11 was sent back to us with several amendments from the Senate. One of those amendments is especially relevant and important to the issue of user-generated content.

The Liberals have another chance to show some good faith and correct the problem they are creating in this country. We already know that they are not taking the opportunity in front of them. The minister has made it clear that the Liberals are going to reject this exact amendment, which has been at the heart of this entire debate so far.

At least it is crystal clear where the Liberals stand, and it is not on the right side of the issue. It is exactly the opposite. The Liberals are not interested in protecting the rights of Canadians. It is not their priority. That is really discouraging to see from the federal government. It is a complete failure of leadership on their part.

That is why, on the opposite side, Conservatives have been fighting so much on behalf of our fellow Canadians. We want them to know that someone will stand up for them and their rights in Parliament. If the Liberals go ahead with this, we would get rid of it if we formed government because we firmly believe that it is the right thing to do.

There is a reason the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it mentions a fundamental freedom of expression, includes “freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

The ability to communicate freely is so important to our society. Whether someone was born here or chose to come here from another part of the world, Canadians know and love their personal experience with freedom. We want to make sure that our children and future generations enjoy it as well. We should never take it for granted. The same freedom is essential for our political system to function.

If the Liberals controlled the press, they would let it silence voices which disagreed with them and turn our news networks into a publicly funded propaganda machine; but in fact, it is too late.

History has shown us the worst examples of what can happen with government censorship and control. Even in our own time, there are authoritarian regimes that are doing the same thing to oppress their people, and we know that there have also been attempts to interfere in our elections and have influence within our own country.

Government propaganda spread through government media can either sway public opinion toward its ideals, or what is worse, be used to cover up the corruption and crimes carried out by the state. Given that the independence of media from the government is such an important principle to Canada and other countries around the world, why do the Liberals want to provide an opening for online censorship and interference with media communications?

That is the direction Bill C-11 is taking us. It will hand over more control of media and the Internet from the people to the government. Up until this point, Canadians have had the opportunity to participate in a media marketplace that is free and open. All content is given equal opportunity and can be judged based on its own merit.

Canadian artists have impressed us with their talents here at home, and they have also punched above their weight in the global market. That has been the case with every art form. Canadians continue to succeed as actors, video creators and musicians performing in pop, classical or other genres. Each one of them has worked hard at their craft, and they have excelled based on merit. It did not require bureaucrats in Ottawa or anywhere else to decide if they should be considered Canadian enough.

We all want to see Canadian talent thrive. As much as the Liberals want to hide behind the idea of supporting artists, that has never been the issue. They need to stop using it as an empty excuse to push forward a power grab that could eventually threaten the rights of artistic expression as much as any other ability for Canadians to speak freely.

The ability of Bill C-11 to limit what Canadians would see online would also hurt Canadian content producers. They have been saying as much. Many talented creators have not only made a name for themselves in the Canadian scene, but they have also become stars in the U.S. and all throughout the rest of the world.

Bill C-11 would become a gatekeeper that bars regular Canadians from reaching audiences online. How can that be, if the government is saying it would encourage Canadian content? The problem lies in the fact that, when we give the government the right to censor some content, we must consider that lobbyists from larger producers will influence the regulatory process, which in this case would be carried out by the CRTC.

Only rich, established groups can afford to hire lobbyists. Young men and women posting music to YouTube or maybe trick shot videos in their free time cannot do that. They cannot afford it. Bill C-11 would make it much harder to break into the industry because the only people who can afford to buy lobbyists are already the established media companies.

Across the board, Canada has too many gatekeepers that stop us from building homes or developing our industries. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would expand the government's policy of gatekeeping now to our online content. When it comes to its claim about promoting Canadian content, Bill C-11 does not really make sense, nor address the major problem. The stated goal is to require that media sites give preference to Canadian content in an attempt to promote Canadian culture. However, we still have to ask: How would that rule apply in practice?

The bill fails to define Canadian culture and what content qualifies as Canadian. This vagueness is what would give the government the ability to label as “Canadian” whatever it wants us to see, and to censor anything else that does not align with its priorities. It is irresponsible and can only make people think there is some reason why it wants to leave the door open to controlling how it is that we communicate.

If the Liberals were serious at all or had any interest in defending Canadian culture, they would not allow for this ambiguity and leave so many loopholes in the bill. They would not vote against the necessary amendment to exempt user-generated content from government censorship. It was included in this new version of the bill because of careful and thorough study. Parliamentarians, both in this House and in the other place, have heard from numerous witnesses and had overwhelming feedback from constituents. Apparently, none of that matters to the Liberal government.

The legislative process of Bill C-11 has been a mess right from the start. Last year, the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, rammed Bill C-11 through the House of Commons, not allowing stakeholders to fully voice their concerns about the bill. Today, they have once again tried to censor the opposition by forcibly ending debate on this censorship bill.

As usual, the Prime Minister and his party will not listen to anyone who disagrees with their agenda. It is the same arrogance and condescending attitude that have been on display since they have been in power. That is exactly what people are worried about if they have the power to censor and remove criticism.

Earlier in my speech, I referred to serious allegations about foreign interference in Canada. It is a good example of what could go terribly wrong if we do not protect free expression. We already have a Prime Minister who has disregarded the public interest and tried to cover up accusations against him about conflicts of interest. Most recently, he refused to have an independent inquiry about Beijing's interference in Canada's elections. Can members imagine how much worse it would be if the same Liberal government had the power of censorship when we have learned as much as we have about all the scandals it has been engaged in over the years?

It is a scary thought, but we are not going to give up the fight. We are going to work as hard as ever to oppose censorship and to expose the endless failures of the Liberal government.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have in fact read Bill C-11. Many of my colleagues have read Bill C-11. I think that it is absolutely important that we always make sure we tell the truth and the whole truth in this—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is incorrect for the member for New Westminster—Burnaby to state that Conservatives have not read Bill C-11—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, what is happening in Canada? The world is watching our nation and seeing a big, bossy government close down debate on censorship. The Liberals are censoring the debate on censorship. This is what the world is seeing. This puts us in the category of the Communists of Beijing and countries like North Korea and Russia. Putin would be envious of the ability to change the algorithms of his viewers to watch content online.

This is a dangerous time in Canada. We have all had struggles for the past three years. The division in our country has never been as great as it is today, and now we have a government that wants to take it a step further, jumping on that raw nerve in Canada that distrusts government because of its actions on this bill. We are here tonight debating because of the forcing of closure on this bill. If people are watching this online, I am going to clip this and put it out there and hopefully if Bill C-11 does not pass they will still be able to watch this. People should like and share this right now, because this might be the last opportunity. People will be able to post things, but no one will be able to find them. This is what is in this bill. This is a layering-on of effects on our freedoms.

Even this beautiful Parliament, where 338 people from across Canada are elected to bring our views here, to debate ideas and policies and directions for our country with respect to what is right and what is wrong, has been affected, even before this bill. We are taking a system of communication that has been a tool of democracies all over the world and we are taking a tool out of the tool box.

There are problems in Canada. There are problems in our democracy. We have seen it with foreign influence in our country. We have seen that the state is now sponsoring media throughout our land, and when Canadians turn on the news, they are saying that it does not reflect their views and the Canada they know. Then they come to the realization that it is being sponsored by government and so they mistrust it. This goes back to the divisions that we have in our country. We have to come up with policies and ideas and laws that bring people together and not divide them. This is the problem that I have with this bill. It is another big, bossy government wanting to divide Canadians.

Censorship has been in our history in the world. History does not always repeat itself, but it rhymes. We only have to look to the failed regimes around the world, and not even that far back in our history, to the 1940s in eastern Europe. In 1945, there was a vote in Hungary. There was democracy in Hungary in 1945. In the vote, the Communists finished sixth. By 1949, it was a Communist country. How is that possible? One of the tactics they used is called a salami tactic, where they just take a slice, and every time a little slice more and a bit more each time. Right now, this is what this bill represents. The government will tell its citizens what they can watch, what they can consume, how they should be thinking or what thoughts they should be portraying.

I send pleas to the members here tonight to think about the impact if this bill becomes law in our country and in a future Parliament there is a leader who takes these tools and censors their party and their beliefs and what they want to post. This would take us into a country of Canada that I do not want any part of for myself or for my kids.

The bill would allow one to post all one wants, and we heard this earlier tonight, but one's fellow Canadians would not be able to view it. We still have time to stop this.

Later in my speech I will have two direct asks to Canadians who are watching live tonight or who are watching this online. I ask them to please, once again, like and share this video.

I would like to go back to some of the struggles we have in Canada because our institutions such as this place, Parliament, are not functioning how they were set up to function. Everybody in here has probably had people phone their office and say that they were watching question period and that everyone was asking questions but they were not hearing any answers. The citizens of this country see this over and over. They hear questions asked that they want to hear the answers to. They phone and write and ask why the Speaker is not telling them to answer those questions.

The problem is not so much that the Speaker needs to impose new rules on this place; it is how this was set up. We have freedom of press in Canada. How this place is supposed to work is that if we have an opposition grilling a minister or a prime minister and they are giving us garbage, the media would hound that minister or prime minister until they received answers to those questions. If they did not answer, it would heighten the question of what they are trying to hide.

We are not getting that right now in Canada. We have some great journalists who are working hard on uncovering the truths of what is happening, but those stories are not being published. This is because, like I said, when states start sponsoring media, everyone questions the stories they are hearing. We know whoever pays the piper picks the tune.

That is how this place is supposed to work. We should have the galleries full of media right now. We do not. During question period, we do not have media filling the galleries. It is because there are no stories; the opposition heckles. There is nothing they want to hear.

I do not know how this is going to end. We heard the government talking about proroguing, which is cancelling or shutting down Parliament. That could kill the bill. The bill is going to be passed to the Senate, unless the Bloc and the NDP decide they are not going to vote for it later tonight. There are still chances. I am an optimist; there is still hope.

The Canadians who are watching should not give up on hope. They can search out the petition we are circulating right now. They should be sure to sign up to get updates because we do not know what YouTube is going to show people in the months or years to come if this becomes law. However, they can have confidence. We heard earlier tonight from the Leader of the Opposition that one of the first things we would do is cancel Bill C-11.

I know my time is limited. I would like to thank everyone for being here tonight. I have one last ask of the people watching online. They should please like and share. I ask them to contact their NDP member of Parliament, because they can perhaps get the courage to stand up for their convictions, vote against the government and bring the government down. We could then have an election that elects a government that will protect our freedoms.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if I can clarify something from the speech of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk. My understanding is that Bill C-11 already passed in this House back in June. I understand she did not support it then, and it is clear she does not support it now. Tonight, we are debating the message being sent back to the Senate with respect to the amendments that the Senate proposed, some of which the governing party disagreed with.

Would she like to comment on that which we are voting on this evening?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Saskatoon—University.

I am thankful for this opportunity to rise again and speak to the government's disastrous bill, Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which would regulate the Internet and stymie free expression. It is ironic that the government claims to be modernizing the Canadian Broadcasting Act by creating a “flexible, fair and modern” approach, when in fact the bill would punish Canadian digital creators and move Canada's cultural, creative and media industries backwards.

It is disheartening to see that the criticisms and calls for reform coming from Internet and media experts, former CRTC commissioners, and Canadian artists and creators themselves are being ignored. Bill C-11 is an example of what happens to a government that has been in power for far too long. It has forgotten who it serves. Frankly, it has grown fat on entitlement and hubris.

This bill gives unacceptable and inappropriate permission to the government, and any future government, to control Canadians' use of the Internet with respect to what they choose as content, what they watch and listen to and even how to express themselves freely online in a public square. The greater danger of Bill C-11 is that it opens the door to an increasing government manipulation of technology and algorithms for the purpose of social control. Why would any government want to limit expression in a strong, free and democratic society such as Canada? It wants to do this simply for power and to seek control.

Any government can give into the temptation of overstepping its authority when it is left in power for far too long. When there are too few checks and balances in place and when institutional legacy media begins to do the bidding of the governing party, the system breaks down and the doors for the thought police open. When that happens, all of the freedoms and liberties we take for granted in this precious country slowly disappear, even freedoms in our own homes. Government, if given the chance and opportunity, will trespass into telling us what we can watch even in our own homes by using algorithms that will determine the content we see online and the narratives we hear.

This is what we must guard against. Clause 7 of Bill C-11 specifically gives permission to cabinet to direct the CRTC with regard to this legislation. The bill requires that online platforms prioritize Canadian content over non-Canadian content. It grants the CRTC the ability to require platforms such as YouTube and Facebook to change and manipulate algorithms and search engines to meet government directives. What does this mean? It means this bill gives the government control over what Canadians see, what they post and what they watch online. Bill C-11 will also give Ottawa bureaucrats the power to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly, which could apply to most user content online.

The government had a chance to accept the Senate's amendments to narrow the scope and protect Canadian content, but it failed to do that. It failed to do the right thing and voted against the Conservative amendments. Why? I would argue it is because the government does not trust Canadians with their own thoughts and their own freedoms, and is, in fact, trying to expand its control of Canadians online, even in the privacy of their own homes.

Jeanette Patell, the head of Canada government affairs and public policy at YouTube, explained it like this: “[Bill C-11] explicitly give[s] a government regulator authority over what content is prioritized, and how and where content is presented to Canadians, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses”.

Timothy Denton, who is a former CRTC commissioner and chair of the Canada chapter of the Internet Society, said this about Bill C-11: “C-11 makes user-generated videos or podcasts—virtually anything involving sound or video—subject to CRTC regulation. Indeed it is a wonder the government stopped there: why not regulate email as well? Nor does the regulation of speech stop at Canada’s borders. Bill C-11 permits the CRTC to exercise global authority over 'programs' in any language, from any source.” He goes on to say, “The CRTC is all about control: who gets to speak, within what limits, how often, and to what effect. Usually the control is exercised indirectly, but in this case it was overt.”

Bill C-11 would empower government-dictated algorithms to decide what one can see and which videos and sources are Canadian enough to see. Conspicuously, there is no definition of what is classified as Canadian content in the bill, which focuses on Canadian content.

Moreover, the current definition used by the CRTC is so antiquated and so narrow that it eliminates productions like The Canadian Story and The Handmaid's Tale, which were filmed in Canada with Canadian actors and Canadian producers, or Netflix's major francophone film Jusqu'au déclin, which was made and written in Quebec.

I would argue that the bill is a form of censorship that is more insidious than a government-issued order, mandate, or sanction because, in this case, Canadians will not know what they are being censored for. If the bill passes, bureaucrats behind closed doors, subject to the will of their political masters, will issue directives to manipulate algorithms and control the search bar in people's homes. Canadians will never know what is not being allowed. In this scenario, the government could control what is presented to them and what is put in their very mind by controlling what they see.

Canadian creators would not know the reason why their content is not going viral. Canadian creators will never know when their content is being demoted by government-dictated algorithms. This is a form of technocratic control. I fear, as many Canadians do, that this technocratic control will grow as our society becomes more digitally dependent on artificial intelligence and Internet-connected smart technologies.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty and our responsibility to serve the interests of Canadians and uphold the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. The bill is an attack on freedom of choice and freedom of expression of all Canadians online. We must not allow the government to creep down a path that leads to silencing critics by promoting some voices over others that politically suit its ends.

In closing, I want to say that creativity blossoms in a culture of freedom and not control. We need to go back to the days when governments served the people. As we consider the bill, I urge all parliamentarians in the House to remember our great foundations of freedom upon which this country was built: the freedom to think, the freedom to speak, and the freedom to live without government interference.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is one kind of threat to free debate, which is to silence people. Another way to silence people is by putting words in their mouths. What I said earlier is that I am concerned, and I think it is naive to expect that social media platforms do not have an agenda and that as they write algorithms in private, outside of any kind of transparency or accountability, they do not consider their own self-interests in the ways they promote particular kinds of content.

The point is not to say that someone else is going to police all of that content. Bill C-11 is talking about promoting Canadian content within the feeds of Canadians. I do not think there is anything particularly nefarious about that, and there is room for reasonable debate about how that gets defined. However, what I was saying earlier is that I do not understand why this guy, who says he is so concerned about freedom, does not care a whit about what is going on behind closed doors right now with people who are accountable to no one and have all the power and control he says he is concerned about.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, all of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by governments, yet we are constantly warned by the woke parties in the House that the scary thing is too much freedom, that the people have to be feared. No. Excessive power by government has been the source of every single major atrocity committed in this country or anywhere around the world. The solution to that is freedom.

What will I do to reverse this power grab? I will repeal Bill C-11 to restore freedom of speech online. I will make it my mission to transform Canada back again to the freest nation on Earth.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we caught him. Just at the end there, the truth jumped out of his lips. He said the problem is that disinformation, like the opinions expressed here today, would not be allowed if Bill C-11 were passed, which is an admission that the NDP believes government should be able to decide what is true and what is false and censor out what it does not like. That is exactly what we suspected from the beginning.

What happens when the government is a liar? The government said the Prime Minister did not interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That turned out to be false. It said the budget would be balanced in 2019. That turned out to be false too. Do I have to go down the long list of falsehoods stated by the government?

Now we are supposed to trust this same government to censor out what is true. I guess government members believe there should be a ministry of truth populated with people who agree with them. The only way to distill the truth is through the hot cauldron of debate, not through the clamping down of censorship. That is why we believe in allowing people to make their own decisions. Government members may think they are the watchmen, but the question is, who watches the watchmen? The only ones who can do that are the citizens.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier tonight, I heard another Conservative MP talk about Fahrenheit 451, and I thought maybe he was about to start talking about when the Harper government closed a number of libraries that were world renowned for fisheries and oceans. It actually burned a bunch of books and other material at that time. That was not what the member chose to talk about, but it was an example of how governments do indeed have agendas.

It is important to defend the freedom of people against the tyranny of governments. However, it is equally important to defend people against the tyranny of wealthy private interests, which is a continuous blind spot of the leader of the Conservatives. When he talks about inflation, people would think it is only government spending that drove inflation. He cites the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has also said, at the finance committee, that companies are raising prices well above the increase in their input costs.

The Conservative leader talks about government putting more Canadian content in the algorithms that show Canadians what they see in their newsfeeds or streams, but the fact of the matter is that right now those same social media platforms, without any supervision and transparency, also make decisions about what people see. He says that we should trust in the greed of corporations to create an online meritocracy.

Let us get real. Does he think social media platforms are not showing people more disinformation about Bill C-11 right now, because it is in their interest that—

International Mother Language Day Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 6:30 so we can begin the debate again on Bill C-11 in Government Orders.

Online Streaming Act

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1951, when Ray Bradbury was writing Fahrenheit 451, it was a time not unlike 2023. Fahrenheit 451 presented an American society in the year 2049 where firemen were employed to burn outlawed books, along with the houses they were hidden in, because of a government deciding what people could see and what they could say.

Ray Bradbury described his book as depicting political correctness as an allegory for the censorship in the book. He called it the real enemy and labelled it as thought control and control over freedom of speech.

When the book was written, it was a time of massive social change and technological revolution. Hearings in the U.S. investigated Americans with alleged communist ties. Nuclear warfare was fresh. The golden age of radio occurred between the 1920s and the late 1950s and the television launched into living rooms in the 1950s, which changed how people consumed media and news.

Governments took actions to make sure the news and the artists they thought should be promoted in this technological shift would be promoted, and the ones they did not like would be censored.

The house un-American activities committee held hearings to investigate alleged communist ties. The Hollywood 10, a group of influential screenwriters, were blacklisted, and of course everyone remembers the Truman Doctrine and McCarthy hearings.

The government's interference in the affairs of artists and creative types infuriated Bradbury, who was bitter and concerned about government intervention, and he then wrote Fahrenheit 451. Fast forward to 2023, and we have absolute parallels with those government interventions in Bill C-11. Just like Margaret Atwood, Ray Bradbury would not be impressed with the government's looking to interfere in the affairs of artists and creators at a time of immense technological change.

We have the Internet, social media and AI. We use smart phones every day and we use tablets. It is an incredible time and certainly we all, in the House, want to see our Canadian artists and content creators be successful. In fact, we want to release the shackles and ensure all creators are immensely successful.

It is not done by government intervention; it is done by breaking down barriers so artists can succeed. There is no culture without freedom of expression, but do not take it from me. Take it from the creators themselves. We have heard all week how Margaret Atwood called this “creeping totalitarianism”.

A YouTuber and TikToker named Kallmekris has said, “I am scared...Bill C-11 was supposed to promote Canadian storytelling online. In reality, the bill has ended up so broadly worded that it lets the CRTC interfere with every part of your online life. That includes manipulating your feed and search results.” Another YouTuber, J.J. McCullough, says, “What Canadians want is what Canadian culture is, not what the government says it should be.” According to a Regina TikToker named Tesher, “C-11 would limit that reach by requiring creators to prioritize government criteria for domestic distribution over making content optimized for global audiences.”

Through this legislative measure, the government is preparing to give itself the power to control what Canadians can listen to or watch online. For example, instead of offering people more content based on their interests on platforms such as YouTube, the government would force those platforms to promote content that it deems to be a priority. It argues that the order of priority would be established according to the Canadian nature of the content.

For example, instead of giving a Canadian more of what they want on platforms such as YouTube, the government would choose what it wants Canadians to see. Let us be clear: Big tech would still monopolize algorithms and government would shut down the voices of individual Canadians.

What is worse is that it would open the door for other governments to do the same. We already know how strict buy America has been for Canadian manufacturing, and we fight it every day. What would happen if they emulated the strategy against Canadian creators by emulating a “buy or view America” against Bill C-11? If we control Canadian content, sooner or later they would control America content, shutting Canadian content creators out of America. It is cultural warfare.

Another glaring fact is that people have to want to watch it, not be forced to watch it.

Let us talk about innovation and competition as an alternative to this bill. The answer to seeing increased competition and innovation is to release the shackles of Canadian content creators, and I have an idea for creators. Let us see a Canadian Netflix competitor created that plays Canadian content. We would call it “Canuck-Flix”. Does that not sound good? Canuck-Flix would have the ability to showcase Canadian talent, showcase Canadian television and, of course, have creators put that content online. That is real competition.

There is a great show in my riding, airing right now on Bell's Fibe, called Stoney Lonesome. It is filmed entirely in Belleville. It stars some really great professionals in some great local backdrops. They are 10-minute episodes that are very funny, content-created and something they want to see outside and to compete with others. That is a great example of great Canadian content, and we should be promoting it.

Tomorrow is a very special day, my eldest son Jack's 10th birthday. I look forward to his future, and all of us as parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents wish all our children, Canada's children, equality of opportunity for success in whatever each of them wants to achieve and do in this country, whether that be in sports or as researchers, volunteers or, dare I say, politicians, to be whatever they want to be. The government's role is not to tell them what to be; it is to assist in breaking down any barrier that does not allow them to be what they want to be, and this bill would not do that.

Today's creators do not function according to the same rules as previous generations did. Today's creators exist in a new space and have new ideas, freedoms and choice. Choice is a fundamental right of Canadians and an absolute necessity for competition. Competition allows Canadians to make their own choices so they themselves can choose which content goes viral and which does not. It allows Canadians to succeed or to fail, but it allows Canadians to allow the free market to dictate what success is like and what it is not.

I share the desire of the member for Lethbridge, who has been an incredible advocate for this cause and for which she deserves a round of applause, for Canadians to know that this bill would impact them in two areas. It would censor what they see and it would censor what they say. With regard to what they see, if a Canadian government determines what gets promoted and what gets demoted, it means it is censoring what Canadians can see.

Furthermore, this bill would censor what an individual can say or post online. Creative talent here in Canada would no longer succeed based on merit, as it does now. Instead, content would be subject to a list of criteria that the government has not released yet. Let us make that clear. We would have a list of criteria by which the government would determine just what Canadian content is, and yet we have not seen it. As parliamentarians, we have no idea of the content of that list or how it would determine what is Canadian or not. Therefore, it would be left up to interpretation or, as I like to say, to the greatest line I have ever heard, “I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Through that, the government directed that those criteria have to be weighed and measured to see if they are met by the artists. If they are, they would be deemed Canadian. How do we fancy that? If they are not, they would not be discoverable, and those that are not discoverable would be bumped down the list of search engines, on YouTube, on TikTok, on Instagram, or whatever. That is censorship, not only what viewers can see but also, for creators, what we can say.

The bill is a travesty of Canadian freedoms that needs to be replaced. Here are the alternatives: a bill that updates the Broadcasting Act, that promotes all Canadian artists and creators without censorship, what one sees and says; the promotion and development of our arts and culture in Canada, celebrating great artists, great content and the arts, which we know all do well and are incredible; and a new tax code that taxes big tech. Conservatives agree with that.

Some have said this bill is all about only taxing big tech. It is a little part of this bill. A larger part of the bill is what people can say and what they can see, but we need to also have a separate bill. If that were the case, why was this bill not separated into a tax bill that just did that? We are all about doing things we say we are going to do. If this were about Canadian creators creating more content, this would be under creative arts funding and entrepreneurship. There are a lot of great things.

I am going to leave everyone with a quote before I end. It is a great quote by Diefenbaker, because it really summarizes what we believe on the Conservative side and what we believe for Canadians. He said, “I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

Another great saying that is attributed to Voltaire is, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Fahrenheit 451 ends with the symbolism of the legendary phoenix. It is an endless cycle of long life, death in flames, rebirth and the symbolism that the phoenix must have some relationship to mankind, which constantly repeats its mistakes, but men and women have something the phoenix does not. Mankind can remember its mistakes and try to never repeat them.

Let us repeal this bill, let us come back and get it right and let us make sure we respect the fundamental right of freedom of Canadians.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for Canadians at home to know that tonight's vote is not on Bill C-11. It is on the message from the House of Commons going to the Senate with respect to the amendments that the Senate sent here and whether we agree with the substance of that message. In particular, it also includes a message to disagree with the amendment from Senators Simons and Miville-Dechêne with respect to addressing user-generated content.

I wonder if the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies would like to comment specifically on the motion we are debating this evening.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government of Quebec called for Bill C‑11. Quebec's cultural community called for Bill C‑11 or its equivalent. It is true that the Government of Quebec asked to be consulted when Bill C‑11 is applied in the Quebec context. Despite all that, the Conservatives continue to say that the bill violates freedom of expression based on the word of a single expert, Mr. Geist, who testified in this case but also on almost every other committee for the Conservatives. He is like a Renaissance man.

Are the Conservatives also telling us that the Government of Quebec is against freedom of expression when it wants to protect and promote Quebec's French-speaking culture?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day to debate Bill C-11. I have asked this question many times before, but I am going to ask it again in this way. Do people trust the Prime Minister to defend their freedom of speech?

That is the crux of our debate from our party to the parties across the way. Other concerns have been brought up by other parties. They are still going to support the bill, but that does not mean that there are not concerns around this and possible threats to user-generated content, which could possibly be implicated by this legislation. Again, it is not just us. There are many people across Canada who have read the bill, who have been brought to testify about their worries for its potential.

I always like to use facts. Let us get right into it. Bill C-11 used to be a bill called Bill C-10. I have an article in front of me from May 20, 2021. It all started with clause 4.1, which I will be referring to quite a bit. This is a little hiccup for the Liberals that has a lot of Canadians calling it the censorship bill. The article is called “What is Bill C-10 and why are the Liberals planning to regulate the internet?” It is from The Globe and Mail.

It reads:

The bill is currently being reviewed by the House of Commons heritage committee. Members of the committee were studying the document line-by-line, but that process was disrupted in late April when Liberals on the committee moved an amendment that removed a section of the bill.

That sounds very familiar, like a particular part of Bill C-21 where they just table-dropped or pulled amendments out of legislation. The articles goes on:

The change was approved “on division,” meaning there was no recorded vote to show which opposition parties sided with the Liberals. This segment, section 4.1, provided an exclusion for user-generated content. Removing that exclusion set off concerns that the legislation could then be used to regulate Canadians’ social media posts.

That is what we have been talking about across the country for the last three years, worries about censorship and the government with this particular bill. Further, the article continues:

However, other critics draw a distinction between users, specified in 2.1, and 4.1′s exclusion for user-generated content, and so maintain that social media posts could still be subjected to the legislation.

On May 7, the Liberals introduced a new amendment that they said would put these questions to rest. The text of the new amendment is very similar to the text of section 4.1 that was originally removed, but was added to a different section of the bill that defines the regulatory powers of the CRTC. The government says this change ensures that the posters of user-generated content are not regulated.

That was back in the day when we were all supposed to be reassured that it was all going to be great. The problem is that section 4.1 has remained. The government could have easily dealt with concerns of the parties and put that to bed. I am going to directly read sections of the current legislation, Bill C-10, but the numbers are still the same.

This is clauses 4.1 and 4.2. on page 9 of the actual act so that Canadians out there watching can read it for themselves. Even lawyers get confused with some of this wording but I will give it a go,

4.‍1 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of a program that is uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.

(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program

(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or

(b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.‍2.

It opens the door to user-generated content, wide open, that it could possibly be regulated by the CRTC.

I will go on to 4.2. Again, this is the really difficult one to follow.

4.‍2 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 4.‍1(2)‍(b), the Commission may make regulations prescribing programs in respect of which this Act applies, in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression.

Sounds great, except:

(2) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Commission shall consider the following matters:

(a) the extent to which a program, uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service, directly or indirectly generates revenues;

Despite the government's reassurance that user-generated content is going to be exempted, the door is flung wide open again. How is the government ever going to regulate content that could produce revenue? It could be a share of a post, or whatever. Some other content provider could share a post that was previously not funded. It opens the door to user-generated content.

The implications are as vast as what we have been saying. It is not just us who have talked about these being significant issues. I will refer to testimony at the Senate hearing committees. Hon. Paula Simons referred to the concerns of the former CRTC head. It is not just a senator making a comment in a general way.

She said:

Several expert witnesses, including Monica Auer, Executive Director of the Forum for Research Policy in Communications; Robert Armstrong, a broadcasting consultant, economist and former CRTC manager; and Ian Scott, who was, at the time, head of the CRTC, testified before our committee about their concerns that subclause 7(7) of the bill could give new and unprecedented powers to cabinet to intervene in independent CRTC decisions. As Dr. Armstrong put it in his testimony before us:

In this sense, Bill C-11 reduces enormously — potentially — the powers that the CRTC has and hands them over to the Government of Canada.

That is not just some random person walking down the street. These are the former heads of the CRTC. To all the testimony, the Liberal government just says, “Hey, no biggie. Just ignore that expert testimony.” She continues:

But I think the biggest and most critical amendment we made was to a vexing part of the bill, subclause 4.2(2), which I like to call the “exception to the exception” clause. In the wake of some of the controversy around Bill C-10, the Minister of Canadian Heritage promised that Bill C-11 would not pertain to nor capture users of social media but only big streamers who were analogous to traditional broadcasters. Indeed, that is what clause 4.1 (1) of the bill says — that the act does not apply to a program that is uploaded to a social media service by a user of that service.

Unfortunately, clause 4.2 (2) of the bill, as it came to our committee, undid that assurance by giving the CRTC the power to scope in a program uploaded to a social media service if it directly or indirectly generates revenues. That exception-to-the-exception clause rightly worried all kinds of small and not-so-small independent producers who use services such as YouTube and TikTok to distribute their programming, though they retain the copyright.

I have a lot more here. I could put stacks here and read them for the record. I started off by asking whether we could trust the Prime Minister with our privacy and to protect our freedom of speech. I take that testimony from some pretty solid folks who were actually at the head of CRTC, and they said they were worried about the potential of this legislation.

We need to heed that advice. Canadians out there who are watching this, and many who are going to watch it online from some of our content that we generate, are concerned about where this is going, in a very bad direction.

I look forward to questions, but I think the answer is very clear: we cannot trust the Prime Minister to defend our freedom of speech.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know this bill has been an absolute disaster in how it was managed through the House.

It was introduced in the previous Parliament, and the Liberals called an election, so they were the ones who killed Bill C-10. It was brought back as Bill C-11. It did not include the critical exemption that critics from the Green Party, as well as other critics out there and Conservatives, pointed out was a real problem. It was just a dog's breakfast of amendments having to come back.

Now the Liberals have come in with closure today to stifle debate rather than further study the amendments, something the Government of Quebec would also want.

Why are the Liberals rushing this through and insisting that the opposition are delaying the bill, when there are so many known problems with the bill and when it so clearly needs more work?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

I rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Niagara West who have expressed deep concern with the Liberal government's online censorship bill, Bill C-11. My office has received hundreds of phone calls, emails and regular mail regarding the bill. I can confidently say that we have not received a single communication from any constituent in favour of Bill C-11, and that says a lot.

Bill C-11 would censor the Internet, but the Liberals do not seem to care. There seems to be this focus, almost an obsession actually, for the Liberals to attempt to gain more control over Canadians in every aspect of their lives.

Canadians want to live their lives without constant government intrusion. I do not understand why the Liberals cannot leave folks alone. Let folks live their lives freely. Let Canadians make their own decisions. Bill C-11 is just another attempt to gain more control, this time by censorship, and it needs to stop. We have seen what happened over the last three years with an incredibly intrusive government, and Canadians are fed up with it. My colleagues on this side of the House would likely agree. In fact, I think there are many Liberal and NDP MPs who have also heard from constituents expressing deep concern over the type of censorship that Bill C-11 would implement.

So what would Bill C-11 actually do? It is not what the Liberals would have people believe it would do. What would it actually do if it were to become law? It is simple: If the bill passed, it would take aim at Canadians' online feeds. One such affected feed could be a person's home page on YouTube where content could be prioritized based on goals set out by the CRTC, a federal bureaucracy. In other words, bureaucrats in Ottawa would determine what a person's YouTube home page would look like. Bureaucrats in Ottawa will decide what qualifies as a Canadian film, television program or song.

There is also uncertainty over how Bill C-11 would be interpreted. The uncertainty about how the bill would be implemented has been a concern from the first day that Bill C-10, the predecessor to Bill C-11, was introduced. There is also unease with the role of government officials in determining what counts as Canadian. Of course, there is the deep worry about the secrecy associated with the CRTC.

The CRTC will, of course, have an incredibly powerful role in approving and rejecting online content as to what is “Canadian”. If that is not an example of an intrusive and overreaching government, I am not sure what is. Other social media feeds may also be affected, not just YouTube. The government-approved and pushed-for content is what we will likely see most. It is almost unbelievable what the Liberals are doing with the bill, but they are actually doing it.

I have served my constituents in this place since 2004. I can honestly say that I am deeply concerned about the direction in which this government has already taken our country. I have said it before and I will say it again: The Liberals have implemented a ballooning, intrusive and overreaching government. I am deeply concerned that they are not satisfied yet and will keep going.

On this side of the House, Conservatives, such as myself, believe in people. We believe in Canadians. We believe that individual Canadians are best positioned to make their own decisions for themselves and for their families. Our philosophy is that decisions should be made by the people, the commons, a bottom-up approach where the bosses are the people and we as politicians are their servants. It is not the politicians or the bureaucrats in Ottawa. The bosses are the people.

The Liberals do not see it that way. In fact, their approach is the exact opposite. Their philosophy is a top-down approach, a top-down decision-making approach, where Liberal politicians and bureaucrats tell people what to do and, in the case of Bill C-11, what to see or not to see on the Internet. Liberals think that politicians know best. They think that bureaucrats know best. That is the Liberal government and the Prime Minister's approach.

We have seen this style of governing for eight very long years now, which have divided our country more than ever. The divide-and-conquer approach has been the hallmark of the Prime Minister. Not many would debate that. Even their pals at CBC would agree with me on that one. With Bill C-11, things are continuing in the same direction.

At the end of my speech, the Liberals and the NDP collaborators may engage in veiled insults and some name-calling because of the stance I am taking: a small, limited government, which is part and parcel of Conservative philosophy.

However, let us set aside politicians' comments on Bill C-11 for just a minute and let us focus on what experts are saying about the bill. The reason I am saying this is that, as many of my colleagues have done and will continue to do, I want to introduce into the record the comments made by experts who deal with this issue day in and day out.

For example, Michael Geist, who I know has been mentioned in the House, is a law professor at the University of Ottawa, a Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, and a graduate of Columbia Law School. He has received dozens of awards and recognition for his work. He has taught in some of the top schools in the world. Let us see what he has to say about Bill C-11. He has been a vocal opponent to the bill and has suggested various ways it can be improved, yet the Liberal government has ignored his suggestions.

In Professor Geist's words, “The government consistently rejected attempts to provide greater clarity with the bill and insisted that its forthcoming policy direction be kept secret until after the bill receives royal assent. If there is criticism to bear about Bill C-11’s uncertainty, it should be directed in the direction of [the] Heritage Minister”.

A recent article said, “professor Michael Geist said [in regard to Bill C-11] trust is waning in the CRTC because it acts like an arm of the government instead of acting like an independent regulator.” The CRTC acting “like an arm of the government” is a strong statement by an expert who deals with this type of content every single day. If Professor Geist is saying that, then why are the Liberals not paying attention?

Furthermore, regarding the Minister of Canadian Heritage's rejection of some common-sense amendments, Mr. Geist said, “It is exceptionally discouraging to the thousands of Canadian creators who spoke out”. Many digital creators are extremely concerned with the negative impact the bill would have on their work and have repeatedly voiced this in their committee testimony.

Here is an example of another expert. Scott Benzie, who is the director of Digital First Canada, which represents digital creators, stated, “It's shocking that the Senate's sober second thought was dismissed, and that the government continues to act as though digital creators are not legitimate artists and entrepreneurs.” These are more strong words aimed at the government's seemingly disregarding attitude toward anyone who is providing testimony that is critical of Bill C-11.

Let us talk about Margaret Atwood and what she had to say. I know we have had a lot of conversation about her from our last speaker. Let us first mention that she is a renowned Canadian author, winner of the Booker Prize and the Giller Prize, and perhaps one of the best-known authors in Canadian history.

In regard to Bill C-11, she said, “bureaucrats should not be telling creators what to write.” She also said that bureaucrats should not decide what is Canadian. Most importantly, and I really hope the Liberals are paying attention, she said, “All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through—government bureaucrats. So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.” We have heard that statement quite a few times today, “creeping totalitarianism”. Once again, these are pointed words.

The member of the Green Party from across the way quoted Ms. Atwood as saying the bill was “imprecise”, so it sounds like Margaret Atwood would like to see some amendments as well.

Are the Liberals taking heed? No, they just ignored this and came back with poorly written talking points, delivered in a fiery manner to stifle and end the debate on their incredibly faulty legislation.

Through Bill C-11, the Liberal government is censoring the Internet and forcing content on Canadians. It is plain and simple. We know it. Their NDP collaborators know it and the Bloc definitely knows it. In fact, the Bloc members recently admitted that they do not care if this bill is stifling freedom of expression. I have an inkling that the NDP and the Liberals agree with the Bloc on this.

In conclusion, I would like to say something I have said numerous times in this House over the last three years, and I would like to direct it at the NDP-Liberal coalition: They should let folks live their lives and leave them alone, stop interfering and stop intruding. They should let Canadians live their lives freely without this egregious overreach that has been happening, especially since the pandemic began. That includes incredibly flawed legislation such as Bill C-11, the online censorship act.

I have observed over the last couple of days some very disturbing and worrying behaviour from individuals who have made some very personal comments. I have not seen much of it today. The debate has actually been much better today. However, I think we have to watch what our discourse of debate is in this House and really work hard not to make it personal.

I look forward to answering questions. Let us hope that this time we can keep things civil, unlike what members have been doing in the House.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way referred to this earlier when a member of the Liberal Party was talking about Bill C-11. She said that she still had a problem that user-generated content perhaps was not exempted as promised and that was the problem she had with the bill. Her Green Party colleague also said that he was concerned about this, that user-generated content was perhaps caught up in Bill C-11, and yet they said they are still going to support the bill despite their concerns.

It is not just Conservatives who are voicing their concerns about this issue. There are many issues going back to Bill C-10, when this was brought up by the current environment minister almost four years ago. This is an issue that Canadians are rightfully worried about. It would give possible control to the government to decide what CRTC can show or what it can prevent people from seeing on the Internet. Until that is laid to rest, we need to oppose the bill.

What would the member do with the concerns I have brought up?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies must assume that I am about to give a rant about women's rights.

When Margaret Atwood's name is invoked so often with a novel that is entirely about women losing their rights in a dystopian future, where unbelievable things have happened like the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and women having to fight again for rights that were assured. That is not my theme. That just happens to be a deep irony in hearing The Handmaid's Tale invoked over and over again.

Let us get to Bill C-11. I have been talking via email with Margaret Atwood, who I am honoured to know. She does not wish to be associated with the idea that Bill C-11 is “creeping totalitarianism”. If shadowy figures were to be determining what we got to watch, that would be creeping totalitarianism.

I am just going to read what Margaret Atwood would like entered into this discussion. It is found on something called margaretatwood.substack.com. If someone wants to look for the article on a search engine, it is about featuring Canadian content without the benefit of algorithms.

It is called “Can CanCon or Can't It, Eh?” It was posted about Bill C-11 by Margaret Atwood. As she has pointed out to me a few times by email, there is no reference to “creeping totalitarianism” in this article. There are elements of what she wishes were clearer about Bill C-11. It is about the question of what is “content”, what is “creator” and what is “platform”.

To back up a bit, it is important to recognize that regulating Canadian content, whether it be The Littlest Hobo, The Beachcombers or whatever, was an important part of fending off the behemoth of U.S. Hollywood productions.

It is even more important for the culture of the incredible Québécois nation, which is so different from the anglophone Canadian culture. Quebec has a smaller audience which means that it faces an even greater threat from American culture and Hollywood.

We have had the benefit of Canadian content rules for many years. This takes them into protecting our creators from online streaming. I am going to quote Margaret Atwood because she has asked me to. She said the following:

Maybe the language used in the Bill is imprecise. “Content” is what goes inside the cheeseburger. “Creator” is who makes the cheeseburger. “Platform” is how the contents of the cheeseburger wend their way from the creator to consumer of the cheeseburger. Did the framers of Bill C-11 mean Creator or Platform, rather than Content?

And whose interests are to be served? Is all this in aid of “We need to hear our own stories?” That would be Content. But this doesn’t seem to be exactly what is meant.

I think...that the idea is to enlarge the space available to the creative folk in Canada by helping them profit fairly from their endeavours, insofar as that is possible, and to encourage the availability of platforms via which they may serve up their cheeseburgers. Is that it?

If so, the Bill C-11 writers might think of changing the wording. Substitute “creators” and possibly “platform” for “content.” For instance: in music terms—requiring a percentage of CanCon from radio broadcasters jump-started the careers of a whole generation of Canadian musicians. But they didn’t necessarily sing about Mounties and beavers. They sang about all sorts of things. CanCon in that context didn’t mean subject matter. It meant who was doing the singing. Listeners were allowed to hear the music, and then could make up their own minds about whether they liked it or not.

That is what we are talking about here with Bill C-11. There is no world in which people who manipulate algorithms are censors. They promote content, but they do not exclude other content.

People can find the content they want, and the Internet, as many Conservative colleagues have called for, will forever be a magical space of unending opportunities. However, within that large amount of noise, in order to level the playing field, Canadians will be given a bit of a hint to find Canadian content and Canadian productions.

What is that playing field, and why does it need to be levelled? It is because Canadian writers, screenwriters, artists, actors and directors need to be able to make a living. In this debate, the economics of the cultural industry have been somewhat muddied. Yes, it is true that the industry is great for a local economy, and I have experienced this in Saanich—Gulf Islands in my hometown of Sidney.

My husband came home one day and said, “Honey, the town has lost its mind. It's only October, and they're putting up Christmas ornaments.” The next day there was fake snow. We realized there was a Hallmark Christmas film being produced on Beacon Avenue in Sidney. I was able to tell my husband that the mayor and council had not lost their minds but had struck a good business deal; that was a good thing.

That Hallmark film was using Canadian areas and space to produce something. It was good for the economy. However, my husband's daughter tells me all the time that with the U.S. productions made in Canada, the starring roles and the big money go to the U.S. actors; the Canadian actors work at what is called “at scale”. My husband's daughter is a brilliant actor named Janet Kidder, by the way, and she is in a lot of productions.

To promote Canadian artists, we need to be able to say to the big giants, whether Amazon, Disney or Hallmark, that when they come to Canada to make a film, they would find it advantageous to actually use Canadian stars. We have brilliant actors who have chosen to stay in Canada and not move to Hollywood, and they should be paid properly.

We also know that the screenwriters of Canada have had a rather catastrophic drop in the amount of work available to them as the online streaming giants have taken off. If one is a Canadian writer, one's chances of being a screenwriter have been reduced quite dramatically over the last number of years.

This data is kept by an organization to which I belong called the Writers' Union of Canada. In this place, in debate, I heard colleagues refer to the Writers' Union of Canada as if it were a trade union, so let us clear that up. There are no trade unions representing writers. Writers have two organizations: the Writers Guild of Canada and the Writers' Union of Canada. It is a voluntary association of published writers working together in kind of a little society. It could have been called a “society” or a “club”.

It is not a union. There are no arts union bosses. Those are words I heard in this place, as if the arts union bosses are going to make money. No, they are not. There are writers in this country, and many of them are not the famous writers. They are not the Farley Mowats or Margaret Atwoods, and they struggle to make ends meet. Getting a book published or writing a screenplay in Canada is not a ticket to success. If one is lucky, it is a ticket to employment insurance at some point because one managed to put together enough to get some help between jobs.

Writers in this country struggle to make ends meet. They are not represented by union bosses. There are no arts union bosses. We need Bill C-11 to be passed for those creators.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question on the importance of collaboration with all the provinces in our country. It is very important to collaborate with the province of Quebec and to collaborate further when it comes to the application of Bill C‑11.

I do not understand the Conservatives' opposition.

Like many people, I am befuddled by it. There is a lot of language being used that I am not really sure is accurate. Maybe a full briefing for members would help them to understand the importance of the bill.

This is an extremely important bill for our cultural sector.

It is very important to move forward with this bill.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the Conservatives.

They oppose Bill C‑11, saying that it would undermine freedom of expression. However, they claim to be defending Quebec, because Quebec wrote a letter in which it asked for Bill C‑11 to be passed and stated that it must be consulted when the bill will apply in the Quebec context. In other words, Quebec would be opposed, in that context, to freedom of expression but would be defended by the Conservatives. It sounds like the equivalent of a dog chasing its own tail.

Can my colleague tell me whether I have this right or not?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see my hon. colleagues continue debate on a very important bill, Bill C-11. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member and my esteemed colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, beautiful Vancouver Island, a wonderful place on the Sunshine Coast area where I have many friends and where I was raised.

We are debating a very important bill that would modernize the Broadcasting Act, which has not been touched since 1991. It has generated a lot of debate and passion, but it is really important to stick to the facts of the bill at hand and not get lost in the rancour, hyperbole and, frankly, the misinformation, if I could be so direct.

I am pleased to rise today in support of the online streaming act, Bill C-11. The online streaming act seeks to update the Broadcasting Act to reflect the reality of Canada's broadcasting climate today and prepare for the future. For decades, broadcasters in Canada have shown us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. That did not happen by accident. After all, we live right next door to the world's largest exporter of culture and entertainment. I can say first-hand, having lived in the United States for over seven years at one point in my life, it does export a lot of culture and entertainment, not only here in Canada but throughout the world. There is quite a dynamism in its entertainment business, which we also have here in Canada, a very vibrant film industry and music industry.

We made a conscious decision to support our fellow Canadians, to help them share their talents and their stories with the rest of world, much like every other country does. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. It is why we have all the Canadian content we love. Whenever we see Schitt's Creek, Orphan Black and Corner Gas or hear Lisa LeBlanc, Coeur de pirate, Joni Mitchell, Céline Dion, Jessie Reyez, Mother Mother, Classified and the Arkells, it makes us proud to be Canadian. Our culture is who we are. It is our past, our present, and most definitely and definitively our future.

The last major reform, as I stated at the outset of my comments, of the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, a year after I finished high school, which is a long time ago, and before dial-up Internet was widely available in Canada. Online streaming services like Crave, Netflix, TOU.TV, Apple TV+ and Spotify have dramatically changed how we watch television and movies and listen to music.

Today, believe it or not, most Canadians are using YouTube as their primary music streaming service. I see this with my children, who are 10 and 11 years old, two of the three, who watch much on YouTube in terms of sports and entertainment. However, those online streaming platforms are not subject to the same rules as traditional broadcasting services like over-the-air television, cable and radio. This bill would ensure that everyone who benefits from the Canadian market is paying their fair share to support Canadian culture, in both official languages, as well as indigenous languages. With a population of almost 39.6 million people, our market is continuing to grow and it is a sought-after market for content producers and platforms from all over the world.

The world has changed a lot since 1991. In the last 30 years, Canadian society has evolved, and so have our values. Diversity and inclusion are important to Canadians, so they must be key elements of our cultural policy. Improving the fairness of our broadcasting system means being more inclusive, supporting the livelihoods of Canadian artists and creators and enriching the lives of Canadians who want to see more of themselves on screen and in song. Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized Canadians, women, LGBTQ2+ persons and persons with disabilities deserve to have the space in order to tell their stories to other Canadians and to the world. Frankly, Canadian stories are unique stories. They need to be told, we need to encourage that, and that is exactly what this bill would do.

These values are clearly reflected in the online streaming act. The bill presents us with an opportunity to ensure that the broadcasting sector is truly inclusive of all Canadians, including anglophones, francophones, Canadians from Black and racialized communities, Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds and socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and Canadians of all ages. It would ensure that the circumstances and aspirations of all Canadians are reflected in the broadcasting system, many for the first time in Canadian history.

I would like to share some of the important perspectives that were heard throughout the House and Senate study of the online streaming act to show just how transformative these changes could be for our country. We all know of the intense debate and scrutiny Bill C-11 has gone through in both Houses.

Culture can play a role in the process of truth-telling and reconciliation with indigenous peoples and healing. As part of our commitment to reconciliation, Bill C-11 proposes important updates to Canada's broadcasting system. The online streaming act would remove the language “as resources becomes available” about supporting indigenous culture from Canada's broadcasting policy goals. This is as it should be.

I will quote Jean La Rose, President of Dadan Sivunivut, “We have a unique place, and this language would better reflect Parliament's wish to recognize in legislation the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. Amendments passed in both the House and the Senate strengthened this commitment in the bill. Ultimately, this bill would create more funding and more opportunities for indigenous creators to tell their stories in the language of their choice.

Currently, programs that reflect indigenous peoples and racialized and ethnocultural communities remain few and, unfortunately, far between, and creative employment opportunities are slim. Who tells the story is as important as the story itself. Our government is committed to building a better future where Black and racialized creative voices, talent and work are celebrated, sought after and supported.

Joan Jenkinson, executive director of the Black Screen Office, told the heritage committee, “Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country. The proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will prioritize greater equity and inclusion.” This is something we should all be proud of and something we should all support.

In fact, amendments were adopted by both Houses to recognize the unique experiences of Black and racialized Canadians and incorporate their unique stories into the goals of the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-11 would also provide more opportunities for persons with disabilities to fully participate in the broadcasting system. It would update the broadcasting policy goals of Canada to ensure that our system should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests of all Canadians first, specifically including persons with disabilities for the first time in Canadian history.

It would also update the act to remove language that specifies that programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities must only be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system when the resources are available to do so.

When David Errington, president of Accessible Media Inc., appeared before the Senate committee, he told parliamentarians that “By removing that qualifying language, the government is signalling that it expects that Canadians with disabilities will be treated like all other citizens for the purposes of broadcasting policy.” Again, this is how it should be.

As members can see, this legislation would provide real opportunities for Canadians, including community media, local news, French-language productions, Black and racialized communities, third language programming, and so much more. Importantly, this legislation would also takes steps to ensure there is space within our broadcasting system for indigenous storytelling and indigenous languages.

Canada has changed greatly since 1991. It is time that our broadcasting system reflected that. It is imperative. I hope all of my colleagues, and I understand the NDP and the Bloc are in support, will join me and our caucus in supporting Bill C-11. It is time to bring our broadcasting system into the 21st century.

I look forward to questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 2 in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to read a section of Bill C-11. It reads:

(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with

(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings

I wonder if the member can explain why the Conservatives keep talking about freedoms being taken away when the bill explicitly states that freedom of expression would be complied with.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to that member, whom I respect very much, that the Government of Quebec has spoken about this and expressed profound concern over Bill C-11. That government has actually sent a letter to the Liberal government expressing this concern and calling for further consultations before this bill goes forward. I know what those concerns are. One is that user-generated content would no longer be free. In other words, user-generated content would be regulated by the CRTC's government bureaucrats. That is something no Canadian should be supportive of.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many constituents who are really concerned about Bill C-11, the online streaming act, and the corrosive impact it would have on their freedom to use social media, to hear and view online information and to post user-generated content. Like so many of the intrusive actions undertaken by the government, my constituents simply do not understand why the Liberal government continues to try to fix problems that do not exist.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Who do we trust? Who do Canadians trust? Is it our Liberal Prime Minister, who has become so notorious for making hundreds of promises that he has no intention of keeping? Do Canadians trust a Liberal government that claims this bill is all about the Broadcasting Act, or do they trust the many experts who assert that this bill is an attack on our freedom to use the Internet and social media?

The purported premise of this bill was to ensure online streaming giants, such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney+, meet Canadian content requirements similar to those that Canadian broadcasters have to comply with. However, this bill would do much more than that. It would create a new category of media power to regulate them and to require them to invest in Canadian content, just like the big broadcasters, and that is the rub.

What the government refuses to admit, but what has been confirmed time and time again by experts and stakeholders, is that the Liberal government is for the first time ever inserting itself into the Internet space by giving the CRTC, which we know is a group of bureaucrats appointed by the Liberal government, the power to prescribe what Canadians can and cannot see, hear or post to social media. The CRTC would also have the power to regulate the algorithms that determine what information will appear in a search bar.

The bottom line is this. This legislation would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching content of their own choosing. Instead, Ottawa bureaucrats would control what Canadians can see or watch through streaming services. They would also dictate what we can or cannot post to social media. Even worse, Bill C-11 would harm Canadian digital content creators in their ability to reach international audiences and achieve global success.

Our Liberal friends across the way would have us believe that I am exaggerating, that we Conservatives are exaggerating and that there is nothing to see here, as it is just a benign piece of legislation that would make sure streaming platforms contribute to Canadian content. However, many experts, like law professors Michael Geist and Emily Laidlaw, former CRTC commissioners Timothy Denton and Peter Menzies, and even Canadian author and icon Margaret Atwood, are sounding the alarm and suggesting that what is at stake is Canadians' right to be heard. In fact, Margaret Atwood said this bill amounted to “creeping totalitarianism”. Think of that term and what it connotes.

Make no mistake: This is a new form of censorship that the Liberal government is engaging in, and our ability to hear, watch and post what we want on social media is clearly at risk. Again I ask, who do Canadians trust?

The Internet and the different social media platforms have opened up a remarkable opportunity for Canadians to expose their created content to the global marketplace. Right now, they do not have to go through the established artistic gatekeepers, the big broadcasters, like Bell Media, Rogers, the CBC and Corus Entertainment, that in the past had made it impossible for many Canadian artists and creators to promote their content within the global marketplace. The Internet and evolution of social media platforms carved out space for every Canadian to create and promote the product of their imagination without any gatekeepers getting in the way. Each Canadian now has a voice, which cannot be silenced by vested interests and corporate gatekeepers.

Consumers certainly do not want this bill, nor do digital creators. In fact, those creators do not want this bill because it has never been easier for producers of online of Canadian content, including those from linguistic and cultural backgrounds, to reach a global audience with the content they wish to showcase, until now.

With Bill C-11, the Liberal government is wrestling control away from consumers and giving its bureaucrats the power to tell us, the consumer, what we can and cannot watch, hear or post. The Liberal government wants to stifle our freedom. Let us not kid ourselves. This is a fight over the freedom to create, to speak, to perform, to imagine and to expose our gifts and creativity to the world. It is about the freedom to be heard and seen around the world.

Bill C-11 would take even greater control of our search bars. Instead of directing people to the things they want to view, it would direct them to things the government and its bureaucrats want them to view. Meanwhile, homegrown talent and content creators right here in Canada will stagnate and lose the opportunity to be judged based on merit within the global marketplace. Content would be subject to a set of criteria that bureaucrats in Ottawa would use to determine its level of Canadianness.

The government, of course, has protested that user-generated content would not be compromised. I ask again, do people trust the Liberals? This is the same government that promised balanced budgets, electoral reform and greater transparency yet failed to deliver. In fact, Université Laval did a study after the 2019 election, and how many of the Liberal promises were actually fulfilled? It was only 52%, which means almost half of their promises were broken. That is from Université Laval. It is the same government that has been embroiled in countless scandals and ethical failures. Again I ask, do we trust the Liberals when they tell us there is nothing to see here, not to worry and be happy?

When the Senate inserted a provision in this bill that would assure Canadians that user-generated content would not be captured, what did the Liberals do? They nixed it. They nixed that amendment. Again I ask, do people trust the Liberal government? The Liberals say one thing in public, and then when given an opportunity to stand behind it, they do the exact opposite.

Make no mistake: This bill would regulate what can be seen, heard and posted online. If the CRTC does not do it, people can bet their boots that the Liberals will require YouTube and Facebook to do the job for them. This bill hurts consumers and creators, and it has even drawn ire and concern from the provinces. In fact, Quebec has written a letter to the government expressing its concern and asking for more consultations before the bill moves forward.

For all of these reasons and more, we Conservatives, in this House and in the Senate, are the only ones to stand in the breach and oppose Bill C-11 in its current form. The Liberal-NDP coalition has rejected all attempts to improve the bill, including clarifying the issue of user-generated content. I want to assure Canadians that a future Conservative government would repeal Bill C-11, the censorship bill.

Let me close by saying this. After eight years of division and conflict, the government has again profoundly failed Canadians by attacking our fundamental right to free speech and by shackling Canadian creators, who simply want to expose their ingenuity and creativity to the world, proving again that the Liberal government cannot be trusted. Canadians deserve better.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear my colleague comment on Margaret Atwood's comments about Bill C-11. She referred to this bill as representing “creeping totalitarianism”. That is a term that is very difficult to misconstrue or take out of context. It is stark.

I welcome the member's comments on that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

For a while now, the Conservatives have been saying that they are standing up for Quebec by opposing Bill C‑11 and that their love for Canadian and Quebec culture knows no bounds.

I will do my colleague a favour. I would like to give him the opportunity to name his three favourite francophone artists from Quebec, other than Celine Dion.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record that I loved The Littlest Hobo. I grew up watching that show, but the insulting way that the member has characterized Canadian content only serves to support why Bill C-11 is so important.

I do want to ask a question about his opening statement as part of his discourse today. He mentioned the pursuit of wokeness for our side. I would love for the member to define “wokeness” and why he is seemingly against it.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.

Today I am speaking, along with many others, about an issue fundamental to the future of our country.

Do we as Canadians live in a country that believes in the principles of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and supports free speech on the Internet, or do we deviate and support the principles of censorship and the pursuit of wokeness and conformity? What do we value as Canadians?

The fact is that the Conservative Party is the only political party in Canada that stands for freedom of speech and the rights of Canadians to express themselves freely on the Internet. Margaret Atwood called Bill C-11 “creeping totalitarianism”.

We have, and we will, fight this legislation to the bitter end. Is it a losing fight? Probably. We have heard many times, when the Prime Minister asked the leader of the NDP to jump, that the only question he gets in response is “How high?” That does not mean that Conservatives would not fight. However, it does mean that, when Conservatives form the next government under our new leader, we would repeal this horrible attack on free speech.

Much has been said about the obvious move toward censorship and government control over what we see and post. However, I want to come at this from a different angle, which is that of The Littlest Hobo. I grew up in the 1970s in rural Saskatchewan. We had colour TV, I am not that old, but our house only had two channels: CBC and CTV. It was the golden age of government censorship of what we could watch on TV.

Back then, the CRTC was not as concerned about political censorship as we would see with the result of Bill C-11, but it was very concerned that we watch Canadian programming, instead of that evil, awful American programming. Every day, after school, I had to endure a half-hour of The Littlest Hobo, because it was literally the only thing I could watch on TV. Now some may have enjoyed the show. I did not.

This was the result of the government dictating to Canadians what it felt we needed to watch on TV. Thankfully, we eventually got U.S. TV channels in our house, and we were able to finally watch what we chose to watch and not what the CRTC told us we could watch.

Everyone who has grown up in the Internet generation has always had full control to watch whatever they want to watch on the Internet. The government has so far been unable to censor them and force them to watch the content it deems important.

With Bill C-11, the government would be throttling the Internet and forcing Canadians to watch things it deems important: The Littlest Hobo of this decade. Do not get me wrong. I am not against Canadian content in any way. I just want good content, wherever it comes from.

Canada produces some amazingly good content. For example, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood was written by a Canadian author and is being filmed on Canadian soil. It stars Canadian actors and it employs Canadian producers, but it fails to make the cut. It is not considered Canadian by the CRTC.

This just demonstrates the silliness of the government trying to dictate and control our creative industries. The last thing our creative industries in Canada need is more government control.

Canada has amazing content producers, from big-name actors, producers and artists down to small content creators on YouTube, Instagram and other platforms. We must keep them free to compete in a global world, rather have the government pick who are the winners and who are the losers.

How does Bill C-11 work? How does the legislation actually strangle the freedom of individual Canadians on the Internet?

At the heritage committee, one witness, J.J. McCullough, used a metaphor that I believe captures this law in a nutshell. He said, “It's like promising not to regulate books while [simultaneously] regulating...bookstores.”

The approach of the NDP-Liberal coalition is to regulate everyday social media platforms that Canadians use: Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others.

This would directly affect every Canadian, as the platforms would be told by the government which of the content created is allowed or not. It is as if someone walked into a bookstore but would only be allowed to see the books on certain racks. They would not be allowed to see the books on other racks in the rest of the store.

The government agency overseeing this is called the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, CRTC. These are the same people who forced me to watch The Littlest Hobo as a kid. The CRTC has been around for a long time, and, in theory, it is responsible for ensuring Canadian content on radio and TV. They are the reason cable is so expensive and why many of us are cord-cutting.

Basically, the CRTC is a bunch of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa elites, appointed by the Prime Minister, whose jobs would be to decide what we consume and what we post.

This law would effectively give the CRTC the authority to set out conditions, requirements and exemptions for what is to be restricted or to be allowed. For example, the law would give the commission the authority to make orders imposing conditions affecting such things as “the proportion of programs to be broadcast” being “devoted to specific genres” and “the presentation of programs and programming”.

Despite its vague language, it is clear that the government plans to give the friends of the Prime Minister the power to decide what the people see, quite literally policing content.

They do this under the guise of promoting Canadian content, but that is just an excuse to grab more power and to limit the freedoms we enjoy. That is exactly what Bill C-11 does.

It gives the CRTC the authority over platforms like YouTube. These platforms would be forced to comply with regulations that prioritize content to be displayed to individuals over others, depending on what the CRTC deems to be the priority. That is exactly the problem.

This law would “encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity”.

Who will decide what content is reflective of Canadian opinions, ideas and values and exactly what those are? Of course it is the friends of the Prime Minister.

This one phrase would reprogram the algorithms of your platforms to show you what the government wants you to see, rather than having your preferences deciding what appears in your feed.

The NDP-Liberals do this under the banner of diversity and inclusivity. The truth is that, right now, open platforms allow for, and facilitate the exchange of, diverse and inclusive content better than a government with a political agenda ever could.

The party that prides itself on multiculturalism is now putting a rubber stamp on what is Canadian and what is not. Canadian culture and interests are always expanding and are being influenced by many different artists, genres, languages and the trends of the day. The government is the last organization I would want creating Canadian culture.

Ultimately this is the difference between the Conservative approach on this issue and the approach of the NDP-Liberals. They are concerned about government control and how to have power over Canadians. Conservatives are devoted to freedom. We want Canadians to be able to live their everyday normal lives on the internet. It is simple as that.

Let us talk about how this legislation would affect Canadians. As Neal Mohan, the Chief Product Officer for YouTube, has explained in countless interviews, Bill C-11 would harm Canadian content creators.

Some may argue that YouTube is a massive corporation simply looking after its own interests. Of course, on one level that is true, but YouTube contributes over a billion dollars to the Canadian economy and creates roughly 35,000 jobs in this country, so it does have a stake beyond the confines of Silicon Valley.

Bill C-11 would essentially decide who the winners and losers of this market are, based on the qualities and conditions set out by the CRTC. Rather than helping the little guy, this government plans on putting barriers that impede them from success.

By creating more red tape, we would not just harm the economy but, more importantly, we would harm each Canadian who depends upon the internet to generate income. Nowadays, that is a lot of people from all age groups and all walks of life. This law would cover any content individually generated that touches a user trying to make even the smallest dollar.

The Liberals will say that this bill would not touch personal content like cat videos but that is simply not true. Even the current Liberal-appointed chair of the CRTC told the truth by mistake and admitted that Bill C-11 would regulate content generated by individual users.

According to YouTube and others in this field, forcing content to be displayed in one’s feed may have a negative impact on content creators within Canada and would harm the very people the government claims that it wants to protect.

We all know what happens when the government tries to force-feed us content that we don’t want, like The Littlest Hobo.

We do not want to watch it, yet the government shoves it down our throats anyway. At least CBC TV shows are voluntary right now. Just wait until the algorithms are required by law to put these in our YouTube searches, then in our Facebook videos and then in our Insta stories.

There will be no escaping the government-approved content, so we will shut it off. One does not see what one wants, and the so-called Canadian content shoved down one’s throat will go unwatched. It is a lose-lose situation, like most things that this current NDP-Liberal government does.

Bill C-11 is a threat to our fundamental rights and is setting up the foundation for censorship. Whether one is a YouTube content creator, a social media influencer or even just a viewer, Bill C-11 would limit Canadians from seeing and watching the content they choose.

People in Saskatoon West are worried about what is to come if this legislation passes, and that is why we must kill Bill C-11.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I intend to vote for Bill C-11, but I would vote for it with more enthusiasm if the government had accepted the amendment from the Senate that excluded user-developed content. I wonder if the member could explain, because so far I have not had any explanation that makes sense to me, why the government has rejected that amendment from the Senate.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me join with my hon. colleague, the opposition House leader, in wishing everyone a joyous Easter. I hope that members who are celebrating Easter take time with their families. This is also a very busy time for many of our other faith communities as we recognize Vaisakhi. We are in the holy month of Ramadan right now and we have Passover. This is a time that is very rich, one when I know people will be visiting churches, mosques and temples in our communities to share with the rich faith traditions in our constituencies. I hope all members are able to profit from those opportunities to be with their constituents and families.

With respect to Bill C-11, I will simply state that I do not think there is any amount of time that would satisfy Conservatives. In fact, I would challenge the opposition House leader to indicate just how many days of debate he would like. I do not think there is any end. Conservatives have indicated they want to obstruct this bill. This bill has had more time in the Senate than any bill in history. It was in the last Parliament and it is in this Parliament. It is time our artists get compensated for their work and that the tech giants pay their fair share.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, and then we are going to be switching to Bill C-34, the Investment Canada Act.

When we return, we will continue with the budget debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Thursday, we will start the day with a ways and means vote relating to the budget implementation act. Following the vote, we will proceed to the debate on Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022, followed by Bill C-42.

Finally, on Friday, we will commence debate on the budget bill.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for the Thursday question. Before I go to it, I want to wish everyone a blessed Good Friday and a happy Easter. Christians in the western world will be observing both. Easter is coming up and I know it is a time when family members will get together, visit and take a bit of a break. A lot of Canadians are going through a lot of hardships and I want them to know we are thinking of all the vulnerable Canadians who might be facing extra struggles given the current economic woes that are afflicting many hard-working Canadians across the country.

I want to wish everybody in this place, from the pages to the support staff, you, Mr. Speaker, and members of all parties a fruitful two weeks working hard in their constituencies, meeting with their constituents and taking a bit of time with their friends and families.

As it relates to House business, I would like to know if the government House leader can update us as to what the business of the House will be. We were hoping we would have more debate on Bill C-11, which would grant unprecedented powers to the government to control the Internet. I note that debate will end today because the government is stifling that debate, but I hope the member will update us as to what we will be debating when the House comes back after the Easter break.

Canadian Heritage

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that right now the tech giants are not paying their fair share. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians agree that they should be doing so. This is the reason why. This is why we are making sure that we have Bill C-11 to deal with this job.

We know that the web giants must do more, more for our culture, more for our local media, more to protect our children. That is exactly what we are doing. Why are the Conservatives against that?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus in Quebec that we need to make web giants pay their fair share. Everyone—actors, authors, composers, producers, directors, musicians, singers, technicians—is on the same side regarding Bill C‑11. Everyone but the Conservatives, that is.

I invite the Conservatives to get on the right side and support Quebec and Canadian culture.

Online Streaming Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, we will not have those days back because that Conservative Party is gone. Believe it or not, Stephen Harper's Conservative Party no longer exists. As extreme right as that party was, we are now dealing with something even more to the right. It is a complete engulfing of everything populous that anyone could ever imagine.

I am going to talk about disinformation in my speech, in particular disinformation from the Conservatives. The first example that comes to mind is the last interaction between the member for Calgary Nose Hill and her Conservative colleague, who asked a friendly question about Margaret Atwood. There was disinformation about what Margaret Atwood said and her intentions.

I want to read to the House what The Globe and Mail reported regarding Margaret Atwood: “The author said she had not read the bill ‘thoroughly yet’ and that there seemed to be ‘well-meaning attempts to achieve some sort of fairness in the marketplace.’” The Conservatives are not properly representing the thoughts of Margaret Atwood, yet they use her as a vehicle for disinformation repeatedly.

Unfortunately, what this issue has turned into for the Conservatives is nothing more than a fundraising cash cow. That is what this is. They are using every opportunity to raise money off this issue. They are using this House to raise money off this issue. They are promoting disinformation and misinformation to raise money off this issue.

I would like to read some of the outlandish things we have heard from Conservatives throughout this debate.

The member for Lethbridge said, “I wish for Canadians to know that this bill would impact them in two damning ways: One, it would censor what they see; and two, it would censor what they say.”

The member for Carleton himself said, “The bill is about controlling the people.”

The member for Sarnia—Lambton asked, “Could the member tell me how this legislation is different from what happens in communist countries?”

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes said, “it is a government that wants to control what Canadians see and control what Canadians think.”

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul, quoting Jay Goldberg, said, “If government bureaucrats get to choose what content to push on Canadians, there’s a very real risk the government will be tempted to use its filtering powers to silence its critics.”

The member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner said, “Ultimately, Bill C-11 would put Canada in step with countries like North Korea, China, Iran and Russia”.

The member for Oshawa, and this blew us away on Monday, said, “Bill C-11 is an online censorship bill designed to control search engines and algorithms so that the government can control what Canadians see and hear.” He also said:

Sadly, this legislation models practices directly from the Communist Government of China.... It blocks unacceptable views and connections that the CCP considers harmful to the Chinese public. The goal of its Internet is to reshape online behaviour and use it to disseminate new party theories and promote socialist agendas.

The House was literally in a state of disbelief when we heard the member for Oshawa say that. The first person to get up and make a comment was the well-respected member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who is not in the Liberal caucus, and she said, “Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Oshawa was speaking, all I could think is that somewhere there is a Liberal war room clipping all of that to use in ads to make sure no one votes Conservative.”

This is the rhetoric we have been hearing from that side of the House, and it is for nothing more than to clip and create videos to put out there, to generate money and to fundraise. I have been the subject of that myself. A tweet of mine regarding this issue was used in a fundraising email sent out by the Conservatives, with a gigantic “donate now” button at the bottom.

Perhaps one of the most egregious forms of improperly utilizing House resources, which I hope the Speaker will come back to this House with a ruling on in short order, was what the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, did with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who, by the way, has been in this House for a very long time and is a former House leader who knows the rules inside and out. As they were walking out of the chamber, while the chamber was still in session, they held a phone and started recording a video as they walked into the lobby. They were still in the chamber. The mace is still visible on the table in their video, and the member for Carleton was talking about how the Liberals are trying to silence people. Of course, what is at the bottom? It is a big “donate now” button so people can click the link and support the Conservative Party.

This has obviously been a cash cow for them, and they are using it over and over. Of course, we rose on a point of order trying to get the Speaker to rule on this egregious act of not just filming in this House, which we are not supposed to do, but using House of Commons resources to promote something. When we rose on a point of order regarding that, what did the Leader of the Opposition do? He retweeted that tweet, saying we are trying to silence it. Of course, what is at the bottom of that retweet? It is a big “donate now” button linking people right to the Conservative Party.

Not only does he completely disrespect the rules of this House, but he will then blatantly use the proper calling of procedure to fundraise further. This is the Leader of the Opposition. This is the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition doing this, and it is absolutely unacceptable. The Speaker knows that. I know that. Every member of this House knows that. However, the Leader of the Opposition continues, and he does not care. He does not care what gets in his way to fundraise, even if it is proper decorum and practice within this House.

The Conservatives get up and say that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government, in cahoots with the NDP, are somehow trying to give cabinet the ability to generate and write the algorithms that would shape what people see. For someone to believe that, they would also have to believe that the Bloc Québécois, a separatist party in this country, is going along with that scheme. How ludicrous is it to think that the Bloc Québécois would say it would turn over the reins to cabinet to generate and make up the algorithms? It is completely ludicrous. The Conservatives know it.

Years ago, when this bill was first introduced in the House, the Conservatives, to their credit, jumped on top of what was possibly a misstep with respect to introducing it. They sensed a little blood in the water, and the sharks were swarming around trying to generate controversy and conspiracy theories on this issue. Of course, because of the way things work on social media, it did not take long for everybody to jump on board those conspiracy theories, and the Conservatives have done nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to try to set the record straight. Instead, they have used it for political gain, they have used it for fundraising and they have used it time and time again to try to delay moving anything forward in this House.

If the Conservatives want to get up and talk about closing debate on this issue, they really have to reflect on how many times they have spoken to it. I am sure all they need to do is look at the fundraising emails, because every time this debate comes up, another fundraising email goes out.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague stated in her speech that Bill C‑11 would only benefit certain elites. I have no idea who she is speaking about. I stated earlier in my speech that, in Quebec, 80% of the members of the Union des artistes earn less than $20,000 a year. I do not know which elites she is talking about, but my friends who are writers, playwrights and theatre and film technicians are not elites. All these people want us to vote for and to pass Bill C‑11 as quickly as possible.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can already find the things I want to watch quite easily. That is not what this bill is about. Bill C-11 would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching the content they choose. It would instead mean, as I said in my statements, that Ottawa bureaucrats would control what Canadians could see and watch online and through streaming services.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for all the Liberals' claims, Canadians understand that if this bill passes, the government will regulate what can be seen or posted online and control which videos they will see more or less often on their feeds.

After eight years, the government has lost the trust of Canadians. Transparency and accountability are not its strong suit. It avoids both at every opportunity, whether it is by providing inaccurate testimony in committees, refusing to allow witnesses to appear before a committee to shed light on very serious issues or refusing to answer questions in this place like who stayed in a $6,000-per-night hotel room during the trip to the U.K. for the Queen's funeral.

We can all understand why Canadians are dubious about the Liberals' intentions in introducing this bill. They see it for what it is, which is an unacceptable attempt by the government to target the freedoms of individual Internet users in Canada. This is clearly not a government that will be accountable to Canadians, and it cannot be trusted with the power of regulating user-generated content.

Lastly, Conservatives understand that government censorship of the Internet is something that happens in totalitarian societies, not free ones. That is why we have fought so hard, both in this place and in the other place, to amend Bill C-11 in order to narrow its scope and fully exempt the content Canadians post on social media. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition rejected those amendments.

After eight years, it is time for a government that protects free speech, protects consumer choice and encourages Canadian creators instead of getting in their way. A Conservative government would repeal Bill C-11 and pass legislation requiring large streaming services to invest more of their revenue into producing Canadian content, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, you stole my thunder.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which, as we know, amends the Broadcasting Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts. I want to start by recognizing my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, who has done incredible work to bring to light the facts about the impacts this bill would have not only on the rights of Canadians but also on content creators here in Canada.

I will be splitting my time with member for Calgary Nose Hill.

This is an immense bill, as it would affect not only online streaming but also user-generated content online, including on social media. Let us review. The first iteration of this bill, Bill C-10, was introduced in 2020. The government claimed that the purpose of it was to modernize the Broadcasting Act and to make large online streaming services meet Canadian content requirements and to bring them in line with TV and radio stations. We have heard that again here.

In its original version, the former bill, Bill C-10, included an exemption for programs that users uploaded onto their social media or “user-generated content”. During the committee’s study, the Liberals voted to remove this exemption from their own bill and refused to allow the Conservatives to reintroduce it. The bill died on the Order Paper when the 2021 election was called, but was reintroduced by the government in this Parliament. Here is what it did.

Bill C-11 would create a new category of web media called “online undertakings” and would give the CRTC the same power to regulate them and would require them to invest in Canadian content, even though they would not be required to apply for licences. While the government put the exemption back in this new version, it went on to also include an exemption to the exemption, which made it effectively meaningless. Unfortunately, this is another bill that the government seeks to pass that would dictate to industries what is best for them, rather than listening to the experts and stakeholders.

Numerous experts such as law professors and former CRTC commissioners believe that this bill would threaten the right to free speech. As we know, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to free speech, which can only be exercised effectively if one has the ability to be heard. Law Professor Michael Geist explains this:

To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content (including algorithmic outcomes). The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.

The government wants to give bureaucrats living in Ottawa the sole discretion of determining what content should be considered Canadian and what should be shown to Canadians at large.

Setting aside concerns regarding free speech for a moment, this bill would also threaten the livelihood of individual content creators, artists and influencers who earn their living through the videos they post on social media and the advertising revenues that they generate. By their testimony, many fear they will not qualify under the CRTC’s rules promoting certified content. They are also afraid of the effects of regulation on their international audiences.

Canadian creators do not need the Canadian media industry to intercede for them to succeed. Canadians are already punching above their weight, and there are many success stories. The reason we have so many Canadian success stories is that we allow the creativity of Canadian creators to flourish. We do not throttle it with excessive bureaucracy or red tape.

In the current landscape, content creators rise to the top through the merit of their content. The Internet offers infinite opportunity for new creators to reach audiences worldwide, allowing small creators to build up audiences through their own creativity and determination.

The bill would seek to stifle that freedom, only allowing those creators that the government deems worthy to be seen. Instead of one’s search bar directing one to the content one is looking for, it would direct one to the content that the government has approved and wants one to see. This would be yet another case of government gatekeepers picking winners and losers based on their own arbitrary criteria.

It is important to note that the Senate made approximately 29, mostly minor, amendments to Bill C-11. This is why it is back before the House of Commons. The most significant amendment proposed would attempt to narrow the scope for social media regulation by adding discretionary criteria that appear to encourage the CRTC to focus on regulating professional audiovisual content rather than amateur user uploads.

While this makes the bill less bad, given that the criteria are discretionary, they do not change the powers of the CRTC to regulate social media or its discoverability powers. Besides that, the heritage minister has already indicated that the Liberal government will reject this amendment.

We should make no mistake: Homegrown talent and creative content here in Canada will no longer succeed based on merit. Content will be subject to a set of criteria that bureaucrats in Ottawa will use to determine its level of Canadianness, resulting in traditional art forms being favoured over new creative content.

Over 40,000 content creators affiliated with Digital First Canada signed letters calling for the discoverability rules in Bill C-11 to be removed.

Since the bill was introduced in its first iteration as Bill C-10, I have heard from many constituents who do not want the government dictating the content that they are allowed to see. They have written to me and expressed their shock and dismay at the government's attempt to control speech and online content.

They want the ability to find their favourite creators and enjoy the content that appeals to them. They do not want to see the favourite content of an Ottawa bureaucrat.

For all the Liberals’ claims, Canadians understand that if this bill passes—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member opposite's passion and her fondness for the nostalgia of boom boxes and cassette tapes. I still have some cassette tapes at home. My kids do not know what on earth they are.

What is critical is that this is part and parcel of a broader agenda of our government and, I hope, of this Parliament in terms of what we are doing to address the presence of digital platforms in our lives. We have Bill C-11 and we have Bill C-18. We are very committed to addressing online harms and online safety. In previous Parliaments we have addressed things like electoral advertising in online spaces.

Our commitment is to ensure that digital platforms that benefit from what they do in Canada and how they promote themselves or advertise in Canada, and that reap dollars from Canadian pockets, will also contribute back to Canadian communities and to the creation of Canadian content. That is a fundamental theme that informs all pieces of our legislation, and it will continue to do so.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for sharing his information around the importance of us having Canadian stories at the forefront. I would be remiss if I did not quickly mention something applicable to the bill.

This April, Vancouver Island's annual film festival will be kicking off again. Last year, the then festival director Hilary Eastmure was talking to The Discourse, which is a local media outlet, about the importance of this film festival. She talked about the importance of local film being seen alongside films around the world. She talked about the importance of “smaller stories” and how they “reveal something really intimate about people's daily lives and challenges that they face.” She talked about the directors in last year's film festival, including three Iranian directors, two of whom were women.

I am wondering if the member could share a bit about why he feels the Conservatives are continuing to fundraise on misinformation around Bill C-11, instead of putting forward sound solutions that could move us forward with protecting and supporting Canadian cultural content.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not go back over all the reasons why we need to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I addressed this at length earlier in my speech.

It is hard for us to imagine this bill passing without the Quebec government weighing in in some way or giving its opinion. It appears that this will no longer be possible. However, the Government of Quebec has indicated its desire to weigh in on Bill C‑11.

Is my colleague aware of what the federal government plans to do to ensure that the Government of Quebec is involved in the implementation of Bill C‑11?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague went to some length to explain that Bill C-11 would not impact user-generated content, so my simple question would be this: Why would we not just accept the amendment proposed by the Senate to do exactly that? It would remove user-generated content from the bill. Would the bill not, thus amended, still have all the other positive effects the member is promoting?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House.

As I rise today, it is a bit like Groundhog Day. I am rising to speak on Bill C-11. The reason why it is so familiar to me is because I rose to speak on virtually the same bill in the last Parliament, when it was known as Bill C-10. I am rising again today on this issue because, once again, it is before Parliament.

There are certain issues that perhaps do not transcend from one Parliament to another, perhaps they are more temporal in nature, however, this issue has only become exacerbated with the passage of time. The issue and the pressing need to address the Broadcasting Act, to modernize that legislation and bring it into the 21st century has become even more acute and more critical. Thus is the reason why it has been presented by our government and why it is being debated today, and being debated with urgency. I do believe that the passage of this type of legislation is urgent.

When we are talking about the Broadcasting Act, we are talking about fundamentally Canadian content. We just heard a very impassioned speech by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, talking about the importance of promoting English Canadian and French Canadian cultural content. This has been a critically acute issue for Canada for literally decades. The principle reason is because of our geographic proximity to our friend and ally, a nation whose president was in this chamber literally short of a week ago, a cultural behemoth that has the potential to overshadow and really eclipse content that is being produced in other nations, including the nation that is its most proximate neighbour.

We realized this many decades ago, and that is why we put in place, as a government, as parliamentarians, protections for Canadian content, so we could have Canadian stories told, told via television, film and music. Those were important protections. Those protections were put in place in legislation that hearken back to a different era, when people received their content through things like the radio. It is not coincidental that in French, when people talk about the CBC, it is called Radio-Canada, because that was the principle medium for the transmission of communications, including entertainment at the time.

Radio and television dominated the landscape for nearly a century. However, things have changed. In the old era, what we would do and what we continue to do today is put, as a condition of a licence for a television or a radio broadcaster, that it must invest in Canadian culture and Canadian artists. That has produced significant results.

However, the status right now is very different. I will include myself as one of the Canadians who have changed. Times have changed. Canadians are not using cable very much anymore. I think I might be one of the rare households in this chamber that still has cable. I use it for watching things like the Toronto Blue Jays, and God bless them today on the opening day of the season. I hope they have great season.

Independent of sports, most people are consuming their content online, on streaming services. Streaming is everywhere. People stream on their phones, in their cars, on their televisions. Many people are enjoying this.

I was actually looking up some of the statistics, and it is quite startling. Right now, eight out of 10 Canadians, or 80% of our entire country, uses at least one streaming service. Just in 2016, one year after our government took office, that number was five out of 10. Again, I will include myself in the people on the outside looking in back in 2016. People would talk to me about streaming Netflix and I did not know what they were talking about. I am being quite honest.

Now, not only am I streaming Netflix, but we have a Disney account, and my kids want me to get Amazon Prime, which I really do not know about. There is a number of different streaming platforms that people are attracted to or are already using. Six out of 10 Canadians, or 60% of the country, subscribe to two platforms or more.

However, the basic point is that while we have, on the radio and television side, things like Bell and Rogers contributing to Canadian content, which is a good thing and it is something we want to continue, streaming platforms, such as the Amazon Prime, YouTube, Crave, Netflix and Spotify, are broadcasting to Canadians, using Canadian content to market to those Canadians, but they are contributing absolutely nothing to the flourishing and development of more Canadian content on their platforms. They do not have the same requirements applied on those platforms as are applied on standard radio and television broadcasters.

There is the problem. From a very basic perspective, what are we here for as parliamentarians, if it is not to identify problems and seek to address them for the benefit of Canadians. That is something quite fundamental, and I think all 338 of us try to do that every day, that we are privileged to hold these types of positions.

Nevertheless, the legislation has not kept pace. I found it quite fascinating that the last time the Broadcasting Act was amended was in 1991. I was in my second year of university at McGill at that time. I do not even think I had an email address at that point. I think I got one my fourth year. It was really long and basically never used, because in order to use it, I had to walk into a separate office on the west floor of the building to access something called email. At that point, the Internet was mainly the purview of the U.S. military that had invented it years before.

There was no such thing as smart phones. There was certainly no such thing as apps. We were living in a completely different world and that was merely, on my account, about 32 or 33 years ago.

Back then, given that landscape in 1991, the Broadcasting Act was perfectly useful and suitable to the landscape as it was then. It dealt with radio and television broadcasters, because that was where people found their content, and we ensured that those radio and television broadcasters were promoting Canadian content.

It is now 2023 and the landscape has changed dramatically in the last decade, but certainly in the last few years. What we are seeking to do with this legislative amendment to the Broadcasting Act is to ensure that we promote, and continue to promote, great Canadian stories dans la langue de Molière, mais aussi en Anglais wherever those stories are found.

This bill would give the CRTC the ability to require that online streaming companies that profit from playing Canadian content, including Canadian music, film and TV shows, make financial contributions to support Canadian creators. This is a critically important objective.

What I am equally pleased about with the bill is that if we are to reopen a piece of legislation, we may as well improve upon it. We are modernizing it to deal with this new online landscape. We are also doing something that is quite targeted and deserves some attention. We are promoting the diversity of Canadian creators. What do I mean by that? We are promoting indigenous creators.

I spent a lot of time in our first Parliament working on indigenous language protection when I was the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of heritage. What we heard, in all the consultations we did and in all the work that turned into what is now the Indigenous Languages Act, which thankfully got support from everyone in this chamber, every party, as it should have, was that in order to promote indigenous language, the restoration and revitalization of those languages, we needed to ensure that we were also supporting indigenous creators. This bill would do that. It is an important aspect.

It also addresses persons with disabilities. We talk a lot about changes to things like the accessibility act. We talk about the Canada disability benefit act that we are rolling out. At the same time, we need to ensure that people's sense of inclusion and understanding of persons with disabilities is enhanced by ensuring that persons with disabilities are seen and included in the Canadian content we all absorb.

The same can be said for people of diverse sexual orientation. The LGBTQ2 community is specifically mentioned in this legislation as a group of creators whose content we want to promote.

I will finish on this idea of other diverse creators, which is Black and persons of colour. As a racialized member of this chamber, this has been a weak spot for our country, quite frankly. Our Canadian content creators need to have an applied focus that directs them to enhance and empower the voices so Black persons and persons of colour can see themselves reflected on what they are consuming on television, in film and on musical platforms when they are streaming. It is important for all Canadians to be able to see themselves in the content.

I need to address an issue that was raised repeatedly in the last Parliament and it has been raised repeatedly during this Parliament about this bogeyman of restricting freedom of expression. I have two broad responses to what I feel is an improper and incorrect attack on this legislation.

It is logically flawed to posit that this is a challenge to freedom of expression. It is also inaccurate in terms of the substance of the bill. It is a logical flaw.

On the logic of this kind of argument, the fact that we have been promoting, for decades now, through financial contribution requirements, things such as radio and television broadcasters, those promotion efforts would have restricted or diluted the creation of Canadian content as opposed to enhanced it.

We know for a fact that the enhancement has occurred by ensuring that broadcasters, in that physical and traditional context, are required to apply money and funds from their profits toward the creation of Canadian content. We have had, on the musical side, the Arkells and The Tragically Hip. We have had Rush and Drake from my city.

On the television side, we have had everything from the Beachcombers to Kim's Convenience and everything in between.

We do not get those great Canadian success stories without that applied directive to ensure there is financial enhancement in the industry by broadcasters to support creators. Therefore, with that simple logic, if this model were flawed, it would have diminished the amount of Canadian content as opposed to enhancing it, and the same reasoning applies here.

The same would apply for ensuring that online streaming companies are classified as broadcasters. What we will see, far from diminishing Canadian expression, is enhanced Canadian expression. What do I mean by that? It is going to compel the Amazon Primes, Netflix and the Spotifys of the world to ensure that they are making Canadian content discoverable and are contributing monetarily from their very healthy bottom lines, balance sheets and profits to the creation of more Canadian content. That is a good onto itself.

However, the argument on the challenge of freedom of expression is flawed even in terms of the bill itself. If there is one thing that changed between the last Parliament and this Parliament is that, although the framework of the bill is the same, and we heard this argument so many times in the 43rd Parliament, we went to great lengths to ensure that there would be multiple provisions, not just one, that stipulate that this bill was not about restricting freedom of expression.

The bill would not dictate what Canadians can see and do on social media. The bill explicitly excludes all user-creator content on social media platforms and streaming services. Those exclusions mean that the experience for users creating, posting and interacting with other user-generated content will not be impacted whatsoever. Multiple clauses in the legislation explicitly state that the regulations the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. Provisions indicate that the act would not apply to uploaded content.

All regulatory requirements and obligations in the bill would only affect the broadcaster or the platform and never the user or the creator. For the individual Jane and John Doe in their basement seeking to upload something, create a music video or put something online about how they are playing the guitar, how their guitar level is increasing or singing a song and uploading it online, this does not speak to them. It speaks to the Amazons and Spotifys of the world, and that is an important delineation that has been emphasized by the text of the legislation.

Why is it important to support these creative industries? It is critical. Not only is it about the value, which I indicated at the outset of my comments, it is about the importance of telling Canadian stories particularly when we are threatened by a sea of non-Canadian stories from our neighbour south of the border. It is also important when we think about what Canadian creators, many of whom I am very privileged to represent in Parkdale—High Park, do for us as a nation.

During the pandemic, we heard extensively about the contributions of Canadian creators to Canadian society. When people were going through difficult times, when there were higher levels of anxiety and depression through lack of physical contact with one another, it was our Canadian creators who were there to support all of us, to tell stories and support us in some of our most troubling times as nation, literally since probably World War II.

Those creators are also economic contributors to Canada. It is not just the people who actually make the film, direct, act and produce the screenplay, it is not just the people picking up the instruments or microphone, it is a whole host of supplementary supports for the industry that contribute to the economic uplifting of Canadian society. For no other reason than the economic benefit, I would hope His Majesty's loyal opposition would support the bill for the economic productivity that stands to be gained by this type of legislation.

It is really important to look at the host of cultural creators who have lined up in support of this bill: The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, ACTRA, SOCAN. I will read what Alex Levine, the president of the Writers Guild of Canada, has to say. He says:

Private, English-language Canadian broadcasters have reduced their spending on Canadian television production every year for nearly a decade, while foreign streaming services have taken over more and more of the Canadian market. This threatens our whole industry, and the tens of thousands of jobs it supports. Canadian broadcasters have long been required to contribute to the culture and economy of this country. It’s time for global streamers profiting in Canada to be held to the same standards.

Mr. Levine is talking about levelling the playing field. It is a very simple concept. If something benefits from Canadian content and access to the Canadian market, it needs to contribute to the Canadian content it is benefiting from. It is as simple as that. By pursuing a level playing field and modernizing this legislation, we could bring the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century. For that reason, I hope every party in this chamber will support this legislation.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising to speak to Bill C-11 for the second time. I gave a speech about it about one year ago.

We have been talking about this for a long time. My hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières is not here today, but I often have conversations with him. He always gives very brilliant speeches, choosing his words carefully and speaking with intention. He told me about a word that aptly describes what is being done with Bill C‑11: “lantiponner”. I do not know how the interpreters are going to translate it, but it means to fool around, to hedge, to delay, to procrastinate, to quibble needlessly when the issue at hand is urgent.

I think that this word is fitting because we have been back and forth on this issue for two or three years. People have been waiting 30 years for a bill that addresses the challenges of our time in order to support our artists.

One year ago, I gave a speech in which I spoke at length about culture and also about the fact that this bill is important because it helps minority cultures, the world's small cultures, stand up to the platforms that threaten to steamroll over them. That is very important when we fight for a small culture. With respect to language, Pierre Bourgault once said that when we fight for the French language in Quebec, we fight for all the minority languages in the world.

This is the type of challenge we are facing when working on Bill C‑11. I talked about culture in that speech, but today I feel like taking a more personal approach and talking about my artist friends. Thirty years ago, before becoming a member of Parliament, I attended the National Theatre School. Artists are my friends. I love them. In fact, I do not just love them; I adore them. They are my brothers, and they have very difficult living conditions. The situation of artists is very precarious. We need to do everything we can to support them because artists are the heart of who we are. They add spice to our lives. I do not know whether my Conservative colleagues have ever tried to do the test. At one time, there was a campaign to raise awareness of the importance of culture in our lives. The test was to try to see if you could get through an entire day without listening to the radio or music or watching TV or a movie.

Let us try to see what life would be like without music, movies and television series, without all of these things that reflect our stories, our ways of living, our traditions, our values, our interests, the things that basically show who we are. Let us try that just for a day so that we can understand the value of artists and what they bring into our lives, this very special way of seeing things. These artists need our help. They need our support.

I will now talk about an artist who is famous in Quebec, Sylvie Drapeau. She is a friend of mine. She may be the greatest stage actor of all time in Quebec, and perhaps even in Canada. She is absolutely sensational, extraordinary. When you see Sylvie Drapeau on stage, you remember her. She did a solo performance at Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, or TNM, a few years ago, and it was a rather personal and remarkable tour de force. There was a time Sylvie Drapeau was in five plays in Montreal a year. She performed at all the major theatres and played all the major roles. She would perform Shakespeare at TNM in the evening and rehearse Chekhov at the Théâtre du Rideau Vert during the day. She would then perform Chekhov in the evening and, the next day, rehearse Marivaux or Molière at TNM—and she always had the lead role. In the middle of all that, she would fit in a play by Racine and do a bit of television, if she had the time. Playing a lead role on stage for two or three hours and rehearsing another play every day takes a lot of energy.

We are talking about a remarkable actress. We are talking the Wayne Gretzky of theatre. We could also say Maurice Richard, as one of my colleagues mentioned.

We have heard our Conservative friends talk about culture as if it started and ended with Tom Cruise, the red carpet and the Oscars, but that is not the case. There is a whole world out there. I know some of the people in it, they are my friends. They are creating art. They are producing remarkable works that need to be seen and appreciated. With Bill C-11, we can fight for the artistic ecosystem. All of these actors, creators and writers are part of artistic life in Quebec, across Canada and around the world.

Even when she was playing the five roles I mentioned, as well as all the starring roles in the repertoire, Sylvie Drapeau was earning $35,000 a year. It is important to point that out, because there are a lot of people like that, whether we know their names or not.

The Conservatives have a rather narrow vision of the arts. I would just like to remind them that, in Quebec, 80% of the members of the Union des artistes earn less than $20,000 a year. Only 1% of those members make more than $100,000. When someone tells me that an artist’s life is all cocktails and glamourous premieres, I say no, that is not true.

I know a thing or two about it myself. When I graduated from the National Theatre School of Canada in 1987, I wanted to change the world through theatre, and I know plenty of people who had the same goal. They dreamt of changing the world through films and plays. I am talking about actors, but there are also dancers, singers, and other artists who want to put on productions that move people, that speak, that touch the heart and soul. At the very least, we need to help these people pay the rent.

When I left the National Theatre School of Canada, I wanted to change the world. I started a theatre company called Béton Blues. I worked for two years with two or three colleagues to start a company and apply for grants to keep it afloat. I had never done that in my life. After filling out grant applications, we needed to get to work to try to get money from major private donors.

That was something. I remember the first time I called Hydro‑Québec. We had prepared a highly researched document to tell its representatives that they should give us money because we were young creators of the future and what we were doing was very important and that our plays would really move people. It had to be sent to the person in charge of arts and donations at major corporations. Then, we had to call to ask them if they were going to give us the money. I was not prepared. I did not know what to say to these people. I remember calling a gentleman at Hydro‑Québec. I was on the phone with the person in charge who could give us $2,000 for our performances. I just asked whether he had any money or something like that. We had no idea how to do it but we did it.

Essentially, what I am saying is that this was important work to me. I worked for two years. Ultimately, we put on a show. We adapted As You Like It, a play by Shakespeare, in the Old Port of Montreal's hangar number 9, now home to an IMAX theatre.

It was a kind of like a big warehouse spread out over 300 feet. It was an absolutely stunning sight. We had nothing. Four sets were used in the show. People arrived and the show began with 20 minutes in one spot. Then, the back of the stage would open up to reveal 300 feet of space and three more sets. The audience would move around, following us.

I will talk about this show in another speech because I think it was remarkable. We really made headlines with that show in the spring of 1988. All that to say, I worked on that show for two years. Can any of my colleagues guess how much money I made? I made $1,200 for two years of work.

In that case, it was my decision. However, all my friends, all the actors, writers, directors, set designers and decorators, all these people who are planning shows in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, all these artists who are struggling to make ends meet—we have to support them.

That support begins by voting for Bill C‑11 so that it can pass as soon as possible.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of questions about what we have been hearing from the Liberal side today.

Let us forget about Bill C‑11 for a second, because I think our colleague has set the record straight. He reminded us that it was actually the Bloc Québécois that proposed fast-tracking it two years ago because of a likely election, meaning the session would end.

There has been talk equating being in favour of proposed legislation with being in favour of using a gag order to get it done. I am very concerned about that. We are talking about rights and freedom of speech. I am also concerned about the rights of parliamentarians. We represent the people.

The fact that some are equating the two is concerning to me. Should gag orders be the norm? I believe that is what is being suggested.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think that we would make it to this point. Sometimes when we are expecting a quiet day, we realize that there can be a lot of excitement in the House.

I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my very entertaining colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, which means things will be relatively calm and composed for the first ten minutes and then they should get a bit more exciting once he takes the floor.

To begin, I would like to say that I am not exactly disappointed we are approaching the end of our study of Bill C-11. We are considering the amendments proposed by the Senate. I suggest that members mark the date on their calendar because, as a Bloc Québécois member, I commend the thoroughness of the work done by certain senators. I know that some of them really took to heart their task of proposing amendments and improving a bill that, I admit, could still use some tweaking. I would like to acknowledge the dedication of those who took the work seriously and tried to change things by returning a document that they believe is better. There is a reason why the government accepted a great many of the proposed amendments in its response. The amendments passed the test and will appear in the final version the House returns to the Senate. I commend this work.

I also want to acknowledge the work of all the members of Parliament who worked on Bill C-11, formerly Bill C-10. I would remind members that the bill was introduced in November 2020. That was quite a while ago. When the bill was introduced, the cultural industry and the Quebec and Canadian broadcasting system had already been awaiting it for decades. The Broadcasting Act had not been updated since the early 1990s.

I already mentioned I was working in radio back then. At the time, we had cassettes that we inserted in cassette players. We played CDs, and some stations still played vinyl records. Young people can do an online search to see what a vinyl record looks like. All this to say that, today, we no longer know what the equipment looked like, given how much the industry has changed. The technology, recording methods and ways of producing and consuming culture have changed in surprising and unexpected ways over the past three decades. There is no reason to believe things will be any different in the next three decades. That is why we need to implement a flexible broadcasting law that can handle the technological changes we will see in the years to come.

Today there is a lot of talk about artificial intelligence, and we are already questioning that technology because we are concerned about where it will lead. We do not know what broadcasting will look like in the coming years. That is why we need to implement a flexible broadcasting law that can adjust to change.

One of the Bloc Québécois's proposals was retained by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and found its way into the version of Bill C‑11 we are currently studying. It was the proposal that we should not have to wait another 30 years to revise the new act. It is a sunset clause. Every five years, we will be required to reopen the act and see whether it is still sufficiently up to date. I think that it is a responsible and intelligent provision that will make us do our job properly.

Every time I have spoken about Bill C-11, the underlying concern has always been Canadian culture. Francophone Quebec culture is what really matters to the Bloc Québécois, but we did not limit ourselves to proposing amendments and improvements to Bill C‑11 just for the benefit of Quebec culture. Of course, that is what is most important to us, since it is in our nature, but our proposals to promote Quebec culture will have an impact on all French-speaking Canadians.

We stood up for francophones across Canada, and everyone will benefit. The Bloc Québécois made substantial improvements to Bill C‑11. Thanks to these improvements, consumers will be able to find content produced by Quebec creators, artists, singers and songwriters on digital broadcasting platforms, just like they hear it on the radio. They will also see our talented creators' work on video streaming platforms such as Netflix and Disney+.

That is huge, because right now, we are under-represented on those platforms.

There is a lot of disinformation circulating around the concept of discoverability. The Conservatives came up with this idea that web giants would be required to tinker with their algorithms in order to force Quebeckers and Canadians to watch one type of content rather than another, or to stop them from watching one type of content rather than another. I do not understand how Quebeckers and Canadians could swallow such claptrap.

That is not at all what these regulations will do. What they will do is showcase our culture, our industry that generates billions of dollars annually. This will enable it to keep thriving in this new realm, which will also continue to evolve. We need to make room for our culture.

Discoverability is not a matter of imposing content on people, but of making content available. Take the playlist of someone who listens to Bryan Adams. I may be showing my age with that example. Perhaps I should have said Justin Bieber. Why not show that person some francophone artists? They are only suggestions. This is just about suggesting that culture. That is all.

Right now, the cultural industry is losing millions of dollars a month because there are no regulations requiring web giants to contribute the same way broadcasters and cable companies have contributed in the past. In addition to the tens of millions of dollars in lost advertising revenue, there are also tens of millions of dollars in royalties that artists are not receiving.

That is what Bill C-11 will fix. It will force web giants to follow the same rules as traditional broadcasters. I do not see how anyone can be against making billion-dollar companies like Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music contribute to the industry they are making their money off of.

This industry is not just made up of CEOs and big-shot producers. There are also people like self-employed cultural workers, film crew and recording studio producers. Many of them left the industry because they knew that it would take time for things to get back to the way they used to be, especially because of the pandemic. If, on top of that, we do not enact regulations to promote investment in the sector, they will never return, and we will lose an incredible valuable resource.

Remember, I am talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada. Culture and broadcasting represent billions of dollars in revenue. To me, it is a no-brainer that those who benefit should also contribute.

We are finally approaching the end of our study. We will be sending our response to the Senate. I hope that the senators will waste no time doing what we expect them to do, that is, ratify what is coming so that the web giants have to contribute and that our cultural industry can prosper and continue to show the world what it means to be a Quebecker or a Canadian.

Our culture is not American, Chinese or European. We have our very own culture, and it is up to us to protect and showcase it. That is what this bill is all about.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 2 in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the member for Winnipeg North maybe a little more intently today than I have in the past. He claims in his comments that this will not limit individual content created.

On Twitter, a couple of days ago, Mr. Michael Geist said, in response to a previous intervention from this member, that the member “is just plainly wrong. Independent Senators, former CRTC chair, and many experts all agreed: Bill C-11 gives the CRTC the power to establish certain regulations involving user content. The Senate tried to fix. [The minister] rejected it.”

Cody from my riding is an indigenous entrepreneur from Flying Dust First Nation, and he shared with me that his very successful business is going to be unfairly impacted by Bill C-11, unless this is changed. That is because of the way the online marketing and social media algorithms to grow his business across Canada and the United States would be affected.

Why would Cody believe this member, who has a very partisan interest, instead of the former head of the CRTC, who has nothing to gain from this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a couple of important points.

One is the issue of Canadian content, and let there be absolutely no doubt that Canadian content would be dramatically and positively impacted as a result of Bill C-11 and its passage.

The other point is about the member's reference to his own constituency and the $18 million. I think people underestimate the size of the industry, which, for all intents and purposes, is being developed and growing virtually in all regions of our country. We are talking about an industry that has so much potential, and that is one of the reasons why it is so very important that we pass this legislation.

In a minority situation, the government needs to have at least a partner to pass legislation, and I am grateful that the NDP has chosen to support this legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if my memory is correct, I understand that the Quebec legislature has actually passed unanimous motions in support of Bill C-11. I believe that to be the case; I could be wrong. At the end of the day, there is no doubt that within Quebec there is widespread support for the legislation. The minister, no doubt, will continue to work with the province very closely, as he has in the past.

At the beginning of my comments today, I made reference to my surprise that the Bloc did not support closure. Thankfully, the NDP did; otherwise, there is a very good chance that this legislation would never pass the House of Commons, because the Conservatives' intent is not to allow the legislation to pass. They have made that amply clear to us.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I listened with great interest to the beginning of my colleague's speech. I soon lost interest, because it was redundant. It was just another empty speech that meant nothing and went nowhere. All it did was lay blame and point fingers.

This is from a member who spends all his time wearing out his seat here in the House of Commons and very little time doing something, anything, to help advance bills in committee. I found it a bit rich to be accused of delaying or obstructing the progress of Bill C-11. The Bloc Québécois is the party that has probably done the most to advance and improve this bill to ensure it reflects the reality of francophones in this country. The member for Winnipeg North has some nerve, to say that the Bloc is stalling the bill. That is nothing short of insulting.

Quebec made some requests under very exigent circumstances. I will, however, ask my colleague a polite question, because we try to remain as civilized as possible in the House. Quebec asked to be consulted as soon as any regulations affecting Quebec broadcasting or francophone cultural content are developed. There has not yet been any response from the government. We are preparing to vote on Bill C-11 this evening under a closure motion. The Bloc will vote in favour of the bill, but there is still some work to be done.

What will the government do to respond to Quebec's legitimate requests?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every time someone disagrees with the government, its members call them on integrity, where integrity really is not a favourable commodity on that side, since they took office in 2015. The hon. member is really calling on the fact that the bill is so good that Canadians will never have had it better. Now, there are so many voices around Canada, some professionals and some academics, that disagree with his claim about the guarantee he is giving Canadians about how good Bill C-11 is. What would he tell these people about how much concern they have for a bill that has been going back and forth in this House for so long? That tells us a lot about how bad the bill is and how bad and dangerous it would be for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I trust the time spent on the point of order will be deducted from my speaking time on the issue.

Bill C-11 is in fact relevant, because the Conservative Party is refusing to pass it when the government has a restricted amount of time to debate its agenda and show leadership, which is what Canadians expect of the government. Conservatives might not care about what Canadians have to say, but this is a government that does care. When we are dealing with the agenda of the House of Commons and Bill C-11, there is an expectation that they will at least recognize that, although we are in a minority situation, the official opposition has a responsibility to behave in a responsible fashion and recognize that there has been ample debate on the issue.

This is legislation that makes a difference. Specifically, it will bring online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act.

I made reference to the Broadcasting Act in a question I had posed a bit earlier. Things have changed. The last time there was any significant change made to the Broadcasting Act was in the early nineties, when Netflix, Disney+ and Crave did not exist. This legislation levels the playing field. Why should the mainstream CTVs and CBCs, whether with respect to radio or television, have to comply with CanCon, but those other platforms do not?

There is this thing called the Internet, which has changed the dynamic. If we look back at 1991, and then look 30 years later, many technological changes have taken place. I say that to emphasize to my Conservative friends that they should be living in the real world and should understand that because of those changes there is a need to modernize the legislation. That is what this bill does. It levels the playing field and modernizes the Broadcasting Act to ensure that Canadian content is available on the Internet in a very selective way. However, what it does not do is what the Conservatives are telling Canadians.

This is interesting. On Monday, I was speaking on the legislation and talking about the misinformation the Conservative Party continues to put on the record here in the House and also tells Canadians. When I commented on how the freedoms of Canadians would not be limited in any way whatsoever by Bill C-11, this is what the Conservative critic had to say.

Immediately following the comments I made, the member for Lethbridge stated:

There is nothing progressive about censorship. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is about censoring Canadians and what they can see, hear and post online. It is about censoring artists, whether they have access to an audience and to what extent that access is granted.

Let me give a clear indication of some of the comments that I made. I said, just before she spoke, talking about what is actually in the legislation, that Conservatives have to stop spreading misinformation, whether it is in the chamber or publicly.

I said that this bill would not “impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media...impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users.”

Here is a big one. I said this to the member, who was listening attentively, because she was going to be speaking right after me: “It would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms” or, and here is where I would like to underline it, “limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.”

How much clearer can we be? Yet the member stands in her place and gives this misinformation.

One has to ask: why? What is the motivation of the Conservative Party? It is definitely not in the best interests of Canadians, I will say.

If it were in the best interests of Canadians, I suspect that Conservatives would approach Bill C-11 with, at the very least, a little bit more integrity and honesty. I suspect that one would see more sympathy toward our artists and creators and a basic understanding of the importance of modernizing the legislation. I would suggest that the Conservative Party is not doing what is in the interests of Canadians.

The Conservatives are appealing to that far right group of people from whom they are hoping to raise money. They are using this legislation as a fundraising tool. They are saying that it is about freedom, that the government is going to take away one's freedom, that it does not believe in freedom of speech and it is going to prevent people from uploading wonderful videos of their cat or dog or all of these wonderful things in their community.

They are telling Canadians that the Government of Canada is going to limit their freedoms and the only way to prevent that is to donate $5, $100 or $500 to the Conservative Party of Canada. That is their motivation. It is more about how they can use this to ratchet up the rhetoric to generate funds and to get people angry.

That is what this legislation is really about, according to the Conservative agenda. It is not about what is in the interests of the industry.

That is why I was so surprised with the behaviour of the Bloc today. In talking about the legislation, the Bloc has been fairly clear. It talks about how the industry, Canadian content, is so critically important.

If one has a love for the French language and wants to recognize Canada as a multicultural society and wants to see our heritage reflected as much as possible, through all forms of media, this is the type of legislation one should be getting behind, because it promotes French. It promotes Canadian culture and heritage. It puts in place more opportunities for Canadian artists, whether they are from my home province of Manitoba, the province of Quebec or any other jurisdiction.

We have some amazing talent in every region of our country. This legislation is going to support and enhance those opportunities for those Canadians to share that talent and to make a better living off those talents.

This bill would create opportunities for more employment in our communities. There are industries that are very much alive today as a direct result of policies like the Broadcasting Act and organizations like the CRTC that contribute to our heritage. We can follow the discussions and look at what is being said inside the chamber. The NDP; the Bloc, half-heartedly; and obviously the government have recognized the true value of the arts community in making up our identity and contributing in so many ways to our society.

I made reference just yesterday, or the day before, to Folklorama in Winnipeg. For that young artist who is provided the opportunity to perform in Folklorama in Winnipeg two weeks every summer, it is a beautiful place. Every member of the House should be visiting Folklorama, and I often talk about it inside the chamber. That young individual will be rehearsing throughout the year. It becomes a part of their identity, because they have a dream of being an artist, whether it is a singer, an actor or a combination thereof. Legislation such as this will enhance future opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is about levelling the playing field. It is about ensuring Canadian content, so there is a better reflection. I sure wish the Conservative Party would stop saying this, not only inside the House but more importantly outside the House. What the bill would not do is limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form. This is not a bill about freedom.

This is legislation that should have passed. It does not need to be thoroughly debated any more. We realize if we did not bring in closure on the legislation, the Conservative Party would continue to debate this legislation indefinitely. We would not be able to pass it in 2023 nor in all likelihood in 2024. That is the reason we have to bring in closure on this legislation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would love to have a debate on the budget right now, but we are debating Bill C-11. It is a comprehensive bill. I hope the member will speak to it on his fifth, sixth or seventh iteration, as he speaks on it more than anyone else. I just hope he can stay on the subject a little longer before—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member across the way just said “hear, hear!”, supporting that it did not pass. The Bloc needs to realize that the Conservative Party of Canada does not want this bill to pass. The Conservatives believe it is about freedom. They believe it is about censorship. The Bloc, much like it has been conned in the past on issues in the budget, is being conned by the Conservatives once again on this legislation.

I have seen the Bloc vote in favour of time allocation, even for closure. Bloc members have said that if it is a priority for the Bloc or a priority for Quebec, they will vote for it, as it is a benefit to Quebec. How does the province of Quebec benefit from allowing the Conservative Party to debate this bill endlessly? The Conservatives have made it very clear that they do not want the legislation to pass.

The only members of Parliament from the province of Quebec standing up for the passage of Bill C-11 are in the Liberal caucus, with one member from the NDP. I was surprised at the manner in which the Bloc chose to vote today.

Nothing has changed from the government's perspective. From the government's perspective, this is important legislation. It has been thoroughly debated. We are talking about hours and hours of debate. The bill has seen record amounts of debate in the Senate too.

This bill has gone through first reading, debates at second reading and debates, discussions, questions, answers and amendments at the committee stage. Then it came back to the House for report stage and third reading, and again there were debates. It was then sent to the Senate. The Senate had debate, it went to committee and they came up with a number of amendments. The Minister of Health made reference to the fact that we are talking about a historic number of hours. It is one of those bills that, considering the history of the Senate, has had so much discussion.

I want to highlight the fact that the Senate took its time in going through the legislation and looking at ways to add strength to it. Most of the amendments being proposed by the Senate to make changes after the efforts it put into the legislation are in fact being adopted by the government.

The bill had thorough discussions, debates and amendments, both in the Senate and in the House of Commons. However, because changes were made in the Senate, there was a need for us to bring forward the legislation once again in the House of Commons.

Let us look at the debate that started just the other day. The Conservatives are making it very clear that they are not going to allow the bill to move forward, because they have more members who would like to speak to the legislation. They have gone out of their way to prevent this legislation from passing, even with all the debate, questions and amendments that have gone forward.

Canadians have priorities that are reflected in the types of things the government is doing. The budget was just released yesterday, and we all have things we like about it. I like the fact that we have a grocery rebate. We are providing an opportunity for Canadians to get relief from inflation by providing them support and giving them more money in their pockets so they can deal with the cost of groceries. These are the types of debates we should be having inside the chamber.

In the budget yesterday we talked about a dental plan, and ensuring it will be there. If we look Bill C-11—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be uncomfortable about this. Had the Bloc's will prevailed, we would not have had closure on Bill C-11.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague from Winnipeg North, who just started his speech, is speaking as if we were still debating the closure motion.

I simply want to tell the member that we just voted on the closure motion. We can now talk about Bill C-11, which is before us today. The vote is over, and there is no need to insist on the subject.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise again on important legislation that in essence sets the framework of where we need to go to support our creators and artists from coast to coast to coast.

Before I get into the substance of the legislation, I want to provide a commentary on my disappointment in the Bloc. Bloc members like to talk about how they believe in culture and heritage and how they want to protect the interests of the arts community in the province of Quebec. However, the only members of Parliament from Quebec whom I saw stand up today to ensure this bill passed were the Liberal members of Parliament and one NDP member of Parliament. Whether they were Bloc or Conservative members of Parliament from the province of Quebec, they sent a message that they do not support the passage of Bill C-11.

Let us be very clear. Conservative Party members have said they do not want to pass Bill C-11. They have been crystal clear on that.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of Motion No. 2 in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, a little earlier my colleague opposite spoke about the arts community in his riding of Quebec City. Those artists support the bill. I can attest to that because I recently attended a meeting of the Union des artistes in Montreal. The artists are currently renegotiating agreements with producers on different platforms and in the film industry. I spoke at a meeting of the Union des artistes, where I said that Bill C-11 would soon pass and that there would likely be more money for artists. Obviously, Quebec artists support this bill. Not only do they all support it, they cannot wait for it pass.

Could my colleague talk a little more about the importance of passing this bill as quickly as possible?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to comment on the amount of conspiracy theories on the other side of the floor that keep being presented, along with misinformation and disinformation on Bill C-11.

The responses on this side of the floor have come in reaction to witnesses who have come to the House, to us, to other individuals and to the committee. The truth of the matter is this. I believe the concern on the other side of the floor, and the reason the Liberals want to shut down debate, is because, just like on other issues where we have been attacked as having conspiracy theories, the world is definitely finding out the truth on all of these issues. That would apply to this one as well, because those very methods of getting information, outside of what the government would like to see as the source, are revealing a great deal of truth about these issues. Yes, the CRTC needs to be improved, and I totally agree with that, but it needs to stay out of this realm.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that when we are calling on people to ask questions, we look at the proportionate representation that we have in the House for those who are standing and asking questions on the opposition side.

First of all, I want to comment that this is shutting down debate on Bill C-11.

Yes, there were comments that this has spent a lot of time in both the House and the Senate. However, that is because the bill was so poorly planned and poorly written. That is why there has been so much debate and so many amendments on the bill: It is just so awful.

What has happened now, just to make it really clear, is that the amendments have come to the House, but the government has turned down those amendments going to committee. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the public to comment on any of the amendments.

It is also very interesting that the minister who is here answering questions today on Bill C-11, a Broadcasting Act and Internet-related bill, is the health minister.

Rather than listening to all the people who had testified on this, all the digital content creators, the experts or the academics, he commented that his response was solely about how this would help organizations in his riding. That was very interesting.

My question is: Why are you shutting down debate and not allowing this to go to committee so that you can hear from Canadians?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. minister how distressed I am to see the hon. Minister of Health defending closure on debate on a bill that has nothing to do with his portfolio. Everything about closure offends basic democracy within Parliament.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. When I was first elected in 2011, I watched the then Conservative majority start the process of using closure on almost every bill. Sitting over there, my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I bemoaned and railed against this horrible abuse of our democratic process in Parliament. They did so only to turn around and use closure as often and then more often than the previous government did.

I do not particularly enjoy the debate on Bill C-11. It is not a battle of wits but a disinformation campaign versus facts. However, the reality is that every MP in this place has a right to debate, and closure is wrong.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that Bill C-11 is needed. We have seen a hemorrhaging of our artistic and cultural sectors. We have seen the loss of thousands of jobs. What Bill C-11 would do, in effect, is allow for more support for our cultural sector and more ability for Canadians to find Canadian content, to actually see Canadian artists and hear messages from other parts of Canada. This is absolutely essential.

That being said, two parties have approached this differently. The NDP approach Bill C-11 with the idea of improving the bill. We brought in important amendments to uphold the freedom of speech, to ensure indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians would be a bigger part of broadcasting and their content would be more available online.

Conservatives have been throwing wacky conspiracy theories onto the floor of the House of Commons, hour after hour, comparing Bill C-11 to what goes on in North Korea. There is nothing about mass starvation, prison camps or systemic torture in Bill C-11.

I want to ask my colleague across the way this question: Is the fact that the Conservatives wasted all of this debating time by throwing in wacky conspiracy theories part of the importance of actually getting this bill through to help Canadian artists in the cultural sector?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard from the government is that it has moved closure on Bill C-11 and our discussion with regard to the amendments that came back from the Senate.

Closure means that the government is shutting down debate. I find this rather interesting because, really, Bill C-11 is a censorship bill, so we have a government that has moved a censorship bill and now is moving censorship on that censorship bill. Let us talk about a government very committed to censorship; it not only wants to censor what Canadians can see, hear and post online through Bill C-11, but the government also wants to censor us as opposition members in our ability to speak to the bill.

It should be further noted that the Quebec government, under Premier Legault, issued an open letter asking to be heard with regard to this legislation, because it has significant concerns. It asked that the bill be referred to committee, but it was not.

Therefore, not only was referral to committee not permitted, but now thorough debate is not permitted. Let us talk about a government committed to shutting down voices, not only the voices of the individuals in the House but also the individuals online who have something to say within that space. Why is this government so hell-bent on shutting down freedom?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to consideration of Motion No. 2 respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Motion No. 2 regarding Senate amendments to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You're right. You had better believe a big change is coming.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister accused me of fighting with the mayors. Damn right, I am going to be fighting. I will be fighting to get housing for our people. Our young people deserve to live in a home and I will be putting in place serious financial penalties for big-city mayors who block housing construction and big building bonuses for those who get out of the way and allow housing to be built. Yes, absolutely, we will bring it home. Their solution is to shovel another $4 billion into municipal bureaucracies so that there are even more gatekeepers to block construction.

My view is very simple. I will pay for results. Their infrastructure budget from the federal government will be based on the number of keys in doors. The houses will have to be finished and there will have to be people moving in for every dollar they want to get in federal infrastructure money. I will require every federally funded transit station to have high-density apartments built around and over top. Why is it that Hong Kong has the only profitable transit system on Planet Earth? They sell the air rights right over the stations so that people live right on top of the transit. That is the most effective way to do it. However, in Canada, the gatekeepers and the rich, leafy neighbourhoods filled with champagne socialists do not want anybody else living in the neighbourhood. They want the transit stations all to themselves. That is not going to happen any more. If I am going to fund transit stations, I am going to require that working-class people are allowed to live next to them and they will be able to live there without even having to work there.

We have these big, ugly buildings, 37,000 federal buildings. Most of them are actually empty with people working from home. These big, ugly, empty buildings are shrines to the incompetence of the government. I will sell them off to developers so that they can be converted into low-income housing. It warms my heart to think of the beautiful family rolling up in their U-Haul to move into their wonderful new home in the former headquarters of the CBC.

We are going to honour the trades. We need tradespeople who can actually build stuff. We are going to make sure, unlike Liberals, who turn their noses up at working-class tradespeople, that trades and apprenticeships get the same support from government that universities and professionals do.

We are going to accelerate bringing in more tradespeople from abroad and we are going to make sure that young people are told that working in the trades is every bit as honourable and prestigious as working in a profession. Our tradespeople are the backbone of this country.

We are going to bring home safe streets again. We know that the crime, the chaos and the savage violence that has been unleashed across the land is the direct result of Liberal-NDP policies, which have flooded our streets with violent criminals and dangerous drugs. They brought in catch-and-release, so that the same violent criminals get released again and again. The same 40 people were arrested 6,000 times in Vancouver in one year. That is 150 arrests per person per year, as a direct result of the Prime Minister's bail reform.

My government will end the catch-and-release and bring jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.

Secondly, we are going to tackle the scourge of drug overdose deaths that have been unleashed in this country under the policies of the Liberals and the NDP.

They told us that they had all the evidence to do the things that made no sense to common-sense people. They said that if we only legalize drugs and we use taxpayers' money to give people the drugs, then there will be no more overdoses because we will be able to guarantee that these drugs are safe.

They actually have heroin vending machines that they are funding with tax dollars. They are very proud of it. They say that they are using biometrics so that people can walk up and put their fingerprint out and out pops hydromorphone.

Oxycontin causes the opioid crisis. Hydromorphone is three times more powerful than oxycontin. It is almost heroin.

What happens? The users take those drugs and they find that they are not strong enough after a while, so what do they do? They sell them to kids and they take the money and use it for fentanyl.

This government is spending, in this budget, hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funds to provide even more drugs that will kill our people.

This policy is an unmitigated nightmare. The lower Eastside of Vancouver has turned into hell on earth. The number of overdose deaths is 300% higher in British Columbia than when this Prime Minister took office.

We are now seeing, across Canada, 22 overdose deaths every single day. It does not make sense.

By the way, the same disgusting pharma companies that started the crisis in the first place are going to get some of the money from this budget to sell the hydromorphone that will perpetuate the ongoing addiction. The same corporate scumbags that unleashed this crisis by deliberately turbocharging sales and encouraging overdoses, with bonuses for distributors who caused them, are now getting money from this government to pay for the so-called safe supply of what is nearly a heroin-grade opioid.

This is the most disgusting and outrageous policy perhaps that the government has ever implemented.

We have a solution. We are going to ban hard drugs. We are going to stop using tax dollars to hand out those drugs. We are going to provide treatment. We are going to make it easier to get treatment than it is to get drugs.

We are going to make the pharmaceutical companies that caused this crisis pay the bill when I launch a $45-billion lawsuit to recover the money from them. That is what I am going to do.

We are going to bring home our brothers, sisters, friends and neighbours, drug-free. We are going to restore the hope that anything is possible in this country for them, that there is always a chance at redemption, that anybody can turn their lives around. We have seen what treatment can do, the countless stories that I have heard when I go across the country.

I met a nurse in Timmins who had been a nurse until she got hooked on opioids in the hospital. She lost her job, lost her family and ended up on the street, but went and got treatment and recovered. Now she has a job as a waitress. She has her daughter back, she has her dignity back and she has her life back. There are going to be many more stories like that when we bring home our friends and family drug-free.

We are going to bring home our freedom to this country. The more government we have, the less freedom remains. This big, powerful government forgets its core responsibility. First and foremost is our national defence. We are going to bring the dollars out of the back office and onto the front lines and stop wasting defence dollars on big corporate procurement screw-ups. We will make sure the money goes into the soldiers' hands and into the support of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. We are going to end the woke culture that is driving our young people away from the military and restore pride in our armed forces again.

Bringing home our freedom means bringing back democratic decision-making to this country by fighting against foreign interference, including by introducing a foreign interference registry and stopping foreign governments from interfering in our elections. Our capital is Ottawa; it is not Beijing and it is not Davos. By the way, I would be banning every single minister in my government from any involvement in the World Economic Forum.

We would bring home free speech by repealing Bill C-11, which attempts to give government the control of what people see and say on the Internet. We think that there are already 37 million Canadian content regulators. They are called the citizens of Canada and they have the right to decide what they see and say on the Internet in a free country.

I pointed out earlier that we had a deal in this country that if people work hard they get a good living and a good life. It is a deal that, like everything else in Liberal Canada, is broken. However, it is not the first deal that has ever happened in the history of our democracy. The first deal was over 800 years ago when a spoiled, power-hungry inheritor of the Crown, King John, had taken the Crown from his father. Does that remind people of anyone? He was overtaxing his people. He was taking away their freedoms: arresting without charge, confiscating without compensation and violating all the rules that we now take for granted. However, the commoners forced him to the fields of Runnymede and required that he sign the deal: the Magna Carta, the great charter, which, for the first time, brought liberty under the law and made what is now called “the state” a servant and not a master of the people. That is our purpose here as well.

We understand, on this side of the House, that we are servants. We are not masters. This is the House of Commons, the house of the common people. It is green because the first commoners met in the fields of Runnymede, which were also green. They were the ones who harvested that field. They are the ones for whom we work. We stand for the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for generating that much enthusiasm and excitement for what I have to say because it is riveting. It is going to save our privacy and information, if people would just listen to what I have to say here right now, but I digress.

In that 23 years since I started teaching at Red Deer college and since the passing of the original act, PIPEDA, as it is affectionately known, IT, our information systems and our networks have developed so rapidly that the legislation has not kept up. That lack of urgency is not only in the government in getting it wrong in the previous Bill C-10. I am not talking about the disastrous Bill C-11 we have been talking about recently. I am talking about the previous version of Bill C-11 back when the current Bill C-11 was Bill C-10. As I said earlier in my speech, there are so many pieces of legislation that the government has had to redo that it gets difficult to keep track of all the numbers over the years and over the Parliaments.

I would just urge my colleagues to stop to consider the very important nature of this legislation as it pertains to the protection of our personal information. Are there some things in this bill that I could support and that others in the House should be supporting? Of course there are. The bill presented in the House today allows us to have a conversation about the future of Canada's privacy protection and other technological advances, such as those found in artificial intelligence, which is the next great breakthrough. It will challenge us as lawmakers in this place to keep up with the technological advances, all of the good and bad that come from artificial intelligence.

As I understand it, the EU's 2016 General Data Protection Regulation, otherwise known as the GDPR, is the gold standard for this type of regulation and I hope that, despite some of our differences here, and there are many, we could at least agree to strengthen the privacy protections for Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, he is certainly better known for the way his trademark mangling and misuse of words and phrases has resulted in strangely keen insights that are still widely quoted today by many. I have a few favourites. One of them is “I didn't really say everything that I said.” Another one is “We made too many wrong mistakes.” Another is “Swing at the strikes.”

When I thought about Bill C-27 and preparing to speak today, it brought to mind Yogi-isms, and not only because those examples I just cited reminded me of the Liberals' poor approach to governance but because the title of this bill is a real mouthful at 35 words long. This brought that to mind as well.

For now, I will call it the consumer privacy protection act, but it is really summed up best by what is probably the greatest Yogi-ism of all, which is “It's déjà vu all over again.” That really speaks to it. The member was looking for me to tie it back in, so there it is. There is the tie back in.

Here we are in 2023 and here I am speaking on yet another rehash of another Liberal bill from years previous. They have a real penchant for that, these Liberals. They kind of remind me of Hollywood Studios that no longer seems to be able to produce an original script so it just keeps churning out sequels. If Bill C-27 was a film, one could call it “Bill C-11, the redo”. Bill C-27 is essential a warmed-over version of previous Bill C-11, the digital charter implementation act the Liberals introduced back in 2020.

It is not to be confused with the current Bill C-11, which is also making its way through Parliament and is the online streaming act and which also poses another threat to Canadians' privacy and online freedoms.

It is really easy to see a bit of a pattern evolving here. In any case, in May 2021 the Privacy Commissioner said the digital charter act “represents a step back overall from our current law and needs significant changes if confidence in the digital economy is to be restored.” It of course died when the Prime Minister cynically called an expensive and unnecessary election nobody wanted and everybody paid for and that did not change the Prime Minister's political fortunes one iota.

Bill C-27 carries the stamp of that former digital charter proposal, which Conservatives had concerns about then, and which we still have concerns about in its new form now. Some of the text is in fact directly lifted from Bill C-11 and the text of that bill is available for all to review.

Let us talk more about the impact of the bill's content, rather than the wording itself.

The bill purports to modernize federal private sector privacy law, to create a new tribunal and new laws for AI, or artificial intelligence, systems. In doing so, it raises a number of red flags. Perhaps the most crimson of those flags, for me, is that the bill does not recognize privacy as a fundamental right. That is not actually all that surprising, because this is a Liberal bill. I hear daily from Canadians who are alarmed by how intrusive the Liberal government has become, and who are also fearful of how much more intrusive it still seems to hope to become.

It just seems just par for the course for the government that, in a bill dealing with privacy, it is failing to acknowledge that, 34 years ago, the Supreme Court said privacy is at the very heart of liberty in a modern state, individuals are worthy of it, and it is worthy of constitutional protection.

When we talk about privacy, we have to talk about consent. We have seen far too many examples of Canadians' private and mobility data being used without their consent. I think some of these examples have been cited previously, but I will cite them again.

We saw the Tim Hortons app tracking movements of people after their orders. We saw the RCMP's use of Clearview AI's illegally created facial recognition database. We saw Telus' “data for good” program giving location data to the Public Health Agency of Canada.

These were breaches of the privacy of Canadians. There needs to be a balance between use of data by businesses and that fundamental protection of Canadians' privacy. The balance in this bill is just wrong. It leans too heavily in one direction.

There are certainly issues with user content and use of collected information. For instance, there are too many exemptions from consent. Some exemptions are so broad that they can actually be interpreted as not requiring consent at all. The concept of legitimate interests has been added as an exception to consent, where a legitimate interest outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual. Personal information would be able to be used and shared for internal research, analysis and development without consent, provided that the content is de-identified. These exemptions are too broad.

The bill's default would seek consent where reasonable, rather than exempt the requirement. In fact, there are several instances where the bill vaguely defines terms that leave too much wiggle room for interpretation, rather than for the protection of Canadians. For example, there is a new section regarding the sharing of minors' sensitive information, but no definition of what “sensitive” means is given, and there would be no protection at all for adults' sensitive information. These are both problematic. De-identification is mandated when data is used or transferred, but the term is poorly defined and the possibility of data being reidentified is certainly there.

Anonymization or pseudonymization are the better methods, and the government needs to sharpen the terms in this bill to be able to sharpen those protections. An even more vague wording in the bill is that individuals would have a right to disposal, the ability to request that their data be destroyed. Clarification is certainly needed regarding anonymization and the right to delete or the right to vanish.

There are many more examples. I know my colleagues will certainly expand on some of those questions as posed in the bill. I know my time is running short. I want to speak to the individual privacy rights of Canadians briefly.

Canadians value their privacy even as their government continually seeks ways to compromise it. The Public Health Agency of Canada secretly tracked 33 million mobile devices during the COVID lockdown. The government assured them their data would not be collected, but it was collecting it through different means all along.

Public confidence is not that high when the Liberals start to mess in issues involving privacy. The onus should be on the government to provide clarity around the use and collection of Canadians' private information because, to quote another Yogi-ism, “If you don't catch the ball, you catch the bus home.”

Online Streaming Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Canadians have done very well on the Internet as it is today. They have been able to access the international market and share their culture and artistic abilities with other Canadians.

The fear we have was reflected by Justin Tomchuk, a filmmaker, who said, “If Bill C-11 disrupts the discoverability of Canadian creators globally”, as there is concern out there that trade action could be taken, “I can see a scenario where some companies with few physical ties will leave the country entirely so they can continue to work unimpeded by these aggressive mandates.”

An overly zealous government with more regulations will drive away the great artists we have here now, those creating great content, and companies that see an advantage in coming to Canada to create wonderful movies, TV shows and other creations we like. We do not want that to happen. Let us make sure we have a level playing field and open up Canada for everyone to come here and create amazing art and culture.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot tonight about creating even playing fields, but Bill C-11 is about doing the opposite. It would make the field less even, take us backward and jam the Internet into a 1971 system around Canadian content.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether he agrees that there is nothing more even than the playing field of an unfettered Internet.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be standing up to reiterate what all my colleagues have been saying tonight: It is time to kill Bill C-11.

The legislation is about giving the government more power and making sure that we have extra regulation. If we give the CRTC more regulations, that means more red tape and more gatekeepers telling us what we can and cannot watch; it also equals less opportunity for us, as Canadians, and less opportunity for creators who are using the Internet. We know that it comes with more costs.

We already heard that the government is going to ask content providers to make sure that they have the appropriate broadcast licences to go onto YouTube and other social media platforms and get their creations out there. These creations may be online programming, some of the short films being produced, animation or sharing their music. Now they are actually going to have to pay for a licence to have their own channels on social media.

We have already witnessed how government intervention has cost us as consumers. Canadians already pay the highest Internet service fees in the world. We pay the highest mobile phone bills, more than anywhere else in the developed world. To me, that is extremely disturbing. Canadians continue to pay more and more, while everybody else seems to be getting away with paying less while getting better services than we get from our phone companies or Internet service providers.

We still have lots of Canadians, including in my riding, who do not have access to high-speed broadband. They do not have that opportunity to actually see what we are talking about here on Bill C-11 because they still do not have the ability to hook up online.

As Conservatives, we believe that Canadians should be given more of what they want. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition wants the government to tell Canadians what they can watch or see on YouTube and other social media platforms.

The question here, and we are going to use a little theatre, is 2(b) or not 2(b). Of course, I am talking about section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under fundamental freedoms in section 2, it says that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

If we go to Justice Canada's own website, and we are talking about a department of the federal government, it says:

The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfilment through expression.... The Supreme Court of Canada has maintained that the connection between freedom of expression and the political process is “perhaps the linchpin” of section 2(b) protection.... Free expression is valued above all as being instrumental to democratic governance. The two other rationales for protecting freedom of expression [are] the search for truth through the open exchange of ideas, and fostering individual self-actualization, thus directly engaging individual human dignity.

Canadians who value their Charter of Rights, who understand the freedom of expression, are all the ones out there denouncing what Bill C-11 could do. That is why we are hearing from social media content creators. A lot of them have their own shows where they share their political views. They share a lot of things, from criticizing what is going on in the film industry to criticizing what is happening here in the House of Commons. They fear, and they have testified at committee, that their ability to share their thoughts online, and the costs that come with it, would undermine their freedom of speech, expression, and opinion and thought. This would happen through the excess licensing that this bill would create.

That is why, as Conservatives, we are standing so strongly in opposition to what is very much a censorship bill that we are seeing from the Liberal-NDP coalition.

We heard through the debate tonight a lot of times from the Liberals asking where the legal expertise was. All we have to do is look at Phil Palmer, who is a constitutional lawyer and former official in the Department of Justice. He argued that Bill C-11 is unconstitutional. He said:

...C-11 lacks a foundation in Canadian constitutional law. Internet streaming services do not transmit to the public by radio waves, nor do they operate telecommunications facilities across provincial boundaries. They and their audiences are the clients of telecommunications common carriers, which are subject to federal regulation. Netflix, for instance, in this case is no more a federal undertaking than a law firm such as McCarthy Tétrault or a chain store like Canadian Tire, both of which rely extensively on telecommunications services.

We are talking about a situation where we have the Government of Canada overstepping its means through Bill C-11 and infringing upon the rights of Canadians, Canadian companies, individuals and our artists. I would make the argument that Bill C-11 would actually penalize content creators, including our artists, whether they are creating music, culture, clothing or any other type of art that is out there on social media.

We already heard from the member for Sarnia—Lambton. She talked about the monetization and the ability of creators who have been able to go online and make a good living selling their music, art and any bit of their creations. Right now, if we regulate the industry, we are talking about $1 billion a year that the arts community is going to be able to earn. Today, without government interference, it is making $5 billion a year. Why would we want to limit the ability of our arts and culture industry to actually make less?

I guess there is the argument out there about having a free market versus government intervention. We know that government intervention always equals more dependency, because people are going to have to rely on grants and subsidization to be able to earn a living. I think the Liberal-NDP coalition, and I think my colleagues will agree with me, actually loves when Canadians become more dependent, because if they are more dependent, the government gets to control them.

A great example of that is the $595-million media bailout and how the government has control of our free press, supposedly.

This is a debate about freedom. This is about the debate to have freedom to create, share and earn a living. This is about freedom of Canadians to view and listen to what we as consumers choose, without the gatekeepers dictating what we see and hear. This is about the freedom to express ourselves and participate in society online without any censorship, but we should not be surprised, since we have a Prime Minister who has said that he admires basic communist dictatorships.

I have heard from hundreds of constituents and Canadians across the country who oppose Bill C-11 as well as the NDP-Liberal coalition. They are worried about censorship. The artists and content providers are worried about the red tape, the extra costs and the limited market opportunities. Matthew Hatfield, who is the campaigns director of OpenMedia, encapsulates this the best. He raises the issue I think most Canadians are concerned about. He says:

...Bill C-11 must not give the CRTC the power to manipulate the results of algorithms on platforms. We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed in the front window of our bookstores or what kinds of stories must appear on the front pages of our newspapers. But that’s exactly what the discoverability provision in section 9.1(1) currently does. This dictatorial approach is not needed or appropriate.

I can tell Canadians that there is hope out there. A future Conservative government would kill Bill C-11.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

I am always proud to rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country on legislation we have before us. Bill C-11 is before us tonight at this very late hour. It would amend the Broadcasting Act.

Our constituency office has received hundreds and hundreds of emails, letters, phone calls and messages on this bill. Every time I am out in the community, people come up to me, letting me know how they do not want Bill C-11 to pass, as well as the former Bill C-10.

I think it is amazing that along with soaring gas and grocery bills and rising rent and mortgage payments, residents in my riding are letting me know that in addition to these very important topics, they are also concerned about this bill, which would affect their use of the Internet. I think it is because all of these topics affect their lives every day.

That level of attention is warranted because of what the government is proposing for this legislation to pass. It would cause unprecedented changes in how Canadians go about their daily lives online. Local residents in my community, Mitch and Lori, wrote to me to say that Bill C-11 represented the tipping point of government overreach.

Benji wrote to me to say that Bill C-11 would represent a major step back for our country.

Were Bill C-11 to pass, which it looks like it will with the Liberal-NDP coalition, those members in this House would be gifting the Liberals the power to play censor on what Canadians can see, if it does not match what they determine to be classified as Canadian content. The beneficiaries are the oldest legacy companies whose viewership has decreased. This bill would allow the government to have a policy directive implemented through actions like criteria. The government would give authority over online licensing and other matters. The only thing is that we have no idea what these would all be.

Bill C-11's twin bill, Bill C-18, would help failing legacy media companies looking for government cheques. They have found a perfect partner in the Liberals' desire for greater control of everyday Canadians' lives. A free and democratic country like Canada should never seek to empower the government with censorship powers to protect failing companies.

Canadians are rising up against the bill and against the Liberals for not listening. Bill C-11 is the government's proposed updating of the Broadcasting Act to provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, the power and authority to regulate online content platforms.

The stated reasoning behind Bill C-11 is to bring the CRTC into the 21st century, while supporting Canadian artists and promoting the spread of Canadian content over that of international competition. While that may seem like a noble goal, there are reasons Canadian artists, legal experts and digital content providers are speaking out against this bill. In fact, this legislation is going to suck content creator innovation into an antiquated Broadcasting Act black hole.

There are profound questions about using the CRTC bureaucrats as online regulators, as would be granted by Bill C-11. Here I am again in this House standing against bureaucracy and government overreach. This bureaucracy, the CRTC, took over a year to implement a three-digit number for mental health emergencies, despite that action being called for unanimously by all members of this House. This organization has proven to lack accountability. It regulates the telecoms and we know that Canadians pay some of the highest rates on the planet.

The questioning we did at the industry committee last summer of the CRTC, that I was part of at the time, on the Rogers' outage was like we were questioning a telecom executive and not an executive of the regulator.

The CRTC's expertise is primarily regulating radio waves, television feeds and advertising. If this bill passes, it would also be tasked with regulating user-content generating websites, like YouTube, where users upload hundreds of thousands of hours of video content every minute but even assuming they could do it, the federal government should not be policing what will be defined as Canadian content when using social or digital media platforms.

Canadians are right to question an organization having the power to censor or impose what content will be prioritized for Canadians to see online.

Here is the most concerning part: The criteria will come later and we have no idea what the criteria will be. We are just to trust the Liberals.

A free and open Internet is the gold standard of open, democratic nations around the world. The bottom line is that what we will search for and see online will be different after the CRTC puts in place its regulations, which will change online algorithms.

The former vice-chair of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, has come out strong, all along the way of this legislation. Of this legislation from the past Parliament, to which there really are few changes in the new legislation, he said, “Overall, it ensures that going forward all Canadians communicating over the internet will do so under the guise of the state.”

Then, in November 2022, Mr. Menzies stated, “If Bill C-11 passes and Internet regulation falls into political hands, Canadians will regret it for the rest of their lives.”

Many of the very people the Liberals say Bill C-11 would help do not even want it. There was extensive testimony, at both House of Commons and Senate committees, by content creators, digital experts and professors. Without Bill C-11, Canadian artists are succeeding in making their full-time livings producing content on digital platforms with the support of fellow Canadians and viewers from around the world, receiving billions of views.

Canadian social media stars bringing their concerns to the federal government about their content being hidden because of Bill C-11's regulations found themselves ignored. Over 40,000 content creators affiliated with Digital First Canada called for the discoverability rules in Bill C-11 to be removed. The government is not listening to all of these voices.

What is discoverability? It really is about, when one searches online, what comes to the top based on what one is asking about and what one's interests are. This legislation would change discoverability, because the CRTC would come up with criteria that would rise to the top.

The Liberals have refused every offer of good faith regarding Bill C-11, not just from regular Canadians but also from the government's appointed senators. Most of the senators are independent who sent an unusually high number of amendments, after months of study, back to the House of Commons.

The minister responsible made it clear he was rejecting all amendments that attempted to restrict the powers he sought for himself and the CRTC.

Once again, this has never been about good legislation, better regulation or updating our laws. It is about control for the Liberal government.

Some Canadians have already gotten a sneak preview of what life with Bill C-11 might be like. Recently, Google announced that, because of another overreaching online law, Bill C-18, it started a test run to temporarily limit access to news content, including Canadian news content, for some Canadian users of Google.

This was not an outright ban. However, people were searching and not seeing what they did before, and that is my point here. Censorship by big government or big tech has the same results.

When I debated the government's original version of this bill in the previous Parliament, I said that Canadians did not want this deeply flawed legislation that would limit speech and online viewing.

The number has changed from Bill C-10 to Bill C-11. Sadly, everything else has stayed the same, with some minor amendments from the Senate. The most important Senate amendments have been rejected by the government.

Canadians still do not want it, but the Liberals and their coalition partners insist on passing it. It is time for a government that protects consumer choice and encourages Canadian creators instead of getting in their way.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, one of the sections in Bill C-11 says, “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and it is recognized that it includes foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide programming to Canadians”.

Could the member explain how Margaret Atwood might say that this is creeping totalitarianism?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, could the member opposite tell me whether he thinks he is getting all these hundreds of emails about Bill C-11 because of all the misinformation about the legislation that is being perpetrated by the Conservatives?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it might have started as a good idea, but the Liberals, with the support of their NDP allies, could not resist the temptation to take this opportunity to reshape Canadian culture and society in their own image, so we are here in the House of Commons this evening, late at night, talking about Bill C-11, the so-called online streaming act. This act has morphed into the Liberals' attempt to regulate the Internet, and we are hearing from so many Canadians that this is a terrible idea.

The Liberals are saying that they are just updating the Broadcasting Act, which has not been updated in 30 years and, in the meantime, since the Internet has been invented and more people are getting their news, entertainment and information off the Internet and fewer people are going to the legacy media, it is important that they now regulate the Internet. However, they are saying that this does not affect user-generated content, the things that ordinary Canadians post on the Internet.

Here is the problem. As soon as that user-generated content becomes commercial, it falls within the rules, and the CRTC is going to regulate it and impose Canadian content rules on it. The question we ask then is the obvious question: At what point does our user-generated content become commercial, and at what point do we have to start worrying about the Canadian content rules? The answer we get is that we should not worry. We should leave it up to the Liberals because they are going to do it right and are going to leave it up to the CRTC to figure out what the rules are.

We asked if we could at least see a draft of the rules, and the answer was no, that we should trust them as they are the Liberal Party and know what Canadian culture is and what Canadians want to watch. It will commission the CRTC to come up with the new rules, and they will give it a policy directive. We asked them if we could see the policy directive, and the answer was no. Therefore, we as Canadians are left in the dark.

This is very important public policy that needs to be debated here in the House of Commons. This is the people's chamber. The people want to know what is going on with something as important as the Internet, which everybody relies on and has become pervasive in our society.

The Senate, the chamber of second thought just down the road, looked at this legislation. It did not approve it. It said there was a problem with it, that we need to get rid of user-generated content altogether. However, inexplicably, the Liberal government has said that it is not going to change anything. That is why we Conservatives and so many Canadians are against Bill C-11.

We are not alone. We have received so many emails, and I am sure the members opposite have also received a lot of emails, from people who have issues and problems with Bill C-11, but we are also hearing from higher profile people such as Margaret Atwood, for example, who has been cited here by several of my colleagues. She is a famous Canadian author who was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying that bureaucrats should not be telling creators what to write and should not decide what is Canadian.

She said, “So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to [write].” Those are not my words. They are the words of Margaret Atwood. She is a very fair and balanced person and acknowledges that Bill C-11 shows some signs of what she says are “well-meaning attempts to achieve some sort of fairness in the marketplace.” She added, “But like a lot of well-meaning attempts, if people haven't thought it through, the effect might be different from what [they] thought it would be.” Is this personal for Ms. Atwood? Maybe it is. The Emmy award-winning adaptation of her famous book The Handmaid's Tale failed the Canadian content rules. Imagine that, Canada's most-famous author is not Canadian content.

A person who lives in Abbotsford, right next door to my community of Langley, is Kris Collins, a.k.a kallmekris, who through her own ingenuity, creativity and determination, has become one of Canada's most popular TikTok stars. She has 48 million followers. It is phenomenal.

She is known around the world. She has learned how to monetize her social media presence. In the process, she was making a lot of money at it, so good for her, and all of this without the help or intervention of the CRTC. Ms. Collins figured out on her own what Canadians want and what the world wants. She knows how to market herself. She did not need the government.

This is what she says about the Liberal government's attempt to change all of that: “I am scared. I have been paying really close attention to Bill C-11, a.k.a. the online streaming act. It is something my fellow Canadian creators should be paying attention to, and all the viewers as well. Bill C-11 was supposed to be promoting Canadian storytelling online. In reality, the bill has ended up so broadly worded that it lets the CRTC interfere with every part of your online life.” This is exactly what Conservatives have been talking about: Liberal overreach.

We talked about the Senate, the chamber of sober second thought, as it likes to call itself or as Canadians call it. I have a quote from one of the senators, the Hon. David Richards. This is what he had to say about Bill C-11. I will read the first two sentences of his speech: “Honourable senators, I have a good deal of problems with this bill. I think it’s censorship passing as national inclusion.”

We hear the Liberals saying that it is not censorship at all, that people are free to post and write whatever they want and that the government is not telling them what not to write or what not to post. However, here is the problem. A bureaucratic body, the CRTC, would be tasked with deciding what to promote and, consequently, what to demote on the Internet, all based on that body's idea of what is good Canadian content, keeping in mind that Margaret Atwood did not pass the test.

Senator Richards went on to talk about equality, quoting somebody who commented a lot about equality, and that is author George Orwell, who, in his novel Animal Farm, said, about the society he was talking about, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” That is the issue here. That is why so many Canadians are upset with this legislation. They are feeling like they are less equal than people who might agree with the Liberal government's idea of what is Canadian culture and what is good for our society.

I want to quote one of those ordinary Canadians. This is a person who lives in my riding, Perry Springman, who wrote me a very thoughtful email. I have gotten a lot of emails, hundreds of them, and the vast majority are clearly against Bill C-11, urging Conservatives to vote against it. There are a handful that have some reserved support for the bill. I just wanted to get that on the record, to be fair. This is what Mr. Springman said: “Our family has lived in Langley, B.C. for the past 16 years and have family ties to this city for almost 50 years. We have enjoyed the freedoms we have as Canadians to choose what we want to see on the internet, freedom of speech, freedom of expression. In the past few years, we are seeing these freedoms erode. While we are always careful to warn our kids of the potential dangers of some of the content on the internet, we are very much against the government deciding what we should have access to. Therefore, we would like to express our deep displeasure in the Federal Government's attempt to pass the Bill C-11. In no way do we support the passing of this bill.”

This is just a sample. I do not have time to read more.

When I was a kid, my dad used to tell me and my brothers, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I will grant that the government's Bill C-11 probably started with good intentions, but, in typical overreach, Bill C-11 went off the rails. I know the Liberals are not going to take advice from the Conservatives, because they always say that they do not have to, but will they take advice from ordinary Canadian citizens, experts in the field and people like the Springman family? Will they at least take advice from the Senate, which is telling them that this legislation is wrong?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, here is a little late-night levity, maybe, to bring a smile to everyone's face. To the member, does it make him scared that this bill would twist the arms of Canadians to watch what bureaucrats want them to watch? Would it make some providers feel like they are “locked in the trunk of a car”, and does he believe Conservatives “are ahead by a century” on Bill C-11?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, and be heard, as the member aptly interjected.

This includes those who upload content to social media platforms and other digital platforms. They expect to be just as visible as their neighbours, regardless of how Canadian the CRTC thinks their content is.

Even with the amendments put forward by the Senate, Bill C-11 remains a misguided and deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is one that ironically does not reflect Canadian values and the realities of digital content creation. Canadians are rightly concerned about the infringement on their freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach that this bill, like Bill C-10 before it, could have on them, on the freedom of speech and on the freedom to be heard.

The government does not trust Canadians with freedom.

If ensuring citizens were accessing local content online was truly a pressing issue, would we not see other governments around the world enacting similar legislation? We have heard the criticism of comparing the bill to other authoritarian states, but when it comes to online censorship or the possibility of it, that is exactly where this potential legislation can go. These are not countries that we want to emulate.

Initially, the government put forward, in clause 7, unprecedented power of the government over the CRTC. The Senate rejected this amendment and, fortunately, in the light of day, the government accepted that rejection. Many stakeholders were concerned about the amount of regulatory authority this would give the government over communications in Canada.

It is difficult to imagine how the government could put forward legislation with so many unintended side effects and areas of ambiguity. It has led many to speculate that the so-called side effects were actually the true intention of the bill. I must admit, I do not blame them for entertaining such thoughts. The alternative seems to be that so little thought was put into a bill of such consequence that they did not realize the impact it would have on Canadian creators and Canadian internet users.

We are seeing a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns about the way their government is handling their livelihoods and entertainment. Under Bill C-10, the attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and limit Canadians' free speech and free hearing was unacceptable, and it is still unacceptable in its current form under Bill C-11.

The number of jobs created by content creators who have enough audience to monetize their channels, like YouTube, in Canada is estimated at about 28,000 full-time jobs. Instead of hindering this type of digital-first Canadian content creation, we should be supporting it. The best way to ensure Canadian content is allowed to thrive is by empowering our creators and not limiting them.

We must not only support our Canadian artists but also pave the way for the next generations' success. We have an obligation to ensure that new bills do not hinder the creativity and the individuality of our creators so that innovation can be fostered. This country has a wealth of venues where inventive ideas emerge daily, and it is in our best interests to help our creators export their talent around the world.

As Conservatives, we will always support Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by protecting their rights and freedoms. Bill C-11 remains an unacceptable attack on those freedoms, as it provides both the CRTC and the government with unprecedented control over online content.

This is a misguided piece of legislation that will see the potential end of free speech and free hearing for Canadians online. Why does this government not trust Canadians with freedom?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, irrespective of the hour, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Before I go on, I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom. Members will hear me say that several times more.

The bill returns to us from the Senate, where more than two dozen amendments were unanimously agreed to, and I will not get into the 26 versus 29. That should give us all a sense of the state of this piece of legislation. We want to thank our counterparts in the upper chamber for their efforts to improve this heavily flawed bill.

Let us all go back for a moment to the beginning of Bill C-11. Its purpose was to update the 1991 Broadcasting Act, to bring equity and fairness into a new age of communication tools, and hopefully have a structure and adopt principles for new communication platforms that we have not even dreamed of yet. That was a goal we could all support.

However, as is too often the wont of the government, it is the overreach of this bill that we must now focus on so that a problem that needed solving does not become a bigger problem than the one we started with. That brings us here today.

The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom.

One of the most important amendments involves the protection of user-generated content from regulation by the CRTC and focuses the scope of the bill toward professional, copyrighted music, music with a unique signifier number or videos that have been broadcast on mainstream media and then uploaded.

Importantly, this amendment removes the clause that would add the criteria of direct or indirect revenue. Unfortunately, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already indicated that the government would not support any amendments that “impact the bill”. Here, my analysis would cause me to read “impact” as “improve”. It is disheartening to hear the minister reject impactful amendments that could be greatly beneficial to our Canadian content creators.

These creators rightfully expect the government to implement responsible legislation that creates a safe and competitive environment for them to continue growing their brand and sharing their Canadian reality.

What no Canadian creator, indeed no Canadian, expects is for their government to begin telling them what it means to be Canadian. Yet, by giving the CRTC the power to regulate Canadian Internet users and define what can be categorized as Canadian content, or CanCon, the government is instead restricting those Canadians who are on the forefront of Canadian digital content creation.

Artists and creators who excel in their fields deserve nothing less than an equal playing field and the tools they need to succeed. It is the users of the content, not the government, who should determine how often it is viewed or the ease in which new viewers could find new material. In addition to fair compensation, they should also be able to share their stories through the medium of their choice, be it television, film, music, prose or, what we are talking about now tonight, online.

The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom.

The government is sending the message to people that says they should not be trusted with the freedom to create and view the content of their choice online. It is continuing its “Ottawa knows best” approach of limiting individual freedoms by creating problems with user-generated content that do not exist.

The government has had an opportunity here to adapt how it treats the arts, culture and media to suit modern realities and platforms. Instead, the Prime Minister has rejected every attempt to include safeguards in the bill that would protect the freedoms of Canadian Internet users to ensure that they have access to the content of their choice and not what the government decides to promote or de-promote.

Again, the government does not trust Canadians with freedom.

Another important amendment proposed by the Senate is the definition of CanCon itself. This amendment would make sure that the CRTC considers all factors like the producer of the content, the key creators of the content, furthering Canadian expression, whatever that means because it is not defined, the amount of collaboration among Canadian industry professionals and anything else brought into regulation before disqualifying content as CanCon. Again, as in the previously mentioned amendment, this amendment would certainly impact the bill, so the government rejected it.

We must not lose sight of the fact that culture naturally grows and evolves over time. Canada has long-prided itself on being welcoming to the cultures of many different peoples. In fact, if one turns on television today, one may hear a CBC ad that says, “It's not how Canadian you are. It's who you are in Canada.” Yes, I watched the CBC Saturday night because the hockey game was on.

Why then is the government putting forward legislation aiming to do just the opposite by determining how Canadian one's content is?

What we absolutely do not support is online legislation that would affect what people can access on the Internet. Having freedom of speech and the ability to express oneself freely within the confines of the law is crucial—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things about this legislation that I wish were different. I do not think I have ever seen a bill in this place, even the ones I would be persuaded to vote for, that I thought was perfect. However, the difficulty I have in this debate are the exaggerations, and I am pleading with colleagues on the Conservative side. Comparing Canada with the People's Republic of China is just not supportable. It is just not, and it makes it impossible to engage in a thoughtful debate when there are such really damaging claims that hurt our democracy being made in this place.

There are flaws in Bill C-11, for sure, but it is not totalitarian, it is not the People's Republic of China and it is not North Korea. It is Canadian content. If the hon. member wants to call Canadian content mediocre, that is his right, but do not claim that Bill C-11 puts Canadians in a situation anywhere comparable to that of people who live in totalitarian states.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join this debate, mostly to refute some of the claims that have been made by Liberals and the NDP about the Conservative position on this bill.

During debate on Bill C-11, the Liberals and the NDP have falsely claimed the Conservatives do not care about Canadian artists and that we do not care about Canadian culture. They have accused us of spreading misinformation and are insisting, falsely, that this bill is somehow necessary to protect Canadian culture.

I want to clear the air on the first part. I love Canadian culture. I am fascinated by all things Canadian, and I love travelling to new places in Canada. I love its land and people, and I am always fascinated by how Canada's history shapes its culture. I have always read Canadian authors. I have always listened to Canadian music. In my formative years, the eighties, most of my favourite bands were Canadian. In my university days in the early nineties, I went to countless live shows with emerging Canadian artists.

I have been buying Canadian books, Canadian albums and Canadian concert tickets for decades, but this bill is not about ensuring the health of Canadian culture. This bill is about giving extraordinary powers to a federal institution to influence what Canadians find, see, hear and post on the Internet.

This bill would give the CRTC powers that do not belong in a free and democratic society. This bill gives the CRTC the power to compel web platforms to favour some content over other content depending on the CRTC's preference, not the consumer's preference. This government interference with consumer preference naturally conjures up all kinds of thoughts of governmental control over the arts and access to information from both real history and literary dystopias.

When the Conservatives, or anybody, suggest that this bill is on a spectrum of governmental control that might include Goebbels' ministry of public enlightenment, the Soviet censorship system or Orwell's fictitious ministry of truth, Canadians and Conservatives who have engaged in this debate are merely raising the same concerns raised by experts, eminent Canadians and Liberal-appointed senators. These points have been made by academic experts like Michael Geist. They have been made by eminent Canadians like Margaret Atwood and David Richards. The latter happens to be a Liberal-appointed senator. They have been made by the former CRTC chair Peter Menzies.

We are raising the points made by contemporary professional digital content creators who have come to committee to say they are desperately worried that this bill is going to destroy their livelihoods. We are not making this up. This bill gives power to the CRTC to create winners and losers. It directs the CRTC to separate content the CRTC thinks Canadians should find, see, hear and post from content the CRTC thinks Canadians should not be able to find, see, hear or post. The Liberals and the NDP are welcome to make the argument that it is a good thing for the CRTC to differentiate between what Canadians should find and what they should not find on the Internet. They can make that argument, but they cannot argue that this bill does not do exactly that. That is the point of this bill.

What about Canada's 50-year history of mandatory Canadian content for broadcasters? We have heard lots about this in points when members are refuting Conservative speeches. The Liberals say that this bill is just evening the playing field by treating the Internet like old-fashioned TV and radio. Are we seriously talking about evening the playing field?

The infinity of the Internet is the ultimate level playing field. Nothing has been done to break down barriers between artists and their audience like the Internet. When the Liberals say this bill is levelling the playing field, what they really mean is they want to make the Internet every bit as uneven as the playing field the CRTC already regulates.

Once, the Soviet Union took a very dim view of western music. It banned not only American and British artists but even Canadian artists, like Rush, which was banned in the Soviet Union. It also banned the entire genres these artists popularized. There was no rock and roll, no jazz, no blues and nothing that could be associated with decadent capitalist western culture in the Soviet Union. If someone was living in the Soviet Union, all they could get was Russian classical music performed by trusty state-sanctioned and state-funded orchestras. Imagine being denied the Beatles because they did not fit in with the government's bureaucrats' ideas of what a model citizen should enjoy.

Although Bill C-11 is certainly not promising to ban foreign content from Canadians, it is proposing to gently suppress foreign or unregistered Canadian content in favour of content approved by bureaucrats at the CRTC. Let no one doubt who leads these bureaucrats. The Liberals always appoint their own when it comes to boards and commissions, including at least one defeated Liberal candidate sitting as the current CRTC commissioner.

That leads us right to the heart of why it is wrong to treat the Internet like 1970s radio and television: There is simply no way that a bunch of bureaucrats hand-picked by the Liberals can be arbiters of who and what is Canadian content. Despite what the Liberals and the NDP, and particularly its House leader, have been saying all night, there has never been a golden age of Canadian content regulation. Back in the eighties, people knew that when a song or TV show came on that nobody actually liked, it was on just because it ticked the boxes and was Canadian content. In the seventies, a checklist system was made whereby if something ticked enough boxes, it was in and was Canadian content. However, this system was always fraught with problems, like system gaming. We have heard about this tonight. Do members remember when Bryan Adams was not Canadian enough to be considered Canadian content? He was a Canadian who lived in Canada, in Vancouver, but other songs recorded by American bands in Vancouver could qualify as Canadian, maybe if the record producer slipped in a writing credit.

Bureaucrats with the power to censor, subsidize or otherwise make choices on behalf of consumers are the worst arbiters of good taste. That is why the Soviet Union could never make a decent pair of blue jeans. It is true. If we put bureaucrats in charge of something like this, they are not going to come up with what the people really want. That is why my favourite Canadian novelist, Mordecai Richler, once called the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council and the Toronto Arts Council “mediocrity's holy trinity”. That is what he called them.

With all due respect for the Canadian artists who have testified at committee that the old rules helped their careers decades ago, I think some of them are being too modest. The Tragically Hip owe their success to their incredible talent as songwriters and performers and how hard they worked in their formative years. The Canadian content system may well have helped them, but their connection with Canadians and Canadian audiences seemed inevitable to me, just like a generation earlier when Rush produced their own album. They found an audience in Cleveland on the radio and then made their way back into Canada and throughout the world.

Bill C-11 would treat the entire Internet like it is 1971 again. The government wants to treat Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, paid streaming services and every other thing we can find, see, hear or post on the Internet like the system it is comfortable with, the one that has been around for 50 years before any of these things were invented.

The Liberals and the NDP say that opponents of the bill, from Conservative politicians to academic experts to eminent Canadian artists, are all wrong and that none of us understand. The Liberals and the NDP say that this is not about freedom of expression, censorship or regulating cat videos, but about making the web giants support Canadian artists. If that was true, why did they not say so in the bill and accept the amendment that would have truly created the exemption for user-uploaded content? They could have done that, but they chose not to because they want a bill that expands the powers of the CRTC.

The bill would not modernize the Broadcasting Act. It is Canada's first Internet regulation bill. It is wrong, and it should be defeated.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it seems obvious that members of the Conservative Party have not read Bill C-11. That is why I keep reading sections of the bill. I am going to read yet another section. It states:

provide opportunities to Black and other racialized persons in Canada by taking into account their specific needs and interests, namely, by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs by and for Black and other racialized communities

The way I interpret that is that it both gives a voice to Black and racialized communities and ensures they have opportunities to be heard. I wonder if the member can explain the dichotomy between what he is saying and what is in Bill C-11.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-11, a bill that the citizens of Oshawa have been very clear about. Oshawa wants us to kill this bill.

Canadians are not ignorant or dumb but the Prime Minister and the Liberal government clearly believe that Canadians are simply not smart enough to decide for ourselves what we want to see and hear.

There is a quote I have on my front door. It is from John F. Kennedy, a man that I admire. It states, “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

This quote helps frame the debate about the bill. Does this bill expand the rights of every Canadian or does it diminish their rights and freedoms? Does this bill threaten Canadians' ability to communicate, make a living or be heard?

Some very prominent Canadians have weighed in on this unprecedented bill and how it threatens freedom of speech.

Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to free speech, which can only be effectively exercised if one has the ability to be heard.

As Professor Michael Geist explains, “to be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content (including algorithmic outcomes). The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.“

Canadian author Margaret Atwood has a gift of boiling down rhetoric to a very specific phrase. She sees this bill as “creeping totalitarianism“ and I agree with her. Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, thought and belief. Traditionally and historically, these rights and freedoms were not considered a left- or right-wing thing. They were based on a fundamental understanding that in free societies, we have fundamental rights.

Let us review the fundamental question that this bill is forcing us to ask. This legislation is about one thing: trust. Do Canadians trust this government to respect our rights and freedoms if Liberals are given these new, unprecedented powers?

Trust is unfortunately a challenging concept for the government. Trust is a characteristic, a quality that needs to be earned. It is a belief in reliability, truth or ability of someone or something. Trust can be predicted from past behaviour and past actions. Given this government's past, we see a record of distrust and concern. Let us examine that statement. Let us take a look at the Prime Minister and his government's history and what has been said about their approach to governing and what premises and ideologies drive their behaviour, in regard to Canadians' rights and freedoms.

We could talk about Bill C-18. We could talk about the Emergencies Act, the freezing of bank accounts of Canadians who disagree with the government, or Canadians who should not be tolerated and instead punished due to their unacceptable views or we could talk about David Pugliese's exposé in the Ottawa Citizen about the Canadian military who “saw the pandemic as [a] unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians” or Swikar Oli, who wrote in the National Post. We could talk about privacy advocates raising concerns, about the Public Health Agency tracking Canadians without their permission or Susan Delacourt writing about “nudging” techniques to manipulate Canadians' behaviour. Were these government behaviours warranted? Maybe, maybe not, but it begs to the question: what else is going on that we do not know about? What direction is the government racing toward? More freedom and choice or more government control?

Our democracy is fragile and “creeping totalitarianism” can be insidious and appear to be harmless or based on noble lies or intentions.

There are so many examples but let us focus on the bill in front of us and what it means and could mean. Let us review.

Bill C-11 is an online censorship bill designed to control search engines and algorithms so that the government can control what Canadians see and hear.

What is censorship? Censorship is defined as “the suppression of speech, public communication or other information”.

As Canadians know, whoever controls the narrative controls the world.

Canadians are storytelling creatures. We tell each other what is going on by talking, singing, dancing, creating and showing others about ourselves, our ideas and our feelings. Historically, we have been able to do this freely.

With the advent of the Internet, Canadians embraced a new way of telling these stories. We could now send birthday videos around the world, sing a new song and post it for all to see. If people liked it, they shared it. New innovations allow Canadian creators and storytellers to earn a living online, communicate, educate, debate, explore. We could choose what we wanted to see and enjoy where it sent us, but this ability is being challenged.

Bill C-11 would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching the content that they choose for themselves. The Liberals and their big government, big corporate friends would decide who is heard and who is silent.

Have colleagues ever heard the term “inverted totalitarianism”? It is a term coined by Dr. Sheldon Wolin to describe a system where big corporations corrupt or subvert democracy. Elitist politicians with their ability to control and regulate are influenced by the big players, the big corporations that have the money to lobby government officials and regulators such as the CRTC to get the rules that benefit their monopolies and their bottom lines.

Is this where the Liberal government has taken Canada? Such arrogance. Perhaps Canadians should not really be surprised. The New York Times reported that our Prime Minister once said that Canadians have no core identity and that he wanted us to become the first post-national state.

Does that sound like someone who wants to protect our unique Canadian culture, our unique Canadian values? After all, we did elect the Prime Minister who said he admires the basic dictatorship of China so much because it gets things done. Perhaps this explains why the Liberal-NDP coalition has been so focused and intent on ramming this bill through the House.

Sadly, this legislation models practices directly from the Communist Government of China. The CCP has created the great fire wall, a heavily censored Internet that directs users to approved content under the guise of protecting the public and keeping people safe. It blocks unacceptable views and connections that the CCP considers harmful to the Chinese public. The goal of its Internet is to reshape online behaviour and use it to disseminate new party theories and promote socialist agendas. It is about shaping the Communist government's values.

Could that happen in Canada? One of my constituents, Rhonda, who lived and taught in China for two years in the early 2000s recounts, “When I lived in China for two years, we always had to verify the news and Internet content with friends and families back home or in free countries, as we knew we were not receiving unaltered information. It was highly regulated by the Communist government in China. I fear we are heading in this direction in Canada and I am having a hard time understanding how this is possible when it's supposed to be a free and democratic society.”

I agree with Rhonda. This idea of creeping totalitarianism seems to be alive and well in Canada. If Canadians give governments these new powers, I believe it is just a matter of time before these powers are abused. Bill C-11 would give the current Liberal government and future governments the authority to pick and choose what individual Canadians are allowed to watch, essentially placing the government as a content regulator.

Homegrown Canadian talent and creators would no longer succeed based on merit. Bureaucrats in Ottawa would determine content based on its level of “Canadian-ness”, but the culture of minorities would be cut out. By the way, how does one define “Canadian-ness”? This bill certainly does not do it. The CRTC would have control, big government would be lobbied by big corporations to wedge the little guys out. Corporate government would grow. Entrepreneurs, creators and artists would be squashed.

Sadly, we saw Canadian content creators come to Ottawa to have their voices heard but, as expected, they were shut down. The government wholly rejected any amendments brought forward that would narrow the bill's scope and fully exempt content that Canadians post on social media. Canadians are asking the questions, asking what the government is afraid of. Is it freedom? We have had different journalists and commentators around saying that this could change the independent Youtubers' way in which they make their money. Their viewership and revenues would take a hit. That is something that I think is quite worrying.

To finish, why does the government want to cause more uncertainty, loss of income and pain to make Canadians depend on the government? Why the attack on Canadian innovators in a way that no other country does, except maybe under the Communist Government of China? Why does the government not trust Canadians to be their own directors of their own destinies? We trust Canadians. A Conservative government would repeal this horrible bill.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, he must have missed the last part of my speech, so I will just repeat it, briefly.

A Conservative government would repeal Bill C-11 and, recognizing the richness and breadth of Canadian content in the Internet age, we would require large streaming services to invest more in producing Canadian content while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is a friend of mine, and I understand that she believes what she is saying.

I cannot see it in this bill. I see nothing in this bill where faceless bureaucrats are going to tell Canadians what they can watch. That is not the case. This bill is about ensuring that our creators in this country would have work up against what is a monolithic, multinational digital media with giants like Netflix, Disney and Crave that are producing an enormous amount of content without a concern for the Canadian voices and the Canadian artists within that content.

Bill C-11 is just updating the Broadcasting Act to deal with that reality.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, during the lockdowns, and for me the lockouts, I still found myself with very little free time on my hands, but when I did have those precious few moments, I could turn to the Internet as a source of information, entertainment and comfort during uncertain times.

The Internet is an endless frontier for creativity, discovery and free thought. While the reach of radio and TV is confined largely to within our own borders, Canadian creators throughout the past few decades have been charting new pathways online. Canada’s media landscape of the 21st century has been and will continue to be defined by their artistic endeavours. Regardless of people’s background or prerequisite knowledge of their craft, Canadians have been reaching global audiences through the power of their voices, performances and words. It is our duty as legislators to celebrate and ease their efforts in reaching the world. In no instance should we be working to limit their expression at home or abroad.

We should afford the same consideration to Canadians who consume this content. The first 30 years of commercial Internet have changed the manner in which we enjoy our entertainment. While the evolution of radio, print and TV over the last century has taken place within the vacuum of Canada’s telecommunications industry, there is no such restraint on online content. Canadians are more empowered than ever to pick and choose the content they want to watch, listen to and read. The government should be working to encourage, not suppress, variety and choice within a new broadcasting reality.

Regrettably, in Canada, and in the year 2023, this bill gives us cause to rise to the defence of free expression and free choice. This debate should have all Canadians concerned, and it does. In a complicated world in which the free flow of information is more important than ever, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-11 from the perspective of the majority of Canadians.

When a government has been given every opportunity over the course of a year to do the right thing, is presented with Senate amendments that attempt to repair mistakes that were made and then rejects some of those amendments, Canadians are given cause to reflect and draw conclusions on the intentions of the current government.

It is clear that the Prime Minister made up his mind from the very beginning of this process. He is not interested in the appeals of civil society, industry professionals, independent content creators, and the 92% of Canadians who access an uncensored Internet for their news, opinions and entertainment. From the beginning of the debate, they have been calling on the government to stop its attempts to censor their search results.

We must not embark down the road of censorship and algorithmic control. Canada is one of the most connected countries in the world. We are the model for what a free and open Internet can achieve. In normal times, this would be seen as a net positive for civil discourse and the cultural mosaic, and any responsible government would embrace this potential. However, that is not the case with the Liberal government. It has seen fit to impose top-down regulations of the worst kind on the one true international entity that reaches beyond borders and makes Canadian culture freely available to the world.

Bill C-11 applies CRTC regulatory powers to the Internet. It effectively empowers the Prime Minister, his cabinet and bureaucrats in Ottawa to decide what Canadians see and say online. They would determine which material is given preference and would effectively have control over Internet algorithms.

The government continually claims that this legislation would have no effect on the performance of user-generated content, such as a typical cat video, but its actions tell us a different story, and Canadians are picking up on it. Despite overwhelming public pressure to back away from independent creators and to leave “the little guy” alone, the government has rejected a Senate amendment that would have protected content created by ordinary individuals. This amendment would have ensured that regulations target only commercial material. Canadians are rightly offended by this decision. To reject hard-fought-for protections for free expression in the eleventh hour reeks of a hidden agenda.

These fears are entirely justified. The Prime Minister has decided to impose his own personal brand onto the Internet, and we have to wonder why. I would argue it is because, even with his desperate attempt to control the narrative via the legacy media, which he has to do before 2024, he no longer has control over the message.

As the relevance and appeal of traditional media fades, the Internet has done more than fill the void. It has changed the media landscape forever.

To consider just a few of these statistics, every day 100,000 songs are uploaded to streaming platforms, 1.7 million books were self-published in the last year, there are now three million podcasts that put out about 30 million episodes this last year and 2,500 videos are uploaded to YouTube every minute.

While decades-old media empires have been implementing strategies to downsize, alternative culture is flourishing. There are nearly 40 YouTube channels with more than 50 million subscribers, which is far above the reach of any newspaper or record label in Canada. We have also seen a shift among our young people, with 86% who have expressed a desire to become online influencers.

In fact, it is our young people who are driving these numbers in large part. The Prime Minister has now ostracized 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are very motivated to vote in their first election, and a number of them are my grandkids. This is excellent news for them for the future of independent Canadian arts and culture, but the problem, in the Prime Minister’s view, is that not every ounce of this material will align with his government’s opinions.

We have seen this type of behaviour before. Liberals attempted to restrict Canada summer jobs funding through a draconian values test. Employers were permitted to offer life-changing experiences to our youth only after attesting to uphold values the Liberal Party deemed appropriate.

Their 2021 platform promises to revoke the charitable status of crisis pregnancy centres because their life-saving work flies in the face of the Liberal Party’s belief in abortion at any time and for any reason. The majority of Canadians, over 80%, actually want to see more pregnancy counselling centres, not less. The Liberals are so out of touch.

Now they are attempting to control cyberspace through Bill C-11. Once again, Liberals are attempting to pick winners and losers. In effect, this bill works to extinguish this ambition for the next generation of Canadian creators. It would destroy the creative drive that makes film, music and print material so alluring.

Instead of relying on a tried-and-true business model to promote their content to the world, creators would be forced to manicure their output to fit within the Prime Minister’s CanCon ideal. We heard a bit about that from my colleague. This is not what arts and culture in a free society looks like.

The Liberals argue this legislation is required to ensure more Canadian content reaches our screens, but at the same time, they are killing the inventive spirit that has inspired a new generation of Canadians to express themselves.

In a piece in The Free Press, Ted Gioia writes, “...what we really need is a robust indie environment—in which many arts and culture businesses flourish and present their diverse offerings.” He also says, “...we deserve a culture in which there are hundreds or thousands of organizations doing audience development and outreach.”

“Let a thousand flowers blossom,” he says.

As colleagues on both sides of this House often say, the world needs more Canada. I wholeheartedly agree. Canadian culture is being expressed, not lost, in current and expounding methods, but this can only be maintained through an open and free Internet. Let us not limit our potential. Let us not turn back in time.

Canadians analyze this bill, and they cannot help but conclude it is an attempt to impose state censorship through the back door. Giving any government the power to manipulate online algorithms will not benefit Canadian culture. What is also clear is the threat it poses to freedom of expression in this country.

The Liberals’ time in office will end, along with that of all other future governments. Do we honestly want the government of the day, whoever it is, to impose its world view over top of what we say and do online? As a proud Canadian, I certainly do not want that.

I will end with this. If it should pass, I want Canadians to know the following. A Conservative government would repeal Bill C-11. Recognizing the richness and breadth of Canadian content in the Internet age, we would require large streaming services to invest more into producing Canadian content, and we would explain that to Canadians when we brought it forward while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Through a Conservative approach to CanCon, homegrown talent would be able to compete on an equal footing with the rest of the world. When removed from the seat of power, I predict the Liberals will applaud a Conservative government’s effort to repeal this legislation. Instead of entrusting the future of Canadian culture to faceless bureaucrats in Ottawa, we will trust Canadians’ ability to promote Canada to the world and make their own decisions on what content they consume. We will allow a thousand flowers to bloom.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will keep this really short and sweet. Margaret Atwood touched on Bill C-11, saying it was “creeping totalitarianism”, period.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to read a section from Bill C-11. It reads:

programming that reflects the Indigenous cultures of Canada and programming that is in Indigenous languages should be provided—including through broadcasting undertakings that are carried on by Indigenous persons—within community elements, which are positioned to serve smaller and remote communities, and other elements of the Canadian broadcasting system;

Can the member please tell me what is so scary and so concerning about this section?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to have the opportunity to raise concerns and share my displeasure with what is going on right now with Bill C-11. It is being rammed through Parliament after having pretty substantive debates. I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville.

I want to start out by indicating that I believe Bill C-11 is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I am not the only person who thinks so, and Conservatives are not even the only people who think so. The Prime Minister's own independent senators had so many concerns when the bill went to the Senate that they provided a series of amendments that would help make this bad bill less bad.

I applaud them for the diligent effort they put forward in calling additional witnesses and exploring other pieces of the bill. They made a number of amendments to the bill that were rejected by the government. It really showed the hand of the government that the ultimate goal of this bill is actually to allow the government to decide what does and does not count as Canadian content and what people would and would not see. It became explicit in the rejection of some of the substantive amendments that came from the Senate that this was, in fact, its modus operandi.

I share this because, until this point, the government was claiming that its intent was not to have the power to be the content regulator. However, in the rejection of one of the amendments, it actually said that it wanted the Governor in Council to regulate this content. This means that the government is giving itself the power to decide what it wants people to see online and to pick what does and does not count as Canadian content. I think it is a really scary thing for any government of any stripe.

This means that one will no longer get to pick what one wants to see online. Instead, the government gets to pick what one has a chance to see online to begin with. I do not want that power being given to any government of any political stripe. I do not think that is how things should go.

I know I am not alone in those fears and concerns. I have had countless people reach out to me. I have had average, everyday normal people who do not normally pay attention to politics reach out because they are really concerned about the contents of this bill. They are concerned that this is going too far and that this is a step towards absolute censorship.

While members opposite have made all kinds of jokes and seem to talk down the fact that we have these concerns, the concerns are real. They are legitimate, and they deserve to be addressed. Instead, we just get a whole bunch of nonsense and belittling, and that is not how this should be going. There is nothing progressive about censorship. The progressive parties are claiming that this is a progressive bill, but I am not sure how censoring anyone is progressive.

One of the pieces I really want to get into is how flawed the very definition of Canadian content is. I have a list of some things that are not considered to be Canadian content. I was kind of shocked at how vast the list was. I did not capture everything, but here is a small list of things I found in doing some research for this.

The Handmaid's Tale series that is on Hulu, and in Canada it is on Crave, is not considered to be Canadian content despite being written and based on Margaret Atwood's very famous book. It was filmed here in Canada. A part of the series was set here in Canada. It is not considered to be CanCon because the ownership is not Canadian; therefore, that is not Canadian content.

Turning Red, a Pixar film on Disney+, is set in Toronto. The main character is a 13-year-old Chinese Canadian girl. It is a really cool movie. I really liked it. It even has real superstar Canadians on the cast, like Sandra Oh. Can members guess what? It is not Canadian content. Again, it is the ownership piece.

Deadpool 2 was filmed in Vancouver. It stars Canada's number one cheerleader, Ryan Reynolds. It was even co-written by Ryan Reynolds, a Canadian who was born in Vancouver, and as I said, one of Canada's biggest cheerleaders. However, it did not have enough Canadian production, so sorry, it is not Canadian content. That is just on the film side.

Now, let us go into the music side because this is kind of fun. A good chunk of Justin Bieber's music is not Canadian content because it was recorded outside of Canada and he collaborated with artists from around the world. It is the same thing with most of Bryan Adams' music. Bryan Adams is an iconic Canadian rock star. Most of his music actually does not fit the qualifications to be CanCon because he partnered with Mutt Lange on a large part of his music. Céline Dion is an absolutely celebrated Canadian artist. Most of her newest music is not considered to be CanCon. My Heart Will Go On is not CanCon. It is crazy.

However, here is where the CanCon definition gets really fun. There are some real quirks in this. Snowbird, which was a hit by Elvis Presley, in fact does count as Canadian content because the music and lyrics were created by Canadians. Another unique one that fits into this bill is Hit Me With Your Best Shot by Pat Benatar. That is a great song. Growing up, we heard it a lot on the radio. We had a classic rock station in Fort McMurray, KYX 98, and it played Hit Me With Your Best Shot a lot. I am now understanding why: It met the Canadian content requirements.

I talked about the things that do not make sense in how CanCon is currently described and put out. We are now saying that the CRTC has done such a great job with film and music and defining what is and is not Canadian content that we are going to give it the whole Internet and hope that it does not screw it up. That is scary. This is a space where Internet is limitless. It is not something that can easily be kept in a little box like radio or television broadcasting because it is not technically and typically broadcasting. Anyone with a phone can produce a hit video. Anybody who has a unique idea can do this.

I grew up in Fort McMurray, which is a melting pot of everything from around Canada and the world. So here I am standing with my Nova Scotia tartan. I am not from Nova Scotia. My grandfather lived in Nova Scotia at one point. However, I am sitting here, giving a speech and wearing a Nova Scotia tartan as someone who is not from Nova Scotia, because growing up, I got to experience Atlantic Canadian culture, Cape Breton culture and culture from B.C. and Vancouver Island, and I saw a whole bunch of variety in what Canadian culture was. The scary part is that we are now going to be letting bureaucrats in Ottawa, the “Ottawa knows best”, the ones who have probably never experienced some of what Canadian culture actually is decide what counts and what does not count and what Canadians get to see on the Internet and what they do not get to see. That is a scary spot to be in.

In my area, if someone says they are from Ottawa and they are here to fix their problem, people are typically a little concerned, probably a bit more than a little concerned. I say this because it is serious. Some of the colleagues from the other side have been really concerned that they have only been hearing the same things over and over again from Conservatives, and part of it is that some of the experts they have been quoting up to this point are experts in their field.

I am going to quote one person from the University of Calgary. She is the Canadian research chair in cybersecurity law and associate professor, Dr. Emily Laidlaw. She said:

The indirect knock-on effect of this legislation on internet users and what they seek, receive and share online is important to the analysis. If the adverse effects of the provisions on social media users are too great, then the interference with free expression is disproportionate and unconstitutional.

She said this in her transcript when she was speaking to the Senate. The government has rejected some of the Senate's amendments. The Senate amendment that made this bad piece of legislation less bad did not take into account the fact that there are serious concerns when it comes to the constitutionality of this.

I really would hope that everyone can agree that we need a bit of a pause. We need to go back to the drawing board on this and revisit so that we have the best possible legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate on Bill C-11. I quite seriously think there is a deeply held belief that this bill is going to hurt freedom of expression that is entirely on the part of members and the Conservative caucus.

I am so grateful, and I am not going to claim that law school makes a person understand everything, but statutory interpretation is one of those things that one gets a good skill for, being able to read a piece of legislation. Where one finds freedom of expression is protected in this bill is in the Broadcasting Act, and then we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defends freedom of expression.

Nothing in this bill could possibly reduce Canadians' freedom of expression, nor has it ever been the case that anyone, before this debate, has ever conflated protecting Canadian content with censorship.

They are completely different concepts. I am very frustrated at this hour of night that we are still debating Bill C-11 without really debating it, because there were places I wish it had been improved. There are questions of whether there is a two-tiered approach to our cultural industries. However, there is no doubt that creators in this country have been losing the opportunity to make a living because of the competition from online streaming services that are big-time—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about the bill in particular, let us get to what we are supposed to be debating tonight.

On Bill C-10, there was a portion in there that had an exemption for programs and that users could upload on social media. In other words, there was an exemption for user-generated content. I do not know if the member is actually familiar with that term.

In Bill C-11, they put the exemption back in. What clause was that? Moreover, in what clause did they actually put an exemption on the exemption?

If the member knows the bill that well, why did they put that exemption on an exemption and what clause was it?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, first off, let us deal with the “something, something, North Korea”. There is nothing in Bill C-11 that transforms Canada into North Korea. The comments are saddening and horrific when we think of what North Korean citizens are living through. The reality is we are seeing forced starvation in North Korea, massive prison camps and a population that is under very clear tyranny.

For Conservatives to invoke North Korea in talking about Bill C-11 does a profound disservice to North Koreans who are living through an absolutely horrendous totalitarian regime that oppresses them, tortures them and kills them. Any Conservative who mentions North Korea, immediately, in my mind, has zero credibility on the issue of Bill C-11, which is a bill that basically obliges big tech to provide some support to the Canadian cultural sector that has suffered profoundly, particularly over the last few years. We have seen, in some parts of our cultural sector, the loss of three-quarters of the jobs that existed. What Bill C-11 would do is provide a boost to our cultural sector. It would not provide prison camps, forced starvation, torture or systemic human rights abuses.

Second is the issue of tyranny, the “something, something, tyranny” that has been raised by Conservatives. The reality is that big tech, as we know now, and I will come back to this shortly, already forces content on Canadians. We have seen this with the references to the “Stop hate for profit” campaign, which includes endorsements from the Southern Poverty Law Centre and the Anti-Defamation League. The reality is big tech, with their secret algorithms, forces content that is often profoundly harmful to Canadians.

Let us look at the third part, the “something, something, freedom”. Conservative MPs supported the so-called Freedom Convoy that denied the freedoms of thousands of members of this community of downtown Ottawa the right to actually go to work as 600 to 700 businesses were forcibly closed by the so-called Freedom Convoy extremists. Seniors and people with disabilities were denied the right to medication and the freedom to get groceries through that period as the roads were blocked. These extremists ran their trucks, blasting their air horns 24 hours a day, denying freedom to thousands of residents of Ottawa Centre to actually get a good night's sleep, work, get groceries and get medications.

Conservatives supported all of that oppression of the people of Ottawa Centre. When Conservatives use the word “freedom”, I find it disingenuous, beyond belief, given the kind of oppression that they have recently supported in this area.

When Conservatives stand up, obviously not having read the bill, obviously having no reference to the bill, and do not even talk about the arts and culture sector and the loss of jobs, do not talk about big tech and how they are imposing their content on people, I say to myself that we have three parties in the House that are supportive of Bill C-11 and one party that prefers to choose big tech over the rights of Canadians to actually see Canadian content. That, indeed, is the essence of Bill C-11.

It forces big tech, which contributes virtually nothing to Canada, to actually start supporting Canadian content and Canadian artists. We saw this decades ago when big American music companies basically decided to impose American artists on Canada. Canadian parliamentarians at that time had the foresight to tell them to hold on, that they had to reserve a spot for Canadian content, because our Canadian musicians have talent and ability, that they were not going to simply impose foreign artists in the Canadian market, and that they were going to have to create a space for Canadians as well.

We saw the results of that, a renaissance beyond belief with Canadian artists and musicians, television programs and producers, Canadian movies not only being extraordinarily popular in Canada but right around the world.

Now, we have big tech pushing back with the support of its acolytes in the Conservative Party. Big tech is saying it wants to impose content on Canada and that it does not want Canadians to have a space. It does not want discoverability of Canadian artists and Canadian talent. Four out of the five parties, if we include the non-recognized parties in the House of Commons, are in the process of saying they are going to stand up for Canadian artists, for Canadian jobs and for the right of Canadians to see Canadian content, to hear Canadian content and to hear those stories about each other. Whether from British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador or Nunavut, we are going to hear from each other, despite what big tech says.

That is the reality. That is the essence of the debate tonight. It is not about North Korea or repression. It is about allowing Canadians to hear each other's voices. That is what is so essential to this debate. It was missed by every single Conservative speaker, and I can only surmise that they have all missed the point of the debate because they have not read the bill. What they have read is the latest fundraising pitch from Conservative Party HQ, and that seems to be the only reason they are dragging this debate through this evening with such ridiculous, wacky and over-the-top exaggerations and making up of things that simply are not in the bill. We heard one Conservative member say that, because of Bill C-11, the government is going to be able to track Canadians on their cellphones.

That is unbelievable and unbecoming of this place. It is unbecoming of a member of Parliament to say that, but not a single Conservative corrects the other Conservatives. They just sit together stewing in their misinformation nexus, rather than address the bill itself. Of course, as I mentioned, the NDP succeeded in getting more amendments passed than any other party, because we were focused on improving the bill and making it even better. To my regret, and I think to the chagrin of most Canadians, Conservatives were just there to monkeywrench and vandalize, rather than to actually try to improve the legislation so it would be in the best interests of all Canadians.

When it comes to the Senate amendments, because we had, as New Democrats, the opportunity to build a better bill we are proud of, particularly when it comes to indigenous peoples, we have clearly improved the bill. It is for those reasons we believe it should be passed, sent back to the Senate and adopted, so we can get Canadian actors and musicians working again and building more Canadian jobs.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Green Party colleague for her question. I think it is an important one.

If we are being realistic, the Conservatives are using scare tactics for political fundraising purposes. That is what we are seeing. They are doing this for purely partisan reasons, to collect data, collect money and fill the Conservative Party coffers. They are spreading misinformation and worrying people for nothing.

In my opinion, the Conservatives are demonstrating a distinct lack of sensitivity when it comes to culture, the cultural sector and artists, when all of the artists' associations in Quebec and Canada strongly support Bill C-11, formerly Bill C-10, and think it is absolutely necessary for their future and our future as a cultural nation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that I totally agree with what he said in his speech. It is so hard to be here and have a debate when some parties are saying that this is not true and that Bill C-11 is regressive and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why does he think the Conservatives have become so successful on social media these days with ideas that are completely false? Bill C-11 does not in any way infringe on the right to freedom of expression.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know, in a very polite way, that I will be sharing my time with my very hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, who has some very important things to tell us and all Canadians.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, I will say that I have been listening to my colleagues from the Conservative Party for a few hours now and I am seeing things that are rather fascinating and disturbing.

The first thing I find fascinating is their insistence on quoting Margaret Atwood. I would just like to remind my Conservative colleagues that Margaret Atwood is a great defender of women's rights, including the right to abortion. If they are fans of Margaret Atwood, I hope to hear them quote her soon to defend a woman's right to abortion. I am sure that they watched the series The Handmaid's Tale and they were able to learn a few lessons.

The second person they are quoting, and I think that is amazing, is George Orwell. I would just like to remind my Conservative colleagues that George Orwell was a socialist who fought in Great Britain and went to Spain to fight with the republicans against the fascists. I hope to hear them quote George Orwell often in the weeks and months to come, maybe even during the election campaign. I have some quotes for them, free of charge, if they want. It would be my pleasure.

We are talking about something that is very important for Quebec, Canada, all our regions and our communities, but also first nations: the cultural sector. It is really important for our identity, be it the Québécois nation, the Canadian nation, first nations, Métis, francophones outside Quebec, that we have the means and resources to be able to tell ourselves our own stories. It is important to have the resources to create our television programs, which describe what is happening in our communities, along with our challenges and hopes, and that we give this work to our local creators and artists who will work to be able to say, here is what is happening in Quebec, Ontario, the north, the Maritimes or British Columbia.

We have a system that was put in place years ago in which the government has a role to play in supporting our artists, creators, artisans and technicians, as does the private sector, which benefits from this cultural production. This production has value in its own right, intrinsic value, that makes us stand out from other countries and nations around the world and enables us to say that this is who we are, here are our ideals, here is what is happening in our country, here are our concerns and here are our expressions. I think it is essential to have the right legislative, regulatory and financial framework to keep that. We are also talking about thousands of jobs in almost every community across Canada, and it is extremely important to maintain this capacity to produce cultural content.

In the agreement created 30 years ago, those who supplied the pipeline needed content for it. They made money from this content. Therefore, they had to help finance the content. The cable companies at the time were the pipeline and were forced by the Broadcasting Act to contribute, in particular, to the Canada Media Fund, which helped produce Canadian television and film. This balance was a given and benefited everyone. Cable companies made a very good profit. They had certain obligations, but it made it possible to produce content in Canada, with Canadian artists who told Canadian stories. That was 30 years ago.

The problem is that cable companies are no longer the only ones in the picture. Digital broadcasters have arrived. When the act was written, the Internet did not exist.

This law must be modernized to ensure that these web giants, who are using a new medium, are also required to contribute to and support Quebec, Canadian and indigenous artists and creators.

Essentially, that is what Bill C‑11 is about. We keep saying this over and over again, and I am going to say it again, despite the Conservative fearmongering. There is something I cannot understand: If Videotron, Bell, Shaw and Rogers must contribute to cultural production under the bill, why would YouTube, Google, Disney+, Netflix and Apple TV be excluded? These web giants have basically been given a tax gift for the past 10 years. They have basically been told that they have the right to profit from Canadian content and cultural production without having to participate in it. It is like giving them a giant tax break that is completely unfair and unjust. I find it absolutely fascinating that the Conservatives are now saying it is okay that Google, Apple TV and Netflix do not need to pay.

The Conservatives are defending big corporations, multinationals that are making tons of money off Quebec and Canadian consumers. The Conservatives are lining up behind these web giants and these big corporations. That is what they are doing right now, using completely false pretences to scare people.

When it comes to Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11, it feels like every day is Halloween for the Conservatives. They wake up every morning and think of ways to scare Canadians. They use emotionally charged words like “dictatorship”, “censorship” and “totalitarianism”. Wow. I have to wonder whether those folks have ever even seen a CRTC decision. That is not exactly what is going on. These decisions have actually been used to promote local cultural creations. I do not see how we are becoming like North Korea because we want to promote our television programs, our films, our artists, our singers. No one is being forced to watch or listen to anything. If someone is not interested, they can simply turn off their TV, radio, iPhone or iPad screen.

Give me a break. This fearmongering is an attempt to convince people that the federal government is suddenly going to decide what Canadians will see. That is ridiculous.

A couple of weeks ago the leader of the official opposition called the CRTC a woke organization. I could not believe it. Anything the Conservatives do not like they call “woke”. I attended CRTC hearings in a previous life, and I can say that CRTC officials are quite beige. It is a pretty square organization. They are talking nonsense on the Conservative side.

I believe that the CRTC has made good and bad decisions. There are reasons to criticize this organization, but it is a bit of a stretch to call it a far-left organization. Words have meaning, after all, and we need to be careful.

We recently celebrated the International Day of La Francophonie. One of the themes of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie is discoverability of works. We must be able to ensure that people can find songs, works, broadcasts and movies in French on Netflix. Everyone celebrated the Francophonie in the House, but when Bill C‑11 is being studied, the Conservatives forget all that. It is no longer important now.

The NDP put in the work and improved Bill C‑11 to ensure that French-language works are more readily accessible and also to provide more support for first nation and Inuit cultural productions and for community organizations that make content and news.

I realize that Bill C‑11 may not be perfect. However, this bill has all the provisions needed to guarantee freedom of expression and to support our culture, artists and artisans. That is why the NDP is proud to support it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to read a section of Bill C-11, which reads:

(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with

(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings;

I wonder if the member agrees with me that indigenous groups like the Maskwacis, who were mentioned earlier, will not be negatively impacted by this bill.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the people across the way want to listen, here is the quote from Michael Geist.

He said, “To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard.” That is the fundamental problem with this. He then continues:

In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content.... The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.

Bill C-11 was so bad that, when the NDP-Liberal coalition sent it to the Senate, even the Liberal-appointed senators sounded the alarm. It was written so terribly that the Senate returned the legislation back to the House of Commons with 29 amendments.

I found it interesting that the Liberal-appointed senators, after hearing from experts, proposed an amendment that would reduce the amount of regulation that Bill C-11 would have on social media, but guess what? The minister has already indicated that the Liberals will reject the amendment, which came from their own senators. If the government is unwilling to listen to its own senators, how can Canadians believe they will be heard?

There is a reason I am here with my Conservative colleagues at nine o'clock at night to oppose Bill C-11. Canadians want the Liberal government to keep its hands off the Internet. Although this may be our last chance to stop this bill in this Parliament, Canadians can be hopeful knowing that it will be killed once Conservatives are elected to clean up the Liberal government's mess. Until then, I will, once again, be voting against Bill C-11.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11. Nearly one year ago, I spoke to Bill C-11 in the House of Commons, and I expressed my opposition to the bill, a bill that would regulate the Internet. I have said it before and I will say it again: The Internet is supposed to be open and free. It is supposed to be open and free to create one's content and choose what one reads, free from government overreach.

However, here we are, once again, debating Bill C-11, a bill that would give the government the power to regulate what people see and hear on the Internet. If Bill C-11 passes, the government will give itself power to control what people watch. Instead of giving Canadians more of what they want to see, YouTube would be instructed to give viewers more of what the government wants them to see.

This could be our last chance to stop this bill from becoming law, which is why so many Canadians have reached out to their MPs to oppose Bill C-11. As I have said before, Bill C-11 is legislation to regulate the Internet. The Liberal government wants to influence what people see while they are browsing the web. It wants to push specific content to the top of their screens so they see it first. Consequently, other content will move down their screens so they see less of it. This is what the Liberals really mean when they say they want to make content more discoverable.

Back in the day, as my other colleague mentioned, the content we saw and heard was controlled by a small group of large players. Whether that was a small group of radio tycoons or a small group of television moguls, there were a limited number of people who decided what content we consumed. We were limited to what we could read, listen to or watch through traditional media channels. One of the reasons Canadians were limited in the content they could consume was that the government regulated television and radio through the Broadcasting Act.

The Broadcasting Act meant that TV and radio stations had to have broadcast licences to operate. TV and radio stations needed to meet specific government-imposed rules concerning what they could air and what proportion of their content had to be Canadian. My colleague mentioned this earlier today when she explained how television and radio had been managed as a finite resource. However, the Internet is not a finite resource. Its content can be infinite. People no longer have to tune in to the soap opera at a specific time in order to consume content. The Internet allows consumers to access what they want, when they want it.

Now the government wants to regulate the Internet like it regulated traditional television and radio stations. The Liberals claim that Bill C-11 is needed to modernize the Broadcasting Act. Instead, they are taking an outdated government approach to traditional broadcasting and applying it to a free and open Internet. The Liberals want to place regulations on content that goes beyond large companies such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. They want to apply the same regulations to user-generated content, whether it be a local podcaster, the independent content creator or even the individual uploading videos to social media. The Liberals claim they have included an exemption for user-generated content, but they also added an exemption to the exemption, making such effort effectively meaningless.

What happens if someone decides to violate the Bill C-11 regulations? Well, the fines could be as high as $25,000 for a first event by an individual and $10 million for an offence by a corporation. The government thinks that Canadians are incapable of choosing what they want to read or watch on the Internet. The government believes that Canadians need help navigating through their social media streams. It believes Canadians would be better off if the government were deciding what they see and hear on the Internet.

The other day, the Prime Minister was hosting a town hall and spoke about the importance of the government keeping Canadians safe from the Internet. He could not hide his belief that it is the government's job to protect Canadians from the Internet. The Prime Minister's mentality is that the more government the better. He said, “the Internet means there's a lot of people spending a huge amount of time in places that governments have no ability to keep you directly safe from Internet companies, specifically the web giants like Facebook and Google”.

The Prime Minister believes that only the government can keep us safe. No wonder he wants to regulate what we see and hear online. If his government can regulate the Internet, it can decide what is best for us to see.

I know the Prime Minister likes to call the opposition “despicable”. Do members know what is despicable? It is despicable for the Liberals to target the freedom of individual Internet users in Canada. It is despicable for the government to push certain content to the top of our screens and therefore move other content down our screens. It is despicable for the government to overwhelmingly reject the advice of experts and digital content creators across this country. That is right, it is not just Conservatives who are opposing Bill C-11. Experts across the country are alarmed.

This following is a statement by University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist on Bill C-11.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member across the way is asking me whether or not Bill C-11 is charter-compliant, I will note that the charter compliance review would have been done by his colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who is the same person responsible for bail reform. Members will have to forgive me if I have my doubts.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the entire debate from the Conservative Party is so divorced from the reality of what Bill C-11 would do that I do not even know where to start. On the last point, we had indigenous groups coming forward, proposing amendments and seeking to move forward on Bill C-11.

I do not know where the hon. members get their idea that this bill would engage in some sort of censorship, that the three parties in support of this bill are in favour of censorship and that members on this side of the House, who stand up for charter rights, are in favour of censorship. Where does this come from?

I know the member and all Conservative members mentioned one particular academic. Can they name another one, perhaps even a constitutional expert, who is opposed to the bill and has raised concerns about charter rights in this country?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the amount of correspondence he got from constituents and people from all across his riding who were concerned about Bill C-11. I have heard a lot of concerns from people in my area around this.

I am wondering if the member could perhaps go into a little more detail on some of the specific concerns he heard from regular, everyday, hard-working Albertans.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on behalf of the constituents of Red Deer—Lacombe about an issue that I am hearing quite a bit about. Before I go any further, I will note that I am splitting my time with my friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

Bill C-11, the online streaming act, and in the previous Parliament Bill C-10, is causing a lot of concern and a lot of debate here in Canada. We are not debating the bill per se anymore in the sense that it has been returned to this place. This does not happen very often. Those who are still able to freely watch this at home need to understand that it is very rare for the Senate of Canada to return a piece of legislation to the House of Commons, because normally MPs do their due diligence in the legislative process here. It goes through committees, where we hear from witnesses and hear from experts, and we can generally amend legislation in the House of Commons. I am not saying it ever goes to the Senate in perfect format, but if we are actually doing our job here, the Senate would have very few recommendations or changes to propose for a piece of legislation.

That is not the case with this particular piece of legislation. I believe there were 26 or 29 amendments made by the Senate. I can tell members how many Conservative senators there are in the Senate. I think there are 15, so that tells us that the vast majority of senators in the Senate are not in the Conservative caucus. However, that Senate, by a majority vote, decided to report the bill back to the House of Commons with well over 20 amendments, some of which the government has decided to accept. They are largely the innocuous ones. The important ones, dealing with what people can freely say online, what constitutes Canadian content and what the government and the CRTC can regulate, have not been accepted by the government, so we are in this debate now, in this standoff.

I want to be fair to the government in my analysis of the legislation, so I want to talk about the correspondence I have gotten in my office from Canadians and from my constituents in regard to the bill. We know how it is when we go to a convention. There is the “yes” microphone and the “no” microphone, with people speaking in favour of something and people speaking against something, so in fairness to the government, I will talk about the correspondence I have received that have a positive view on Bill C-11.

Now that that is out of the way, I am going to talk about all of the negative things we are hearing from constituents. Not since the proposals on firearms have I had this much uproar in my constituency. Actually, I have not had this much uproar since back in 2017, when the previous finance minister, Bill Morneau, tried in the summertime to change the tax laws in this country, which created so much furor.

Not one person in my constituency has written into my office to says they agree with everything the government is doing on Bill C-11, and there are people in my constituency who use social media, watch Netflix and watch Disney+. They are those who have not cancelled Disney+ and saved themselves from financial ruin, according to the current finance minister. All kidding aside, they have not, and here is why: It is because they trust the people who are being very critical about this piece of legislation. They are largely objective people.

Margaret Atwood has said, “bureaucrats should not be telling creators what to write” and that bureaucrats should not be in charge of deciding what is Canadian. She has referred to all of this with two words that I think should make every member of this House stand still and think for a second: “creeping totalitarianism”. That is from Margaret Atwood, a voice of reason. Everybody around the world has read, understands or has access to some of the fine works of Margaret Atwood.

Senator Richards, who was appointed by the current Prime Minister and is himself a novelist, in his January speech in the Senate said that Bill C-11 is “censorship passing as national inclusion”. I hear this all the time. I do not know what my colleagues hear, but basically when we hear the government talk about inclusion, what it really means is that everybody who agrees with it is included and everybody who disagrees with it finds themselves on the outside looking in and feels like they are foreigners in their own country. Our country has never been more divided, and there has never been less trust in institutions. We only have to go back to a little over a year ago to see what the reaction has been to the divide-and-conquer approach the current Prime Minister and the government have taken.

Senator Richards goes on to say, “Cultural committees are based as much in bias and fear as in anything else. I’ve seen enough artistic committees to know that. That what George Orwell says we must resist is a prison of self-censorship.” This is Orwellian language being invoked by a Senate appointee of the current Prime Minister. He also said, “This law will be one of scapegoating all those who do not fit into what our bureaucrats think Canada should be.” That is what an intelligent, articulate senator, a novelist appointed to the Senate of Canada, is on the record as saying in a speech in the Senate.

It is shocking that we find ourselves here in this place reviewing this legislation again after everything we said when it was Bill C-10 and before Bill C-11 went to the Senate. It has now come back to us with the senators confirming all of our suspicions, all of our concerns and all of the problems we identified for the Canadian public.

Professor Michael Geist, who has been a perennial witness here, is one of the most learned people when it comes to free speech and all of the laws pertaining to it. He is the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. On digital content, he says, “Canada punches above its weight when it comes to the creation of this content, which is worth billions of revenue globally. We are talking about an enormous potential revenue loss for Canadian content producers.”

This is at a time when Canadians are having an increasingly difficult time making ends meet with inflation, the carbon tax, the cost of living and the cost of housing. Everything is going up in this country. If we go back to January, Jack Mintz wrote an article about this. In 2015, the cost of the federal government service was about $38 billion a year. Today, eight years later, the cost of public service salaries is $58 billion, an increase of $20 billion. It is an increase in the size of the federal public service in Canada of over 30%, so there are 30% more people working for the Government of Canada now than there were in 2015. Have things gotten better? Have people gotten their passports quicker? Are people getting across the border quicker? Are people getting anything done? Are any of the services needed by my fellow Canadians getting done in a quicker and more timely fashion? The answer is clearly no.

Why on earth, why in the name of everything that is good about the free country we live in, would we increase the size of the bureaucracy even more through the CRTC and give it the ability to do to the Internet what it has done to cable TV and radio? Canadians are no longer watching. They have tuned out. They have tuned out to the point where the government has had to spend $600 million just to prop up legacy media outlets because nobody is interested in their mandatory content.

Why do we not hear from them? We can hear from many people. I have been a member of Parliament here for 17 years, and I hear from people I disagree with all the time, but that does not make me a bitter or jaded person. It does not make the information I am hearing more or less valuable. We need to hear from everybody, and everybody should have the ability to say what they need to say. When they are not heard, when they feel like they are not being heard and when they feel like their government is working against them all the time, they start doing things they would normally not do. We saw that manifested on this Hill for three weeks last year. This is the kind of governance we are getting from the folks across the way.

The implementation of this bill is going to be a blunder. There is no reason for me to believe that increasing bureaucracy and the capacity of the CRTC is going to create a better outcome for the people of Canada than the current 30% massive increase in the size of the government we have already seen. On behalf of my constituents who have written me, I would urge the government to at least reconsider its position on the amendments and accept all of the amendments the Senate has proposed, because it would at least make a horrible bill somewhat more bearable.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the government, or the member who props up the government and supports everything it does, but sometimes not, and keeps the Liberals in power so Canadians cannot have a say on this disaster, wanted to have a piece of legislation that focused directly, solely and only on that topic, they could have put it forward and we could have been debating that, but that is not the only consequence of Bill C-11, so we are not.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are few values more important to the people I represent, as they are to my colleague who just spoke, than advancing freedom and protecting individual rights and liberties, especially when it comes to the creeping, reaching, interfering and the heavy hand of government and its agencies.

I oppose Bill C-11 because it is not just about what its proponents claim. It will be a way for the Liberal cabinet and CRTC gatekeepers to control what Canadians see, say and hear online. The Liberals have ignored and ridiculed the concerns about Bill C-11’s impacts and potential unintended consequences for Canadian media of all kinds and for everyday Canadians. Thousands of Canadians, and Conservatives, have spoken out for three years, so now, at the very final stage before it becomes law, the charitable assumption that its proponents are unclear or unintentional about the risks and potential consequences can no longer be entertained.

Bill C-11 remains an attempt by the Liberals to regulate the Internet, with unprecedented powers for the CRTC and no clear guidelines or guardrails on those censorship powers.

The other parties argue for the bill on two main grounds: modernization of the Broadcasting Act and that it will enhance and expand Canadian content and culture online.

The truth is that Bill C-11 goes backwards on Canadians' successful online innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurialism by regulating it with the Broadcasting Act. Instead of promoting Canadian content as a whole, Bill C-11 will pick winners and losers, prioritize and deprioritize content, and therefore shape what Canadians see, regardless of their actual preferences, and whether Canadians can be seen or heard under its criteria, which will be decided by the CRTC and ministers. To be clear, on this point, I really do not care what party it is. This power, in particular, should not be extended to any.

Unlike the Liberals, Conservatives measure success by outcomes delivered, not money spent. The challenge of how to best expand and promote Canadian content is clearly not going to be done as well by Bill C-11 as it is already being done by the private sector, hardly a surprise. For example, the Motion Picture Association Canada is responsible for half of domestic media production and spent $5 billion in 2021 alone. That private sector investment is five times the amount allotted in Bill C-11. This is more of the costly coalition’s usual MO of spending lots of tax dollars regardless of results, despite the private sector’s obvious leadership. It is a government gatekeeping and taxpayer-funded solution in search of a problem.

The core problem with the way Bill C-11 deals with the concept of Canadian content is that, one, it does not actually define it and enables politicians to tell the CRTC what it is, and two, any person or business may be restricted since their content can be pushed up or down if it is decided that they fit or that they are not Canadian enough.

Canadians do not have to decipher the truth from our back-and-forth here. Currently, the CRTC’s definition of Canadian content often depends on copyright ownership, which big streaming services usually keep, instead of, say, Canadian staff, locations, writers, actors, compositions, art or stories.

The power granted to politicians is clear in Bill C-11. Section 7 of the Broadcasting Act states, “the Governor in Council may, by order, issue to the Commission directions of general application on broad policy matters”. Well, “Governor in Council” means a cabinet minister. Conservatives tried to remove that clause to ensure that the CRTC chair would be free from political interference, but Liberals blocked it, so the power is there.

After the costly coalition pushes through Bill C-11, Liberals will write up a set of backdoor regulations for the CRTC and then apply some sort of values test to every YouTube video, Facebook post, TV show, documentary and radio show, and it is endless. Social media is caught because of Bill C-11’s definition of “online undertakings” and “programs”, which can include images and sounds where written text is limited. That could mean videos, podcasts, photos and memes, but not written posts or news articles.

Clauses 9 and 10 could empower the CRTC to adopt so-called discoverability rules that would force social media sites like YouTube to modify algorithms and affect how often videos are seen on social media feeds, based on the yet-to-be determined criteria for what is and is not sufficiently Canadian. Bill C-11 clearly makes the Canadian government and the agency the regulator of the Internet. The Broadcasting Act states that the regulations will prescribe “what constitutes a Canadian program”. If the content is not Canadian enough, it will get slapped with fees and taxes, and it will be censored. If it is Canadian enough, it will continue just as it does now.

Bill C-11 will also force content creators, from small YouTubers all the way to Netflix, to pay fees to the Canada Media Fund, but it does not define who will be exempted and makes creators pay based on a points system that value-tests whether their content production is Canadian enough.

The winners would be government-subsidized broadcasters, such as the already advantaged government-funded CBC, which would get even more funding with Bill C-11. The losers would be the independent innovators driving Canadian digital leadership, and often young Canadians. So much for the democratized free market of ideas that the Internet embodies.

Conservatives proposed to define discoverability and limit government algorithm manipulation, as well as amendments to ensure greater transparency of the CRTC and its decision-making, but the Liberals rejected them.

Digital entrepreneurs have grown rapidly on YouTube and Instagram. They create brands off their channels and the advertising revenues their videos generate. They are worried that they would not qualify as Canadian enough, and that small channels, with only a couple of hundred subscribers and next to no revenue, will suddenly be forced to pay government, or even get fined up to $25,000 per day, as in proposed section 32. It is crazy that a young Canadian YouTuber could get fined because they are not Canadian enough.

Conservatives also tried to remove proposed subsection 4.1(1), which may be referenced by members opposite as exempting normal Canadians from these CRTC rules, but the Liberals put in an exemption to the exemption right after, so there is actually no change.

The Liberals plan to reject the amendment that would explicitly encourage the CRTC to regulate professional, copywritten content, which seems to be their actual aim, instead of individual user-created content. Even then, it does not change the discoverability rules that would control and prioritize what Canadians see and hear, thereby controlling the content creators.

Experts warn that this will happen. Former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies says that under Bill C-11, Canada will “become a global leader in restricting online speech and meddling with news media.” Canada’s top legal scholar and digital content expert, Michael Geist, whom the Liberals now deride when we quote him, says it will restrict who can hear Canadian voices: “the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard.” If Canadians do not have the freedom to hear it, then the creator does not have free expression.

Forty thousand creators from Digital First Canada signed letters calling for these rules to be removed. The Liberals ignored them. Prominent and diverse Canadian YouTubers, like J.J. McCullough, Morghan Fortier, Justin Tomchuk and Oorbee Roy, have all spoken about their concerns about what Bill C-11 would do to their viewership and their income.

J.J. McCullough said:

Given that YouTubers make videos of every genre imaginable, from fitness to architecture to political commentary, it is frankly terrifying to imagine that government may soon have a hand in determining which genres of video are more worthy of promotion than others.

In summary, anyone proud of the tremendous success of Canadians on YouTube should be deeply concerned about the damage that Bill C-11 could do to their livelihoods.

If MPs pass this bill into law, no one can say they were not warned about the potential consequences. The level of uncertainty and concern, as much about what is not defined as what is, and the potential impact on the core value of free expression should be enough for the costly coalition to hit pause and fix this bill.

That is the duty of policy-makers, the duty of MPs, to ensure that legislation does what they claim and to mitigate unintended consequences before passing laws. MPs must defend the values of Canadians' right to freely, without censorship or risk of consequences, express their views, so long as they are not inciting harm or hate, whether or not they align with the views of anyone in here. That is our job.

No government agency responsible for broadcasting in a free and democratic society should have powers to censor, control and regulate as proposed in Bill C-11. Canadians have fought and died to defend rights to free thought and expression.

I will close with these words:

you fit into me
like a hook into an eye
a fish hook
an open eye

Margaret Atwood was talking about love and pain. That is what Bill C-11 would do to what Canadians can see and hear online. She says Bill C-11 is “creeping totalitarianism”. I would not presume but it is probably fair to say she is not a Conservative, but she is a world-renowned Canadian artist and icon, and Bill C-11 supporters should actually listen to her before it is too late.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to get up and ask my colleague from Calgary Shepard a question, because “there's always something to do.”

The government of the day has subsidized media outlets across this country to the tune of over $600 million because these media outlets that are highly regulated by organizations like the CRTC and forced to follow these rules cannot generate the advertising revenue or the interest they need because the government is dictating to them what they can and cannot do. Does my colleague see Bill C-11 doing the same thing to digital content creators on the Internet?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye so I can speak to this piece of legislation. I know I started speaking on it, but I guess the government made a mistake in its original motion. I was so keen to make sure I was here to add my voice and the voices of my constituents on this.

Years ago, when this bill was known as Bill C-10, which then got converted to Bill C-11, I remember standing at a Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast in my riding in the community of Auburn Bay. The hosts served two to three thousand people that day. I stood at the front of the line, and before people got their pancakes, they had to interact with me.

I had a great many constituents tell me the number one issue they wanted to talk to me about was Bill C-11. I was floored that some of them knew the number for a piece of legislation. A lot of young people wanted to talk about it. What they knew was that Bill C-11 was coming through and would have an impact on free speech, and they did not like it. I asked them what they knew, and we had an exchange about it.

The majority of emails I get are in opposition to Bill C-11 and also in opposition to Bill C-21. I have had a handful, which I could literally count on one hand, of people who have had positive things to say about Bill C-11.

People are extremely upset with the government over the Senate amendments and which of the amendments it has chosen to proceed with and which it has not. One of the Senate amendments it rejected would have protected user-uploaded content.

As we know, with most user-uploaded content, there is a possibility for someone to make revenue from it when they have a channel. All of it is captured by these amendments that the government would be accepting in Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is still a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

Before I continue, I want to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Lakeland, who I am sure will do a terrific job speaking on behalf of her constituents as well.

I want to go through the legislation, specifically section 7, which I have the most concerns with.

In my home, my kids go on YouTube and streaming services exclusively. We do not have cable. There is no over-the-air TV like back in my day. When I say “back in my day”, I still remember when there were black and white channels.

In Communist Poland, there were only two channels we could get. They were both in black and white. The joke always was that the regime had set up a second channel to prove to people the first one was not that bad. I do not remember it, but the first time I got to watch TV in colour was when I came to Canada in 1985. It was a nice thing to see that colour TV was something we could get.

My kids do not have that experience at all. They go onto YouTube and I go onto YouTube as well. I am going to mention two particular channels I love, because they are by Canadian content creators who would be impacted by Bill C-11.

The first one is an Ontario channel called TheStraightPipes. It is two guys from Ontario who review cars. They just get vehicles and review them. They would have to go to the CRTC to get a licence that says the videos they post are Canadian content.

They are from Canada. They are Canadian content creators. Even when they travel to America, I still think of their videos as Canadian content. Would they be eligible for a licence for their Canadian and international audience to be able to look at their videos if they go to America and do them?

The second one I want to mention is my favourite, and I mentioned it earlier in the previous stage of debate on Bill C-11 It is Leroy and Leroy. If people are not on Instagram checking out these guys from Saskatchewan, they are missing out.

Leroy and Leroy is the funniest comedy channel about funny street signs all over Canada. I will always remember the one video they uploaded of a “no parking” sign on a straight road somewhere in Saskatchewan. I know it is really difficult to figure out one straight road from another in Saskatchewan. It is a rural road, there is a “no parking” sign and there is just nothing there that someone would be concerned about vehicles blocking.

I wonder whether they would have to keep reapplying to the CRTC as Canadian content creators. Are they Canadian enough? When they travel outside of Canada to do their comedy routine, would they be Canadian enough?

I have a Yiddish proverb. I always have a Yiddish proverb. I am going to butcher the pronunciation of it.

[Member spoke in Yiddish]

[English]

It means, “Truth has all the finest qualities, but it is shy.” I am glad we are having this debate this evening, because it is an opportunity for the shyness to come out and the truth to come out.

Many members on the opposite side do not like the fact that we call this a censorship bill. We say the CRTC is going to be able to control what people see and hear online, but that is what many of the witnesses have been saying.

Countless witnesses, professors and academics, people who have specialized in writing, including a constitutional lawyer who used to work for our justice department, have expressed concern over the content of the bill and how the bill is written. When there is a disagreement between experts and the common, everyday people who write to my inbox telling me they are upset with the contents of the bill, I am going to trust my constituents, the real experts when it comes to legislation before the House. They are the ones I represent here. They are the ones who are going to have to live with the decisions we are making and the types of legislation we are going to pass.

I am very concerned with section 7. It reads, “For greater certainty, an order may be made under subsection (1) with respect to orders made under subsection 9.1(1) or 11.1(2) or regulations made under subsection 10(1) or 11.1(1).”

We write these laws in this manner. I am not burdened with a legal education, thankfully, but I did go back to the Broadcasting Act to see under which sections the government would be able to direct things. This one would allow cabinet to issue, under the heading “Policy directions”, any of the objectives of the broadcasting policies set out in a different subsection, or any of the objectives of the regulatory policies set out in a different section. It starts by saying, “the Governor in Council may...issue to the Commission directions of general application on broad policy matters with respect to”, and then it goes into detail.

The next section I will talk about is licencing. Everything to do with licencing would be impacted as well, because the government would be able to direct the CRTC through a policy directive and tell it what to do. That is all in section 7. It goes on to talk about regulations generally, and we find that in many pieces of legislation.

For those constituents who are perhaps watching this and will use this as an explanation when I go through this, it goes from literally 10(1) all the way down from (a) to (k), and the government covers everything down to what respects the audit or examination of the records of licensees.

What does that mean? Is it that, if Leroy and Leroy gets a licence with the CRTC to prove its creators create Canadian content, the creators can be audited, such as with respect to how many videos they did in Canada versus not in Canada? If TheStraightPipes brings in an American vehicle, or a vehicle perhaps manufactured elsewhere, are the creators going to be audited on that?

The bill talks about distribution, mediation rules and respecting the carriage of any foreign or other programming services by distribution undertakings. What happens if TheStraightPipes decides to do a joint episode with an American channel? Does it need a special licence, a different licence, and have to pay a fee? Is it Canadian content enough?

All these broadcasting rules are being brought into the age of YouTube, and they do not really apply here where the cost of production is so low and so close to people. However, in the bill, there are things about advertising, Canadian programming and what constitutes Canadian programming, which is where this Canadian content comes in.

Again, there are a schedule of fees, performing of the licence and the undertakings, which are all being covered, and it starts with the policy directives that can be set by the Government of Canada. A lot of different groups have expressed concerns about it. Like I said, it is probably the number one issue emailed to me or in the phone calls I get in the office.

I talked about the Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast outside the Auburn Bay A&W, which was hosting it. The gentleman who runs it, Balwant, is a great community activist. He is always helping different charitable groups and supporting them.

There are a lot of groups and individuals who think this is bad legislation: Digital First Canada; OpenMedia; J.J. McCullough, who is an independent journalist but has his own YouTube channel as well; Justin Tomchuk, who is an independent filmmaker; and the Digital Media Association. The list goes on and on.

This piece of legislation is bad. It is about censorship, or it would give the opportunity for it, and if the government really meant for it not to be not to be known by that, it would have abandoned this piece of legislation. It would have gone back to the drafting process and drafted a better bill.

This entire situation could have been avoided. Motions were tabled that actually did not do what they were supposed to do, and then the government came back and tabled a different motion because it is just trying to ram the bill through the process, and that has not worked out for the government. I think there are way more Canadians who know about Bill C-11 and about the CRTC than ever before, and the vast majority of them in my riding are opposed to Bill C-11.

I am going to vote against Bill C-11. I will continue to advocate against it, because that is what my constituents want me to do. Hopefully, through this intervention here in the House of Commons, I have been able to demonstrate that the legislation, particularly section 7, and its amendments to the Broadcasting Act are completely on the wrong track. The government needs to kill Bill C-11.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting debate today, and I rise to speak on Bill C-11.

I was here for Bill C-10, which went on until the Liberals finally realized it was problematic, shipped it off to the Senate and called an election because they knew they had a bad piece of legislation.

The Internet is an interesting place, but the expression of opinions has been going on for a long time.

I do not know if anybody in this House has been to Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, London. People can stand there and express any opinion they want. There are libel laws in the Criminal Code; we understand that. However, people can stand on that corner and express their viewpoints. There is no censorship and no control. If they attract an audience, the audience might like to listen. If they do not attract an audience, so be it, but they still have the opportunity to do that.

In 1989, the World Wide Web was introduced as a tool for communication and connection, for the free flow of information no matter where one was located. One did not have to be on Speakers' Corner but could be anywhere in the world. According to Tim Berners-Lee, who is credited with founding the Internet, the web was a universal linked information system that “evolved into a powerful ubiquitous tool because it was built on...principles and because thousands...have worked...to expand its capabilities based on those principles.” That is how the modern-day inventor of this particular tool stated it.

Since then, it has exploded. At least five billion people in the world are using it. I remember being on a corner in Beijing, China, and the street vendor selling a watermelon was using the Internet. It has exploded around the world. It can be used to shop, browse and communicate freely. It can be used for anything one wants at just about the click of a button. This is the power of the Internet.

The government wants Bill C-11 to level the playing field, but I do not think this is the leveller. Despite what the government says, Bill C-11 would change the way Canadians interact with the Internet, and I do not agree with the how. Bill C-11 flies directly in the face of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition Charter. The charter talks about the right to network equality, “universal and open access to the Internet’s content, free from discriminatory prioritisation, filtering or traffic control on commercial, political or other grounds.” It talks about the right to accessibility and expression, “the right to seek, receive, and impart information freely on the Internet without censorship or other interference.”

However, the heritage minister has continued to stonewall against some of our concerns. As Conservatives brought forward amendments that people were sharing with us, the government did not accept them and then went to the Senate after ignoring the amendments we wanted to make. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 stands in the way of Canadian innovation and tells Canadian creators that their aspirations can only be achieved with the help of the government. There is a phrase: “I'm here to help you. I'm from the government.” In my world, I tell people to run now and run like hell. When somebody from the government says they are here to help, people should run.

For decades, the Canadian arts and cultural sectors have reached global audiences without government choosing the next success story. In my riding, as in many rural ridings, over 40% of the people do not have access to broadband. The Auditor General stated that less than 60% of rural Canadians have broadband access. Maybe that is what the Liberals should be working on, not controlling the Internet.

When there are people in Canada who do not even have reliable Internet, we should be looking at that. However, the crux of Bill C-11 culminates in what the government has been doing since it took office. It wants to spend, regulate and control more. Enter Bill C-10 and then Bill C-11 to mandate the CRTC to regulate the Internet.

I have been on the heritage committee for a long time. There was a report with a recommendation that people should only be board members on the CRTC if they lived in the 613 area code. That was the Yale report recommendation. I am not sure about the CRTC when people have to live in Ottawa to be on the board.

Often during committee we heard that the CRTC was the only organization capable of achieving such a wide regulatory order. This bill would lead to the addition of even more government employees and costs, which would be significant whether done in-house or contracted out. It would be a huge cost. Not only would the scope of the CRTC reach Canadian radio waves and TV screens, but now it would also reach the Internet.

In 1997, a former Liberal MP, the Hon. Roger Gallaway, said:

[T]he Internet is the system linking computers all over the world, allowing the free flow of information. Now the new chair of the CRTC...has stated that her commission intends to regulate the Internet to ensure adequate levels of Canadian content. If information is flowing freely how and why is [the commissioner} going to measure its Canadiana?

Rather than spend our money in such a fashion perhaps a suggestion of redirecting her cash to libraries, book publishing or literary programs would be infinitely more meaningful. Regulating the flow of information is in a historical sense an extraordinarily dangerous step. I would suggest that regulating the flow of information is in fact censorship.

As parliamentarians I suggest that we stop the CRTC's flight of fancy before it takes one further step.

Does it sound familiar? History repeats itself, this time at the behest of the government. In 1997, when the Internet was but a fraction of what it is today, the concerns of regulatory censorship in what is Canadian content was being raised by the Liberals.

More recently, Canadian writer-director Sarah Polley adapted a screenplay from a novel by Canadian author Miriam Toews. She won an Oscar for her film Women Talking. Will the CRTC acknowledge that this production qualifies as Canadian content? Whether productions have significant involvement by Canadians is not considered by the CRTC to qualify as Canadian content.

Turning Red is a Pixar film written and directed by a Canadian, set in Canada and with Canadian characters. Does it count? No, it does not; it is not Canadian. Under Bill C-11, that decision would fall to cabinet, its order in council, the governor. Yes, that is the one that says they are going to give the directions to the CRTC. I do not think any party should be making those decisions and directing the CRTC.

At least the previous Bill C-10, a bill that died in the last Parliament, included an explicit exemption for user-generated content. However, then the Liberals removed it from their own bill. Members of the government realized they would not be able to tighten the grip on Canadians' viewing habits should that exemption remain. Therefore, they tried again with Bill C-11 and told Canadians not to worry but to trust them. That is another phrase. It gets scary when somebody says, “Trust me”.

A careful examination revealed complicated ways in which they can still be regulated. The Senate introduced an amendment intended to explicitly rule out user-generated non-commercial content, but the government rejected that too. The Liberals rejected the Senate, Canadians and the exemption. That must say it all.

As Canadians' foremost expert on Internet and copyright law, Dr. Michael Geist said, “For months, [the Minister of Heritage] has said ‘platforms in, users out’.... We now know this was false. By rejecting the Senate amendment, the government’s real intent is clear: retain the power to regulate user content. Platforms in, user content in.”

If the CRTC is given this mandate, it may direct social media platforms and streaming services to develop the algorithms to favour and disfavour based on a certain criterion, but one we do not know. No one but the government knows. The screening occurs through discoverability. When one opens a browser on a platform, such as YouTube or Facebook, such results would be screened artificially based on a CRTC directive. This needs to stop.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a question as to the charter statement on Bill C-11. I was hoping to get unanimous consent to table, in both official languages—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, again, from Conservative speaker after Conservative speaker, we are getting conspiracy theories and dog whistle politics. Does the hon. member truly believe that three parties in the House would support a piece of legislation and that none of those members would raise concerns about being brought in line with countries like North Korea and Russia? I asked the previous member this. Is it not an insult to the people living in those regimes to even come close to comparing them?

I know the hon. member was not at committee and did not hear this. Could he name just one constitutional expert in this country who has raised concerns about it? No one has, yet they point fingers, yell and scream. They are yelling down the Twitter rabbit hole, hoping it yells back at them with money, over complete misinformation and disinformation about Bill C-11. Can the hon. member name one constitutional expert?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to advise that I will be sharing my time with my little buddy from Bow River.

It is, again, an honour to rise and speak today in the House. Unfortunately, I am speaking about another oppressive piece of legislation, and with the current Liberal government that could be almost anything, to be honest. In this case, it is the Liberal online censorship bill, Bill C-11. It is known as an act that would impose restrictions on free speech and open the door to government censorship on the Internet in Canada, which is the long title of the bill, or whatever name the Liberals want to give it.

From the beginning, the Liberals have sought to force the bill through Parliament without proper deliberation or consultation. Though Canadian content creators, experts and Canadians in general have spoken out on the bill and the increased power it would give the government, they have been largely ignored. The Liberals rammed Bill C-11 through committee without leaving time for amendments, and they continue to conceal their true intentions and the very real consequences the legislation would have on the Canadian Internet, on social media and on the personal freedoms of Canadians.

If the Liberal government were to commit to getting Bill C-11 correct, as it claims it has, instead of steamrolling democracy, the Senate would not have had to do the government's work for it. It is rare that the Senate does not pass legislation that has already passed through the House. The Senate sending Bill C-11 back to the House with significant amendments, not only in quantity but also in content, shows that there is something seriously wrong with the Liberal piece of legislation before us.

Bill C-11 seeks to regulate audiovisual content on the Internet through an arm of the government called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, commonly known as the CRTC, which has traditionally been responsible for regulating radio and television. The bill would put the CRTC in charge of creating and implementing regulations for the Internet for the very first time. Bill C-11 has been controversial since it was introduced in 2020. Disguised as an incompetent and misguided attempt to modernize Canadian content regulation, the bill is nothing more than censorship by a dictatorship.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-11 to take something old, the Broadcasting Act, and use it to try to bridle something relatively new: the Internet. In trying to doing so, the bill is the very opposite of modernization. By placing greater control in the hands of the government and granting less autonomy to individuals, Bill C-11 would create the very opposite of a free and equal society. It would be something closer to the Prime Minister's country of admiration: the basic dictatorship of China's Communist government.

Canadians who have been shut out by Canada's traditional media gatekeepers are finding their voices on places like Facebook, Instagram, Spotify and YouTube. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would stifle the voices of digital-first creators and hinder the ability of Canadians to find the content they may like. In effect, Bill C-11 would place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which would pick what content gets moved to the top of one's search menu and what content gets pushed to the background where it ought never to be discovered.

In this way, Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital-first creators, on our choice as viewers and on the advancement of the arts and culture in Canada in this century.

After listening to testimony from digital experts, Canadian YouTubers, indigenous creators and others, the Senate introduced an amendment, one of many, that would encourage the CRTC to exclude some user-generated content from regulation. However, not only is this amendment not guaranteed to pass in the House, but it also does not go far enough. With or without this amendment, under Bill C-11, the CRTC would still be able to compel platforms to promote CRTC-approved Canadian content.

The Liberals claim that bringing in more government intervention will boost Canadian culture. I believe this is absolutely false. As countries ruled by oppressive leaders have shown us, more government control does not lead to creativity and innovation, nor does allowing more power ever cause governments to further respect their citizens' rights and freedoms.

Under this bill, the CRTC would have the power to regulate user-generated content, in other words, anything created, posted and produced on the Internet. As such, although the government claims that this bill is geared toward supporting Canadian culture and levelling the playing field, Bill C-11 would actually remove freedom and choice away from Canadians while unfortunately, and not surprisingly, it would put more power and control in the hands of the government through the CRTC.

According to a report done by Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa expert on broadcasting and online regulations, “No other democratic nation regulates user-generated content through broadcasting rules in this manner...Canada would be unique among its allies in doing so, and not in a good way.”

This designation of the government having the power to determine what qualifies as Canadian content should alarm Canadians and members of the government alike. Bill C-11's stated purpose of promoting Canadian content would essentially give the government, through the CRTC, the power to determine what qualifies as Canadian content. Under this guise of promoting Canadian content, the government would be able to designate certain opinions, certain stances and thoughts in general as un-Canadian and thus deserving of censorship.

We have seen the Prime Minister shut down and silence Canadians who disagree with the government already, determining their opinions to be un-Canadian. We have seen him render Canadians invisible and exclude them from society, deciding that certain medical choices and beliefs are un-Canadian. Now if Bill C-11 passes, the same Prime Minister, through the CRTC, would have the power to extend his pattern of dividing, stigmatizing and silencing Canadians he disagrees with on the Internet.

Ultimately, Bill C-11 would put Canada in step with countries like North Korea, China, Iran and Russia, which is totally unacceptable and altogether dangerous. In reality, Bill C-11 is yet another attempt by the Liberal government to silence any perceived dissent and to forward only a Canada that aligns with the government: in this case, the Prime Minister's vision and ideals.

This bill is simply another in a long list of misguided and out-of-touch policies. It demonstrates that after eight years under the Prime Minister, Canada is broken. Legislation that seeks to regulate and oppress Canadians has been the norm under the Liberal government. While Canadians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, struggling to feed their families and to heat their homes, their government is focusing its resources on extending its already heavy hand into the everyday lives of its citizens.

The bottom line is that the Liberal government has failed to be transparent and continues to show contempt for democracy and parliamentary procedure by consistently using heavy-handed measures to adopt what can only be described as oppressive and unprecedented legislation without proper scrutiny.

Bill C-11 is nothing but another Liberal assault on Canadian citizens and their personal freedoms. That is why it failed in the Senate and why even a modified version ought to be voted down by the House. If it is not, I hope the Senate does the right thing and punts it back to the House with even more amendments.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as it goes with diplomatic relations, she may not have come out and said what she said to the press at committee because she wants to know the progress of the bill. She is interested to know whether the government would consider the amendments that the Senate made, which are very sound, and recognize that we want to exclude user content.

Yes, it is fine for people, in the definition of the Senate amendment, who have been assigned a unique identifier under an international standards system, have uploaded to an online undertaking in social media that is the exclusive licensee of copyright, is a program or significant part of which has been broadcast by a broadcast undertaking, or is required under a licence.

It is clear that the Senate intended that those were the people the CRTC should be regulating and not individuals. I am sure that what was quoted in multiple news organizations about what the U.S. thinks is true, that it has a concern with Bill C-11 and the government needs to listen to it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, normally I would say it is a pleasure to rise and speak in this House, but I am very sad to hear the tone of the debate tonight, with personal attacks and insults against many members just because they have a different view. That is not our country. It is not why we are here in this House. We are elected to come and share a different view.

Bill C-11 is a bill that is purported to be about the modernization of the CRTC in the digital age, and everyone in this House is okay with that. Everyone agrees we need to modernize.

However, there has been an assertion that we need to make everyone pay their fair share, and that is certainly a principle everybody would be on side with, but the reality is right now these large streamers they are talking about are putting $5 billion into the Canadian economy. This bill, if implemented, would put $1 billion in.

Already, I would tell members this is not really what is behind this bill, and my concern as the shadow minister for civil liberties has to do with people's charter rights and freedoms. Let me just refresh one's memory about what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says in section 2(b), which is everyone has the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” We are supposed to have freedom.

There have been claims of misinformation and disinformation. In fact, on Twitter, the Minister of Heritage put out some things I want to go through one at a time about what the bill is and what the bill is not, because Canadians are listening to it all and are not sure what to believe.

The minister says that Bill C-11 would not tell Canadians what to watch. For this one, I want to do the fork analogy. Let us say somebody decides to go hide all the forks in the house in the hall closet. Then they tell Canadians they have the freedom to choose whatever utensil they want to eat with, so Canadians open the drawer and see spoons, knives and various things, but there are no forks. Now, if they want to spend the time to go hunt through the house, they can find those forks in the hall closet, so absolutely, they have the choice of what to eat with, but in fact, by burying the forks in the hall closet, the government has effectively impacted what Canadians can watch, or what they can eat with.

The minister also says that this is not going to infringe on free speech. However, what this bill would do is allow the government in council, that is cabinet, to determine the criteria that will be used by the CRTC to bury content. I am not saying I could be in the minds of the members opposite, but I am sure, from the commentary I heard tonight, they hate Conservative ideology. That would be fairly obvious to me tonight.

If somebody was posting content with Conservative ideology, perhaps the criteria the minister would set for the algorithms would say to bury that. We do not know what the criteria are, because even though the CRTC indicated the Minister of Heritage would set those and the Minister of Heritage said he had given consideration and in due course would reveal them, we do not know what they are. From an open and transparent government, we have no transparency on what the criteria are that will censor content, or bury it.

The Senate studied this and gave due consideration. It said it really had a problem with the government of the day, whatever government it was, deciding which individual content to bury. Yes, the government gets that people are making money off the Internet, streaming services and everything else. It wants to make sure Canadian content is out there and promoted, but individuals would be excluded, so the Senate brought an amendment to exclude that. The Liberal government rejected it, which says to me and to many Canadians it wants to have the ability to control what individuals put out. That is unacceptable.

In addition, the minister said that the bill would not create censorship on the Internet, but anything that can shut down content is a form of censorship. We know that in a healthy democracy, criticism of the government of the day and the ability to speak freely are essential elements. It is only in communistic governments that the government of the day determines what one can see, what one cannot see, what one can say and what is unacceptable. That is not democracy, and that is not what we want in Canada.

The final point from the minister is that any ridiculous things that the Conservatives come up with are to scare Canadians. Well, in addition to that being insulting, did the Liberals not listen to the many digital creators who came to committee and objected to the bill? Did they not listen to Canadian icons, like Margaret Atwood, who is criticizing the bill for its definition of Canadian content and for the ability of the government to tell her what to write or whether it is going to be promoted or not. I think that is ridiculous.

The other thing is that it is not just Conservatives who have concerns about the bill, and I have mentioned a few, but how about President Joe Biden? President Joe Biden has a concern about Bill C-11, and we were all here in the House on Friday to hear and to talk about the long-standing friendship between the United States and Canada. So let us hear what they have to say about Bill C-11.

This is from The Canadian Press:

Washington has raised concerns about the trade implications of Ottawa's online-streaming bill, prompting a legal expert to warn that Canada could face hundreds of millions of dollars of retaliatory tariffs if it becomes law. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai expressed disquiet about the proposed legislation, known as Bill C-11, during talks earlier this month with International Trade Minister...at the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) Free Trade Commission ministerial meeting. The online-streaming bill, which has passed the House of Commons and...the Senate, would force American-owned platforms, including YouTube, Netflix and Amazon's Prime Video, to promote Canadian TV, movies, videos or music, and help fund Canadian content.

This is from True North:

The United States government has waded into the fight against two digital regulation laws being considered by the federal Liberal government. US Trade Representative and Ambassador Katherine Tai met with Canadian Minister of International Trade...on Wednesday to discuss Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. In a readout of the meeting, Tai stated that the US side “expressed concern” about the two laws discriminating against American businesses and content creators.

We have heard all of the rhetoric about how the U.S. is our strongest trading partner and that it is the most important relationship we have. Our friends to the south have expressed concern about the bill. Will this Liberal government not even consider their concern? Will it not even address their concern? I think that is unhealthy for Canadians and unhealthy for our relationship with our neighbour to the south.

Let us talk about the lack of transparency on what will be voted upon or what will be buried. We have asked for over a year, and if there is nothing wrong with the criteria, why not share it?

Then there is the Canadian content definition, and I mentioned Margaret Atwood earlier. The Handmaid’s Tale, which she wrote, unfortunately is not Canadian content, because even though Canadian actors acted in it, etc., and it was filmed here, the head company is from the U.S., and so it is not Canadian content.

I think that there is a pattern with this government of eroding our freedoms, and I see this as another slice of a thousand cuts in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the media, and I could go on.

I know that there are people here who want to ask questions, but all I am saying is that our neighbours to the south have raised concerns, digital creators have raised concerns, we are raising concerns, and there is no transparency coming from the other side on the bill, and so it is time to take a pause.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, these came in over the weekend, and this afternoon, I had an email from my constituent Bob that I will share. It has an interesting spin. He said that what is lost in this bill is that, while the government is forcing Facebook and all to pay for news, those same media of Global, CBC and CTV are taking photos from his Instagram and Facebook pages and using them without payment. There is an interesting one.

The other email is a concern from a YouTuber. He is worried about the government overreach on Bill C-11.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his years of service. I also heard him say that he had a face for radio, and I did not realize that he had been on TV as well.

He mentioned, in his deliberations, all the emails he got from concerned Canadians. I wonder if he could share some of those with the House, from individuals who have legitimate concerns about what Bill C-11 is and how it would impact them.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, did the member for Nunavut know the indigenous met with the minister and stormed out of the office, they were so upset over the regulations on Bill C-11, even Bill C-10? The indigenous, the Inuit and others are not happy with what has transpired.

They do need their voice up north. If CBC was doing such a good job, we would probably not have needed APTN in this country. It is funny that APTN has taken over the voice of the indigenous people because the public broadcaster could not carry it. That has opened a window for those in Winnipeg and at APTN.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did hear Gord Sinclair, and I thank the hon. member for bringing him up. Yes, through the sixties, seventies and eighties, when radio stations were forced to hit rates of 30% or 35% in Canadian content, there was a lot of Canadian talent that made a lot of people in the industry successful. We could go on for an hour naming the successful people that CanCon created. This was very much so in the radio days, but that is no more. In fact, the department does not know how much revenue Bill C-11 would bring in.

It has no idea, but over a billion dollars has been put into this country by the big giants for production. I have talked about Toronto, Regina, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Calgary. These are tremendous production houses, which I fear would have closed years ago.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time tonight with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

It has been really interesting to sit here listening to the debate because I have sat on the heritage committee for years and went through all the testimony on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11. The only thing I agree on is that the former heritage minister knew nothing about Bill C-10 and that is why he was replaced. I would say the current heritage minister knows very little about Bill C-11, and he too should be replaced. This is an interesting conversation we are having here tonight.

I say that because, when one sits in committee and hears testimony after testimony twice a week for four years, it is kind of interesting. It is true that this bill a dumpster. We have seen it since day one when the former heritage minister tried to explain it. It came back to the House early in June and then we shoved it off to the Senate, only to have the unnecessary election and the bill died. How serious were the Liberals on that? They had an election that did not have to be called if Bill C-10 were so important, but, no, they shoved it to the Senate, called an election that did not need to be called and the bill died. We had to start all over and two years later, here we are again on Bill C-11, and the Liberals are still arguing the same points as they did on Bill C-10. It is interesting.

Now we are dealing with the Senate's proposal on this bill. I will say that the Senate, in my estimation, did a fairly good job on this. It worked hard on this. It spent weeks on Bill C-11. It did not like what we sent it, we being the House of Commons and the committee, so it spent weeks going over this. In fact, it had 26 amendments that it recommended the government look at and put in the bill. That speaks volumes. We never get that many amendments from the red chamber.

Out of the 26 amendments, we understand the government took 18, but it did not take eight. For whatever reason, the government did not like eight amendments from the Senate, which I will get to in just a moment. The concern remains on all sides of the Senate. I know they are flipping each way over there, but they all agreed this bill is a disaster.

In the Conservative caucus, we have talked about this since day one. We have been very vocal on this bill for very good reason. We are very concerned with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's involvement in Bill C-11. I am very concerned. I do not think it has the capability, in fact I will say that I know it does not have the capability, to really do what is necessary in Bill C-11.

It is not just the Conservative caucus talking about its concerns with Bill C-11. We have heard it from industry experts. We have heard it from academics, content creators and digital platform users. Everybody who came to committee over the last number of years expressed the same concern. Former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies spoke twice in committee about his concerns with Bill C-10 and Bill C-11. Dr. Michael Geist has been the most vocal on this, and he should be because he is Canada research chair in Internet law. I think he is one of the foremost thinkers in the country when it comes to Internet regulation. He has written oodles of articles not only denouncing Bill C-10 but also, recently, Bill C-11.

The government claims the platforms must pay their fair share. I have heard over and over today the government claiming that platforms must pay their fair share. This just in: They actually do. The government says it is long overdue. Platforms are among the biggest investors today in Canadian film and television production. There are all-time records in Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina and Vancouver. The business has never been so good. Why is that? It is because Americans are hiring Canadians to do their productions from Toronto, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg and Vancouver. I could go on and on about the tremendous support in this country for working, paying taxes and shooting documentaries.

TV networks, such as CBC, CTV and Global, do not do documentaries anymore because they are too expensive. However, Netflix and Amazon do documentaries because there is skin in the game. They put well over $1 billion into this country's film and TV production, which is later shown either on streaming devices or sold to the traditional broadcasters.

The Liberals say that we need to support the next generation of Canadian artists. However, Bill C-11 would hurt Canadian artists the most. The Senate was absolutely convinced on this issue. We were, too, on Bill C-11, as were many digital creators, who risk being harmed by the CRTC regulation.

I heard the member for Nunavut the other day, and again a couple of moments ago, explaining that there is concern with this. The concern should be up north, where their voices have never been heard. CBC does not go up there. CTV would not go up there, and Global does not go up north to tell indigenous, Inuit stories. It is too expensive. However, here we have Netflix and Amazon giving us the stories of Canadian people. TV and film production is at its all-time high in this country.

We were told in committee by the largest entertainment workers union, Unifor, that streamers are now the largest employer in this sector. No longer is it CTV, Global or CBC. It is the streamers that are the largest employer in the sector. We can see how it has grown.

I am a 40-plus year veteran of television. I have seen the decline in television, but the gap has been filled by streamers and production houses from others that had to come into this country to put money on the table to produce some of the greatest innovation this country has ever seen.

My fear now is that CanCon demands and higher regulatory costs would mean that many streaming services from around the world could block Canada. The biggest concern, and I have talked about this, is regulating user content. This was one of the eight Senate amendments rejected by the government. I pointed that out. It appears that the government wants to retain the power to regulate. Instead of listening to experts, the Liberals are catering to the needs of big telecom companies, which basically hold the monopoly, and they have for decades, over broadcasting in this country.

One more time, I am going to talk about the CRTC because I am fearful of it today. The CRTC, as we have seen, is a body with little or no accountability. I would argue it is one of the least effective regulatory bodies in the whole country today. It is a body that can barely handle the responsibilities that it has. For starters, the CRTC has been totally ineffective at managing Canadian telecoms. We have the least competitive and most expensive telecommunication industry in the world. I blame the CRTC. Canadians today pay the highest prices for cell phones and Internet. Many, in fact, do not even have broadband in this country.

Then there is that three-digit suicide prevention line, which this place unanimously voted for in December 2020. How easy would that be to put into action? The CRTC, in its wisdom, has taken a year and a half for a simple three-digit suicide prevention line. How can we expect the CRTC to address the problems of broadcasting when we already know it has no idea how to handle its responsibilities?

The big issue with Bill C-11 is the CRTC and the Governor in Council. Canadians have woken up. I have gotten lots of emails in the last couple of days. I can share them during questions and comments. This is a bill that Canadians should be very fearful of.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting speech and historical look at this, as well as explaining different technical terms.

Since we come from the same neck of the woods in Quebec, I would like to hear my friend and colleague speak about the importance of creating that space for Quebec content via Bill C-11.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak to this bill. I spoke to Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament and I have spoken to Bill C-11 in this Parliament, and this debate around the Senate amendments provides an opportunity to speak again.

I would like to start out by saying that Conservatives fancy themselves experts on all things to do with markets and the marketplace, but ironically they do not appear to understand markets. They do not seem to understand marketing distribution systems and networks, and the convergence of interests, big money interests, that occurs within these systems and networks.

In any market, big players, through their market power, can control distribution of product, physical or cultural. They can distort markets by deciding what consumers can have access to. It is an immutable law of the marketplace, as ironclad as the law of gravity itself, that the big players seek greater and greater market power, including through vertical integration. For example, distributors often seek to become producers of product. In the cultural sector, they seek to become producers of content. We see this with the big streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. In the case of Amazon, a company that was basically a mail-order house has also become a streaming service that does cross-marketing. When people order something on Amazon, they are asked if they want to subscribe to Amazon Prime.

Streaming services not only distribute content; they produce it more and more. It goes without saying that they have an interest in all of us being properly exposed to the content they produce at great cost. What is more, we see platforms like Google and Meta using their monopolistic muscle to intimidate duly elected governments, which I find unacceptable. This is whom the Conservatives are defending: the big streaming platforms, not the small, independent creators. They are sidling up to the big kids in the schoolyard. We are a long way from Adam Smith's free market of equals who bargain in the town square and achieve a fair equilibrium.

On the subject of algorithms, the bill is clear: The government cannot dictate algorithms to streaming platforms, end of story. The book is closed on that. In fact, it was never opened. Proposed subsection 9.1(8) of the bill reads, “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)‍(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.” That is in black and white in the bill and has been since the very beginning, yet we keep hearing from the other side that somehow the government is trying to control algorithms. When members are characterizing what is in the bill as fake news, I find that very Trumpian. It is not fake news; it is fact, and it is fact in black and white in legislation.

There is also an assumption in the narrative of the official opposition that social media algorithms mean freedom, but algorithms are not the doorway to freedom. They can be straitjackets, straitjackets of the mind. They can be blinders. We know they can lock people in echo chambers that amplify their own ideological biases. Social media algorithms are not necessarily designed to expand one's horizon. On the contrary, they can be designed to narrow one's field of vision. They are myopic and can be used to promote specific economic and political interests. It can be through algorithms that biases are reinforced and, in some cases, that misinformation is given a high-octane boost.

Let us look at radio by way of analogy. Radio of the 1970s, when CanCon was introduced by a Liberal government, is not so different from streaming today, even though the Conservatives have tried to tell us that these are apples and oranges and cannot be compared. We can superimpose the Conservative position onto 1970s radio and see what would have happened if that argument, that ideology, had been applied to music on radio.

The opposition says that Bill C-11's discoverability features cannot be compared to CanCon, that they are night and day, apples and oranges. They argue that we needed CanCon when faced with the limited resource of radio frequencies and that this solution is no longer needed because the web is limitless and opportunities to be heard are infinite.

I agree about the web. It is an infinite ocean of limitless voices, large and small, and herein lies the contradiction in the Conservative narrative. How can there be censorship by governments, or anyone else for that matter, in the endless ocean that is the World Wide Web? It is an oxymoron to speak of censorship in the cyber-era, unless we are in North Korea, where Conservatives appear to think we live. Today's challenge is not censorship, but misinformation and disinformation amplified by bots and algorithms.

Let us go back to CanCon and radio. The reason we needed CanCon was to counter a powerful, U.S.-centric distribution system whose financial interests were not necessarily those of Canadian music creators. Without CanCon, radio stations would have played only music provided to them by multinational record companies with an interest in promoting the musical artists they invested in. How would radio stations have decided what songs to play from all the music supplied to them? Playlists would have been compiled according to listener requests, requests based on the music supplied by the record companies and played on the radio, and on record sales at record stores stocked with records also supplied by the same foreign-owned record companies.

In a sense, without a requirement for CanCon, which is a form of discoverability, the de facto music industry radio algorithm would not have left much space for great Canadian music.

Finally, the Conservatives say that if Canadian culture cannot make it on its own, without any kind of government support, then it should face the judgment of the marketplace. They seem to view Canadian culture as the latest automobile.

If the Conservatives are so vehemently opposed to government intervention, the support of culture, are they asking that we eliminate Telefilm and the Canadian film or video production tax credit, which support Canadian films, many of them award winners? I think that is one of the questions that need to be asked here.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly think that Bill C-11 could have been better. Moreover, I think the CRTC is an extremely cumbersome instrument to deal with this. However, the Conservatives decided to take this absolutely extreme, paranoid position as opposed to saying, “What do we actually need to do to make sure this works?”

There were probably better ways to do this, but we were not given those options, given the realm. I have been an artist, and I know many people in the arts community. I certainly want to reassure the artists I know.

I do not know those who are concerned that if they post a YouTube video, the CRTC is somehow going to watch it. We can imagine if it did. Would that not be fascinating? That is not what this bill is about. It is about making sure that the tech giants pay their share.

I think there were better ways of dealing with this legislation and making sure that these tech giants are held to account. I certainly believe that, out of Bill C-11, we still need to deal with the issue of accountability in the algorithms. Certainly, there are issues with the tech giants in their refusal to deal with online harm for children and the vulnerable, the exploitation of people that has happened and the proliferation of hate and violence that we have seen in jurisdictions like Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Brazil. There have to be legal consequences. I think we need to look at those issues beyond where we are tonight with Bill C-11.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by sharing with the member for Timmins—James Bay, and he is aware, that I agree with him. There is so much good in Bill C-11. There is no censorship in it. We need to cut through that noise.

However, I think it is fair to offer constructive criticism and concern. At committee last June, it was my view that we lost potentially good amendments because of animosity between Liberals and Conservatives. My hope was that the Senate might look to improve the bill and suggest amendments. Particularly, amendments could focus on ensuring that if a musician like the member for Timmins—James Bay in my community were to post a show on YouTube, it would not be open to regulation from the CRTC.

Could the member for Timmins—James Bay share whether he is concerned about this with respect to Bill C-11 as well?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I laughed a lot during our colleague's speech. It was very colourful, but, at the same time, the substance of it was very worrisome.

When the leader of the official opposition gave a long speech to oppose Bill C-11, he went on and on singing the praises of the free market. I think that we are all in favour of a free market, but there are some areas, such as culture, where I think that does not apply. There are some areas where we need to rely on the government we have to help protect and regulate that culture, which may be thriving but is still, in many ways, more fragile than the U.S.-based web giants.

Can my colleague explain why the real danger is not government dictatorship but the dictatorship of the digital multinationals?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a good question because, again, I am not totally sold that Bill C-11 is the best solution. However, I think it is a solution to making sure that the tech giants pay their share and that we actually pay into the arts system in Canada. The tech giants have not paid tax.

Again, I am sorry, but I have been in the House for 19 years, and I have never heard the Conservatives talk about artists before. Now, today, I have heard them denounce this as big art's union bosses, as though Jimmy Hoffa played the mandolin.

Their idea is whoever the guy is from Diagolon, right? They are YouTube broadcasters who are promoting ivermectin. They are worried about them, but I can tell them they do not need to worry. Nobody is going to stop all the insane conspiracy-driven hate and paranoia. However, we need to hold Facebook and YouTube to account for the algorithms because they are undermining democracy, and that is an obligation.

There was a time, just in 2018, when Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats worked together because we recognized that threat. What we are dealing with now is a Conservative leader who believes that there is an opportunity in spreading disinformation.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his intervention. I appreciated how he has been calling out some of the harmful, and frankly, disgusting rhetoric coming from the other side of the House.

Could the member explain to us what he thinks would happen to Canadian arts and culture if we did not have a Bill C-11 to hold these companies with market dominance on the Internet to account?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really glad to know that my hon. colleague has a son. I do not know what that has to do with stopping me from talking about the failure of the Conservative leadership to deal with disinformation, falsehoods, paranoia and conspiracy.

I would think it would be in the interests of all our children if, as parliamentarians, we act like adults. Obviously that has not been happening with Bill C-11. I am going to be here all week. I sit and listen to disinformation and falsehoods every day, but I think it is really important that we are clear when we call it out.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not quoting Nickelback tonight, so the Conservatives may not get the cultural reference, but I will quote Bob Marley: If the cap fits, let them wear it.

We are talking about how the Conservatives have used Bill C-11 to spread disinformation, falsehoods and paranoia to make stuff up. The member believes that Canada is going to be turned into North Korea. Who in the world back home actually thinks that Canada is somehow going to be North Korea if we make Netflix pay tax? Members should think about that for a moment. Who actually thinks that Disney is going to be forced to shut down and that this is all about the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as the member for Lethbridge said, being able to block cat videos? I know the Conservative backbenchers probably spend a lot of time in the House watching cat videos. I do not know what else they do on the backbench, but I can assure them that nobody is going to touch their cat videos. They are okay. We are just asking Netflix and YouTube to pay their share of tax.

That might be the other element we have not talked about tonight. The Conservatives are more than willing to allow massively powerful corporations not to pay their fair share. Look at what they do with big oil. There is not a subsidy yet they do not think it is entitled to.

To get back to the bill itself, it is about making sure that we have a level playing field. We also have to address in this Parliament of Canada that the idea of using disinformation, fear and paranoia and stoking our base consistently is not a healthy thing. I have heard again and again about user content. The Conservatives hate the arts. Have members ever been at the airport and their plane is delayed?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-11.

We have been around this issue a number of times. It is really important in this age of post-truth, disinformation, falsehood and conspiracy that we actually say in Parliament what it is that we are debating and what the issues actually are. One would think this is a place where the precepts of truth are supposed to hold to some kind of standard but unfortunately they do not.

Bill C-11 is fundamentally about making sure that some of the most powerful corporations in the world, the web giants, actually pay a fair share of tax and level the playing field with Canadian broadcasters that are unable to compete, given the huge advantages that have been taken and appropriated by some of the media giants that have emerged out of Silicon Valley. For example, we can look at Netflix and how Disney moved online and took up a huge role of broadcasting, which is fine because industry changes. However, they are not paying nearly the level of tax in Canada for services they provide in Canada, which puts other Canadian operations at a disadvantage. They have also not been willing to pay into the system that has existed in Canada for years and has created an ecosystem of arts, culture and identity: the media fund. This is about levelling the playing field.

This bill is not about spying on one's grandmother's Internet. It is not, as I have heard Conservatives say, allowing the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to block one's YouTube views on how to fix one's deck. This is not about censorship and shutting down so-called free expression. This is about making sure that extremely powerful corporations pay their share, and we are going to talk about that tonight.

Some of this disinformation was certainly allowed in the previous bill, Bill C-10, because, I am sorry to say, the environment minister, who was then the heritage minister, had an inability to even explain what the bill was about. He created an absolute total dumpster fire and got people rightly upset because he could not explain the difference between corporate content and user-generated content. What exactly was in the bill? He did not seem to know. It left the arts community and everyone else having to do damage control.

Bill C-11, I would say, is an okay bill. It is not a great bill. However, as a legislator, one of the great honours of my career has been to work with parliamentarians from around the world on the need to address the unprecedented power of Silicon Valley and to make it obligated to respect domestic jurisdiction. Its complete disregard for domestic jurisdiction is a serious issue.

In 2018, when I was on the ethics committee and the Canadian delegation of parliamentarians went to London for the first international grand committee, I believed that the Canadian delegation was out front because the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats were working together. We understood the need to take on the disinformation. The threat to democracy was such a serious element that it was beyond partisanship. What I have seen in my international meetings is that the need to hold companies like YouTube and Facebook to meet domestic obligations is something that should normally be beyond partisan consideration, but that is not what has happened under Bill C-11.

We met with parliamentarians from Brazil who told us about the shocking rise of Bolsonaro, who was a complete marginal extremist. They told us about how he used the YouTube algorithms to drive his ascendancy, which has created a political toxic nightmare in Brazil. We met with representatives from the global south who attempted time and time again to deal with Facebook and YouTube on toxic disinformation that led to genocidal levels of death in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. We met with delegations from Singapore on their attempts to get these Silicon Valley companies to take responsibility for the hate that was being perpetrated.

Today, the member for Lethbridge, in one of the most dismal, disgraceful speeches I have ever heard in my 19 years, presented a complete falsehood and talked about this magical thing called the Internet. This is not 2004. This is 2023, when this so-called magical thing called the Internet in Myanmar replaced all the domestic media and was used to promote violent, hateful genocide that left thousands and thousands and thousands of people dead. We had the representative from Facebook come to our committee, and I asked them a simple question about the corporate responsibility for genocide. The answer we got was the classic Silicon Valley jargon bunk: Nobody is perfect and we are all on a journey together. We are not on a journey together when corporate irresponsibility leads to genocide.

This is not about my opinion. This was the United Nations begging Facebook to take responsibility because it was the only broadcaster. It was the same thing in Sri Lanka. It was the same thing in Germany, where we can track the rise of anti-refugee violence to the algorithms of Facebook and YouTube. What we never heard from the Conservatives in their attack on Bill C-11 is anything about the algorithms.

Again, I want to refer to my colleague from Lethbridge and the toxic brew of paranoia, disinformation and hate that was promoted. I have read the legislation, and the member said that Bill C-11 was going to allow the cabinet, the Liberals and the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to spy on people's search pages. That is a falsehood. To say that Bill C-11 would allow the Liberals, the cabinet and the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to watch someone's Facebook scrolling is a deliberate falsehood. That has nothing to do with how Facebook or YouTube works and the algorithms that drive people to extremism. The member said that this bill would allow the cabinet, the Liberals, the elite gatekeepers, the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the big arts union bosses, whom she also threw in, to block people's ability to watch cat videos. That was said in the House of Commons.

I raise that because there is a lot of synthetic outrage we hear. That is part of the job. People jump up and down and declare all kinds of calumny toward the government. I have certainly declared all kinds of malice toward government over the years. However, we are in an age of disinformation and paranoia, and we are talking about the need for parliamentarians to rise above that and not feed it for mendacious political purposes. This is an important issue because we see in 2023 the rise of conspiracy politics, and the new leader of the Conservative Party thinks it is working in his favour.

When the member for Lethbridge says that if this bill is passed, it will make the leader of Canada powerful like the dictator of North Korea, not only is that a falsehood, but it is a disgrace to anyone who suffers under authoritarian regimes. It needs to be called out because we are at a point where 44% of the Canadian public believes conspiracy theories. That is being fed by the Conservatives, who believe that this will somehow get them an advantage in polling. It is a very dangerous path to go down.

We have only to look, for example, at the new shadow minister for infrastructure, who has used her time in the House to promote disinformation about Bill Gates, a classic trope of conspiracy theorists, and vaccines, which is another conspiracy misinformation drive. To her, Bill Gates and vaccines are undermining Canadian sovereignty, and she is accusing the Prime Minister. This is a person appointed as a shadow minister in the Conservative shadow cabinet. It is therefore not surprising that when Christine Anderson, a far-right German neo-Nazi extremist, came to Canada, she was feted and welcomed by key members of the Conservative caucus. They felt at home with that spread of disinformation.

This is not harmless stuff. A report that just came out on vaccine disinformation said that Canada had 198,000 extra cases of COVID, 13,000 more people sent to hospital and a $300-million hit to the medical system from people who were encouraged to believe in vaccine disinformation. An extra 2,800 people died as a result. That is double all the car accidents in Canada for a year.

These people were not isolated weirdos. They were our cousins, our neighbours and our aunts. When we see the Conservatives promoting vaccine disinformation because they think it is going to win them votes, we have to ask ourselves what is happening in our nation today that the political representatives of the people are not telling people that medical science is working with us. We did not have all the answers on the vaccines. We did not have all the answers on dealing with the biggest pandemic in a century. However, we all had an obligation to stand up and say that threatening and attacking doctors, nurses and paramedics is unacceptable. That is the danger of disinformation.

It not as though this pattern comes out of nowhere, because we know what happened in Brazil with the Zika virus. There was suddenly a proliferation of falsehood videos on YouTube that told mothers it was feminists making their children sick, that it was George Soros who was making their children sick. However, there were doctors and nurses on the front lines trying to stop that pandemic, and we saw the disinformation.

Why does that disinformation need to be talked about? We have never heard the Conservative caucus talk about holding the algorithms to account, but it is the algorithms that have created toxic disinformation. They are upending democratic engagement. The Conservatives talk about freedom, the freedom to believe in ivermectin and horse tranquillizers. We have heard Conservative leadership candidates brag about how great ivermectin is. They can believe whatever they want, but the issue is that this is about how the algorithms on Facebook and YouTube turn people toward disinformation.

I urge my colleagues to read the book The Chaos Machine. As they will see in it, when people started to study vaccine disinformation in 2013 and 2014, there were parent groups talking about raising their children, but the only ones that were promoted on the algorithm promoted disinformation. If someone clicked on one of those, soon after the algorithm would feed them more and more extremist content.

By the time the pandemic hit, I had joined an international group of parliamentarians led by Damian Collins from the U.K. We thought we could actually stay ahead of disinformation. We thought we could challenge it and take it on. However, within a month it was clear that the game was over. During the pandemic, if someone checked anything on Facebook while asking for the query “alternate health” in Facebook's search function, it sent them to QAnon. That is how the algorithm works.

The algorithms are set to send people to extremism, but we do not hear that when the Conservatives talk about Bill C-11. They are trying to make Canadians believe this is some kind of plot so that the big Liberal elites, their gatekeepers and their big arts bosses can attack our rights, spy on us and shut down our views.

In fairness, I know some of the Conservatives believe this. I firmly believe that some of them, in their hearts, do believe in the Klaus Schwab and George Soros tin hat conspiracy theory. However, I also know there is an element in the Conservative Party that thinks this is a great idea and that they should spread the hate and disinformation, because it will keep people angry and it will get them to vote against the other government. They do not come here with a vision of how to address the mass power of the web giants, which other jurisdictions are dealing with. They do not come here to ask how we ensure a balance of rights and freedoms and how we ensure local content.

I am not going to be the one to say let us give extra money to Postmedia or any of the other historic companies, but what is the obligation of companies to pay their share? That is a fair discussion and that is what we should be discussing, but it is not what this has been turned into. It is about the Conservative push to promote disinformation, falsehoods and ridiculous statements. The only thing I have not heard about from the Conservatives is “pizzagate”. That is about the only thing they have not mentioned. They have mentioned everything else but that.

When I go back to international forums with parliamentarians from France, Germany, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Brazil, who are asking what Canada is doing about disinformation, I will say there is a mixed bag. We recognize the damage disinformation is doing, that it costs lives, that it is creating paranoia and that there has been a rise in death threats against doctors, nurses, paramedics and people in political life for daring to speak up. It was the member for Oshawa who used his position in the House of Commons to promote the falsehood that the Prime Minister was somehow working for Klaus Schwab. When I took that on, within an hour I was attacked and received threats.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

Senate Amendments to Bill C‑11—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would like to address the point of order raised earlier today, concerning government Motion No. 2 to concur in Senate amendments to Bill C‑11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The House leader of the official opposition has raised concerns as the procedural admissibility of the government's new motion claiming that it is substantially identical to the motion that the House has been seized with since March 8, citing the ruling of anticipation. He contended that two motions cannot both be before the House at the same time, as stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition at page 568, that the rule of anticipation is:

dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

In a ruling on November 2, 1989, Speaker Fraser, at page 5474 of the Debates, provided this helpful observation: “in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if...they have the same purpose”.

This is the test to be applied when determining if an item of business is so similar that it cannot coexist with another item of business. In this case, while the difference between the two motions may appear to be minor, adopting the second motion would bring about a different outcome than adopting the first, in that it would result in a different amendment being accepted by the House in the French version of the bill. This means that the second motion is indeed substantively different than the first motion, and therefore, the concern over similarity is not present.

It should also be noted that, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the rule of anticipation has never been part of our Standing Orders and, furthermore, is no longer strictly observed. Invoking the rule stating that a decision once made must stand, which is detailed on pages 590 and 591 of the third edition, is often more relevant than the rule of anticipation. Indeed, there are several examples, including some cited by the opposition House leader, of two items proceeding simultaneously until a decision is made on one of them. I would point out that the House has not yet made a decision on the first motion.

As I understand it, the objective of the second motion is to correct an error found in the first, an error that arose because the numbering of the amendments is not the same in English and in French. Allowing such an error to stand runs the risk that the English and French versions of the bill would be different, with different definitions being kept in each language, therefore making the will of the House unclear.

The opposition House leader argues that the appropriate course of action should be to make this correction by way of an amendment, which could be moved once the current amendment to motion 1 has been disposed of. While that is indeed one way of addressing the issue, the Chair does not believe it is the only way. Instead, the government has proposed to bring forward a new motion with the necessary correction.

Given that the substantive effect of the two motions is different and given that no decision has been made on the first motion, I am prepared to allow debate on Motion No. 2 to proceed.

I thank the members for their attention.

Online Streaming Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is high time we pass Bill C‑11, for the cultural sector and for our local artists and craftspeople who tell our stories.

I would like the member to take a minute to reassure us, and reassure everyone, Quebeckers and Canadians alike, that, despite the Conservative propaganda, when it comes to freedom of expression, we are still going to be able to post pictures and videos of our cute cats and dogs on YouTube, and we are still going to be able to say whatever we want.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I said that Bill C‑11 is clearly focused on commercial interests.

What I am hearing the Conservatives say is that we want to restrict free speech. Their talk about individuals is no different from the misinformation they spread about cat videos.

Worse than that, what I am hearing from Conservative MPs is that Bill C‑11 is designed to cater to Quebec's spoiled little francophone artists. That is Quebec bashing, and it is insulting to our artists.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. Artists in my community have explained to me how this will affect the music industry in particular. At this point, Quebec francophone artists are losing market share and revenue.

Every day that Bill C‑11 does not pass is another day that artists have to fight to keep our culture and the French language alive, and another day that artists will lose money and will struggle more financially.

It is as simple as that. This bill will help our artists to continue producing content in their language. The same is true for indigenous languages.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

As a Canadian, but also as a mother of two sons who are growing up in a rapidly changing world that is increasingly online, I want them to see their identity, their values and their country represented.

What is at stake if we do not pass Bill C‑11?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I humbly rise today following my wonderful colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's speech about this bill, which is important for Quebec culture and is central to the very mission of the Bloc Québécois. I would also like to commend my colleague from Drummond for his superb work on this file.

Broadcasting is without a doubt the most effective tool for spreading culture, and it helps define our national identity. Given the rapid development of information and communication technologies, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports the idea of modernizing the Broadcasting Act, which has not been updated since 1991. Back then, I was still listening to music on cassette on my yellow Walkman, and I was only just beginning to take an interest in CDs. I had scarcely even heard of the Internet. The Bloc Québécois contributed substantially to improving the previous version of this bill, the infamous Bill C-10.

I will briefly address the new version, Bill C-11, in my speech. First, I will talk about protecting and promoting original French-language content. I will then discuss the misinformation circulating about the bill. I will conclude by discussing the importance of the bill for local media.

First, let me mention a few crucial aspects regarding the protection and promotion of original French-language content: the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian content so that there is more original French-language content, proportionally speaking; the promotion of Canadian programming in both official languages, as well as in indigenous languages; a compulsory contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system should a company be unable to use Canadian resources for its programming; the presence of first-run French-language content in order to ensure that platforms like Netflix have new French-language programs, not only old shows; and a sunset clause ensuring an in-depth review of the act every five years.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised us that the Bloc Québécois's amendments would be included in the new version of the reform, and indeed they are almost all there. Since nothing can be left to chance in such a bill, we are making sure that we can course correct in the event that changing one simple word has a major impact on the effect of the clause. We have to keep in mind that we want a piece of legislation that will not be obsolete as soon as it is passed. Technology is developing very quickly, and we need a long-term vision to ensure that the act does not become outdated after just a few years. Flexible legislation is important.

From day one, the Bloc, backed by Quebec's entire cultural sector, was the party that worked the hardest on improving Bill C‑10 and getting it passed before the end of the parliamentary session. During the last election campaign, making sure that Bill C‑10, now Bill C‑11, was passed was even the first item on our election platform under arts, culture and heritage. Quebec's and Canada's cultural sectors have been waiting for decades for this act to be updated. The cultural sector made a simple demand just a few days after Bill C‑11 was introduced. It asked us to ensure that this bill passed quickly, because the sector had waited long enough.

Essentially, the objective of the bill remains the same: to apply the Broadcasting Act to the web giants by forcing them to contribute financially to the creation and discoverability of Canadian cultural content. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, will receive new powers that will allow it to determine which online services will have to be regulated and what quotas will need to be met.

Bill C‑11 will help better regulate video streamers such as Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video, but also companies that specialize in streaming music online such as Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music. Bill C‑11 will require these companies to contribute to Canadian content when commercial items such as albums are downloaded and distributed on their platforms.

The exclusion clause, namely clause 4.1, addressed earlier, has been revised. Now creators, users and social media influencers are exempt from the legislation. It still needs to be taken into account. The money a creator earns from their content is immaterial in the eyes of the new legislation. So-called amateur content on social media would be exempt. The legislation focuses specifically on commercial products.

The CRTC will also have the option to impose conditions associated with discoverability and the development of Canadian content. The bill will not touch the algorithms that can influence the recommendations made to users. The department says it wants to focus instead on discoverability outcomes and not intervene directly with respect to web giants' algorithms. Quebec, francophone and Canadian content must be much more accessible on platforms. Ottawa is trying to give the CRTC the power to hold discussions with each of the digital companies to determine how much they could contribute to Canadian content based on their business model.

Second, I would remind members that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc supported and tried to improve this bill that the Conservatives were against from the outset. They engaged in a smear campaign and tried to find all kinds of far-fetched flaws. They really used their imagination. In Parliament, they used a variety of stratagems to slow down the process, both in committee and in the House. They took the House hostage under false pretenses, claiming that the bill infringes on freedom of expression.

However, since 1991, there has been a provision that forces the CRTC to respect freedom of expression. This provision has always been respected, and there is nothing to indicate that that will change. Pierre Trudel, a law professor at Université de Montréal who is an expert on the CRTC and information technologies, reassured us of that. He categorically stated that the freedom of Internet users is not at risk. There is no thought police on television, and there will be no thought police online.

Given the popularity and growing use of online platforms, there is no doubt that the legislation needs to be reviewed. According to ADISQ statistics on the music consumption habits of Quebec francophones over the age of 15, 50% of users follow YouTube's recommendations when choosing their playlists. When it comes to streaming services, 26% of users choose music suggested by the platform through playlists, and 17% follow recommendations. This is based on their past listening habits. These figures illustrate the importance of making Quebec and Canadian francophone content easily discoverable to users on online platforms in order to give it a boost.

Solutions do exist to address the algorithms. One option to consider would be for Spotify and Apple Music to offer a lot more francophone playlists.

Part of the CRTC's mission is to ensure the proper functioning and development of the Canadian broadcasting system. In doing so, it must respect freedom of expression and the other foundations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Third, both Quebec's and Canada's broadcasting industries are in crisis. According to an August 2020 report from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, local television and radio broadcasters were projected to face a revenue shortfall totalling $1.6 billion between 2020 and 2022. According to the CAB, 50 radio stations were at risk of shutting down within four to six months of the report's release, and another 150 could go silent within 18 months, resulting in 2,000 job losses, or 24% of 2019 employment levels. The report added that at least 40 of the 95 private and local television stations in Canada would cease operations by 2023.

The most vulnerable operations are AM stations, independent stations and other private radio and TV stations in smaller markets across Canada. Radio and television revenues have been declining for several years, and COVID-19 exacerbated these disconcerting trends.

We know that the Internet has revolutionized the way Quebeckers, particularly young Quebeckers, consume their favourite TV shows, movies, radio stations and music. Consumption trends have drastically changed. The online broadcasting market is dominated by foreign players. We need to take that into account.

Young Quebeckers are especially likely to skirt the traditional broadcasting system. The vast majority of young francophones aged 15 and up frequently listen to music on YouTube. We therefore need to ensure that they are offered francophone content.

A study conducted by CEFRIO, a research and innovation organization, found that over eight in 10 Quebeckers used a social media site in 2018, an increase of 16% compared to 2016. It is clear that the Internet is changing usage and listening habits.

Since I have only about a minute left, I just want to give a few statistics from the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office. Canadian content production decreased by an average of 12.4% per year between January 2017 and December 2020. It is important to remember that media outlets are currently in crisis, mainly because they have lost their advertising revenue to web giants.

In conclusion, the Yale report was clear: Canadian content is important. It said that if we do not tell our own stories, no one else will. That really made an impression on me. That was why the report set out a suite of recommendations on financing Canadian content with public funds, imposing spending requirements on foreign online broadcasters, and strengthening CBC/Radio-Canada.

One last thing before I wrap up: Last night, I met with Martin Gougeon from the Théâtre de l'Ancien presbytère. He is an artist who has made it his mission to promote our francophone culture to young students. I have also met with local media representatives many times. They are all unanimous. Quebec's cultural and media communities want this. Let us pass Bill C‑11. Enough dawdling.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say I will be sharing my time with my very distinguished and dynamic colleague from Shefford.

Let me make a few things clear. Bill C-11 deals with culture, not censorship. Bill C-11 deals with national identity and pride. Culture is the essence of who we are. This bill does not promote censorship, it promotes and showcases our culture. I would even say that it seeks to showcase our cultures: Canadian culture, Quebec culture and indigenous cultures.

The bill seeks to give more visibility to culture. This is not about telling people they can no longer listen to certain content. Since the beginning of the debate today, we have been hearing all sorts of things. In fact, we have been hearing these things for two years, since Bill C-11 is the former Bill C-10. We hear things about cat videos, for example. Let us be serious.

The threat does not come from censorship because of Bill C-11. The threat comes from the platforms that have changed the world of telecommunications. That is the threat.

We are working on Bill C-11 to review an act that was amended for the last time in 1991. Must I remind you that, in 1991, we did not all have cellphones in our pockets? It was a completely different world, which is why we need to review the act.

The cultural community is asking for this, as is everyone else. We are not just being asked to pass the bill quickly. Quebec’s cultural community is asking us to hurry because it needs this legislation. They are losing $70 billion a week. On reflection, that may be a bit high. I will have to check the figures later in my notes. Let us say that, every week we delay the passage of this bill, they are losing a lot of money. Let us protect our people.

What does Bill C-11 do? It ensures the protection and promotion of original content. For us, that means French-language content, which is what concerns us. Of course, it also ensures the protection and promotion of original Canadian productions in English and indigenous languages and productions created by certain visible minorities. If we want to protect Canadian content and boost visibility, we need to bring in incentives. We are not talking about banning people from posting on Facebook and saying what they want. This is not about imposing choices, it is about raising their visibility. It is about ensuring discoverability.

Let us consider how small the percentage of French-language production in North America is. If we rely only on the number of times videos are viewed by users, French-language content will not be suggested very often. That is the problem. It is not about playing with algorithms. It is about giving the CRTC the power to talk to these companies and see what they can do to give local culture more visibility. It is a matter of promoting and showcasing our culture.

Let me draw a parallel here. When we look at platforms, we see that there is very little French-language content and that needs to be fixed. When we look at the boards of directors of Canadian and Quebec companies, we see that women are under-represented. In both cases, we need to take action to fix the situation. Obviously, we do not want to prevent anyone from applying, but we want to make sure that the positions are accessible to women and that women receive those kinds of job offers. The same thing applies to culture.

With Bill C-11, we want to improve the visibility, and therefore the profitability, of our local French-language productions and put in place a mandatory contribution to the Canadian and Quebec broadcasting system.

A mandatory contribution is more than just running old television shows. We want the platforms to participate in the creation of real local content. An American movie filmed in Vancouver is not local content. We certainly benefit when American filmmakers shoot in Vancouver. We support that. However, local content is something local produced by local artists who represent us. That is what culture is.

When racialized people say that they watch television and do not see themselves, that is a problem. These people should be able to see themselves and identify with the characters. That is why we are trying to increase representativeness. It is the same thing.

We simply want to expand the coverage of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to all media we interact with. We need first-run French-language content.

With this bill, we are telling the major American platforms that stream content in Canada and invade our markets that we are relatively happy because that is a good way to disseminate information, it gives more people greater access to information. Furthermore, streaming does not restrict access to cat videos; then again, it invades our market. That is where we have the right to say, as a state, that we have a culture to protect.

I often talk about the agricultural exemption in the House. This morning, I talked about the agricultural exemption. We cannot act without protecting our culture. It is important. We have the right to tell the people who come and make money in Canada that we are happy to welcome them and that it is a good thing, just as we have the right to tell them that we would like to recognize ourselves in our media. We are not asking them to ban certain content, but to showcase local productions that represent our people. That is the idea.

There is another very positive element in Bill C-11. It makes no sense that, in 2023, we are revising a broadcasting act from 1991. That is a major oversight.

The bill includes the obligation to review the act at least every five years. To those who have concerns, I would say that we are capable of being intelligent and implementing a reasonable policy. After the law is in effect for a few years, we will review it all to see how things went and what the impacts were. That is the important part.

I want to spend the last few minutes of my speech emphasizing that the Quebec and Canadian cultural community wholeheartedly supports Bill C‑11.

I just found the figure that I mentioned earlier. I should have said “millions” rather than “billions”. I thought that seemed like a lot. According to the former Canadian heritage minister, we would lose $70 million every month. I do not know whether those numbers were validated, but I am assuming that they were.

This important bill is one of three related and highly anticipated bills in this Parliament. As parliamentarians, I would like us to quickly pass them. There was Bill C‑11 to promote our local content. There is also Bill C‑18, which will complement it. Communications platforms will pay something to use news content in order to encourage our journalistic community. That is important. Finally, there is a third bill on online hate, which we need to regulate.

Once again, this is not about censorship, but about living together, being reasonable and creating a world where the Internet is a bit more representative of who we are. We need to see ourselves on television every once in a while, see ourselves reflected in the programming so that we do not forget who we are. I said television, but it is the same thing for the things we watch on a computer screen.

Let us stop wasting time and pass this essential bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to enter the mind of the Liberal government is something beyond my ability. Certainly, I wish I could, at times, although I suppose that would be a scary place. I am not really a fan of horror movies. Nevertheless, the question is a thoughtful one, so I will give it a thoughtful answer.

The Senate brought forward some really great amendments on Bill C-11, and I wish to comment on two of those in particular.

The Senate removed clause 7, which gives cabinet the ability to direct the CRTC. This allows for partisanship to enter the bill. That is a scary thought for any government. It does not matter who is in power, whether the Liberals, the NDP or the Conservatives.

There should never be partisanship introduced into a bill like this. However, clause 7 allows for that. The Senate tried to remove it; the government put it back in. That should be very telling to Canadians as to what its intent is.

Second, the Senate took clause 4 and changed it in order to protect user-generated or ordinary content that people would put online. The Senate removed that and protected users.

The government made sure that it changed that and gave itself the power to regulate individual user-generated content. Again, I think that is very telling in terms of what the government intends to do with this bill.

I cannot suppose why it would make those decisions except that it wants to hold the power; direct what Canadians can see, hear and post online; and make sure that it maintains its thumb on the Internet, and in doing so, censors what Canadians can access.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has left out of his statement is the fact that the Quebec government, under Premier Legault, has written an open letter to the Liberal government pointing out that it is censorship. That is an interesting fact that the hon. member might want to include next time, because his premier would like to see the bill looked at in committee. The premier is very concerned that Bill C-11 would put the CRTC and cabinet in charge of dictating what French culture is. I believe that is called “censorship”, is it not?

Further to that, Premier Legault is concerned that the CRTC and cabinet would control the extent to which the French language and culture is given space online. Quebec actually thinks that it should have the power to determine that for itself. Why does Quebec think it should have the power to do that for itself and is concerned about Bill C-11? Because it is censorship and because the Liberal government has the intent of censoring what content is and is not available online and to what extent that content is French and upholds French culture.

Therefore, in fact, it is censorship, and I would invite that hon. member to speak to his premier and understand those concerns better.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. I am concerned because I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech. I have to honestly admit that if I were a poorly informed individual who relied strictly on the member's speech, I would be really scared. I would be really worried. I would think that I would no longer be able to express my views on the Internet, on Facebook. I would even be afraid to post on social media.

People need to inform themselves to discern what it really means, what Bill C-11 really is, by considering both the old and the new version. So many people brought their concerns to us. We received emails from groups of people who were worried. When we asked experts, they all told us that it was clear from reading the bill that there is no censorship.

I am therefore concerned about what the Conservatives are doing in the House of Commons, in Parliament, a place where we should elevate the debate, try to inform people, provide the facts, go further and rise above the fray. What we are actually seeing is the opposite. The Conservatives are going so low they have hit rock bottom.

We heard from the member for Winnipeg North that the Conservatives are using their opposition to Bill C‑11 to fundraise. I would like my colleague to tell us how much money the Conservatives have raised with their campaign of fear against Bill C‑11.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could skew the facts so much to accuse the Conservatives of somehow taking us back. Let us be really clear here, because the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-11, is a Liberal bill. Bill C-11 would take the Internet, this infinite, magical, innovate, forward-thinking space, and put it back under the Broadcasting Act, which was last updated in 1991 and originates from the 1920s. If that is not backward thinking, I do not know what is.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, everything I have talked about up to this point is significant, but the one point I have not talked about is user-generated content. Make no mistake, the government had every opportunity to ensure that user-generated content or ordinary content was not scoped within this legislation, yet the government refused every opportunity it was given.

When I say ordinary content or user-generated content, I am talking about the videos that are put on Facebook. I am talking about Uncle Joe's video, Aunt Cathy's video, mom's video or a member's video. I am talking about the amateur YouTube channel that is set up in order to put out some crazy ideas or maybe do some stunts and perhaps capture an audience. That is what some Canadians wish to do. They think it is fun. It brings them joy. Perhaps they are hoping to make a go of it and make it big.

I am talking about those individuals who are taking advantage of this free space called the Internet, who are putting something out there, saying to Canadians that they can like it or not like it, but they are presenting it to them. If Canadians love it, these individuals go big. If Canadians or the global audience do not love it, then usually it does not go too big. Regardless, those individuals have the right to put it out there.

Bill C-11 would revoke that right. It would revoke that ability. It would move their content down in the system and make it undiscoverable, which means the government will be determining who wins and who loses. It will be determining what content does or does not get. It does not matter if it is from a large streaming platform or simply from an individual using Facebook. That is crazy.

Witnesses at the House of Commons committee and at the Senate committee raised this issue. Whether it is the content creators themselves, or Canadians, or legal experts or consumer groups that are incredibly concerned, there is massive concern around this scoping in of user-generated or ordinary content. In fact, some legal experts went so far as to say that it likened us to places like North Korea or China, where the government monitors, surveys and controls what can be posted online. That should be very concerning for everyone in the House. This is not Canada. This does not ascribe to the values that we call Canadian.

We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a reason, because we at least in theory value freedom, choice and opportunity. However, when the government determines that it is going to regulate what can be posted, seen or heard online, then we are no longer functioning within that realm of freedom. At that point, we are not only taking away from consumer choice, but we are also stagnating the success of these many digital first creators and individuals who wish to make a go of it and capture an audience online, and not only for the present generation but for the next generations to come, those individuals who would come after us and wish to seek success online. The government will have already determined their future.

I am talking about the homegrown comedian Darcy Michael, a self-proclaimed pot-smoking gay man, He told us at committee that he was turned away by traditional broadcasters, but is now enjoying tremendous success on YouTube.

I am talking about a South Asian woman from Toronto who goes by the name Aunty Skates. She is in her forties and she decided to take up skateboarding during the pandemic. She thought it would be cool to bring people on her journey with her so she started posting videos, including some funny clips. People loved it; they still love it. She has done extremely well for herself. She was able to quit her job in finance and is now able to make a go of it on YouTube. She is able to invest in her family, in their quality of life, and she is enjoying it tremendously.

The freedom of the Internet and the opportunity to advance oneself within this space without needing to worry about gatekeepers has been quite magical for many. Moms have been able to stay home and enjoy a better life-work balance. Youth have been able to use their creative imaginations and skills behind a smartphone to capture an audience, and many have gone viral. It is amazing.

It is unfortunate that we have a government that does not take the opportunity to celebrate these individuals. It is unfortunate that we do not have a government that takes this opportunity to celebrate innovation and forward thinking, the momentum that is being gained within this space. Instead, we have a government that is insisting on regulating the Internet and bringing it back into the ages of radio and television.

I would be curious to know who in this place pays for a cable package. It is probably very few of us. Why? Because we do not want what we see to be controlled for us. Instead, we like on-demand streaming because at the end of the day we want to watch what we want to watch when we want to watch it. For the government to bring the Internet under this umbrella of the Broadcasting Act, which incredibly outdated, is wrong.

At the end of the day, Bill C-11 would do two things. It would censor what Canadians can say so that homegrown talent and creative content in Canada would no longer succeed based on merit. Instead, content will be subject to a set of criteria that bureaucrats in Ottawa, which can be directed by cabinet, will use to determine its level of Canadianness. This will favour traditional art forms, of course, over the new creative content that is coming out. As a result, we heard at committee that many cultural groups, including BIPOC Canadians and indigenous Canadians, would be hurt.

Furthermore, Bill C-11 would censor what Canadians are able to see or, in other words, what consumers are able to access online. This legislation would effectively make the government a regulator of the Internet. The search bar would be conditioned to follow a set of algorithms that are predetermined by the government. Therefore, when Canadians go searching, they will not find the things they freely wish to find, but, rather, the things that the government wishes to show them.

On behalf of Canada's amazing creators who have achieved tremendous success on new media platforms or who seek to do so now or in the future and on behalf of Canadians who value the freedom to choose what they watch and listen to online, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the first word “That” and substituting the following: “the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.”

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to money, the heritage minister claimed this bill would capture $1 billion from large streaming platforms. To this day, he is not able to provide how this $1 billion figure was arrived at. We would actually still love to have that document if at all possible.

However, the government says it is just forcing the large streaming platforms to pay their fair share. That is how the $1 billion is going to be brought in. At first blush, perhaps that seems reasonable. Perhaps these foreign streaming platforms should just pay their fair share. The government says this money would save Canadian culture, as if it is dying. I would be curious to know who says it is dying. I would be curious to know who says it needs to be rescued. Who says it is fragile? Who says it is on the verge of being extinct?

Aside from all of that, and most importantly, is not Canadian culture what the Canadian people determine it to be? The last I knew, the Canadian population was actually growing. I think Canadian culture is probably alive and well. Do members not think so also?

It does not matter, because neither the minister nor his department has been able to show me the document that shows that the $1 billion would somehow be extracted from the foreign platforms and then infused into the Canadian art scene.

The reality is, though, that it does not matter. It is insignificant. The reason it is insignificant is that, as much as Bill C-11 might produce the $1 billion, the way things are right now is much better. Investment in Canadian production is not drying up, as the government would like Canadians to believe. That is a false notion. In fact, investment in Canadian production is better than it has ever been, without government intervention.

Huge investments are being made, and let me go over that for just a moment. Wendy Noss, of the Motion Picture Association—Canada, testified at the Senate committee and stated that the association spent more than $5 billion. That is five times more than what the government is hoping to bring in through this legislation. That is one company, by the way, spending $5 billion. I will say that one more time just for the hon. member, so that he gets it: The government is claiming it will bring in $1 billion, but already there is private investment being made to the tune of $5 billion. That is $5 billion in 2021 alone.

The government would rather have its way, shutting down private investment, suppressing that, in order to bring in a government-dictated $1 billion. How regressive can one be? How punitive can one be? The government claims to support artists, and yet it is going to do this. It is actually going to shut down the industry. It is actually going to punish the industry that is pumping $5 billion into the creation of content here in Canada in one year alone, by one company. That is not progress; that is incredibly regressive.

Let me be clear; this $5 billion actually accounted for more than half of all the production in this country, and 90% of the growth in the sector over the last decade. Holding that up against the government-dictated art fund, the government-dictated art fund fails in comparison. Do we want more government legislation, or do we actually just want freedom to reign? I think we want freedom to reign.

We are talking about a production company that hired, trained and provided opportunities for more than 200,000 of Canada's most talented creative workers. More than 200,000 is far more than the art fund has ever propped up. We are talking about more than 47,000 businesses that were supported in 2021 alone. Again, this is far more than the government-run art fund has ever supported in one year.

We can have government-dictated funds or we can have private-flowing funds; one is far more successful than the other. Therefore, we have to ask the following question: Is the problem that investments are not being made in Canada, in its production industry, or that our culture is somehow at risk of disappearing? Or is there something else?

I would argue that the sector is alive and well, as I have proven, and I would argue that Canadians are alive and well and, therefore, so is our culture. Thus, there must be something else. I have alluded to it, but let us explore it further, shall we?

We have a government that loves to support the big gatekeepers, big unions and big bosses that like to keep power, control and money in their hands. We have a government that is more interested in those individuals, who comprise several thousand people, than it is concerned about the vast majority of Canadian consumers who enjoy the content online and the freedom to explore what they will, or than it is concerned about the tens of thousands of creators putting content out there and reaching global audiences. The current government says to forget them. It says it wants to serve the several thousand union bosses and uphold the power, control and money that the broadcasters want, and that this is its focus. It is shameful.

The bill before us is based on the false notion that artists cannot thrive without the government. However, in fact, we know they can, that they do and that they will.

Part of the problem is that the government insists on using an antiquated definition of what Canadian content is. It is a whole host of criteria that make no sense at all. There can be a film like Canadian Bacon that does not make the cut. There can be a more recent production, The Handmaid's Tale written by Margaret Atwood, a famous Canadian author, which is being filmed on Canadian soil, stars Canadian actors and employs Canadian producers, but fails to make the cut. As much as the member opposite might want to point to Schitt's Creek, the title tells my audience what I think of that.

Perhaps there is an opportunity, then, to consider a different way. Perhaps, instead of applying the shackles of a certain percentage of CanCon and a certain percentage of revenue needing to go toward this art fund, we can actually just release all from those shackles. Perhaps, instead, the level playing field actually needs to be set higher rather than lower. Perhaps it is actually about allowing broadcasters and the Internet to exist freely. Perhaps it is actually just about creative merit. Perhaps it is just about tailoring content to an audience that wants to watch what one produces. Perhaps it is actually just about letting private production companies make tremendous investment into our nation and our artists and helping them thrive. Perhaps it is about being progressive. Perhaps it is about being futuristic in our thinking, as the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, had in mind when he said he would not regulate the Internet.

Everything I have talked about up to this point is extremely important, but there is one point I have not yet touched on, and it is even more important. That is the fact that this bill would capture user-generated content. The current government had plenty of opportunities to make sure that was not the case, and it did not take those opportunities.

When I talk about user-generated content, I am talking about one's Uncle Joe's videos on Facebook. I am talking about those videos on YouTube of kids doing stupid stuff. I am talking about—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, with Bill C-11, those who enjoy online streaming platforms such as Netflix or Disney+, or videos on a platform such as YouTube, or maybe even just scrolling through Facebook looking at people's pages, these individuals would be impacted in the kind of content they could access and watch. Bill C-11 would determine the type of information that is put in front of them. Bill C-11 would determine the content that is put in front of our eyeballs.

When I say by Bill C-11, what I mean is that, according to clause 7 of the bill, it would be cabinet who could determine, through the CRTC, what Canadians can see, post or hear online. Again, it would be cabinet, based on clause 7, who would be given that authority. That is scary. It is scary for any government in power because it would mean that cabinet, which is partisan, would be directing what we can see, say or post online. Instead of giving a viewer more of what they want, YouTube would be instructed to give more of what the government wants. Again, this is very scary for most Canadians.

The government will claim, as the hon. member just before me did, that this bill is about supporting Canadian culture or levelling the playing field, but that is not true. Bill C-11 would amend the Broadcasting Act by bringing the Internet under its provisions.

In order to understand the effect of this, we need to understand why the Broadcasting Act was put in place in the first place. In the early 20th century, the Broadcasting Act was put in place to regulate TV and radio because those are finite commodities. There are only a certain number of radio stations or TV stations, so in order to make sure both official languages were represented within these platforms, the government determined they should be regulated so French language and culture would be protected and would be given space within these spheres.

Further to that, there was a definition given to Canadian content. We call it CanCon. There was this determination that a certain percentage of the content would be Canadian, or CanCon. The goal was to protect our culture, to make sure not only that it was American content making its way to Canada but also that Canadian content, things produced here, and there is a whole host of other criteria used, would be given space.

That is within the realm of TV and radio, which is limited, but now we are dealing with a space that is infinite, that is unlimited, which is the Internet. Anybody who wants a website can have a website, no matter their language of choice. Anybody who wants to have a YouTube channel can have a YouTube channel. Anybody who wants to have a space within TikTok, Instagram, etc. can have a space. We are no longer dealing with a finite resource.

The government does not need to regulate what content should be prioritized and what content should not be because we are no longer dealing with limitations. There is space for everyone.

I would plead with the government to perhaps look back on the record of what former prime minister Jean Chrétien had to say to this. In 1999, he faced a similar question about the Internet and whether it should be regulated. After undergoing a thorough investigation and a public inquiry, the determination was made that it should not be. He determined the Internet was so different than TV and radio that to treat it the same would actually stifle progress. After numerous public consultations, because there have been many done since Chrétien, here we are willing to function in a regressive way rather than maintaining the progressive stance that was taken by Jean Chrétien.

I will read what the directive stated in 1999. It said, “The commission [the CRTC] expects that the exemption of these services [Internet] will enable continued growth and development of the new media industries in Canada, thereby contributing to the achievement of the broadcasting policy objectives, including access to these services by Canadians.”

In other words, the determination was made that the Internet would not within the scope of the Broadcasting Act and that it would not be regulated. The reason for that was because there was a belief that innovation, advancement and growth would take place if it were left alone. There was a belief that that opportunity would be seized by all sorts of people from all sorts of regions with all sorts of backgrounds and different linguistic ways.

I would invite the government to consider its regressive stance and pull this legislation. On the Internet, everyone has a spot to showcase their talent. On the Internet, every single individual in this country has an opportunity to thrive, should they wish to.

Most people in this country have a smart device. One needs nothing more than that to showcase talent and make a name for oneself. The gatekeepers have been removed. In fact, it has never been easier for Canadians to succeed. It has never been easier for creators from a variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds to reach not just a Canadian audience but a global audience as well.

For this legislation to build walls around these individuals and keep them hemmed in within Canada is so egregious that it is hard for one to even fathom the reason for such legislation. Why would we punish our young creators? Why would we punish the next media content creators? Why would we insist that a regressive form must be kept and that progress should not be celebrated? It baffles me, but I am not the only one. It baffles Canadians from coast to coast, whether it is legal experts speaking out on this topic, digital-first creators speaking out or Canadian consumers who simply want a choice.

The fact is that the gatekeepers have been removed. A creator used to have to put together a pitch or a package and bring it to a gatekeeper, such as CBC, Corus Entertainment, Bell Media or Rogers, and they would have to plead with them to accept their package, to accept their idea and to accept their creativity. That used to be the way it was done.

With the Internet, we have now entered this magical space where creators, innovators and thought leaders get to put their content out there and allow the Canadian people themselves to determine whether they like it or not, whether they want to watch it or not. We have removed the gatekeepers. It is incredible.

Instead of celebrating how amazing that is, the government is hell-bent on putting legislation in place to make sure that we maintain these old, antiquated ways. Why is that? Is the very nature of the arts not something that should propel us into the future? Is it not something that should have forward momentum? Is it not something that should be creative and innovative in nature? Is that not the whole point of the arts? Why would we hem these individuals in?

For the minister to say that this bill somehow modernizes the Broadcasting Act is incredibly disingenuous, as I have laid out. The minister is failing to account for the tremendous progress that has been made and the creativity that has been allowed to flow.

For example, let us take Justin Bieber. He went big in approximately 2013. The way he went big was because he put out a few songs on YouTube and he got discovered. He did not have to put together a big media package, though he could have. He did not have to depend on gatekeepers to either accept him or reject him. instead, he could put his talent out there. His talent was discovered, and we know that he went big. He is a Canadian artist we are proud of.

There are many more like him who are aspiring. By putting a bill like this in place, by putting Bill C-11 in place, we are saying to the new generation not to bother. We want to subject that next generation to the same rules that we subjected artists to in the 1970s. Forget progress. If one wants to engage in progress, perhaps one should consider moving to the United States of America, South Korea or the U.K., but in Canada Bill C-11 puts this massive banner up that says we are opposed to innovation, progress and celebrating artists.

Bill C-11 ultimately will do two things. First, it will censor what we can see online because the government will dictate the content that is there. Second, Bill C-11 would determine the extent to which creators are allowed to thrive. In other words, the government will go through and pick winners and losers. Some content creators will be deemed Canadian enough and other content creators will not make the cut. If they make the cut, they will be promoted. If they do not make cut, they will not be promoted.

There is nothing progressive about censorship. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is about censoring Canadians and what they can see, what they can hear and what they can post online. It is about censoring artists, whether they have access to an audience and to what extent that access is granted.

When speaking about this bill, Margaret Atwood, who is an extremely well-known Canadian author, did not mince her words. She was pretty direct about it. She called it “creeping totalitarianism”, which is pretty damning. Those are not my words, but Margaret Atwood's.

To understand this a little bit more, we have to go back to the origin. We have to go back to the origin of this bill. We have to talk about the motive because I think that is very important for Canadians to understand.

This bill, we know, started out as Bill C-10 in 2020. It has gone through a number of iterations since then, but the worst parts of this bill remain intact. In fact, one could argue that it is actually worse than ever, in part because it has had opportunity to change. The government had an opportunity to hear from witnesses. The government had an opportunity to hear from experts, and the government made a decision to ignore those voices. The government has had an opportunity to respond to the Senate amendments, which were very thoughtful and reasonable, and the government is making the decision to disregard most of those amendments. One could argue then that the government is actually wanting this bill to be as egregious as possible.

What brought us here anyway? Why is the government so hell-bent on Bill C-11 going through the way that it is? The evidence would say it is because of broadcasters wanting to maintain power and wanting to hold money. There are these large broadcasters, CBC, Bell, Corus Entertainment, etc., and they are limited by CanCon rules. A certain percentage of the content shown on their traditional streaming platforms has to be Canadian content.

Of course, this acts as a limitation to them. Those are their words. That is what they have said. They do not view that as an opportunity to show more Canadian content. They testified at committee that they view it as a limitation because they are limited. They have to show a certain percentage of Canadian content, CanCon. They say these other streaming companies should have to do the same because they want it to be the same. Further to that, these broadcasters have to pay a certain percentage into an art fund. This art fund can then be drawn from by Canadian artists who are producing CanCon and used for that material production.

Because these traditional broadcasters have to pay into this fund and the larger streamers do not, the broadcasters went knocking on the Liberals' door and said they wanted legislation to be brought into place to “level the playing field”. They wanted the Liberals to go after the streaming platforms, make sure they are showing a certain percentage of Canadian content and make sure the government is taking a certain percentage of their revenue and putting it into the art fund.

At first glance, that might seem reasonable, except that when we dig into it further, we realize the broadcasters and the big art unions are simply gatekeeping. They do not want to celebrate progress. They do not want to look forward to the future. They do not want new artists to succeed. They simply want to gatekeep. They want control or power, and they want money.

I want to talk about the foundation on which the bill is built, because it is a false foundation and it has to do with those who came knocking on the Liberals' door for the legislation. The bill is based on the deceptive notion that Canadian content creators or artists cannot make it on their own merit and that somehow they need this special fund in order to make a go of it. YouTubers, TikTokers and other online creators are proving this notion wrong each and every day. They are succeeding without drawing from the art fund. They are succeeding without the government mandating that Canadian content must be watched. They are succeeding because they have incredible talent to watch and incredible talent to offer, and Canadians find themselves drawn to it.

There is the idea, though, that, in order to succeed as artists in Canada, people need monetary support and that it is the government that should provide this monetary support. Furthermore, there is other misinformation being spread by the government, which is that people will not choose Canadian content unless it is forced in front of their eyeballs, and that a certain percentage of what is offered on television, radio or the Internet must be Canadian, or people will not watch it. How degrading is that? It is as if our artists do not have the ability on their own to produce content that people might want to consume. It is as if the government must rush in and rescue these poor Canadian artists because, without government intervention, they will not succeed. That is a lie and a crux. It is not the case.

Canadian artists are incredibly talented individuals who can make a go of it all on their own.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine for just a moment someone going into a bookstore. As soon as they walk in, there is a guide, and they are allowed to go through this bookstore only with his or her help. Now, in this bookstore, there are yellow books, purple books, blue books, green books and red books, and the red books are the only ones that the guide will take that person to. The yellow books, the green books, the blue books, the purple books and the pink books are all there, seemingly available to the consumer, but the guide is not permitted to take them to look at those books. The guide is only permitted to take the consumer to the red books. Of course, in theory, we have this entire store with all of these lovely books, but at the end of the day, the guide will only take the consumer to the red books.

A person might ask to go through the bookstore on their own without the assistance of the guide, as he seems rather ridiculous, but no, that is not an option. They must go through the store with this guide because that is the rule of the store. This is the Internet under the Liberal Government of Canada if Bill C-11 passes. The Internet will be guided through a Liberal government's lens. The Liberals will determine what content Canadians can and cannot see.

Now, in theory, there is this big, wide open Internet with all of this content. However, the vast majority of that content will be bumped down in priority or, in other words, made undiscoverable, and the red content will be made top priority and moved toward page one. This is where Canadians will be pointed to. When they go on YouTube and want to find information they care about, watch videos they are passionate about or explore topics they want to learn more about, the government will make sure they are pointed toward videos that the government has curated for them to watch. That is what Bill C-11 is all about.

An individual might say they will use their search bar to look for things they wish to watch. No, they will not, because the government will take control of their search bar and direct them toward the things the government wants them to watch. That is how the Internet will be curated. That is how it will work.

Legal experts came to our committee at the House of Commons and also appeared at the Senate. At the House of Commons, we heard from several who likened the bill—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are debating Bill C-11 in a political context and in terms of what my constituents see as a barrage of false information about it taking away freedoms is very distressing. However, it is also not perfect legislation.

I want to tell my hon. parliamentary colleague, the parliamentary secretary, that I absolutely could not agree more that this bill does not affect freedom of expression. That is protected in the Broadcasting Act and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, likewise, I do not understand why the government removed Senate amendments that make it very clear the bill would not affect user-generated content. I am concerned about that because I think it needlessly confuses the situation. We need to pass Bill C-11 to protect Canadian writers and Canadian artists in a context where their access to work has been declining rapidly because of online streaming services.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrating elements of dealing with Bill C-11 is that, on the one hand, the Liberal member, whom I do not think mentioned Facebook or Google once, is talking about Corner Gas, a television show I have not seen in 15 years, as though it is the cutting edge of Canadian technology. I think we should focus on what is at hand. On the other hand, we have the Conservatives claiming that taking on some of the richest corporations in the world and making them pay into the system is going to lead to the son of Pierre Elliott blocking people's access to cat videos. That is their position.

I know if we blocked access to cat videos, it might cause a lot of problems for the Conservative backbenchers, who have a very short attention span during question period, but I want to ask my hon. colleague this. Number one, is the government trying to ban cat videos? Number two, what about Facebook or Google threatening to ban access to Canadians' use of online journalism? That is the question. We have never heard the Conservatives have a problem with Google telling Canadians they are not going to be allowed to read online news articles, because they are being blackmailed by the tech giants. Is the government going to stand up for Canadians' right to access information, not just cat videos but news content that Google or Facebook is threatening to block?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will get back to what the legislation would not do. It would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms.

When I sit down and the member opposite stands up, she will give all sorts of contradictions to some of the things that I am saying here, yet we know for a fact that it would not do that. One can ask why and I will pose that question after I finish talking about what I think is probably the most important thing that this legislation would not do. It would not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way.

Last time I spoke on this legislation, I think earlier that day I got an email from one of my regulars. We all have regulars. This individual, I suspect, may not be overly sympathetic to me or my party. He was being very critical. He said that Bill C-11 was going to take away his freedom and he was not going to be able to communicate the way he wants to communicate in terms of the Internet, or be able to express himself. He said we were putting limitations on this particular individual.

We all know that is not the case. What happens often is that an opposition party, and over nine times out of 10 it is the Conservatives Party, will oppose legislation. There are key things that it likes and it will amplify those. In this case, it is trying to give the false impression that Bill C-11 has an impact on a person's freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I take great pride in the fact that a Liberal government many years ago, before I was elected for the first time in 1988, brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are the party that guarantees rights and freedoms. When we look at what Bill C-11 is all about and the work that has been done on this legislation, it is not like it is new. This is legislation that has been debated now, in one form or another, for years.

It has been debated for years, yet the Conservative Party is still stuck on wanting to raise money. It likes to say the government is attacking Canadians' freedoms and their ability to speak. Then it says if people agree and want to donate to its party, please do. The fundraising will hopefully come to an end on this issue.

Even members of the Bloc are relatively supportive of the legislation. In fact, I think the Quebec legislature actually passed a unanimous resolution supporting the legislation. The creators and the individuals who are so impacted, not only today but yesterday, are thinking about the future and are supportive of the legislation.

This is legislation that would make a positive difference in every way if we stick to the facts. If we want to talk about rumours and false information, it could be an endless debate as the Conservative Party of Canada has clearly demonstrated.

As the next speaker who stands up will clearly demonstrate, it will be all about how big government, in co-operation with the Bloc, the NDP, the Green Party and most Canadians, is trying to limit our freedom of speech and ability to upload documents onto the Internet, whether it is a cat file or whatever it might be. That is the type of thing we have to deal with.

I ask my Conservative friends to give it a break. Let us look at the facts and move on. This legislation went through the House before the last election, when it was first brought in, and then after the most recent election, it was brought back in. It went through second reading, and there were interesting debates and discussions during the committee stage. It then came back here for report stage and third reading, and ultimately passed on to the Senate, which has had the opportunity to take a look at the legislation. It brought forward a number of amendments, and the government has agreed to a number of those amendments.

It is time we pass this legislation. There is no justification to do otherwise outside of the Conservatives' desire to raise more money on false information. There is no justification. If we want to support the industry and level the playing field, now is the time for us to support it. Let us get this legislation through the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise yet again on Bill C-11. I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions already to address the House on what I believe is an important piece of legislation.

When looking at Bill C-11, members need to reflect on the Canada Broadcasting Act in terms of when we last saw substantial changes. We would be going back to the early 1990s. In fact 1991 was the last time we had a thorough debate in regard to the Broadcasting Act itself. I would suggest that members should reflect on 1991 compared with 2023.

Before I get into that, I just want to commend the Senate, having had the opportunity to go over the bill and giving it a great deal of effort. I want to compliment the senators on their efforts in bringing forward a series of amendments. Obviously not all the amendments are acceptable from the government's perspective. There are a number that we will not be proceeding with. I want to make very quick reference to a couple of the ones that cause a little discomfort, if I could put it that way.

I am thinking about amendment 2(d)(ii), which seeks to legislate matters in the broadcasting system that are beyond the policy intent of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to include online undertakings, undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet in a broadcasting system.

Then if one goes to amendment 3, this would affect the Governor in Council's ability to publicly consult on and issue a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs. It would also prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technology changes over time.

There are a few amendments that we disagree with, looking at the scope of the legislation and wanting to keep the integrity and the intent of the legislation intact.

Some of the amendments that we would agree with include 1(a)(ii), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d)(i), 2(e), 4, 5, 7(b)(i), 8, 9(a), 10 and 12. These amendments that were proposed by the Senate are fairly well received.

Having said all that, as I indicated, I wanted to provide my compliments and thank the Senate for the thorough review of the legislation.

I know that for some of us, making the legislation stronger is of great benefit. We want to see that. We saw some changes or modifications that were talked about at the committee stage. It is important that we recognize why we have this legislation here in the first place. I referred in my opening remarks to Bill C-11 being all about updating the Canada Broadcasting Act.

I have had the opportunity to draw the comparisons from the previous 1991 technology to where we are today. For all intents and purposes, there is no real comparison. It is almost like two totally different worlds. Bill C-11 would put the system, the platform versus our traditional broadcasting, on a level playing field. Not to support Bill C-11 is to say that it is okay to continue in the fashion that we are currently going, where there is an unlevel playing field for those traditional broadcasters versus what is happening with online platforms.

If we take a look at 1991, and I have referenced this in the past, we used a telephone line for Internet, and we actually called into it. We would hear the buzzing and so forth, and ultimately a double click that said we were now online. The type of computer technology used at that time had a fraction of the speed and the capacity of what we use today. In fact, things such as Disney+, Crave, Netflix, Spotify and YouTube were virtually non-existent back then, so the Canadian Broadcasting Act did not reflect the technology and the advancements that would come in the years beyond 1991.

The legislation would put all those platforms on a level playing field because we recognize that Canadian content really does matter. One only needs to look at those traditional media outlets and the impact the Broadcasting Act and Canadian content have had on the traditional media forms: the CTVs, the CBCs, the radio programming that is out there and so forth. I suspect that if we looked at many of the stars we have today and in the past, they would recognize that Canadian content mandates ensure that Canada is better reflected in what is actually being produced and promoted. This is not only the case here in Canada, but the mandates also, in a very real and tangible way, enable Canadians to become sensational hits outside of Canadian borders.

I can tell members that at the end of the day, some of the programs I watched when I was growing up existed, in good part, because of the Canadian content laws. If we did not have them back then, I do not know to what degree we would have had some of the programs or the success we have witnessed.

In the Liberal Party, we recognize our arts community as an industry that not only provides jobs and opportunities but also reflects our heritage in many ways. Who we are as a nation is often seen in the types of programming that come out of Canadian content. This is something that should be encouraged. On many occasions, I have used the example of Folklorama, because I really believe Folklorama embodies so much, in terms of our heritage, that it is worth mentioning again.

Once a year for two weeks, Manitoba, and in particular Winnipeg, comes alive with our celebration of diversity and heritage. I attend some of the pavilions. There are roughly 50 pavilions. There are 24 or 25 that are one week long, and then the following week there are another 24 or 25 pavilions. By touring the pavilions, one may see some amazing talents. There are performers who will act, sing and provide all forms of different services in the production and hosting of these pavilions.

I would go deeper by saying that when I see some of these young singers or performers, it is not just during that one week. It becomes a venue for them to ultimately showcase their talent. However, we will see that they are actually practising, rehearsing and often getting other gigs, if I can use the word “gigs”, throughout the year.

Many of these performers, actors and singers will often get to the next level where they will participate in the film industry, or we will hear them on the radio. These are types of things that we should be encouraging.

On Saturday night, I was at the Canada Life Centre, where the Winnipeg Jets play, and we had some guests from the Philippines: Moira DelaTorre and company. It was a super-fantastic show. Thousands of people came to witness it. Prior to that show, some incredible local talent was highlighted.

I say that because events such as that, the Folklorama events and many types of events take place in arts and performance throughout our communities and virtually in every region of our country. We have the potential to support those events by getting behind Bill C-11. If they understand and appreciate our heritage and the potential industry and how it can deliver for Canadians, all members should be getting behind Bill C-11. It does not take too much to reflect on some huge international success stories.

I would use the example of Schitt's Creek to counter what the member opposite is saying. Some of the actors originate from some good Canadian content in previous years. Many of these actors and singers get their opportunity to contribute, especially in their earlier years, in part because of Canadian content and if not directly then indirectly. I can say that Schitt's Creek is a wonderful production here in Canada, and many people can understand and appreciate values that are being espoused here in Canada. The program is recognized worldwide because of all the awards that it has received.

One can talk about endless numbers of actors, singers and performers who have made it big on the world stage. A lot of that would not have been possible if not for directly or indirectly ensuring that we have Canadian content. That is why I believe members need to reflect on the importance of Bill C-11 with respect to levelling the playing field.

I would also like to mention the jobs that are created. If not every week then every other week it seems that there is some form of production taking place in Manitoba. In other provinces and territories, it may be more so or less so. All I know is that there is a healthy industry there to support a growing industry as a whole. Within that, there are jobs that are contributing in a very real and tangible way. Therefore, Bill C-11 would do more than just promote Canadian content; it would also ensure a healthier and more vibrant industry. As a direct result of that, some of the small centres are actually seeing productions being carried out. I think of a program like Corner Gas from the Prairies.

These are productions, I would suggest, if not directly, then indirectly, that are provided the opportunities because of issues such as Canadian content. There has been some movement toward Canadian content from different platforms, but nowhere near enough. When we think in terms of what the legislation would do, it would be a modernization of 1991. It says that one has an obligation to contribute.

More specifically, what would the legislation do? It would bring online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. It would require online streaming services that serve the Canadian market to contribute to the production of Canadian content. It would prioritize support for the content from francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ2+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators. It would ensure online broadcasters showcase more Canadian content. In essence, it would modernize outdated legislation and bring the system into the 21st century. This is what the legislation would do and, for whatever reason, the Conservative Party is voting against the legislation.

Let me tell colleagues what it is that the legislation would not do. The Conservatives will try to give a false impression by trying to ratchet up hard feelings toward Bill C-11 or by providing support for misinformation about the legislation.

This is what the legislation would not do. It would not impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media. There is one Conservative member who is anxious to get up. I can tell by the comments she has consistently been making. Such members do a disservice to Canadians when they try to say anything other than the fact that it would not impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media. To say otherwise is not true. It would not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. It could not be more clear than making that statement, yet we still get members of the Conservative Party who will say that it would.

Senate Amendments to Bill C-11

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order this morning respecting the government's Motion No. 2 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11.

In my view, the notice of motion engages the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House later today.

Normally such a point of order should be raised when the motion is actually proposed to the House, but given that it is listed on the Projected Order of Business for consideration in an hour's time, the complexity of the issues involved and as a courtesy to you to find some time to prepare a ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise as soon as the House opened this morning.

On March 8 and March 9, the House considered a government motion concerning the Senate's amendments, a motion which is now referred to as Motion No. 1 on the Notice Paper, to which my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, has moved an amendment.

Flash forward to Friday evening, when today's Notice Paper was published, we see this new motion, Motion No. 2, from the Liberal government. They are both very long motions, so I will spare the Speaker and the House from hearing them each read out loud.

Suffice it to say, I studied them very closely to see what might be different between them. Lo and behold, the English versions of the motions are absolutely identical. When one refers to the French versions, one spots the difference, which is a single instance of a “1” and a “2”, in Roman numerals, being transposed. That is it.

Let me explain for the House briefly what that means. The Liberal government made a drafting mistake; it got its motion wrong. Now it wants a do-over. If one is a golfer, one might call it a mulligan. All this is on a policy Liberals are mistakenly pursuing on a bill they keep botching and on amendments they keep flubbing, and now a motion they cannot even get right, and those people want to control the Internet.

Setting that aside, I will get back to the procedural concern. The substantive effect of these two motions is identical. Indeed, the text in one official language is identical. The words used in the other official language are all the same. It is just two numbers that are transposed.

Having established these motions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, let me refer to page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which explains the rule of anticipation. It reads:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper.

It goes on to say:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with.... A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

Though the government House leader might argue that questions about this rule do not come up often, there are a series of precedents through the years that are relevant to the issue before the Chair today.

Mr. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, held, in relation to the rule of anticipation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...I first considered whether the motion should be accepted to stand on the Order Paper at the same time. I am satisfied that this was quite in order, but I came to the conclusion that it would be quite improper to permit a second debate on identically the same subject matter as the subject matter of a debate which was already proceeding. In other words, the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on July 7, 1969, said, in a ruling found at page 1317 of the Journals, concerning a government motion to amend the Standing Orders, anticipating a motion to concur in a report of the former standing committee on procedure and organization:

I might say, having taken into account the arguments advanced by members of the opposition, that if the honourable Member for Grenville-Carleton had moved his [concurrence] motion I would have recognized that the rule of anticipation would have given his motion precedence...to the motion that is now before the House in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I would have so ruled...

A much more recent predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, considered the matter of two committee instruction motions that varied by a difference of just five words. The Chair ruled, on June 11, 2014, at page 6649 of the Debates:

Upon examination of the section of O'Brien and Bosc, upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same.

Upon examination of both motions on the notice paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the government House leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time.

The rule of anticipation is a concept which is not unheard of in the current Parliament, or to you, Mr. Speaker, for that matter.

On May 11, 2022, the Deputy Speaker, at page 5123 of the Debates, ruled that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, could not be debated and would be rendered pending, following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill, because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

After Bill C-19 had received royal assent, you made a further ruling, Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates, to discharge Bill C-250. In doing so, you said:

...there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session

A similar case can be found in your June 6, 2021 ruling, at page 6142 of the Debates, whereby Bill C-243, sponsored by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, could not be proceeded with following the second reading of a Senate public bill, Bill S-211. Bill C-243 has been listed on the Order Paper every sitting day since, under the heading “Pending Business”.

To recap the current case, the government's Motion No. 1 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11 was moved, as I mentioned, on March 8, and then became an Order of the Day. Therefore, Motion No. 2 may only be proceeded with if Motion No.1 has been withdrawn, as the various authorities would observe. Otherwise, proceeding with Motion No. 2 would offend the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House, as forecasted, at noon today.

Mr. Speaker Casgrain's ruling on February 24, 1936, at pages 67 and 68 of the Journals, explains a possible way forward for the government concerning its Motion No. 1:

The adjournment of the debate, last Thursday on the second reading of Bill No. 2...meant that the question shall again be considered at a future sitting when the order for Public Bills will be reached. This is what is called, in parliamentary procedure, appointing a matter for consideration by the House. [Erskine] May...gives many precedents showing that the discussion of an appointed matter cannot be anticipated by a motion...There is sufficient similarity in the Bill and the Motion to confine them to one debate...The difference in details between the two propositions may be dealt with by moving amendments... but it is not sufficient to justify a duplication of the debate. It is a well known principle that the same question cannot be raised twice in the same session.

The difference between the government's Motion No.1 and Motion No. 2 could be addressed by an amendment to Motion No. 1. It is that simple, really.

All the Liberal government needs to do is allow the debate to continue on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge. Once that debate has eventually concluded and the vote taken, the government could, in the event that my colleague's thoughtful amendment is not adopted by the House, of course, once debate resumes on the main motion, move its own amendment to achieve the change Motion No. 2 contains, which would be up to the House to discuss and decide.

If you were to find my point of order to be well taken, Mr. Speaker, it would not be the first major procedural error the government has made in pursuing its flawed policy to control the Internet. On June 15, 2021, you ruled out of order many committee amendments made to Bill C-11's predecessor in the previous Parliament because the Liberals on the Canadian heritage committee had run roughshod over the rules and broke several of them in trying to rush the bill through Parliament before the opportunistic and unnecessary early election the Prime Minister called that August.

Now it seems that the Liberals are equally hasty in ramming their Internet control bill through the House once again. It is almost as if the government is in a rush to clear the decks for something to come.

I hope you will find in favour of my point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to your response.

Telecommunications Act

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in this place, and it is nice to join the debate on the topic at hand.

When we talk about cybersecurity, there are so many different factors that go into it. I recognize that the bill before us largely has to do with telecommunications companies, bigger companies, and perhaps with government institutions as a whole. However, as we are having this conversation, we need to recognize and address the fact that the risk presented through cybersecurity extends much beyond that. With the current generation of kids being raised, kids are heavily involved in using cellphones, video game systems and computer consoles, for example, and are curious by nature. They are more at risk of clicking on a link that they do not know or realize is harmful. We know that is quite often how a lot of bad actors exploit weaknesses in computer systems in businesses or in homes. It is important to have that context out there early as we start the debate on this bill.

I want to get into a few specific parts of the bill at the start. First, it proposes to amend the Telecommunications Act to make sure the security of our Canadian telecommunications system is an official objective of our public policy, which is not a bad idea in and of itself. Second, it would create a new critical cyber systems protection act. The stated goal is to have a framework in place that would allow for better protection of critical cyber-services and cyber systems, which impact national security and public safety.

Some of the proposals include the designation of services or systems deemed to be “vital” for the purposes of this new act, along with designating classes of operators for these services or systems. The designated operators in question could be required to perform certain duties or activities, including the implementation of security programs, the mitigation of risks, reporting security incidents and complying with cybersecurity directions. Most significantly, Bill C-26 would authorize the enforcement of these measures through financial penalties or even imprisonment.

Anybody hearing these few examples listed in the preamble probably thinks this sounds like common sense, and I would generally agree with them. However, there is a problem, especially with the last one, which has to do with directions, because it is quite vague. These points should raise some obvious questions. How are we defining each of them? What are the limits and the accountability for using these new powers? It is fair to have these general concerns when we consider any government, but Canadians have reason to be especially wary with the one currently in power based on the Liberal record itself.

Unfortunately, the most recent and disturbing revelations related to foreign interference in two federal elections, which allegedly included working with an elected official, are not the only things we need to talk about. Here is another example. For a number of years, the Conservatives were demanding that the Liberals ban Huawei from our cellular networks. Despite all the warnings and security concerns, they delayed the decision and left us out of step with our closest partners in the Five Eyes. We had been calling it out for years before they finally decided to make the right decision thanks to pressure from Canadians, experts, our allies and the official opposition.

It was not very long ago, almost a year, when the announcement to ban Huawei came along. As much as it was the right decision, it should have been made much sooner. To say that is not a complaint about some missed opportunity in the past. The delay caused real problems with upfront costs for our telcos, and it created extra uncertainty for consumers.

Prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I worked for a telecommunications company in Saskatchewan. When we look at how big and vast our country is, we start thinking about how much equipment is required for one single telecommunications provider in one province, like SaskTel, the company I worked for. We can think about how much equipment it would have ordered or pre-ordered and potentially would have had to replace based on the government taking so long to make up its mind on whether or not to ban Huawei. If we look at some of the bigger companies out there, it is the same thing. There are the upfront costs they would have had to incur, and then the new costs if they had to replace all their equipment on top of that. This was simply because the government dragged its feet on such a big decision.

We have learned a lot of other things about foreign interference since then that need to be properly addressed and independently investigated. We need a public inquiry, at the very least, into some of these issues. However, once again, the Liberals are refusing to do the right thing for as long as they possibly can. It is clearer than ever before that we need to get a lot more serious about our cybersecurity, because what we are really talking about is our national security as a whole. These two things are closely intertwined, and having this conversation is long overdue.

We are happy to see the issue get more of the attention it deserves. Canadians have a lot of questions and concerns about it that should not be ignored. That is why it is a priority for Conservatives on our side of the House, and we are not going to let it go.

While we work to carefully review Bill C-26 in this place, we want to make sure that it will be effective and accomplish what it is supposed to do. It needs to protect Canadians living in a digital world. At the same time, it should not create any new openings for government to interfere with people's lives or abuse power.

After all, we are waiting for Bill C-11 to return to the House with all the problems it has, including the risk of online censorship. The problem is that whether it is about Huawei or the latest scandal about foreign interference, the Liberal government has failed to act, and it has undermined trust in our institutions. Therefore, it is hard to take it seriously when a bill like this one comes forward. The government's failure in this area is even more frustrating because we should all agree that there is a real need to strengthen cybersecurity. That is what experts and stakeholders have been telling us over many years. Canadians have had to wait for far too long for the government to bring something forward.

Make no mistake: This bill is flawed, and it will require more work to make sure that we get it right. However, the fact that we are talking about the issue right now is a small and necessary step in the right direction.

There are a few points I would like to mention.

Part 1 of this bill will allow the federal government to compel service providers to remove all products provided by a specified person from its networks or facilities. First of all, that puts a lot of companies at risk of having adversarial agreements signed in the future. If I were a company trying to sign an agreement, I would be doing everything I could to make sure that someone is not going to put a clause in there that if the government forces its removal, there is going to be an extra fine levied on the company. The problem with this bill is that it exposes companies to having these bad contracts negotiated, signed and forced on them by bad actors.

Under the new critical cyber systems protection act, the minister would be able to direct and impose any number of things on a service provider without giving them compensation for complying with the orders. Earlier, I was talking about the upfront costs paid by telcos trying to advance their networks to provide the products and services that their clients and customers want and need, especially as the world moves forward in a more digital fashion. The government is going to force them to do something without any compensation or without the ability to have help dealing with these changes. I think this is something that needs to be reconsidered in this bill.

That leaves service providers in a position where they have to pay for complying with potentially arbitrary orders or face legal penalties, such as the ones I mentioned earlier: fines or even imprisonment.

Again, we do have a desperate need to improve our cybersecurity regime, but these problems show that the bill is poorly written. By seeking to implement personal liability for breaches of the act, it will incentivize skilled Canadian cybersecurity professionals to leave Canada to find jobs elsewhere. This phenomenon, commonly known as the brain drain, is emerging as a severe issue for our economy, in some part thanks to the policies of the government.

Thousands of skilled, highly employable Canadians move to the United States thanks to the larger market, higher salaries and lower taxes, while very few Americans move to Canada to do the same. This issue is bigger than just the cybersecurity sector. Thanks to this government, we are losing nurses, doctors and tech workers to the United States. All the while, professionals who immigrate to Canada are being denied the paperwork they need to work in the field they are trained for because of the ridiculous red tape that plagues our immigration. Given that we are already short 25,000 cybersecurity professionals in Canada, is it wise to keep incentivizing them to go to the States?

Another massive problem with this bill is that it opens the door for some extreme violations of individual privacy. It also expands the state's power to use a secret government order to bar individuals or companies from accessing essential services. While we must improve our framework against cybersecurity attacks, drastically expanding what cabinet can do outside the public eye is always a bad idea. Accountability to the people and Parliament has always been an essential part of how we are supposed to do things in Canada. It is, however, not surprising that the current government would advocate for more unaccountable power. After all, government members have been anything but transparent. They have hidden information from Canadians to protect their partisan interests.

Canadians deserve to know what the government is doing. We must always uphold the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Giving cabinet the right to secretly cut Canadians off from essential services could threaten to erode this fundamental right.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member across the way, having not had an opportunity to ask the Thursday question and not having been granted that opportunity, might be somewhat confused about the nature of the Thursday question or what it would be about, so of course we excuse him for that.

This afternoon, we are going to be concluding second reading debate of Bill C-26, concerning the critical cyber systems protection act. I would also like to thank all parties for their co-operation in helping to conclude that debate.

As all members are aware, and as I am sure you are aware of and quite excited for, Mr. Speaker, the House will be adjourned tomorrow for the address of the United States President, President Joe Biden.

On Monday, we will be dealing with the Senate amendments in relation to Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

Tuesday, we will continue the debate at second reading of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, with the budget presentation taking place later that day, at 4 p.m.

Members will be pleased to know that days one and two of the budget debate, which I know members are anxiously awaiting, will be happening on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively.

On Friday, we will proceed to the second reading debate of Bill C-41, regarding humanitarian aid to vulnerable Afghans.

Telecommunications Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and join the debate this morning in the House of Commons. I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Bill C-26 is a bill that addresses an important and growing topic. Cybersecurity is very important, very timely. I am glad that, in calling this bill today, the government sees this as a priority. I struggle with trying to figure out the priorities of the government from time to time. There were other bills it had declared as absolute must-pass bills before Christmas that it is not calling. However, it is good to be talking about this instead of Bill C-21, Bill C-11 or some of the other bills that the Liberals have lots of problems with on their own benches.

Cybersecurity is something that affects all Canadians. It is, no doubt, an exceptionally important issue that the government needs to address. Cybersecurity, as the previous speaker said, is national security. It is critical to the safety and security of all of our infrastructure. It underpins every aspect of our lives. We have seen how infrastructure can be vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Throughout the world, we have seen how energy infrastructure is vulnerable, like cyber-attacks that affect the ability to operate pipelines. We have seen how cyber-attacks can jeopardize the functioning of an electrical grid.

At the local level, we have experienced how weather events that bring down power infrastructure can devastate a community and can actually endanger people's health and safety. One can only imagine what a nationwide or pervasive cyber-attack that managed to cripple a national electrical grid would do to people's ability to live their lives in safety and comfort.

Cyberwarfare is emerging as a critical component of every country's national defence system, both offensively and defensively. The battlefield success of any military force has always depended on communication. We know now just how dependent military forces are on the security of their cyber-communication. We see this unfolding in Ukraine, resulting from the horrific, criminal invasion of that country by Putin. We see the vital role that communication plays with respect to the ability of a country to defend itself from a foreign adversary, in terms of cybersecurity.

I might point out that there is a study on this going on at the national defence committee. We have heard expert testimony about how important cybersecurity is to the Canadian Armed Forces. We look forward to getting that report eventually put together and tabled, with recommendations to the government here in the House of Commons in Canada.

We know that critical sectors of the Canadian economy and our public services are highly vulnerable to cyber-attack. Organized crime and foreign governments do target information contained within health care systems and within our financial system. The potential for a ransom attack, large and small, is a threat to Canadians. Imagine a hostile regime or a criminal enterprise hacking a public health care system and holding an entire province or an entire country hostage with the threat to destroy or leak or hopelessly corrupt the health data of millions of citizens. Sadly, criminal organizations and hostile governments seek to do this and are busy creating the technology to enable them to do exactly this.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conducted three different studies while I was chair of that committee that were tied to cybersecurity in various ways. We talked about and learned about the important ways in which cybersecurity and privacy protection intersect and sometimes conflict. We saw how this government contracted with the company Clearview AI, a company whose business is to scrape billions of images from the Internet, identify these images and sell the identified images back to governments and, in the case of Canada, to the RCMP.

We heard chilling testimony at that committee about the capabilities of sophisticated investigative tools, spyware, used by hostile regimes and by organized crime but also by our own government, which used sophisticated investigative tools to access Canadians' cellphones without their knowledge or consent. In Canada, this was limited. It was surprising to learn that this happened, but it happened under judicial warrant and in limited situations by the RCMP. However, the RCMP did not notify or consult the Privacy Commissioner, which is required under Treasury Board rules. This conflict between protecting Canadians by enforcing our laws and protecting Canadians' privacy is difficult for governments, and when government institutions like the RCMP disregard Treasury Board edicts or ignore the Privacy Commissioner or the Privacy Act, especially when they set aside or ignore a ruling from the Privacy Commissioner, it is quite concerning.

This bill is important. It is worthy of support, unlike the government's somewhat related bill, Bill C-27, the so-called digital charter. However, this bill, make no mistake, has significant new powers for the government. It amends the Telecommunications Act to give extraordinary powers to the minister over industry. It is part of a pattern we are seeing with this government, where it introduces bills that grant significant powers to the minister and to the bureaucrats who will ultimately create regulations.

Parliament is really not going to see this fleshed out unless there is significant work done at committee to improve transparency around this bill and to add more clarity around what this bill would actually do and how these powers will be granted. There have been many concerns raised in the business community about how this bill may chase investment, jobs and capital from Canada. The prospect of extraordinary fines, without this bill being fleshed out very well, creates enormous liability for companies, which may choose not to invest in Canada, not fully understanding the ramifications of this bill.

There is always the capture. We have seen this time and time again with the government. It seems to write up a bill for maybe three or four big companies or industries, only a small number of players in Canada, and yet the bill will capture other enterprises, small businesses that do not have armies of lobbyists to engage the government and get regulations that will give them loopholes, or lawyers to litigate a conflict that may arise as a result of it. I am always concerned about the small businesses and the way they may be captured, either deliberately or not, by a bill like this.

I will conclude by saying that I support the objective. I agree with the concern that the bill tries to address. I am very concerned about a number of areas that are ambiguous within the bill. I hope that it is studied vigorously at committee and that strong recommendations are brought back from committee and incorporated into whatever the bill might finally look like when it comes back for third reading.

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House. Today, we are talking about Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage. Fortunately, it also has a short title: the historic places of Canada act.

This bill is an attempt to follow up on one of the recommendations from the truth and reconciliation report. Members will recall that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper made an official apology to first nations people for the residential school situations. He then commissioned this truth and reconciliation report, which came with over 90 recommendations. Recommendation number 79 is the one that this act is trying to address. Conservatives absolutely support this. Stephen Harper started it, and so we definitely want to see this come to pass and to send it to committee.

In my talk today, I am going to reflect on some of the concerns that I have with the bill, and as usual, some recommendations on how to fix them.

I will start with subclause 43(3). What happens in the parks part of this bill is that the park rangers would be given new authorities. They would be given similar authorities to what peace officers have. They would then carry out their work. Basically, I want to read subclause 43(3) because it is very concerning. It states:

A park warden or enforcement officer may exercise any powers under [search and seizure] without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist, but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain one.

It would obviously be a violation of section 8 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to search and seize without a warrant, so the important part of that phrasing is “exigent circumstances”. However, I do not know that a park ranger would necessarily understand that they would normally get a warrant, but if someone were going to be injured or some building were going to be destroyed or something, there may be some urgent circumstance. Moreover, there is no indication of a requirement for training on that. Therefore, there needs to be some training.

The second concern I have with this bill is that it would give additional powers to the minister and to the Governor in Council, which is essentially cabinet, to designate places or to prevent a place from being designated. That is way too much power to give to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I say that because he has a history of doing things to influence the outcomes that he likes or does not like.

For example, in 2022, he decided to put in regulations about migratory birds, which caused a delay in the Trans Mountain pipeline project. He has already said he never wants to see that project built. I would not want a situation where there is some kind of project or natural resources thing that is in the national public interest and the minister has the sole power to decide to designate a heritage place that would become a barrier to that project. We do not need to put that kind of power in his hands. We have to keep in mind that this is the minister who, in his former life, was arrested for his environmental activism. For example, in my riding, I have a heritage site that is where oil was first discovered in North America. I do not ever want to see the minister have the power to decide that is not going to be a designated site anymore. That sole-power thing is a problem, and there need to be checks in place.

Under clause 34, another thing the Governor in Council, which is really cabinet, could do is to make regulations on about 18 different circumstances. This is becoming a chronic problem with bills that the Liberal government brings forward. The Liberals have no detail in the bill and leave it to the regulations later. Sometimes, thinking about Bill C-11, the government knows what the criteria are that it is going to bring forward to the CRTC on what content should be promoted or buried. Even though the opposition has been asking the government to share that for more than a year, it will not do so.

If we look at Bill C-22, the bill about disabilities, it does not say who is eligible, how much they get and when they are going to get it. Those are details that are actually very important in order to approve bills in more than just principle.

We are at the stage where we are approving this one in principle, but the ability for cabinet to make regulations after the fact needs to be much more limited than it is. There needs to be some driver of why it could not be foreseen.

There is also a part of this bill that would increase indigenous representation on the board from first nations, Inuit and Métis, and that is a great addition. There are some occasions when they do not all agree on something. We have seen instances before, like with the Coastal gas project, for example, with the Wet'suwet'en, where 85% thought one thing and 15% thought another. Again, there does not seem to be a mechanism to resolve when the board cannot agree about something, so that would be very important.

Another protection I would like to see in this bill has to do with the issue of cancel culture. We have seen in our country, over the last few years, quite a number of historic monuments that were vandalized, destroyed or forced to be taken down. I think about the Queen Victoria statue. I would not want to get into a situation where somebody is not a monarchist and they become the minister and have the sole power to designate something as “not a site”, for example.

I remember when I was at university in Kingston, there used to be a pub there called Sir John A. Macdonald, and they made them take that away. I do not know if it was officially a historic site, but it was certainly historic in my life. I definitely do not want to see that.

Another thing is that 15 Christian churches have been burned, some of which were historical sites, and the government has not taken any action. How we are going to address the protection of things that are already heritage sites and not try to rewrite history, as it were? That will be an important question.

I also want to make sure the board members who are chosen have the best interests of the country and the people they are representing at heart. In my riding, there are people who are paid environmental activists who chain themselves to the employees' pipelines, etc. It could cause a lot of trouble if those people were on the board of this particular committee. Who is vetting the board members? It says the government is going to choose. If “government” means the Minister of the Environment, who was previously an environmental activist, then I do have a concern there as well.

Let us talk about navigable waters. There is a lot of red tape already in the area of navigable waters. There are federal regulations, there are provincial regulations and there is always a long delay in getting any resolution. Now we would have the Minister of Environment and Climate Change having powers, but what if the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Tourism do not agree? I have raised this point in the questions a few times, but there has not really been a good answer. There needs to be some mechanism to sort out who is on first and who has the prime responsibility. I personally do not think it should be the Minister of the Environment, when it comes to navigable waters. That is clearly something that is a concern of Fisheries and Oceans, unless it is for tourism.

If we think about some of the balancing of priorities, we know that when it comes to designating heritage sites, they are expensive to maintain. In my previous questions, I talked about, in my riding, Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie's grave, which was falling into disrepair and it took a really long time to get fixed. We need to make sure there is a plan in place to afford the things we are designating.

I do like the idea of a registry for those locations that are heritage locations. That will be helpful. I think it will also help prevent people from removing things that were at heritage sites, because the reasoning for them being chosen in the first place will be a part of that.

The final concern I have about this is that the government has brought this bill and again is giving more power to the government. Its track record is not great on this. We have seen numerous times that the government has used its powers and it was not in the interest of the people. I think that is why people are losing trust in the democracy and in the current government.

There need to be some protections put into this bill that would allow us to expand and recognize heritage sites, to afford to fix them, to make sure that we are not going to cancel them later and to make sure that it is clear how we sort out conflict.

Those are the main concerns that I have with the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions people have.

Canadian Heritage

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great work.

The online streaming bill is very clear. It would make tech giants pay their fair share to Canadian culture, but some tech giants do not want to do that. The Conservatives are trying to make this about free speech, but it is written in black and white in the bill. It has nothing to do with what people post online. It is about the biggest companies in the world contributing to our music, our movies and our television. It is about creating the next generation of great Canadian artists.

Let us stand up for them and pass Bill C-11.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, this government tabled Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Still, there is so much disinformation about how this legislation helps artists in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills and across Canada, while also protecting the freedom of expression for Canadians.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage please update the House on how this bill would make tech giants pay their fair share, celebrate the best of Canadian content and serve the needs of all Canadians?

International Day of La Francophonie

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP to mark the International Day of La Francophonie, an important day for celebrating and promoting our beautiful French language.

The French language originated in Europe, but it is also entrenched here in North America, in the Arab world and especially in Africa, which is now the continent with the largest number of francophones. This year's theme, “321 million francophones, a world of cultural content”, places an emphasis on the diversity of francophone culture within the Francophonie and for francophiles around the world.

A language is much more than vocabulary and grammar. It is also a vision, a way of looking at the world and telling our stories. It is important that French-language works be available and discoverable, especially in the new world of digital broadcasting. That is why the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie is focusing on the discoverability of francophone content.

That is good timing, because most members of the House have been working on this issue in the context of Bill C-11. There is still work to be done for the French language, but we have taken a step in the right direction. Let us continue doing that with the rest of the world.

Online Streaming Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau once said, “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” That is exactly where the government intends to be with Bill C-11. If the NDP-Liberal coalition gets its way, the CRTC's regulatory claws will sink into the Internet to tell Canadians what they should be watching 24-7.

The Liberals say Canadian content must be pushed to the top, but no one can define over there what Canadian content is, so the next time Canadians turn on their favourite streaming service, they will be in shock. The government may creep its way in late at night and while citizens may grow tired of looking for their favourite show and might finally settle on the billion-dollar sleep aid called the CBC, the government should kill Bill C-11, heed the words of the former prime minister and get out of the nation's bedrooms.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Yiddish proverb will then have to wait until after we resume. I am saving it for next time.

In addressing Bill C-11, which is in fact a censorship bill, I want to go into the legislation. I am going to start with clause 7 of the legislation that is being proposed, which would amend section 7 by adding a “for greater certainty” clause after subsection 7(6). Generally, I like these types of clauses, but not this one. It says:

For greater certainty, an order may be made under subsection (1) with respect to orders made under subsection 9.?1(1) or 11.?1(2) or regulations made under subsection 10(1) or 11.?1(1).

Since I am not burdened with a legal education, I had to go back to the Broadcasting Act to discover what exactly we are amending. With respect to policy directions, the cabinet would be able to order any of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1) and any of the objectives of the regulatory policy set out in subsection 5(2). Licensing, fees and access would all be determined, if the cabinet chooses to direct the CRTC on what it can and cannot do when it comes to licensing content creators, who gets to be a content creator in Canada and what gets to be Canadian content.

In fact, let me go on to regulations generally, which is section 10 of the actual Broadcasting Act. It goes into quite a bit of detail on what the cabinet would be able to order the commission to do. When members of this House are getting up and saying “No, no, this is not what it does”, they are saying that people like Michael Geist are wrong. He is a professor who is renowned in Canada as the leading Internet law expert. The government is saying to ignore the experts because they are all wrong. In fact, in the House committee—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record with regards to Bill C-11.

However, there is a certain sector of society that is starting to buy into a lot of misinformation. Somehow we have people concerned about individual rights, freedom of speech and not being able to watch what they want on the Internet, which is all based on false information. We have the Conservative Party promoting that misinformation.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regards to how that is, from my perspective, unhealthy when we get people promoting false information.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am pleased to represent Nunavut in speaking to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act again. I spoke to this bill before it reached the other place, and I am pleased to speak to the amendments made upon its return to this place.

I have heard some of the debate this morning, and throughout the day, I have heard the word “misinformation” used by all parties. It is really unfortunate that the bill is being used as a way to pit Canadians against each other.

I am glad to see that supports for indigenous creators will still be given in this bill so they can share their talents online. It is important that small content creators can share their art. They need to be able to reach a larger audience, as this is where they can be discovered and profit from their own talents.

Uvagut TV and Isuma TV are Inuit media channels that provide great Inuit content. Their content is made by Inuit for Inuit and can be easily watched in Nunavut and abroad. They do not have the same ability to compete with web giants such as Netflix and Disney+.

Canada's broadcasting system offers very little content that reflects Inuit lives, and even less content in Inuktitut, despite the fact that two-thirds of Inuit speak Inuktitut. Online streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+ are not required to play Canadian artists on their channels, and very little indigenous content is being added to these streaming services.

Bill C-11 would ensure that Canadian media broadcasters are obligated to produce programming that includes indigenous languages. This change would enable more indigenous people to access programming in their languages. This would also expose indigenous creators and artists to a broader viewership.

Many people in this room have never watched TV programming that is not in French or English. I want my grandchildren to see and hear Inuktitut wherever they go. I want Inuit programming on Netflix and Disney+ created by Inuit. When content is not created with and by indigenous people, mistakes will happen. We must create a better future for generations of indigenous content creators.

A way to learn about someone is through their media. Indigenous people need to be represented through mainstream media. With better funding, indigenous programming can have French and English subtitles. This bill is not perfect, but it can help create a space for small independent creators to showcase their work.

Streaming companies hold a lot of power in what we watch. They need to be pushed to be inclusive. It is not enough that indigenous programming is only shown when it is convenient to them. Indigenous creators exist in Canada, and they need our support.

Promotion of indigenous art and media is an essential part of reconciliation. Call to action 84 calls for representation of indigenous languages, cultures and perspectives. Bill C-11 could expand on this call to action and ensure that all media channels are promoting indigenous content.

I will turn back to today's debate. The use of fearmongering language is causing confusion and fear among Canadians. The Senate amendments are supported by large corporations, including YouTube and TikTok. They say that Bill C-11 would cause the CRTC to police content. However, this is not factual.

I will conclude by quoting what Alex Levine, president of the Writers Guild of Canada, was reported as saying regarding Bill C-11. He said, “We only work on Canadian content. We don't work when, for example, Netflix or HBO decides to shoot a show here.” The report goes on to say, “Without the bill, Levine says market forces mean Canadians ‘will see a world reflected back to them that is determined by studio executives in Los Angeles and not by Canadian artists.’” Like Mr. Levine, I prefer to see a world reflected back from indigenous peoples and Canadians, not studio executives in other countries.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, we started with Bill C-10, which was definitely worse. I think what the member is referring back to are the concerns we were expressing at that time. Some of the changes that came in Bill C-11 reassured us, and one of those changes is the very one the Conservatives are harping on. That is the change that made sure that user-generated content is not affected by this bill.

What Conservatives are ignoring is that there is an exception. If those making their own content have a million subscribers and they are making money out of that, then, yes, the CRTC will have an ability to look at that. It is not what the Conservatives are saying, which is that we should have a blanket exemption that nobody who is making money on the Internet has to report to anybody or be accountable for anything. That was one of the major improvements between the first version of the bill and the bill that New Democrats are now supporting.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut.

I am pleased to rise in this debate, and I will try to talk about Bill C-11, instead of all the other kinds of things not related to Bill C-11 that seem to have found their way into the debate today, because it is very fundamentally important to our Canadian identity. The way we learn to understand our country and ourselves depends on the stories we tell each other, the movies we watch and the music we listen to. Therefore, it is very important that there be a space created in this cacophonous world media that is emerging for Canadian content. Otherwise, we will lose our identity as Canadians.

This bill seeks to amend and to update the Broadcasting Act. It looks at making sure there is a level playing field for the new streaming services that have taken a great deal of control over what is happening. It is a very important bill. It asks that the streaming services, which take an enormous amount of revenue out of Canada without paying taxes here, for the most part, be obliged to contribute funds so that Canadian creators can continue to create that content.

The Conservatives are focusing on people who are creating content on the Internet. However, what I am talking about is music, publishing, television and movies, and it is essential that we have that Canadian content. If we tell artists to go ahead and create Canadian content, but the money has already been sucked out of the economy that would go to finance that, then that content will not exist. It cannot exist. The money will be invested and decisions will be made by the streaming services, and they will invest those Canadian revenues around the world wherever they think they can make the most profit. This bill asks that they make an equal contribution to the revenues they are taking out of this country to make sure that Canadian content in movies, television and radio continues to exist. To me, that is the importance of this bill.

A secondary part of this bill that is very important to me is that which updates the broadcasting policy to add a requirement that when we are looking at Canadian content it includes diversity. In particular, one of the things that has never been recognized is the importance of indigenous culture and indigenous languages in this country. This bill updates the Broadcasting Act to include an obligation that the Canadian content that is being protected would be inclusive of indigenous culture and indigenous languages. I think that is a very important step forward.

It also acknowledges other forms of diversity. No one would be surprised that I belong to one of those minority communities. I think it is important that all of that diversity, whether with respect to sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic, racial or religious backgrounds, is represented in Canadian content. This bill would update those regulations to recognize how important that diversity is to who we are as Canadians. For that reason, I am supporting this bill. I have supported it from the beginning.

Do I think the government has done the best job of communicating its messages here? Frankly, no, I do not. Do I think it has done the best job of getting this done in a timely fashion? Obviously it has not. We had an unnecessary election that caused us to start over on this bill. However, that does not make any difference to the final outcome.

We are talking about Senate amendments today. Everyone knows that I am not a great fan of that other place. Most of the time, I think the House should reject all amendments from the Senate. Very few senators even show up to vote on legislation, and they are not accountable to anyone. Therefore, I have no hesitation at all in saying that we will look carefully at amendments that come forward. However, if we in the House do not think they are good amendments, we have every right to reject them, because we are the elected members who represent Canadians in the House. I have no problem sending the amendments back to the Senate, thanking it very much, and telling it that we, the elected members, will decide on legislation.

Having said all of those positive things, I cannot avoid talking for a minute about this other world that the Conservative caucus seems to be living in. It is a world where the Internet is unregulated in a free market where quality rises to the top. I do not live in that world. It is not the real world. The web giants control the content and who rises to the top already. Through their algorithms, they determine what Canadians can see. Google decides in its search engine what will be prioritized.

I belong to the interparliamentary group working on online anti-Semitism, and we have been trying to get those web giants to acknowledge their role, in this particular case, in promoting anti-Semitism in the way that their algorithms function. We had a great deal of trouble getting the attention of parliamentarians from 12 countries to this problem, which they create through their algorithms. They say those algorithms are a business secret. They cannot share how those work. They cannot let anyone have any role in those algorithms. Those are theirs, and they make profit out of them. The bill says that, in terms of discoverability, there be a way that Canadian content created in Canada can be discovered through those search engines.

Yes, there is an intervention about content and what we see. It is not an attempt to censor. It is an attempt to create opportunities for diverse material to make its way forward through the business-controlled algorithms that determine what people see and watch now. There is no wild frontier out there where everybody competes equally on the Internet. We hear the Conservatives saying there is an attempt to censor. There is an attempt to create an opening for more diversity and an opening for Canadian content. That is not censorship.

We heard very extreme statements about Canadian content here, which would, I would say, throw the baby out with the bathwater. They are saying for all these years we have had Canadian content, which has helped Canadian filmmakers and Canadian singers establish a base that they have been able to use to go on to become stars on the world stage. They want to throw that away and say no level playing field and no resources for Canadians against the rest of the big streaming giants who are funding things elsewhere.

That is not the Canada I want to live in, and that is not the way we should approach what is absolutely a changed environment. That is what this bill tries to do. It tries to respond to that changed environment that the streaming companies have created and to make sure there is a role for our stories, our music, our movies and for us as Canadians on the world stage.

That is why I will continue to support Bill C-11. I hope the Conservatives believe what they are saying. I am not sure they do, but I hope that they are arguing from a very honest perspective. I just do not understand how creating opportunities for Canadians is censorship.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am a very proud Albertan, as I know my colleague is a very proud Quebecker. Therefore, I find it interesting that the Bloc is so supportive of the legislation. He is very intent about protecting Quebec artists and Quebec culture, which I would agree is a very admirable goal. Why he would be putting the authority to protect Quebec culture, Alberta culture and Canadian culture as a whole in the hands of an autocratic, ballooning bureaucracy and one political party in particular by supporting Bill C-11? It clearly would give the cabinet the authority to influence the decisions of the CRTC.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, as members have mentioned several times in the House, there is legislation dating back to 1991 that helps promote local content, including Quebec content. That legislation from 1991 has become a bit outdated. Inequality grew between the different platforms, so to continue to protect Quebec content, the legislation needs to be updated.

We have three options. The first is to update the legislation, which Bill C-11 would do. The second is to keep the old obsolete legislation and become culturally American. The third is to do what some Conservatives want, namely to withdraw any type of regulation and become culturally American even faster.

As my colleague does not want to opt for the first choice, does he want to become American with the second option or the third option?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, modernizing the act does not mean modernizing it and putting all the power within the government and the CRTC. That is not what Canadian content providers want.

To my colleague's question, nothing in the bill suppresses the power and influence of Facebook, YouTube, Bell or Rogers. None of what the Liberals are saying actually happens. The entire intent of Bill C-11 is to provide more control and more influence to the CRTC and the Liberal government over what Canadians watch, see and read on the Internet. It is that simple.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud as the member of Parliament for Foothills to see the incredible growth of the film and television industry in Alberta, where The Last of Us, the largest production in the world, has just finished filming, much of it in my riding. What this has done is inspire a whole new generation of content creators, who are going out on their own once they have learned the craft and learned the trade from some of these massive productions. They are doing it on their own, many of them from rural communities across my riding in southern Alberta. I know that is happening across this country.

We have had dozens of emails from many of the same people involved in the film and television industry in Alberta, and they are raising grave concerns about the direction of Bill C-11 and the impact that it could potentially have on their ability to grow their viewership, grow their subscribers and be successful artists and entrepreneurs. I am an elected official, and when we have hundreds if not thousands of these content creators and artists raising the alarm about potential legislation, that should be all we need as parliamentarians to slam the brakes and say that clearly there is something wrong with the legislation being proposed.

If anything, the House of Commons should be doing everything we possibly can to raise awareness and promote and showcase the incredible Canadian talent we have across this country. However, clearly, with Bill C-11, experts from a wide variety of genres are raising concerns about the potential of this legislation, and they come from across the political spectrum.

I found it very interesting that my Liberal colleague, earlier in his presentation, said the Conservatives are only listening to the fringe base of their party. I would argue that Margaret Atwood is definitely not what we would consider a fringe supporter of a right-wing Canadian party. We also have young content creators and entrepreneurs from across the country who are saying that this legislation is pushing the Canadian government and how we deal with Canadian content into totalitarianism. We are going in a direction that I thought we would certainly never go in Canada.

Government members like to say that Canadian talent will not succeed in Canada or on the international stage unless they are coddled by the government and this massive bureaucracy. However, we are hearing from Canadian artists themselves that they want to be successful on the international stage and that they can be and are being successful on the international stage without government help. In fact, the government is going to put up obstacles so they cannot reach international viewers.

J.J. McCullough, a YouTube content creator who appeared at committee, is a professional YouTuber from New Westminster, B.C. He was talking about hundreds of Canadians who have millions of subscribers and more than a billion views on their YouTube channels. They have done this without massive government intervention. They have done this without the Liberal government putting its thumb on the scales of the algorithms on the Internet. They have done this because they are incredibly talented. They know how to use the Internet and know how to find their followers. They are finding unique and entertaining content to put up online.

I would like to quote Mr. McCullough:

Given the broad powers of the CRTC, which Bill C-11 expands to include digital platforms, the Canadian YouTuber community is right to worry that the continued success of their channels could soon be dependent on their ability to make content that's Canadian enough to obtain government endorsement.

He goes on:

...it really makes me wish that we could just erect this big wall between old media and new media. I, as a new media creator, do not want to live in the world of old media. There's so much regulation. They have all of these financing issues. They want these subsidies....

In the new media world, which is much more dynamic, we're all independent. We're self-employed. We don't deal with government, and we don't have to have huge teams of lawyers to navigate all of these media regulations. If we feel like working with Americans, we just do and we don't have a big existential crisis about it. We've been very successful.

He continues:

It's based on our ability to produce content that the masses want to watch—not only Canadians but a global audience. No Canadian YouTuber is successful just by appealing to Canadians. They are successful because they appeal to a global audience. That is the way that media works in the 21st century.

Imagine we have a Canadian story told by a Canadian for Canadians, but we are going to have a bureaucratic monster, the CRTC, make the decision on what is Canadian and what is not. That story, a Canadian story told by a Canadian for Canadians, may not be deemed Canadian content by the Liberal government and the CRTC. That is not right and that is not what this bill should be intended for.

Canadian content creators should not have to be filtered through the CRTC and this bureaucracy, which has a political or ideological lens. These creators are successful because what they are doing is unique and shows their talent. That is all they should need to be successful. We should be proud of that, not suppressing it.

That is what worries me about Bill C-11. We are politicizing the whole idea of Canadian culture, Canadian identity and Canadian artists. Canadian culture and what constitutes being Canadian is about being grassroots. It is about coming from the bottom up. However, Bill C-11 was created from the top down, and we are going to have a bureaucracy dictating to Canadians what Canadian content is and what they should be watching.

It is clear in clauses 7 and 9 of Bill C-11 that the CRTC would have the authority to dictate what content will rise to the top, what will not and what constitutes Canadian content. What is worse is that clause 7 clearly states that cabinet will have the authority to influence the CRTC, how the algorithms are set and what is deemed Canadian content. I want to be clear here. No government, no political party and no level of bureaucracy should have that kind of power and that kind of authority. Canadian content should be dictated by Canadians: what Canadians want to see, what Canadians want to support and what Canadians are willing to purchase with their hard-earned dollars.

This is about integrity and public trust, not only regarding the government but regarding Canadian broadcasting and Canadian content. If there is even a whiff that what people are seeing on a YouTube channel, Facebook page or Twitter account is being influenced by any level of government or any bureaucrat, it is wrong, and we are going to lessen the trust and integrity in what we are seeing online.

The Liberals have a chance to prove to Canadians their argument that what we are seeing in the writing of the bill is not really what is going to happen, which I find odd. If the Liberals truly believe that what is in the bill is not accurate, then they would support the amendment they put in the bill, then took out of the bill, the one that clearly exempts social media content from the implications of Bill C-11. However, they have refused to support that amendment.

What that clearly states to me and to Canadians who are raising concerns about this is that the Liberal government is not being honest. It is not truly being supportive of the fact that YouTube creators and artists are going to be impacted by this bill. The Liberals can say what they want, but they are not putting their words to action. They should be supporting this amendment to ensure that our talented content creators are not being impacted. Again, no government, no bureaucrat and no political party should have authority over dictating what is Canadian content and what Canadians can see, hear and read online. That should be up to Canadians and Canadians alone.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that Bill C-11 paves the way for algorithm manipulation. That is worrisome. Can she tell me how, technically, it is possible to manipulate algorithms?

How does she know, technically, that Bill C-11 will provide control over algorithm manipulation?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today to this very important bill, which will certainly impact Canada for generations to come. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Foothills.

This really is about the Internet. That is what we are talking about today. It is such a marvellous thing. It has led to the creation of Canadian content being shared around the globe. It is truly the definition of free market, merit-based hard work and consistency, and there is so much it can do for Canadians and their content to share it globally with the world. From the palm of one's hand, all that is needed is the Internet or a data subscription package, and people can share their ideas with everyone with the push of a button.

It really is an incredible time that we are living in. It has only been about 15 years that Canadian content creators and producers could share their ideas so freely and so easily all around the world. This really begs the question of why, if they have had this much success and this much freedom, why is the government looking to regulate that?

Why is it looking to put constraints on the freedom that has generated so much success for homegrown Canadian content? That is the question we are looking to answer today. The answers I have heard from the government have not satisfied me that this bill is worth the risk of what it may do, and what it will likely do to Canadian content creators.

Through this piece of legislation, the government, in essence, is about to give itself authority to control what Canadians see on the Internet. Rather than Canadians getting to decide what they see, it would be the government dictating what they see when they open up their smart phones, when they pull up their YouTube app. That would be dictated based on CRTC criteria. I will go into that in a minute.

It would not just impact what we see online, it would also impact the content that Canadians themselves put online. Thousands of videos from Canadians are uploaded every minute, so we are talking about a huge impact on Canadian content creators and those who enjoy watching that content.

It is not only the Canadian content within our own national borders, but also anything that Canadians are looking to view on YouTube from around the world, that would be regulated by this bill.

Why are the Liberals doing this? They are claiming that they are the government and they are here to help content creators. They want to promote, as they say, Canadian content with government regulation. As a Conservative, that immediately brings up a lot of red flags. It also brings up a lot of red flags for Canadian content creators regardless of their political views.

How the government is going to do this is really the concerning part of this bill. The bill gives the government, through the CRTC, the power to force social media platforms and streaming platforms to manipulate their algorithms so that the discoverability of what they deem Canadian content is sort of pushed up the ranks. This is concerning. We have to remember that the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, controls what we see on traditional television and radio, and has done so for the last 50 years. It is really the ultimate gatekeeper of content in Canada in the traditional formats. That comes into play in sections 9 and 10 of the bill under what is called discoverability regulations.

As I mentioned, that is what is really going to determine what we are seeing when we open, for example, our YouTube page. It is going to be based on what Canadian content is, which has yet to be defined. To me that means it is going to be some Ottawa bureaucrat deciding what Canadian content is.

From what I understand, The Handmaid's Tale, which is a world phenomenon Netflix show based on the book by Margaret Atwood, who is, of course, a very notable and famous Canadian author, would not be considered Canadian content. That is not something that would be promoted based on these discoverability rules.

One would think, if this were for Canadian content creators to help them or give them a boost, that Canadian content creators would be over the moon about this, but in fact it is quite the opposite. Over 40,000 content creators, and that is incredible because there is a lot of content creators but not that many people who actively contribute online looking to influence and share their ideas, but 40,000 of them in Canada have affiliated with Digital First Canada and signed letters calling for the discoverability rules of Bill C-11 to be removed from the bill.

Again, 40,000 people who would be directly impacted this, who are supposed to be the ones that the government is saying it is helping, said they do not want this. That, to me, in itself, is enough to say that maybe we should park this bill, shelve it or throw it in the trash for good.

However, the government has continued on for the better part of the last three years. It is not just Conservatives or these content creators who are sounding the alarm. There are other experts in this field as well. Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada explained, “most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery...local discovery, is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance...Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry.” local discovery is what Bill C-11 would target and promote through the algorithms and their manipulation, but they have all had success without the need of any government control from the CRTC.

Marie Woolf, for the Canadian Press, who did extensive research on this, said:

YouTube itself has warned that Canadian digital creators, including influencers and streamers, could lose foreign revenue if the government forces digital platforms to promote Canadian content.

The proposed legislation that would force YouTube and other streaming platforms to actively promote Canadian content risks downgrading the popularity of that same content abroad....

Again, it is important to know that the data from YouTube says that nine out of 10 people watching the stuff that our Canadian creators put online are not from Canada. Therefore, this would have serious consequences for those who are looking to be successful online. It would limit their global audience based on the basic algorithms of YouTube.

A lot of money and livelihoods are depending on this. The number of YouTubers from Canada earning $100,000 or more is growing steadily every single year. People are already having a lot of success, again, without the government's control and so-called support.

Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO Skyship Entertainment said, “We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.”

That is what it is today, but that is not what it will be tomorrow or whenever Bill C-11 passes.

She went on to say, “If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations.... This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.”

Obviously, this will have an impact on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of speech that we enjoy.

Michael Geist, a foremost expert in this area in Canada, outlined this very well. He said:

To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions.... The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill.

He finished by saying, “If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.”

Many people have outlined the threat that this poses to free speech. As someone who loves our Charter of Rights, that is a grave concern to me and the Conservative Party.

Certainly, the elephant in the room here is, as Jay Goldberg, Ontario Director and Interim Atlantic Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said, “If government bureaucrats get to choose what content to push on Canadians, there’s a very real risk the government will be tempted to use its filtering powers to silence its critics”, which we have seen since time immemorial from governing authorities looking to quash dissent. It is happening right now in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. I really do not understand why we would open the door in Canada for our government to do that, yet here it is in the bill.

If we do not need this, then why are we doing it? Content creators tell me that they have had lots of success already. Why are we doing this? I do not know. I have yet to be convinced of the need for it at all.

I will conclude with a quote from the leader of Canada's Conservatives, who said this very well on the threat that this poses to the liberties that Canadians enjoy and the success they have received online with the freedoms we, at least today, have for now. He said:

We live in a free country. Everyday, ordinary Canadians should be allowed their own megaphones and the only limit on how loud and how vast their voices are should be whether people choose to listen to them. Everyday Canadians should be able to decide what they like by voting with their clicks. That is the kind of liberty we should extend to the Canadian people. In the marketplace of ideas, there is no role for state coercion and intimidation. There is no role for nameless, faceless government bureaucrats to decide who is heard and who is not. Everyday Canadian people should have the freedom to do that for themselves.

After eight years, it is time for a government that protects freedom of speech and consumer choice, and encourages Canadian creators instead of getting in their way, which is what Bill C-11 would do. That is why Conservatives will fight it every step of the way, and we will repeal when we are in government.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his question.

Quebec is a very economic, vibrant sector here in Canada, and we applaud all the artists in the cultural sector in the province of Quebec. We should take a nod from them in their support of Bill C-11 and how it would modernize the Broadcasting Act.

Also, we then scratch our heads about why the Conservative Party of Canada is against a bill that the cultural sector here in Canada supports. It makes me think about the other ways Conservatives are looking at this bill, such as for ideological purposes and partisan purposes, and not for the direct benefit of the Canadian cultural sector, including the cultural sector in the province of Quebec.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, how does my colleague explain the fact that all of Quebec's creators and artists, regardless of their sphere of practice, are eagerly awaiting this bill? If anyone is sensitive to the issue of censorship, it is our creators and artists.

How is it that they are looking forward to us passing Bill C-11, yet the Conservatives alone see it as censorship?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his question.

I have known the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for many years since I was elected a member of Parliament and I have a great deal of respect for him.

The content creation would not impacted in any way by Bill C-11. That is not the intent of the bill in any way. We encourage and value content creation by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This is a bill to modernize our Broadcasting Act and ensure the technological advances that have allowed streaming services like Netflix, Crave or Apple TV+ are brought under the Broadcasting Act, much like the Canadian homegrown broadcasters have been so for many decades.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I invite the member to follow along with me. Clause 7 of the legislation says that the cabinet can issue a directive, an order, to the CRTC because it amends certain sections of the act. When I go into the original act, it actually gives the right to cabinet to set policy objectives for licensing, service fees and for access.

The way I read Bill C-11 right now, it would allow the government to censor content it does not like because of clause 7 in the bill. Members have repeatedly mentioned that this bill is bad and that we need to kill Bill C-11. We have been consistent on this message.

Does the member agree with me on the reading of clause 7 that in fact it would give the cabinet the ability to direct the CRTC on licensing, content and fees?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the committee gave our colleagues the opportunity to study the bill with much closer scrutiny. That study lasted 12 meetings, where the committee heard from 80 witnesses and received 52 written briefs, but do not worry; the Conservatives still managed to delay and distract. They filibustered during the meeting at which the minister was supposed to appear and they filibustered the committee's clause-by-clause consideration.

They can try to deny it today, but the member for Lethbridge admitted it herself. She said, and this is a direct quote, “I did filibuster at committee”.

Fortunately, our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP have decided to join us in modernizing Canada's broadcasting system through Bill C-11, and 38 amendments passed at the heritage committee, which included amendments from all recognized parties. Despite the Conservatives' best efforts, the bill made its way to the Senate.

Very well. At this point, I think it is valuable to remind my colleagues that the Conservative Party of Canada is the only political party recognized in both the House of Commons and the Senate. Senator Leo Housakos, the proud Spartan, who is both the Conservative critic for the bill in the Senate and the chair of the committee that reviewed it, is a regular in “Kill Bill C-11” videos posted by the Leader of the Opposition on social media.

Ironically, those videos, I might add, would not be impacted whatsoever by this bill, no matter what he claims. The best word to describe the Senate committee's study of Bill C-11 is “robust”.

Starting in June 2022, the committee spent over six months reviewing the subject matter of Bill C-11, hearing from 138 witnesses over 40 meetings. The members did not mishear me. I said 40 meetings, dedicated to considering the subject of this very important bill. Senators spent nine of those meetings in clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, including three-hour meetings, making it the longest clause-by-clause consideration in Senate history.

The bill emerged with amendments from all recognized parties and groups in the Senate, of which we are pleased to support close to 80%.

Here we are, over a year later, hearing the Conservatives urging us to send the bill back to committee, after over 100 hours of committee study, over 200 witnesses and dozens of written briefs, including from Telelatino in Toronto. I know that the folks at Telelatino produce great ethnocultural broadcasting, and they are in support of this wonderful bill.

This does not even include the countless hours of debate and study of the previous version of the bill that contributed to the online streaming act. As it stands, this bill has amendments from all recognized parties and groups in both houses of Parliament. It has truly been a group effort, and the future of Canada's broadcasting system is better for it.

The Conservatives are now bringing up Quebec. It is great they are finally paying attention, but they must have missed the two unanimous motions passed by the National Assembly to support the Broadcasting Act and the entire Quebec cultural industry pushing for the bill's swift passage.

The reality is throughout this process there have been endless opportunities for Conservatives to work collaboratively to defend Canadian artists and creators. Every time, they have chosen to side with foreign tech giants to maintain the status quo.

On this side of the House, we believe in doing more for Canadian culture, not less. We know in the prior Conservative administration how much less its members did for Canadian artists and culture and how they cut spending on Canadian culture, artists and content creators. We will not do that and we have not done that. We will continue to support the Canadian arts sector, culture sector and content creators.

I know this has been brought up many times throughout the debate, but there is an urgent need for this legislation. It cannot be overstated. The integrity of Canada's arts and culture system is at risk. We owe it to the tens of thousands of Canadians working in the arts and culture sector across the country. We have done the work as parliamentarians and now it is time to pass Bill C-11.

Many of us watch streaming services that provide content over what are called non-traditional methods. My wife and I really enjoy Ted Lasso, and the third season of Ted Lasso is coming out on March 15. We very much enjoy it. It is very well written. It comes across on I believe Apple TV+ and we pay a monthly fee for that. That content provider would now be subject to the Broadcasting Act, and it should be, much like Canadian broadcasters have been subject to the Broadcasting Act for decades.

Finally, to end off, the Broadcasting Act has not been revised since 1991. I wish to applaud all members of both the House and the Senate on those committees who have worked so judiciously, even when their opinions did not converge, to be unified and even when they disagreed vehemently and passionately from potentially different ideological bents on how they view the Broadcasting Act and how they view the CRTC. However, they did the work Canadians sent them here to do, and particularly in the House of Commons. They did the work their constituents elected them to do judiciously and diligently to bring forth the best possible legislation with regard to the sector we are talking to, which is broadcasting and updating the Broadcasting Act after three decades, or since 1991.

I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues and I hope everyone is having a wonderful and productive day and week.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon, and I hope all of my colleagues are having a productive day.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This important piece of legislation will level the playing field by requiring online streaming services to support Canadian artists and culture, just as Canadian broadcasters have been doing for decades.

As we have all heard many times, the last time the Broadcasting Act was updated was over 30 years ago, in 1991, when yours truly just finished high school, I believe. Since then, the way content is broadcast to audiences has changed dramatically, but our system is stuck in the 20th century and needs to be updated. After over a year of thorough study in both Houses of Parliament, the finish line, yes, is in sight.

Conservatives have recently started claiming that parts of this bill have not yet received the appropriate scrutiny by parliamentarians. I beg to differ.

With all due respect, I fail to understand how they can genuinely suggest that this bill has not been studied enough. At every step of the process, they have attempted to delay and distract from the issue at hand, which is bringing the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century to support Canadian artists and creators.

To show just how much this bill has been studied, let us take a trip down memory lane. On February 2, 2022, Bill C-11 was tabled in the House of Commons. Second reading debate started on February 16, 2022. Over the course of five days of debate, we heard over 15 hours of speeches from 48 members of Parliament in all recognized parties, including 29 Conservatives.

Conservatives then claimed that they did not have enough time to debate but then moved concurrence motions that blocked their own ability to speak and debate on the bill. They did this during the previous iteration of the bill in the last Parliament and on Bill C-11 in this Parliament, when they cut three hours of debate time and prevented their own members from having the opportunity to speak. I note the irony. Ultimately, these obstructionist tactics have only hurt the Canadian artists and creators that the online streaming act, Bill C-11, seeks to support.

Fortunately, Bill C-11, finally—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to put this to the member across the floor. The former Bill C-10, in its original version, included an exemption for programs that users upload onto their social media or, as it was called, user-generated content. The Liberals voted to take that out of their own bill in committee, which really builds confidence in Canadians, and resisted Conservative attempts to reintroduce it. They then put it back into Bill C-11, but then put in an exemption to the exemption that basically makes it meaningless. If Canadians are supposed to trust the government and believe what it is saying, this flies in the face of that.

Will the Liberals put that amendment back in and make it very clear to Canadians?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my point was made though. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton is making a lot of content today with the very unfortunate comments he made in that committee meeting, if anybody is looking for content.

I would like to say that I am just the warm-up act today for the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, who will be speaking after me. Please applaud the member because he deserves it.

I want to read a quote from Gord Sinclair, a member of The Tragically Hip, who appeared before the committee when it was studying this bill. He said:

Gord Downie wrote in our song Morning Moon that if “something's too cheap, somebody's paying something”. Every song ever recorded can now be streamed for less than $10 a month. The somebodies in this case will be the future you and me when we realize that we've undervalued the contribution of Canadian musicians and songwriters.

He went on to say, “Streaming is here to stay, but the platforms...must contribute to the long-term health of the arts”.

I bring that up because I am obviously very proud to come from and represent my riding. Part of my riding is a municipality that The Tragically Hip calls home. If we dive a little deeper into Mr. Sinclair's testimony in committee, the band attributes its entire success and becoming so renowned in Canada to having the proper tools in place to make sure that its content got exposure.

Why is that important? It is important because we are a country of rich cultural diversity that has a lot to offer in the arts. However, the concern is that we have another market right over the border, literally fewer than 10 kilometres from my riding, where the market is 10 times the size. It would be very easy for the Canadian market to be consumed into the American market.

When we think about it, it has 10 times the population and effectively 10 times the number of artists. To compete against that is very difficult, regardless of the incredible contributions that Canadians give to the arts. That is why, in the 1970s, legislators said that we needed to preserve the culture and the unique identity that comes from having Canadian artists able to perform and create.

I have been listening to this debate since it started yesterday. I heard the member for Lethbridge tell this story about how back in the day, all an artist needed to do was bundle together their best hits, put them on a tape, bring the tape to a radio station, beg them to play it and hope to get on the air. The successful ones would make it, and the others would not.

She left out a very important point, which is that the radio stations were required to play a certain amount of Canadian content. The number has changed, it is not relevant, but at the time, 30% of the content had to be Canadian.

Yes, those Canadian artists had to compete against every other emerging artist, collaborator and songwriter, but they only had to compete within the realm of that 30% against the other Canadians. They did not have to compete with a market 10 times our size right over the border.

I get the Conservatives' angle on this. They like to take the free market approach and say everything is about the free market. I get it. That is where they come from on this. What they need to do is come to terms with the fact that they just do not want to support Canadian content. They think that Canadian content needs to go up against the market 10 times our size to the south and just let the chips fall where they may. I think the majority of Canadians disagree with that position.

We have seen the success of The Tragically Hip, which I will always use as my reference. It was able to get into the Canadian market and become known as one of Canada's best bands as a result of having that incredible opportunity to gain exposure when it would have been difficult otherwise. Therefore, I cannot help but wonder why the Conservatives are doing this. Why are they so insistent?

It became quite obvious a couple of days ago, when I saw a fundraising email sent out by the Conservatives. This contained a screenshot of one of my tweets and basically said that I was agreeing with a reporter's assessment of Bill C-11. They know they can raise money off this. That is what this comes down to: politics as usual. I have said this many times in the House because it is true. All they are interested in is the politics around it.

The email talked about censorship and the right to freedom of expression. It talked about how they know that we are not telling the truth and asked Canadians to help kill the bill, with a big “Donate Now” button underneath. That is what this is about for the Conservatives. That is it.

We can recall when the first version of this legislation came about, when in all honesty, the Conservatives were able to get a lot more attention on the issue than they are now. I think Canadians have now seen through them. However, they were not as interested in this until they were able to make it a sensational issue like they are now and like they did then. I do not think they are really that successful at doing it now because the vast majority of Canadians realize that Bill C-11 is not about censorship, infringing on rights or trying to do anything malicious. Rather, it is about ensuring that Canadian content continues to get exposure and that Canadian content creators have the opportunity for their material to be shared.

If members do not agree with that or think that government should play a role in it, it is a legitimate policy and a legitimate position to take. That is at least taking a position. They would at least be coming in here and saying that they do not believe in CanCon, they do not think it is relevant or necessary anymore and artists should fend for themselves. If that is the position of the Conservatives, which it looks like it is from the writing on the wall, then they just need to come clean about it and say that. They should not dress it up with these words about censorship and freedom of expression being infringed upon. That is absolutely ludicrous.

The member for Lethbridge, although quoting someone else, said that with Canada going down this road, it likens us to North Korea. Can members imagine that? That is talking to one's fringe base. What Canadian witnessing that would actually sit there and think that Canada is going to be like North Korea if this passes? Nobody would ever actually think that, except—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, about two years ago, the Conservative member for Lethbridge said that Bill C-11 was just a way to protect old, out-of-date Quebec artists that nobody cares about anymore. My riding boasts our national poet, Gilles Vigneault, an extraordinary man.

I have two questions for my colleague.

Does he, too, feel that our national poet is an old, outdated artist?

He has also been giving shout-outs to videos of dishwashers, washer, dryers and refrigerators. Is that his definition of quality Canadian content that makes him proud of his culture?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to be here today.

Listening to the comments from the other side of the aisle, one would think that the world is falling down or something to that effect. In fact, Bill C-11 is very prudent. It is a good step and a very big first step in modernizing the Broadcasting Act, which has not been modernized since 1991.

In fact, it would do nothing to discourage creation or streaming for Canadians who wish to produce content. It would encourage more Canadians to produce Canadian content. Who would not be in favour of such a goal, to have more Canadian content seen, listened to and read by Canadians from coast to coast to coast? This is a bill that has been debated on both sides, in the Senate and here, for hours upon hours and with amendments brought forward. Would the hon. member not agree that this is the best way to produce legislation, when we have both Houses working, witnesses coming forward and the committee doing the work that Canadians sent those MPs here to do?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here today talking about the Liberals' online censorship bill, Bill C-11. That is what this is. It is an attempt by government to meddle in the leisure time and the cultural and social education that Canadians have. Sometimes, under the Liberals' proposal, Canadians would have to pay for it. Canadians will subscribe to services and pay for their own Internet service and the Liberals would decide what they should be watching and what they should not be watching.

It is interesting, but not surprising after eight years of the Liberal government, that it is on full display now for Canadians that it is a government that wants to control what Canadians see and control what Canadians think.

This is a theme we have seen over the last eight years with a Prime Minister who is always looking to silence his critics and who is also looking to discredit those individuals who have the reputation, who are able to hold him to account. A few obvious examples comes to mind. We will first talk about media.

The Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion that stories that have appeared in mainstream media like The Globe and Mail are false, that they are fake news or misinformation. Then it comes to light, as was the case in the SNC-Lavalin scandal where the Prime Minister was found to have used his position to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends, that the story in The Globe and Mail was correct.

We must not let that get in the way of a good cover-up from the government. It wants to be able to control the narrative, even when there are members of the King's Privy Council who push back against the government and push back against the Prime Minister. Instead of taking that advice, that sober second thought, what did the Prime Minister do? In the case of Canada's first female indigenous attorney general, Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, when she spoke truth to power to the Prime Minister, he fired her. He kicked her out of cabinet. When another eminent Canadian, a minister of the Queen's Privy Council, Dr. Jane Philpott, spoke out on that issue, he kicked her out of cabinet too.

Canadians are best served when they get truth and honesty, and not when we have a government that is looking to exert control. That is the pattern we have seen with the government. When we are hearing from Canadians and from experts that this would affect what Canadians are able to watch and see online, we should take notice. It should give the government pause, but instead, what is it doing? It is dismissing its critics and saying it is misinformation. We have seen that pattern before.

When the Senate, Canada's chamber of sober second thought, brought forward amendments to protect some of the areas where we have heard the greatest concerns from Canadians with respect to user-generated content, the government dismissed those amendments out of hand. It said it was absolutely not going to do that, but not to worry as the bill does not affect user-generated content.

Why would the government defeat those amendments at committee and why would it refuse those amendments from the Senate? It is because, make no mistake, Bill C-11 would regulate and censor what people see. It would make the government, the Prime Minister through his Minister of Canadian Heritage and through the CRTC that reports to him, the regulator of what we can see online.

It would also censor what one can say. When I say the bill would censor, I mean the government and the Prime Minister, through his Minister of Canadian Heritage and through the CRTC. They would make sure that homegrown talent would not be able to rise to the top based on its quality.

We have seen countless examples where, against the odds, against media giants and production company giants around the world, not the least of which is the United States, Canadian content has flourished. Digital content of course is at the heart of what a lot of Canadians see and do online. The marketplace of ideas should be a meritocracy, but the government is afraid of that. The Liberals are afraid of that. They want to decide who the winners are and who the losers are, when it should be the consumers. It should be Canadians who get to decide.

We hear a lot about favourite programs that people grew up watching or listening to. No one made them watch it because it was Canadian. If it was quality, Canadians consumed it. Now that there is more content, there are more opportunities for Canadian content to flourish, and that is exactly what is happening.

We have a content creator in my riding, and I am not confused. It is McMullan Appliance and Mattress. Corey McMullan from McMullan Appliance and Mattress, which on a county road in my community, is a viral Internet sensation. He is not making cat videos. He is not doing any crazy stunts. He is talking about fridges, washers, dryers and stoves.

His honesty and his authenticity has caused him to gain global celebrity, and with that has come revenue for his business. He is able to sell products online. People buy them from him online because he talks about it. He is not advertising and he is not paying for advertising, but the innovation, the entertainment value and the character of this gentleman have propelled him to such fame and credibility that folks in my community in southeastern Ontario will take their pickup trucks from North Bay and drive all those hours to my community to buy an appliance from Corey because they trust him.

This type of obviously Canadian content is now going to be subjected to a test by the government, where it will decide if it is Canadian enough. We have heard other speakers talk about productions that are made in Canada, written by Canadians, produced by Canadians and have Canadians who star in them, but they do not meet the standard for Canadian content.

If the Liberal government is not prepared to exempt user-generated content, we need to ask why. Why does it refuse to recognize Canadians should have the freedom to say, to think and to watch whatever they want? I believe in my community and I believe in Canadians. I believe in people like Corey McMullan rising to the top based on that sometimes indefinable quality that Canadians are recognized for around the world. That is why, for a very small population, so many actors of stage and screen, so many people who write and produce, and so many people who create are household names. It is not because the government made people like them. It is because Canadians are extraordinary and we are extraordinary because of our freedoms.

After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians have had enough control. That is why a Conservative government would repeal this bill and that is why we believe we need to kill Bill C-11.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my translation device is broken or not, but am I hearing the Bloc Québécois supporting a bill that gives power for bureaucrats in Ottawa and the federal government to control what the people of Quebec see on a search engine result? I could have bet on a lot of things, but I never would have bet that the Bloc Québécois would be supporting Bill C-11, especially when the provincial government and numerous groups in that province have said this should not be standardized and centralized by the federal government. Shame on the Bloc Québécois for doing what it is doing.

The Bloc Québécois was wrong on Bill C-5. Bloc members voted for it and now they are regretting it. They are going to vote for Bill C-11, and I will bet $10 that in about a year, they will be regretting that too.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spends a lot of time in the House. I would encourage him to read clause 7 of this piece of legislation. That is the exact reason why Conservatives have major concerns and are calling out this bill as flawed.

Liberals have had so many opportunities in the House of Commons, in the Senate and in committee, through amendments, to do this, but the reality of the situation is true. They are punting the power to the CRTC behind closed doors, to create algorithms on what goes up in searches and what goes down. That is control. That is censoring something.

If it is organic and what people want to watch, and the Liberals do not like it, they could put a formula in and make the company have it go down. If they have these big lobbyists who advocate to tweak that formula, all of a sudden search results can go up. It was not a problem until Bill C-11 came along and the government's intent. It has had every opportunity to clarify it, and it refuses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the member referred to the Liberals and the NDP. It is the Liberal members of the House of Commons, the Bloc members of the House of Commons, the NDP members and the Green Party members. It is only the Conservative Party that is spreading the misinformation that is out there.

The member stood in his place and tried to give a false impression, saying that the government is trying to control what Canadians are watching. In no way whatsoever can the member cite anything within this legislation that would prevent a Canadian from watching whatever he or she wants to watch on the Internet. There is nothing there, so we would think that would stop.

The motivating factor for the Conservative Party on Bill C-11 is purely finances, feeding a frenzy of individuals it wants support from. I say “shame on the Conservative Party” for not protecting cultural industries and the arts in Canada.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, normally, there would not be much debate in the House when we talk about making updates to the Broadcasting Act, which came into effect in 1991. At face value, most Canadians would say that a lot has changed since then. A little thing called the Internet came along, and most would agree.

I have talked about this topic in the House before and I am pretty proud of myself. I am pretty sure that I was the first MP in Canadian history to put Boyz II Men in the parliamentary record, when talking about the legislation before us, because times have changed a little bit. Back in 1991, Boyz II Men, Bryan Adams, MC Hammer and Monty Python were on the charts. I wanted to put that in the record again, and I am glad I have done that.

The goals of the Broadcasting Act have been reasonable: respecting official languages and providing an avenue for Canadian content in the traditional media at the time of TV and radio. Here is the thing I have said in the House, sadly, on many issues over and over again: Only the NDP and the Liberals, working together, can take something so mundane and so innocuous and make a disaster out of it when it comes to policy.

Here is how I know that. Outside of the Ottawa bubble, there are not too many Canadians who know what Bill C-4 or Bill S-252 or Bill C-39 is when it comes to government legislation. We know that the government is in trouble and we know it is on the wrong side of public opinion when a bill title becomes famous. In the last couple of weeks or couple of months, Bill C-21 has become synonymous with an attack on rural Canadians, indigenous communities and hunters, when the government tried to ban commonly used hunting rifles. Here we are now, with the famous term “C-11”, known by millions of Canadians across the country today as the most blatant attempt by the Liberals and the NDP, and bureaucrats in Ottawa, to have control over what Canadians see and what they search on the Internet.

If that was not convincing enough, Bill C-11 being a household name to millions of Canadians, we know we are in trouble when Conservatives and Margaret Atwood are on the same page, pushing back against the government. She is a wonderful Canadian, one of the most regarded and successful Canadian artists and content creators this country has ever seen. Canadians do not have to take my word for it or believe this side of the bench if they do not want to. Canadians will take Margaret Atwood's word on Canadian culture and content any day of the week over that of the Liberals and the NDP.

I want to give members the dictionary version of what she said. She said some pretty harsh things, calling out the government on Bill C-11. When we break it down and use the dictionary to further define what she is calling out the government for, it is creating a centralized and dictator-like system of control that requires complete subservience to the state.

This is bad legislation. They know it. It has been ping-ponged back and forth between the House of Commons and the Senate. It is back in the House of Commons, and it is going to go back to the Senate. Every time there is a committee hearing, every time there are more witnesses testifying, there are more questions than answers about what the government is doing here with this bill. From consumer groups to legal experts to content creators, many, many groups from every walk of life and every angle on this topic are calling out the government's direction and how bad and how flawed the bill is.

I am proud to stand as a Conservative to say that when we form government, we will repeal Bill C-11. We will kill Bill C-11, as simple as that.

Let us get into the weeds and talk about some of these pieces bit by bit. One of the things we hear the Liberals and the NDP say is that we need to support Canadian content more.

When I think about that, I pull up a list and say, sure, let us support Canadian content, things like Deadpool. It was filmed in Vancouver, starring Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds, with a screenplay by Canadian Paul Wernick, based on a Canadian comic book character.

We have Canadian Bacon. Who could forget that? There is John Candy, a legendary Canadian actor, in a story involving Canada.

I talked about Margaret Atwood. We have The Handmaid's Tale, based on her book. When we look at the production, the series was filmed in Mississauga, Toronto, Brantford, Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Cambridge.

I think of Canadian content like All or Nothing, a series on the Toronto Maple Leafs. It is a five-part series that followed the Leafs for months during the 2020-21 season. It is narrated by a Canadian, Will Arnett. It used Canadian crews.

Is this all Canadian content? No, every one of those examples I just cited does not meet the definition and criteria for Canadian content in the definitions that we have.

Bill C-11 is currently 56 pages long, and any Canadian can go online and look at it. They can hit Ctrl+F and search. Nowhere in there does it talk about modernizing and cleaning up that definition. I will argue that this is not about Canadian content, but about something else.

Every time, we put an amendment forward to clarify. If the government wants to debunk a myth and say that what we are saying is not the case, it can clarify it and put in amendments to say what it is not, to exclude certain things. The government refused to do so. It says, “Don't worry. We are not going to determine that. It's going to be the CRTC.”

This brings me to my next point, about another fundamentally flawed part of the legislation. The CRTC is an Ottawa-based acronym. Federal acronyms go left, right and centre around here. It is an agency in Ottawa, and on the Quebec side as well, in the national capital region, full of bureaucrats who, behind closed doors, would not only set the rules for what is Canadian content, but also, through the bill, be directed to start controlling the search results we have on the Internet.

Members heard that right: “behind closed doors”. We have asked repeatedly to put some sunshine, sunlight and transparency on those protocols. There are no criteria in the bill. There is no public formula. There are no clarifications or guardrails on what those protocols are, so for Canadians, when it comes to what they search and what they want to see, whether it is searching on Google, Crave, YouTube or any other platform, as a Canadian here and now, the government will control what goes up in search results and what goes down, and we would not be able to find out the algorithms and calculations it uses, because of CRTC bureaucrats doing it behind closed doors. They never have to share their reasoning, or what I call “showing their homework”. That speaks volumes.

The Prime Minister and the NDP will say not to worry because the CRTC is an arm's-length agency of the federal government. “It is independent,” they say. Let us just debunk that right now. The CRTC reports to the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage. Its chair and the commissioners who are working there and leading that organization are appointed directly by the Prime Minister and the Liberal cabinet.

Nobody believes it is arm's-length, and nobody believes the legislation is about Canadian artists and everyday Canadians, because if it were the right thing to do and the popular thing to do, and if there were no problems about it, the government would have made that whole process a lot more public, rather than punting it over behind closed doors.

The bill is not about sunlight. It is not about Canadian artists and content creators. I say the bill is a Trojan horse, because there are some very big cheerleaders for it. The bureaucracy at the CRTC would be exploding in size. The size of the Internet is massive. The amount of content uploaded every single day is huge. It is going to take an administrative swarm of new bureaucrats to go through, and the people who are going to hit the jackpot, the people who are doing cartwheels in downtown Ottawa, are the lobbyists who would be hired by all these groups, associations and artists to try to lobby to get them, when the CRTC goes behind closed doors, to take what is going on.

As I share my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, we will continue the commentary on this and how it works. If someone is a budding content creator in north Winnipeg, a Franco-Ontarian or an indigenous artist in northern Canada, in Nunavut, they can currently upload, and may the best content win. The cream of the crop rises. Canadians will determine what they like and what they want to watch, and that should be the most popular search result. That is the most organic way possible. Trust me, the best way is to let Canadians do their own work and let the organic way go. Good videos go to the top. We have thousands of artists who have made a living by creating content and continue to do so. We do not need to fix what is not broken.

I will wrap up by saying that Bill C-11 is bad. It is online censorship. Ottawa telling 37 million Canadians what they should watch and see is wrong. The Liberals and the NDP have had years to get this right, and now they are just being stubborn.

We oppose this bill now, and as a Conservative government, we would kill Bill C-11.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her passionate speech.

She began by talking about art. Art certainly offers a certain perspective on nature. Something becomes art when the viewer decides that it is artistic. An author once said that to read a book is to write another. The artistic aspect certainly lies in someone viewing it more than its distribution. We know that everything in the art world is what ultimately constitutes culture.

I want to ask my colleague what impact Bill C-11 will have on culture.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and represent Peterborough—Kawartha.

I will start by saying that art is subjective. Art is in the eye of the beholder. What may be amazing to me and what may be amazing to members is completely subjective. How in the world could we ever allow bureaucracy to dictate what is art? That is a question I would ask as we look into Bill C-11.

There is nothing more inclusive than the Internet. It does not matter where we live or what we look like, there is a place for us online, for now, but Bill C-11 jeopardizes this freedom. It jeopardizes this free market.

I can remember walking into a room with online content creators, mom bloggers who had created a community that literally saved the lives of women who were suffering with postpartum, who were suicidal, who were struggling with their mental health. These women were extreme introverts, meaning they otherwise would not have been able to create this medium if there were not able to flip open their computers and write something online that connected them to hundreds, thousands and millions of people, built a community and allowed their voices to be heard.

If we go to the Canadian government website, it states this about competition: “Competition pushes individuals, firms and markets to make the best use of their resources, and to think outside the box to develop new ways of doing business and winning customers. This not only drives productivity up, it also improves our own standard of living.”

Bill C-11 would go after a competitive market that needs zero government interference. Online content creators are making their own destiny. They are building communities. They are raising money for not-for-profits and charities. They are connecting people all over the world. It is a major concern when the government wants to interfere, dictate and control what it thinks people at home should be watching.

Artistry and creation are not a choice. If we ask artists, they will tell us they did not choose it; it chose them. They have to create. It is what fuels them. It is simply who they are.

What someone values as art or great content is completely independent of the consumer. I may love Cat and Nat, two Toronto-based “mompreneurs” who built an empire by creating an online space for moms. They were, for the record, turned away by countless broadcast agencies and had the door slammed in their face multiple times, but because of the free market of the Internet, they were able to build an empire and connect millions of moms. They are from Toronto, Canadian content creators.

What about “Train with Joan”, made by the 70-year-old Cobourg-based woman who transformed her life using physical fitness and now reaches millions of people online? She is the inspiration so many of us need to know that it is never too late to change our mind and body. Would she have been given an opportunity on a broadcast station? Would she have been given the same opportunity that the Internet allowed her to reach the people she reached?

It is called choice. It is called the freedom to find and choose what to watch. Why in the world would we ever want the government to decide what is worthy of being seen and what is not? This is what Bill C-11 would do. It would give the Liberals the control to decide what we see and watch online.

In the online world, we often hear of a term called “organic reach”. This is the ultimate goal for a content creator. A creator puts content online and the free market decides if it is worthy of liking, sharing and commenting. We have already seen organic reach being meddled with by Facebook and other platforms because of paid reach tactics, a play-to-play system, which has caused problems, so why in the world would government want to meddle even further with this system? Why in the world do we want the government to decide what we watch and see?

Jim Morrison said that those who control the media, control the mind. I really want people to think about what this legislation is and why it is being tabled. Famed Canadian author, Margaret Atwood said it best, saying that this is not a problem that needs fixing. She said, “It is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.”

The approach of how this bill has been managed is awful and simply undemocratic. In the House, for those who do not know, a bill must be approved at all three readings before it is sent to the Senate to be approved and given royal assent. The Senate should be a safeguard for Canadians when major concerns are raised. There were 26 amendments put forth by the Senate. This is a very high number and speaks volumes to the fact that this bill should be thrown out.

What is the point of the Senate and expert testimony if the Liberals refuse to listen? How is this supposed to build trust with Canadians when people are silenced? When people are silenced, that is censorship, and it is our job as elected officials to bring balance to this room, to find the common ground, to listen to both sides.

I will tell the Liberals, as somebody who has a background in broadcasting, the Broadcasting Act one hundred per cent needs to be updated, but this bill is trying to regulate a free market space of the Internet, and there is no place for the government to do that.

Simon Wiesenthal, a famous Nazi hunter and fighter for human rights, said, “Freedom is not a gift from heaven. One must fight for it every day.” The Tour for Humanity bus was here on Parliament Hill yesterday. I had the opportunity to tour it.

Censorship does not work. History has shown us this over and over again. The Liberals have refused to make the policy direction to the CRTC on how the legislation would be implemented public until after the bill is passed. Let us think about that for a second. The Liberals have refused to make the policy direction to the CRTC on how the legislation would be implemented public until after the bill is passed.

If the Liberals main intention is to promote Canadian content, why in the world would they ask us to sign first and ask questions later. This is so sketchy. Why not just tell Canadians now? What are they hiding? Why are they not being transparent?

Critics are furious, and so they should be, because the heritage minister announced a complete rejection of the senators' work that excluded user content from CRTC regulation after he said they would not. Somewhere right now there is a quirky, talented, gifted content creator who has not discovered that they fit somewhere. They have been told no. Maybe they have not found their community. Maybe they have not found their tribe. However, they hit the upload button, and all of a sudden, their world changes and so does that community's world.

There is much that is great about the Internet. For better or worse, it is here. I have to be honest, I am absolutely shocked that the NDP does not see the value of independent, free market content creators who are doing so much good for social justice and all the things they fight for in the House. It is shocking to me that we are having this fight when we are here to elevate voices of Canadians, to give them the freedom to use their voice for good. It makes no sense to me why we are fighting this bill.

I came here with an open mind, with optimism that we are here to elevate voices. This bill is censorship. It makes no sense. I appreciate and agree a hundred per cent that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated, but this bill is not achieving that. Its intent is to control online content.

I will end with this: Enough is enough. Stop with the controlling legislation, and please, kill Bill C-11.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

Canadian Heritage

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was saying, we are now in the home stretch of the passage of Bill C‑11.

I would like to remind members that Bill C‑11 seeks to ensure that Quebec culture and Quebec and Canadian artists have their place and can succeed in the new digital world.

The Government of Quebec shared its demands concerning Bill C‑11. It is asking that Quebec have a say in CRTC decisions that impact Quebec culture and that the Quebec act respecting the status of artists be respected.

How will the minister respond to Quebec's demands?

Freedoms in Canada

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind” is a quote from musician Jim Morrison. Bill C-11 aims to do exactly that. This far-overreaching bill gives control to the government to decide what online media is and is not shown to Canadians.

Famed Canadian author Margaret Atwood said it best, “All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through - government bureaucrats.... So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.”

Art is subjective. The Liberal government will stop at nothing to control what Canadians see online.

If Bill C-11 passes, it kicks open the door to government censorship, empowering the Liberals to strengthen voices they deem good and silence those they deem bad.

Conservatives trust Canadians to choose what they want to watch online.

Enough is enough. Let us stop with the controlling legislation and kill Bill C-11.

Online Streaming Act

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the misinformation that I have heard is from the government that says that this bill would not impact user-generated content. The proof that is not true is that it will not accept amendments. It did not accept amendments in the House from the Conservatives and it has not accepted Senate amendments that would have specifically excluded user-generated content from the bill.

The fact that the government will not clarify, the fact that it will not confirm that it does not want to control user-generated content proves to us that is exactly what it wants to do. It wants to impact the ability of creators to connect with their customers, with the people who watch their channels. It wants to get in the way, and a Conservative government will get Bill C-11 out of the way.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope. I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

What we have seen throughout the debate today is the concept of what the government is trying to do through Bill C-11. The Liberals are trying to give more control to the government and its well-connected friends and provide less freedom for Canadians.

We saw this in how the debate on Bill C-11 unfolded in the House. The government, with its enablers in the NDP, rammed this bill through the House by invoking time allocation and limiting the ability of the representatives of the Canadian people to speak to this bill. The Liberals shut down debate throughout the entire process to ram this bill through the House.

It is kind of indicative of their approach with Internet regulation. They want fewer people who disagree with them to have the freedom to express themselves. They want to control the House of Commons and they want to control the message that comes out of the House of Commons by shutting down Conservative members who want to speak.

We saw that mainly at the committee as well. We had dozens and dozens of content creators from across the country come to appear before a House of Commons committee for the first time because they were alarmed at what this bill proposed to do and the limits it would place on their ability to get their messages out to their consumers, which is anyone who can access the Internet. The government's problem is that it did not have control. It could not get between those content creators and their audiences. That is what the government wants to do here. It is what the members of the government are insisting upon doing here with Bill C-11. They need that control. They crave that control and now they are going to try to force that control through this law.

Those were individuals who had never engaged in the political process before, including YouTubers and TikTokers, people who post videos and have become popular in their own right not because the government has done anything for them, but because they actually produce content that Canadians and others around the world want to watch. However, that is not good enough for the government members. They need to get in between and ensure consumers are consuming the right content. Even if it is from Canadians, if it does not go through a particular process, then it does not count as being Canadian content.

Creators from across the country who had never lobbied the government, had never been members of a political party and had never come to a parliamentary committee tried to have their voices heard at that committee, but the government could not control them so it shut that down too. There were dozens of witnesses who applied and wanted to come and share their experiences. It was not just Bell, Rogers, Shaw and Corus. Those were always heard. Those have highly paid lawyers and lobbyists who have privileged access to the Prime Minister's Office and every member of the Liberal cabinet.

They were heard, but the content creators who came to Ottawa to be part of that process were shut down by the Liberals and their NDP enablers. They shut down that process and they shut down the process as well when amendments were proposed when we consulted with those content creators. Hundreds of amendments were not even allowed to be raised at the House committee. They were simply voted on without debate and without context because the government could not control that process, so the Liberals shut it down.

Then, after they shut down debate in the House at second reading, shut down debate at the House committee and shut down debate at third reading, the bill went to the Senate where the government does not have control. It had a very lengthy review, the most comprehensive legislative review ever conducted by the Senate.

What happened when the Senate, led by Senator Housakos, Senator Manning, Senator Batters and others, stood up to the government and stood up for Canadian content creators? The Senate came back to the House with amendments from Liberal appointees who said that the government claims that this does not affect user-generated content and that it is just for the big companies. Liberal-appointed senators put forward amendments that were accepted by the Senate, which said that, if that is what the government said, it would take it at its word.

That was a huge mistake, by the way, but they said they would take the government at its word and would narrowly focus an amendment that excludes user-generated content from the bill. The Senate was taking the government at its word that it was not intended for them.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Liberal government have rejected that Liberal amendment because it would take away their ability to control. The government could not abide even Liberal amendments that would have focused this bill on what it said it was supposed to be focused on.

Michael Geist is a professor whom the Liberals used to like to quote when they were in opposition. Now, I am sure, they wish did not have his words being read in the House, though they are about to be. He said:

...the Senate passed compromise language to ensure that platforms such as YouTube would be caught by the legislation consistent with the government's stated objective, but that user content would not. Last night, [the Minister of Canadian Heritage] rejected the compromise amendment, turning his back on digital creators and a Senate process lauded as one of the most comprehensive ever. In doing so, he has left no doubt about the government's true intent with Bill C-11: retain power and flexibility to regulate user content.

That is what this is all about. The government has left no doubt it wants to regulate that user content.

Michael Geist, when he appeared at the House committee, said, “To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard.”

That is exactly what the government is insisting on. It is insisting on the fact that it has the power, that it retains the power, to direct the CRTC to determine what Canadians can or cannot see, to filter it, to adjust the algorithm, to direct people away from the content they want to see to the content the government wants them to see.

Every single time the government has had an opportunity to do the right thing, which is to let content creators thrive, to let them reach out to their audiences without interference from the government, it has not been able to handle the lack of control. The loss of control is just too much for it, which is why it has rejected the Senate amendments.

The Senate amendments, by the way, only made a bad bill slightly less bad. Let us be clear that the amendments were an improvement to a terrible piece of legislation. That is why, quite clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that a future Conservative government would kill Bill C-11, would repeal it, because we believe in content creators. We believe in the ability of Canadian content creators to engage, not only with Canadians but with the world. The government simply needs to get out of the way and let them do what they are already doing so successfully.

We do not need the Liberal government acting as an intermediary and putting its fingers on the scales of the Internet, putting its fingers on the algorithm to direct Canadians to viewing things that they want to see. They are already doing that quite successfully. They do not want this bill. In fact, they have said that the rejection of the amendment to exempt user-generated content from this bill is like being spit in the face. These are people, again, who are not professional lobbyists. They do not have great connections inside the PMO. They do not have expensive lawyers to make their case and buy the Liberals fancy dinners. They do not have that ability.

They simply are creating the content, doing the things that make them happy and doing the things, quite frankly, that make them money. They are allowed to do this. They do this without any interference from the government, but now the government is set to interfere, to affect their livelihoods. Again, they engaged in that process in good faith. They engaged in the Senate process in good faith. They believed, after they had convinced the Senate to do the work that the government refused to do, that there was hope, that they would be exempted from this bill. The government just could not handle it. Conservatives reject the government's rejection of these amendments. We reject Bill C-11, and a Conservative government would repeal it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague. I worked with him previously, as we were both journalists. He worked for TVA and I worked for TQS. He had fewer viewers than I did, in Quebec of course. I should not have mentioned it because my friends at TVA will be upset with me, but we were number one when I worked at TQS.

What the member said is quite true. However, I would like to remind him why we are so dead set against Bill C-11. It is because the federal government is giving itself all the power to dictate to the CRTC what will be allowed in the algorithms of digital platforms. We cannot accept that. I know that the member is a proud nationalist, that he is proud of Quebec. How can he accept such a blatant abuse of power by the federal government with respect to Quebec?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by expressing my disappointment. I am disappointed because I really do value my colleague who just spoke. I think he is a man of great intelligence and exemplary quick thinking, as he has often demonstrated. Unfortunately, this morning, he seems to be embarking on a global disinformation campaign on behalf of his pan-Canadian, pro-oil, pro-pipelines-in-Quebec political party, by telling lies, by saying that Bill C-11, will, for one, control the content that people will be able to view on the Internet. That is not true. He should reread the bill. There is nothing in the bill that does that. What the bill will do is promote Quebec content. I will never believe that my colleague disagrees with promoting Quebec content, without imposing anything, without imposing a menu choice, but by making it visible on the platforms. That is the essence of what the bill does.

If my colleague is such an ardent champion of Quebec, the day his party wants to ram an oil pipeline down Quebec's throat, will he stand up and support Quebeckers?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it benefits them, as my colleague so aptly pointed out.

What is really going on? While we, the Conservatives, stood up 20 times to ask the government to accommodate Quebec's request, the Bloc Québécois maintained radio silence. It is a fitting metaphor, since we are talking about the CRTC. It was radio silence, not a word. They were missing in action, nowhere to be found.

Where is the Bloc when it is time to defend Quebec and speak for Quebec's National Assembly? They drop out of sight.

Speaking of the Quebec National Assembly, do members know that, about a month ago, on February 5 and 6, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted three motions condemning the federal government's action? Do members know that those three motions were directly related to positions defended by the Bloc Québécois in the House on Bill C-5, Bill C-11 and the immigrants at Roxham Road? The last motion severely condemned the use of the term “all-inclusive”, which was said in the House by a member of the Bloc Québécois. We know that Bloc members recognized that it was not the best idea. They said it in the House. The Quebec National Assembly did not like that and adopted a motion condemning that statement.

I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly. I, too, have had occasion, several times, to vote in favour of motions unanimously condemning an act of the federal government. This time, there were three motions in 20 hours, over two days, unanimously condemning the action taken by the federal government with the support of the Bloc Québécois. When the Bloc Québécois says that it is there to defend Quebec, defend the Quebec consensus and speak on behalf of the Quebec National Assembly in the House, it is not true.

That is why we keep saying that it is very important to know how to protect the choice of jurisdictions. Why does Quebec stand up and want to be heard on this bill? This is essential in our debate: Clause 7 states that the government grants itself the power to give directives to the CRTC, which in turn will be responsible for the government's directives to then rework and give directives on the algorithms that will have to be processed by the public. This has many people concerned.

That is why the Financial Post said in an editorial that if the government's bureaucrats were given the right to decide what content is imposed on Canadians there is a real risk that the government will be tempted to use its screening power to silence its critics. That is not good.

Former CRTC chair Ian Scott said that he did not want to manipulate the algorithms. Rather, he wanted the platforms to do that so as to “produce particular outcomes”. That is how an expert sees it. A former head of the CRTC said that.

That is why, as long as this government wants to give itself excessive powers to control what Quebeckers and Canadians have access to, we will be against this bill.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate about how the Liberal government is taking excessive control over Canadians' choices.

Let us not fool ourselves. This bill gives way, way too much power to the federal government, which wants to impose its vision on the choices Canadians make when they use the Internet to watch movies and documentaries and enjoy Canadian culture.

The government wants to direct Canadians' choices by issuing orders to the CRTC. That is why we are fiercely opposed to this bill, which is a direct attack on people's freedom to choose whatever they want to see on digital platforms. We are not the only ones concerned about this. Many people who work in the industry are sounding the alarm. I will say more about that in a bit.

For now, let us concentrate on what has happened in recent years. We have been talking about this bill for years. Some people keep saying that this needs to get done fast, it is urgent, people want this bill and it is taking too long to pass it. We have been accused of filibustering.

The reality is that this bill has been delayed the most by the Liberal government itself. Previously, this bill was known as Bill C‑10, and it was introduced before the unnecessary election that cost $620 million in taxpayers' money. We had to carry out the study all over again.

I am prepared to listen to the comments of those accusing us of talking for the sake of talking and other such things. That is political rhetoric. However, the reality is that those who have delayed the debate and passage of this bill the most are not the Conservative members. It is the Liberal government, which triggered an election and even prorogued Parliament to avoid the WE Charity scandal. The election essentially changed nothing. The government spent $620 million of public money to change absolutely nothing, and this delayed debate of the bill, which, at the time, was known as Bill C‑10, and which is now Bill C‑11.

We are not the only ones in Quebec to have reservations about this bill. Indeed, the Quebec government wants to have its say on the bill. This is nothing new. Almost 11 months ago, on April 24, the Quebec government sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage informing him of Quebec's major concern about the unprecedented power that the federal government was giving itself under clause 7. This clause gives the executive branch, meaning government and cabinet, the power to give the CRTC directions to dictate what Canadians will be able to watch, by creating algorithms for browsing online platforms.

That is why the Quebec minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, repeated that on February 4 in a letter in which he stated that it was “essential...that Quebec's cultural specificity and the unique reality of the French language market be adequately considered”, that “Quebec was the homeland of the French language and francophone culture in the Americas”, it was essential that it be heard. He also said that it was essential “to ensure that Quebec's legislative powers were recognized but that these conditions have not yet been met”.

The Quebec government raised its concerns last April. Following that letter, the National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion asking the federal government to let the Quebec government have its say in committee. The federal government did absolutely nothing. The minister received the letter and could barely be bothered to send an acknowledgment of receipt. After that, as I said last week in the House, he stuck it on his bedside table, under a pile of other papers, and did nothing about it for an entire year.

On February 4, 2023, Minister Lacombe got angry and sent the federal government another request, saying that time was up and that the Quebec government demanded to be heard. The Minister of Canadian Heritage did absolutely nothing.

It is not for lack of trying on our part. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our political lieutenant for Quebec, and I asked not two, not three, not four, but 20 questions to make it clear that Quebec wanted to be heard on the matter of this bill.

We asked 20 questions, and what did the Minister of Canadian Heritage do each time? He resorted to theatrics. He bragged and blustered, he gave a grandstanding response, but he offered nothing for Quebec.

It is scarcely surprising that the centralizing Liberal government should take this approach. I could spend days and days reminiscing about how this government and all previous Liberal governments were eager to commandeer the provinces' political powers. In fact, we are currently seeing how the government has made a specialty of sticking its big fat nose into provincial jurisdictions, where it does not belong.

It is not surprising that the government is doing that. However, it is disappointing to see the Bloc Québécois abetting this usurpation of ministerial responsibility and especially of Quebec's jurisdictions. These people get elected by saying that they speak for Quebec in the House of Commons and that they express the unanimous opinion of Quebeckers. They play up how important that is.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I am going to have enough time to address all of the nonsense that was said in the past 10 minutes. The most scandalous thing my colleague said was that this bill is not about culture. It makes absolutely no sense to say such a thing.

For those who may not know, I am an actor. Before I got into politics, I worked in the film and television industry. I recently played a role in a series that was released a few days ago called Désobéir: le choix de Chantale Daigle about a precedent-setting case in Canada on abortion. It is a truly wonderful and remarkable series. I would encourage the members of the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party to record it and send it to all of their Conservative caucus colleagues. It could prove useful to them. Until we pass Bill C-11, we will certainly not have the chance to watch this series.

When this show first aired two days ago, I met with producers, screenwriters, artists and actors. They all asked me what we were waiting for to pass Bill C-11.

What are we waiting for? When will we pass this bill?

I would like to remind my Conservative friends that 80% of the members of the Union des artistes au Québec still earn less than $20,000 a year. We need to pass Bill C-11 now.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes to CBC and yes to Bill C-11. I would invite the member opposite to tell me what he thinks Canadian content is, why he will not define it in the bill and why he is misleading Canadians, to say that the CRTC, the Chair of which is appointed by him, will not regulate what Canadians see and hear on the Internet. He is misleading the House, and he knows it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing within this legislation that takes away a person's freedoms or their rights. They can choose to watch whatever they want on the Internet. The sad reality is that the Conservatives know that, but they do not have a problem spreading misinformation.

Will the Conservative Party of Canada be honest with Canadians today? Given what it is saying about Bill C-11, is its intention to withdraw the Broadcasting Act? After all, the very same principles have been applied, in good part, through the Broadcasting Act for decades now.

The Conservative Party does not support Canadian content. It has made that abundantly clear. Are the Conservatives going to get rid of the Broadcasting Act? Are they going to get rid of CBC? Is that what their real intentions are?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, can members imagine going to a restaurant and ordering a burger, but instead of a burger, they are served a salad, and when the server is asked why a salad was received, they say it is because of a new government rule that salads need to account for a certain percentage of meals eaten in Canada? That would be ridiculous, one might say, and if one wants a burger, one should get a burger. Nobody would accept something like this when they went to a restaurant, so why would they accept it when they browse the Internet?

That is the essence of Bill C-11, a solution looking for a problem that does not exist and the latest attempt from the Liberals to stick their nose in where it does not belong to limit the freedoms of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I hope the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent would share a burger with me because I will be sharing my time with him.

Right now, Canadians get to pick the things they see online through their very own viewing habits, searches and choices. If Bill C-11 passes, the videos they watch on YouTube, the movies they stream on Netflix and the podcasts they listen to on Spotify would all be subject to government regulations requiring the promotion of certain content. It would deem the content we can and cannot watch. Of course, the government cannot explain what that content is. It has not answered that question.

By putting the rules for what this bill is calling “Canadian content” in the hands of government and unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, the Liberals would be free to amplify the voices they like and silence the ones they do not like. Do we know why this would be? It is because they appoint the body that does that and the head of the CRTC, and they do so without telling us what kind of content, of course.

Let us face that Bill C-11 is just another attempt to drastically expand the size and scope of government, to control what Canadians think and to limit their fundamental rights and freedoms of what they get to see online. No government should ever be given the additional powers to censor and regulate what Canadians say and see, especially of the entire, infinite and unending Internet.

The bill states that any content that generates revenue, yes, even cat videos, would be subject to regulation that would be under the control of the CRTC. It lays out the very path for hiring the Internet czar who would do that, who would give the purview of that to somebody else, an unelected bureaucrat appointed, of course, by a government that wants the control.

This is a debate about amendments, specifically on the issue of censoring user-generated content. That is what regular people put online. The government was really never going to consider that amendment because it took it out of the bill to begin with. I will tell the House why.

Here is the response to trying to get user-generated content out of the mix. It is in amendment 3, and it is part of what we are discussing here. The government states it:

...respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because this would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time....

That is the government's response. The rationale behind the rejection for content creators finally says the quiet part out loud. It finally said it. It is right here. For a government that claims user-generated content was never going to be part of the bill, it took out that amendment and then rejected the fact that the amendment would have been put back in the bill. It says the opposite right in the rationale. The government wants the power to direct the CRTC on user content today, and it wants the power to do it in the future.

Regulatory power over user content is confirmed in that explanation. It covers YouTube videos, podcasts and any other content on platforms we do not even know exist yet, because that is what “adapting to technological changes” means. The government has regulated something that does not even exist yet.

There we have it. A statement we heard from the minister on this point is the exact opposite of his response in the House, his response in committee and his response on television, which makes it the opposite of the truth. He will also ensure that we are the only country, the only democratic country in the world, where this is a thing. We are the only country to engage in this form of regulation of things we would put on the Internet. It leaves absolutely no doubt in the minds of anybody who has read this legislation. For people like Margaret Atwood, Senator David Adams Richards and purveyors of cat videos from coast to coast, there is absolutely no doubt that this is the government's plan. The government just said the quiet part out loud: Platforms are in, and user-generated content is in. Anything else is simply untrue.

We have so many philosophical issues with this bill. I could stand here all day talking about them, but I want to touch on some very practical ones, such as the mandate of the CRTC. There are 2.5 quintillion bytes of data added to the Internet every single day. Do people really believe that the Liberal government or that any bureaucracy, especially a bureaucracy within the government, could handle the responsibility of regulating that? The Liberals cannot get us passports in a reasonable amount of time. They cannot do what they are saying they can do.

What about the idea that the government needs to save the industry? Of course, that is ludicrous. The minister says that the investments in Canadian production that would further our culture are somehow in need of his rescue. Again, that is the opposite of an actual fact. My colleagues will tell me that I am engaging in disinformation, but that is just not true.

Huge investments are being made, and if we looked a little further than traditional broadcasters, or where they have traditionally been made, or if we talked to anyone else other than the unions that will lose control over that funding, we would know that statement is not true.

The Motion Picture Association of Canada told a committee in the Senate that it spent over $5 billion in 2021 on investments in just one year. That is more than the $1 billion the minister is talking about when he talks about what Bill C-11 would bring in. That $5 billion is more than $1 billion, and that is in a single year by a single industry association.

What about the fact that Canadian creators have not asked for this? In fact, many of them have spoken out against it. Those are the ones that have had tremendous success, the ones that will be held back by this bill. Creators in this country who, without the government, have reached unimaginable heights, both within Canada and especially outside of Canada. They have been ignored.

It is not about culture, and it certainly is not about funding. It is about control. It is about doing anything possible to increase the size of the Canadian government and reduce the freedoms of what we see online, of what ordinary Canadians see and put online. These are ordinary Canadian citizens, and the government will stop at nothing to do more of that no matter how much the facts do not line up, how much it cannot answer questions about what Canadian content is and who will regulate it, or how it simply misleads the House in telling us that the CRTC has no role in this.

The Liberals jammed this bill through the House of Commons once already, but the Senate found so many issues with it that it conducted the longest committee study ever on a piece of legislation and proposed 26 amendments. That is, of course, after the Liberals took out the amendment that would leave out user-generated content, while telling the Canadian public that was not true.

Just like putting lipstick on a pig, it leaves us with a pig. Putting amendments into Bill C-11 just leaves us with Bill C-11, a bill that, at its core, restricts, infringes and penalizes. It is a bill that can only be fixed by voting it down and making sure that it never sees the light of day. A Conservative government in this country would have never introduced it, and if members of the House make the mistake of passing it, we will repeal it.

We do not need a government deciding what we can and cannot watch. We do not need a government to pick the winners and the losers. We do not need a government to get more involved in the lives of Canadians. It is involved enough, and we see how that is going in this country. We need a small government that makes room for bigger citizens where government is the servant and we, Canadians, are the masters.

We are upholding the heritage that Canadians have given the world, that successful creators have put out there. We are here today to stand against Bill C-11, a bill that goes against the principles of freedom, the values that have been the bedrock of our country for 150 years, and the heritage that the heritage minister should be protecting.

Freedom is the very opposite of this bill. He should not be focusing on arbitrary roles. If he did, he should be able to at least explain them in the House, in committee or on television. He should instead be focused on growing the power of people right here in Canada and letting them decide what they can see on the Internet.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear the impassioned and thoughtful speech by my colleague, especially given her previous history in journalism.

I would like to know what the reaction is from local stakeholders and stakeholders from across the country. Is Bill C-11 something that they are looking forward to seeing?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the Conservatives, once in power, would repeal this legislation, that it would be the end of this legislation stemming from Bill C‑11.

Personally, I think that he should favour a more rational approach and perhaps leave the door open a bit and say that, if ever there were no censuring or control of online content, he would keep this legislation.

I think that I can say, without betraying my Bloc colleagues too much, that, on our side, if we see that there are real changes in terms of online behaviour and freedom of expression online, we will be the first to say that we need to go back to the drawing board. We will be the first to say that we might have missed something and that we need to go back to the drawing board.

Does the Liberal Party agree on that?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. I spent 20 years as a broadcaster, following a short career as a newspaper reporter. I saw first-hand the impact on Canadian storytellers once online streaming companies entered the fray and altered the way we and people around the world consume news and entertainment. I am so thrilled that now, as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I can play a role in helping level the playing field for Canadian content creators, with the passage of Bill C-11, an update to the Broadcasting Act.

This was the first big piece of legislation that I had the privilege to work on.

The Broadcasting Act, as we have heard, was introduced in 1991.

That was before I was a journalist, when I had just come back to Canada after spending a year in France. I had started studying political science at the University of Calgary. It was a different time. Times have changed.

Throughout the study of Bill C-11, the heritage committee heard from artists, creators and broadcasters about how much the Broadcasting Act has helped Canadians appreciate our own unique culture.

We heard from Gord Sinclair, of The Tragically Hip, that the little band from Kingston would not have been able to reach across the country from coast to coast to coast, and have such an impact on so many Canadians with their music, if it had not been for the Broadcasting Act, which has ensured that Canadian artists are heard, seen and appreciated by Canadians all across the country, that our artists do not have to go overseas or across the border in order to have successful careers. This is about seeing Canadian artists and creators succeed, and be supported and appreciated right here at home.

For decades, broadcasters in Canada have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. We made a conscious decision to support our fellow Canadians, to help them share their talents and their stories with the rest of world. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. It is why we have all the Canadian content we love. Whenever we are watching Schitt’s Creek or Orphan Black, or listening to Hamilton’s own Arkells or a classic like Stompin’ Tom Connors, it makes us proud to be Canadian, to support and encourage our Canadian talent.

Our culture is who we are. It is our past, our present and our future. Now that Canadians consume their media from a bigger variety of platforms, it is time to update the Broadcasting Act and protect our culture for generations to come.

I remember 1991, when we were listening to local radio to learn about the newest music and artists. When we found something good, we would head to the mall and buy the cassette tape at the music store. Today, most Canadians get their music on YouTube. We want to make sure they can still find and identify Canadian content from their streaming services.

Bill C-11 ensures that big players like YouTube and TikTok start contributing to the system, like our traditional broadcasters have been doing for decades now. Back in 1991, we knew which TV shows played on which night and we made plans to get home in time so we would not miss anything. If we wanted to watch a movie, our options were either a Blockbuster rental or the theatre.

Today our streaming services have usurped cable services. I still have cable, I still like to watch my local news, but I understand that today, most Canadians stream their content. People can stream pretty much anywhere they can get a signal, through their TV, phone or car. The technological advances many of us in this room have lived through since the 90s are extraordinary.

How wonderful and amazing to be able to watch our favourite shows and movies whenever and wherever we want. We can even binge an entire season of say, Canada’s Drag Race and not have to wait with anxious anticipation week after week to find out what happens at the end.

However, streaming platforms like Amazon Prime and YouTube broadcast to Canadians without the same requirements that traditional broadcasters adhere to, including supports to the industry and its players that helped build Canada’s culture. These companies absolutely invest in our economy in other ways, and we are fortunate to have such a bounty of entertainment to consume. We can proudly point to many productions made on our shores and in our streets, with our people telling our stories.

Streaming services do not have to produce and share content that reflects our Canadian story and shared identity. They do not have to protect Canadian rights of content ownership. They do not have to pay into the system that nurtures young talent and gives it space to grow and be seen and heard. Until Bill C-11 is passed into law, our culture will be in danger of being lost in the noise of all the content available to Canadians online.

Asking the streaming companies to make Canadian content more fundable does not in any way limit Canadians' ability to watch what they want, or produce the content they want or post the content they produce. All regulatory requirements and obligations in the online streaming act only affect the broadcaster and the platforms, never the user or the creator.

This bill does not limit Canadian freedom of expression in any way, shape or form. We are not telling streamers how to do their business or construct their algorithms. We are just saying that they benefit from our country and our stories and our creators. They have to contribute. They have to let Canadians see through the clutter and identify their own music and artists, storytellers and other creators.

This legislation will provide real opportunities for Canadians, including community media, local news, French-language productions, racialized communities, third-language programming and so much more. This legislation is incredibly important to ensure space within our broadcasting system for indigenous storytelling and indigenous languages.

When it comes to Canadian stories and storytelling, I would be remiss if I did not mention the news, community news and hard-working journalists. The broadcasting landscape has changed since I was in journalism, with bigger players impacting the Canadian news market. We need to ensure that our broadcasters can keep up and are protected, and that Canadian journalists continue to tell the stories of our Canadian communities.

The 1991 Broadcasting Act has run its course. It is now undeniably out of date, but its principles of fairness to Canadian creators remain crucial to this country. We need this legislation now so that we can better support our Canadian broadcasting sector. Canadian organizations and creators will continue to lose ground if this bill does not pass. We must all work together to see this come to fruition.

I would like to express my thanks to the Senate for its exhaustive study of this bill, which included the longest clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in Senate history. This has been about teamwork, about getting this bill to its best form. Although the Conservatives have been working against the team, spouting misinformation and raising unfounded fears on what this bill is really about, spending more time filibustering than working collaboratively, we got there.

We agree with many of the Senate amendments. As my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, mentioned yesterday, this government is fully supporting 18 of the 26 amendments brought about in the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-11. We also accept another two amendments with modifications, so all of the changes that adhere to the spirit of the legislation. This is another testament to the truly collaborative work that has gone on.

It is time that we pass this bill, that we show our support to Canadian artists and creators. I truly hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting Bill C-11. It is time to bring our broadcasting system into the 21st century and do what is right for this country and our culture.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague talk about how Bill C‑11 will support the creation of groups across the country who had difficulty receiving help in the past.

Has there been any reaction from stakeholders in the creative industries on how Bill C‑11 will help them?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Bill C‑11 is part of this government's efforts to advance Canadian interests through a forward-thinking digital policy agenda. It improves fairness in our broadcasting system. It creates stable funding for our cultural industries. It continues to support platforms where Canadian artists and creators can make their mark and enrich Canadians' lives.

Movies, TV shows and music create associations with times in the lives of young and old alike because we recognize ourselves in these works, and we are more likely to recognize ourselves in homegrown creations. That is why we have to strengthen our support for Canadian creators.

This bill would improve fairness in our broadcasting system.

This bill would address an important regulatory imbalance by requiring online audio and video broadcasting services to contribute to the achievement of important cultural policy objectives in the same way that traditional broadcasters always have.

As early as the 1990s, concerns were raised about the potential for online streaming to disrupt the broadcasting sector. Early on, a decision was made not to place requirements on online streaming services so as to avoid stifling innovation, given the relatively limited impact of those services at that time. We need to keep in mind that broadcasting regulation only applies where there is a material impact on the broadcasting sector. Today, the situation is untenable, and the rationale to exempt online broadcasters no longer stands.

Over the past decade, subscribers to online broadcasters have grown from 6% to 78% of Canadians. In the last few years alone, the revenues of online video services have seen fast and substantial growth, while over the same period of time traditional broadcasters have seen steadily shrinking revenues. The reason I bring this evidence to members' attention is to make it clear that the world of broadcasting has changed. We all know this. We regularly turn to online streaming services such as Netflix, Spotify, Crave, Club illico and others to access our music and television. Times have changed. In the past 20 years, online streaming services have become the method through which a growing majority of Canadians access their content.

There has been a drastic shift in Canada's broadcasting sector that has directly impacted the level of support for Canadian programming and talent. Jobs are threatened. Continuing to treat online and traditional broadcasters differently is not fair, and it is not sustainable. It is putting the support system for Canadian stories and music at risk. The bill would create sustainable funding for our cultural industries.

To explain how modernizing the act would create sustainable funding for our cultural industries, it is important to look back at the proven track record of innovation in our cultural sector and recall how transformative digital disruption has been for broadcasting in Canada. This support system has cultivated Canadian cultural works and has supported innovation and talent in our audiovisual, music and sound recording sectors, and it is one we intentionally developed through policies, programs and legislation.

Let me remind members how things were in the beginning for Canadian broadcasting. Radio and TV channels, as well as cable and satellite distribution companies, had to be Canadian owned and hold licences. They were allowed, and still are of course, to show foreign programs or carry American channels. In return for participating in Canada's broadcasting system and accessing our domestic market, they were required to fund, acquire and broadcast Canadian programs.

They were also required to make programs accessible to Canadians and contribute to the creation of Canadian programming, including in French. Over time, the demand for Canadian programming has increased. The system was working as intended and domestic creative industries flourished. Thousands of Canadians found careers in broadcasting as producers, actors, screenwriters, directors, singers, lighting designers, makeup artists, set designers and so much more. The Canadian cultural industry became more skilled and sophisticated and we saw investments in production clusters. We became famous for our creative and technical talent.

Broadcasting plays a key role in supporting the Canadian creative industry and developing our cultural identity. The Canadian broadcasting, film, video, music and sound recording industries are also important economic drivers. They contribute about $14 billion to Canada’s GDP and accounted for more than 160,000 jobs in 2019.

These figures point to a sector we can be proud of and not one we can take for granted. We knew the day would come when the 1991 Broadcasting Act would no longer be sufficient. Unfortunately, that day has come and is long past.

We are fighting for the recognition and support that the cultural sector needs, not only to survive, but to thrive. Time is running out.

The online streaming act is about ensuring the sustainability of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is also about ensuring our cultural sovereignty. Canada is a hotbed of continuous innovation and an incubator for emerging cultural talent. We must support our creators and our creative industries. This requires that all broadcasters in Canada compete on a level playing field.

We need to integrate online broadcasting services into regulation. Because of outdated legislation, online broadcasters are not required to support Canadian music and content, or any other important broadcasting objective. As revenues for traditional broadcasters stagnate and decline, the level of support for Canadian music and content, and the creative professionals who create it, will also decline.

The implications for the broadcasting system are serious. Canadian broadcasters have responded by cutting costs, which has had a real impact on the service they provide to Canadians, their contribution to Canadian culture, and middle-class jobs.

As Canadians, we will be the poorer for not seeing homegrown talent supported and having more diversity on screen and in song.

Previous generations enjoyed Canadian programs knowing that others across the country were sharing a similar experience. These experiences are important for our culture and our cultural industries.

What matters most and what matters now is that Canadian voices, perspectives and stories remain relevant, heard and groundbreaking.

The online streaming act is needed to achieve greater diversity in the broadcasting system and ensure the long-term viability of our broadcasting sector.

As a proud Quebecker, I know that Bill C‑11 will strengthen Quebec's cultural sector. French is a minority language in the greater North American landscape and we are taking measures to protect and promote francophone creators and artists.

These measures are part of the framework of broader commitments by the Government of Canada to ensure the vitality of French-language and minority-language communities in the country. Thanks to this bill, there will be more Quebec and francophone content on online streaming platforms. We can be proud of that.

In conclusion, this bill seeks to ensure that the creative sector continues to grow. Regardless of how Canadians access their content, they should be able to recognize themselves in the stories and music that reflect their experience and their community.

The Broadcasting Act of 1991 has brought us to this point. The online streaming act will bring us further. We cannot wait any longer. We must act now.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for his careful articulation and his commitment to killing Bill C-11.

He mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how freedom of expression would be eroded by Bill C-11. On the Government of Canada's own website, it says, “The Supreme Court of Canada has maintained that the connection between freedom of expression and the political process is 'perhaps the linchpin' of section 2(b)... Free expression is valued above all as being instrumental to democratic governance.”

My question to the Leader of the Opposition, who is committed to killing this bill, whether now or when he is prime minister, a day I look forward to happening very soon, is why would the Liberal Prime Minister actually want to bring in this type of censorship? Is it because he admires communist dictatorships?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take us back to some fundamentals and ask if the leader of the official opposition can find anywhere in Bill C-11, in the fundamental principle of the Broadcasting Act, that the freedom of expression of Canadians is protected. Can he find or point to any place in the set of amendments to the Broadcasting Act where that fundamental principle is altered or repealed?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a group of candle makers who had concerns about the competition they were facing. They said, “We are suffering from the unfair competition of a foreign rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price.”

Who was that competitor? It was the sun. The sun was firing beams right through the windows of homes. It was providing competition to the candle makers. Their solution was to call for a law that would force people to close “all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds—in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses”.

The candle makers' solution to too much competition was to ban windows to keep the sun out and force people to buy their products. That is exactly what we are getting from the large corporations that want more profit and less competition.

Since the inception of the Internet, the big companies that once dominated the news, the arts and other cultural industries have had to become more competitive because other people have been able to enter their field. Previously, this was impossible. An individual in a basement could not produce music and make it available to listeners, because it had to pass through a government-regulated broadcasting system. Now, competition is wide open and people can produce their own products without having to go through big companies like Bell, Corus, Rogers or CBC/Radio-Canada, which dominated the market when it was regulated by the CRTC.

We are now seeing an amazing reduction in the costs associated with culture and news. Usually, when industries say they are experiencing problems, it is because costs have increased, yet today, costs have decreased significantly, by almost 100%. It used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce an ad for a movie. Now, a teenager with a small computer can produce the same movie ad at no cost.

This also applies to the news. We are hearing that the media is in trouble, but why is that? Production costs have dropped dramatically. Distribution costs are almost zero because there is no need for printing or for all the infrastructure required to physically distribute a publication. It is now automatic thanks to the Internet. The cost of marketing has plummeted because consumers can get the news or learn about a cultural product automatically, without any advertising, just by going on the Internet.

With costs having come down so much, news agencies should be celebrating, so why are they so angry at the status quo? It is not because their costs have gone up. It is because competition has increased.

The windows are open, and now sunlight is pouring into the houses. Fresh air can come in. It is not just a small group of privileged gatekeepers who get to control what Canadians and others see and hear. The people can decide for themselves.

We are hearing that the other parties are against the web giants. Bill C-11 does nothing about the web giants. Once this bill passes, all cultural products will still be offered by the web giants. They will not be affected. It is simply the type of products offered on those same platforms that will be affected.

Instead of algorithms giving the audience what they want to see, that audience will see what the government wants them to see. This is not about taking profits away from the web giants. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and the other platforms will continue to dominate. Instead, the rules by which these platforms operate will simply change to favour content chosen by the government.

Web giants are totally fine with that. They are happy. Now the big broadcasting and culture corporations will join them and reap the benefits. They will use their political weight to get preferential treatment in government-manipulated algorithms.

If we give that power to a government instead of leaving it in the hands of consumers, where it is now, what are the consequences of that? Those with political power will have more say over cultural and news content. Why? According to Bill C‑11, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, a state body, will decide how the algorithms suggest content to Canadians.

Accordingly, people who influence this government agency will have a greater say over their Internet presence. Who are these people? The rich, obviously, the very rich, because poor people cannot hire lobbyists.

To be discovered on the Internet today, creators need to produce content that people want to see. Then, when people see it, the algorithm will recommend it to others. With Bill C-11, however, in order to get discovered, creators will need to have a lobbyist who can go to the CRTC to convince it to promote their content. A 14-year-old girl who plays guitar in her basement and makes fantastic music will not get discovered, because she does not have a lobbyist. She will not able to get her content on every phone and computer in Canada because she has no influence over the CRTC. Her content, by law, is not Canadian, because “Canadian” means being registered with interest groups recognized as Canadian productions.

Bill C-11 does not define Canadian content. The content produced by the girl playing the guitar in her basement will not be considered Canadian content. In contrast, CBC content that is copied and pasted from a CNN story in Washington focused exclusively on American politics and produced in the United States will be considered Canadian content, because the CBC, a large corporation, produced it.

Those with political power will have a greater voice on the Internet, which will obviously reduce diversity. The Internet has given us access to enormous diversity. Before the Internet, if artists wanted to sell their music, they had to have space in a store. That space was limited, and it was only accessible to the most popular groups in North America. Now physical space is no longer necessary, since the Internet is not a physical place. On the Internet, there is unlimited room for everyone.

Let us imagine we feel like listening to something unique, like klezmer, which is Jewish jazz. In any given city, there may be only about a hundred people who like klezmer. Before the Internet, this type of music was not popular enough to be available locally. Now it is available online.

What the government is proposing is a system in which public servants will determine what is Canadian enough, and, once again, that will be what comes out of large corporations that will have had the opportunity to lobby the government. That will reduce the diversity of voices and concentrate power among oligopolies. If members do not believe me when I say that lobbyists will take control, I will prove it.

When a government grows, more and more money is spent on lobbying. There is one thing I agree on with the New Democrats: businesses and corporations like to make money. When the government controls the economy, corporations invest in their ability to influence the government so they can benefit. I will give members a few figures.

Since this government took power, government spending has risen by 55%. That is a huge increase. What does this mean in terms of lobbying? There has been an increase of over 100% in lobbying-related communications.

According to a study done by a U.S. firm, the more the government in Washington spends, the more corporations spend on lobbying. If the money and economic power lie with the government, lobbyists are a good return on investment.

When companies realize that earning money on the Internet depends on CRTC support, there will be a huge increase in the number of lobbyists paid hundreds of dollars an hour to control what Canadians can watch and listen to. Politicians will set the criteria for what Canadians can watch and listen to. Decisions will be based on a consensus within the government. Instead of Canadians deciding what to watch and what to say, politicians and public servants will manipulate the algorithms to their advantage.

It is incredible that the Bloc Québécois supports giving this power to a federal agency in Ottawa. It is a woke agency, here in Ottawa, that will determine what Quebeckers can watch and listen to. The Bloc Québécois is not a pro-independence party but a pro-dependence party. It is not a sovereignist party, it is a centralist party.

We, the Conservatives, will never force Quebeckers to listen to the words of a federal government in Ottawa or to submit to its dictates. We will give Quebeckers the freedom to have their own voice. When I am prime minister, Quebeckers will be masters in their own house by making their own cultural choices. We will never force Quebeckers to listen to a woke bureaucracy in Ottawa, which knows nothing about Quebec culture or Quebeckers.

We believe that freedom should be paramount. I will stand for the position of prime minister to ensure that Canada becomes the freest country in the world by giving back to Canadians, including artists, control over their lives. There can be no freedom without freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our Conservative government will scrap this bill so that Canadians can choose their own path, guaranteeing that our system will be one of the freest in the world, instead of trying to replicate the Chinese dictatorship that the Prime Minister has said he admires so much.

We will continue to fight to prevent this bill from passing. The Conservative government will repeal it as soon as possible. The Conservative Party is the only party in the House of Commons to defend Canadians' freedoms and their culture by making it possible for them to create it. It will be the Conservative Party that will restore common sense in Canada.

Once upon a time there was a group of candle-makers who talked about a grave threat to their industry. They said we were “suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price”, to quote Frederic Bastiat.

Who was that competitor? It was the sun. The sun was firing beams right through the windows of homes in French villages across the countryside, which was providing daytime competition to the candle-makers, who therefore did not have as much in profit as they would have otherwise had absent this competition. Their solution was to ban windows to keep the light out. That way they could sell more candles for use throughout the day with less competition coming in from the outside world.

That is exactly what we are getting from the large broadcasting and entertainment corporations, the oligopoly that dominated the voice of Canadians for far too long until the windows opened and we got the Internet. The Internet opened up competition. This is ironic because we hear today that the news media is in trouble. They are hemorrhaging jobs and opportunities. They say that the cultural sector is suffering. What do they say is the cause of the suffering? It is that the cost of marketing, production and distribution has plummeted. Colleagues heard that right. Because costs have gone down, the industry is suddenly suffering. Actually, it is not suffering.

News media has never been more vibrant and more alive than it is today, but it is not the establishment, oligopolistic media that dominates the voices around Parliament Hill. Those voices are suffering. They are losing audiences because Canadians have a choice, for a change. For the longest time, the oligopoly in this country, which is controlled by Bell, Rogers, Shaw, now Corus, and a few other powerful corporate players, was able to use its might with the regulator to ensure its dominance across the air waves and into the homes of Canadians. It was able to use a large moat. That is to say that the difficulty of getting into the market comes from the fact that they used to have to produce paper and ink to send their product into homes, but now all of those things have been knocked down. The windows have been opened.

People can enter the marketplace with very few barriers, so those powerful oligopolistic corporations are trying to reinstate the barriers. In other words, they are trying to block the windows to keep the light and the fresh air out so they can dominate the candle-making or, in their case, the news and culture-making business. They do not want more Canadian culture. What they want is more control over Canadian culture.

On one side are the corporations that want economic control over news and culture, and on the other side, the government wants political control over news and culture. Therefore, we have this alliance of big government and big business ganging up on the customer, forcing, through this legislation, the customer to consume content they would not otherwise be interested in.

Right now, the big tech platforms' interest is very simple. They are interested in making money. Let us be blunt about it. How do they do that? They feed people the content they want to see. That keeps people on the platform longer. When this bill passes, those platforms will still be interested in making money. They will make just as much money because nothing this bill does would shut down Netflix, YouTube, Facebook or anything else. They will still be the dominant platforms.

What would change is that instead of having algorithms that give people things they want to see, algorithms would give people things the government wants them to see. The government would operate through the CRTC, a large, woke government agency that would then manipulate algorithms to promote so-called Canadian content.

What is Canadian content? The government cannot tell us. It suggests, for example, that Canadian content is a CBC article that is plagiarized in Washington about American politics. That would be an American-made story about American politics, but it would be Canadian content because it would be provided by the state broadcaster in Canada.

A single mother who produces a video about raising funds for her kid's local sports team would not be Canadian content because it would not be on the approved list established by the CRTC. In other words, a local Canadian story by a Canadian about local Canadians would not be considered Canadian content because the mother is not a news agency or registered with any of these so-called cultural bodies. Therefore, she will be pushed down the algorithm and given a smaller voice while more powerful corporate voices gain predominance.

We know that this is public choice theory. Those with money turn that money into influence, which they turn into more money, more influence, and so on and so forth. If people do not believe me, look at the amount that companies are spending on lobbying right now. Government spending is up 55% since the government took office. That is correlated to a nearly 100% increase in the number of paid lobbying interactions that have happened here in Ottawa as recorded by the lobbyist registry.

A company out of the United States did a similar study in Washington showing that the bigger the government spending there, the more corporations spend on lobbying the U.S. capital; there is nearly a perfect correlation between those two things. Why is this the case? It is because if we have a bigger and more powerful government in the economy, then those seeking profit will invest in influencing that government in order to turn that influence into more money. That is exactly what would happen here.

A small group of broadcasting corporations would have all the influence, as they had in the writing of this bill. They would be in the CRTC office every day asking for the algorithm to be tweaked a little bit more so they can end up in the newsfeeds or YouTube streams of Canadians more than their competitors do. It would be a race for political power rather than a race for better cultural products.

In other words, instead of pleasing the audience, they would get ahead by pleasing politicians and bureaucrats. That is what happens. The privileged elite would have more control and a greater voice, and the people on the ground would have less control.

Ironically, this would run against everything that the parties across the way claim they want. They claim they are for diversity. “Diversity is our strength,” says the Prime Minister. However, by giving a small oligopoly control over what Canadians see on the Internet, the bill would obviously mean less diversity because it would be only the programming that they favour.

Do members think the ethnocultural publications would get the same deal from the CRTC that the CBC, Bell Canada, Rogers and other telecommunications behemoths would get? Of course they would not. The small Punjabi paper in Surrey does not have a lobbyist in Ottawa that can work on the CRTC.

Those in a Jewish community may like klezmer, which is wonderful Jewish jazz music. Specialty cultural products like that might not have a big enough audience to generate political power at the CRTC. Under the current situation, at least through the tap of their thumb, they can get the music they want. However, that music would not be considered Canadian enough by the corporations who would generate the algorithm with the CRTC, and therefore, those more diverse and unique voices would be shut out and deprived of online oxygen. Thus, there would be less diversity.

They claim they want to take power away from big corporations, and yet this bill would do precisely the opposite. It would concentrate power in the hands of a small number of broadcasting and telecommunications behemoths: the ones who have been lobbying so hard for so long to get this bill passed.

They claim that they want more artistic expression, and yet the artistic expression of people who are not part of the established cultural scene would be snuffed out altogether. Even great Canadian artists who have never been associated with conservativism have spoken up against this bill. Let us look at the words of Margaret Atwood, who actually said that this bill represents “creeping totalitarianism”. That is exactly what it is.

When the government decides what the people can see and say, freedom of expression will not have long to live in this country. In this party, we believe in subsection 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “2(b), or not 2(b)? That is the question”, and Conservatives have an answer. We will repeal this antispeech censorship law and restore freedom of expression on the Internet right across Canada.

Inherent in this bill is the same old elitist mentality of the ruling class, that they know better: If Canadians are left to their own devices, they will consume the wrong kind of culture. Our Liberal friends would tell us that Canadians are just not sophisticated enough to make their own decisions about what to see and hear. There is a smarter class of more cultured, cosmopolitan types who understand culture in a way that the 37 million Canadians who do the work of the nation do not; therefore, we should have this cultural elite embedded in our bureaucracy, interlinked with our large corporations who would decide on their behalf. The assumption is that somehow these elites are more virtuous. What is more virtuous about them? What makes them so special? If they are the ones watching over the system of culture, who watches the watchmen? Who controls the controllers? These rules are made for the rulers and not for the common people. Canadian culture comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

To the suggestion that Canadians are not sophisticated or cultured enough to decide for themselves, what evidence is there that the groups of politicians in this chamber, bureaucrats over at the CRTC or lobbyists in the broadcasting corporations who would make the rules under this law are more sophisticated, culturally advanced and smarter?

I, for one, believe that if we want smarts and sophistication, we should look to the mechanic who can take apart and put back together an engine block; the electrician whose meticulous fingers send lightning through copper wires to illuminate our homes; or the farmer who is able to read the weather, soil and commodity prices to bring food from his field to our fork. Their minds are ever more advanced and capable of deciding what is and what is not good culture.

We in this House of Commons are servants and not masters. It is not our role to dictate from above what the people think, see and hear, but the contrary. They have the org chart upside-down. They think it is Prime Minister, then House of Commons and then the people on the bottom. Actually, it is the other way around. It is the people; then the members in this House; and then the Prime Minister, which means “first servant”. That is how our system was designed. Therefore, Conservatives will always stand for the common sense of the common people and united for our common home. Let us bring it home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring home freedom of speech for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we recognize is that the Broadcasting Act, which was brought in many years ago, has done many wonders in advancing Canadian content. I would ultimately argue that many of the artists we have today owe their success to the government's role in ensuring a higher level of Canadian content.

Bill C-11 would update and modernize the act, whether that is the traditional CTV or the CBC being on a level playing field with the digital world, which we have seen explode over the last 20 years.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am happy to agree with him once again. It does not happen very often.

Bill C‑11 is fundamental. This bill showcases and supports the cultural sector. One thing that must be stressed and which members of the House need to understand is that the cultural sector is a sector that needs to be supported and promoted.

We are not saying that we will provide for them. We are saying that we will help them become more visible so they can have more exposure, have higher incomes and become better known around the world. That is important.

I was listening to the discussion in the House. There is talk of misinformation. As MPs, we can have differences of opinion, but if there is anything that we have the duty not to do, it is repeating falsehoods.

I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to explain to us how repeating something that is not true several times does not make it more true the next day.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the misinformation that is being put out, and most of it is being put out by the members of the Liberal government. If we look to the actual facts of the matter, the fact of Bill C-11 is that it says that the Governor in Council, that is, the cabinet ministers, would determine the criteria by which the CRTC would decide who would be impacted by the legislation, so that it is the government telling the CRTC who would be under it. It has not revealed that information, although we have asked for it for a year.

The Senate has now brought amendments that would specifically exclude individual content. It would say that if one were not commercially involved, if one did not have a unique identifier, that one would not be subject to this legislation. The Liberal government, again, has refused to accept it.

Could the member tell me how this legislation is different from what happens in communist countries, where the government determines content and who is going to be able to see it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, he said he will share some of their music with me, and no doubt I will enjoy them.

Whether it is music or film, there are incredible talents in every region of our country. When I think of the Prairies and out west, I think of Corner Gas. We get a high sense of pride that it is a production that takes place in the province of Saskatchewan. North of 60 took place both in Alberta and Manitoba. We can even go way back to something like The Beachcombers. All of those, in good part, had a type of advocacy because of Canadian content requirements.

When I think of today, I think of things like Kim's Convenience. A couple of years ago, Schitt's Creek received a number of Emmy Awards. I had no idea about it until it received all those awards. It is an incredible comedy.

The advancements of some of the actors, actresses and musicians who we have seen could be rooted back to Canadian content policies and the promotion of Canadian heritage. We underestimate that industry. It is a substantial industry in virtually every jurisdiction and all the different regions of Canada. It provides jobs and amazing opportunities for talent.

We can look at the city of Winnipeg and how it has benefited from the type of talent found there. We can go to many festivals, especially during the summertime but not only limited to the summertime. One I often make reference to is Folklorama. If members want to get a sense of the potential of that industry, they should tour some of the facilities and the pavilions of Folklorama. They will witness first-hand amateurs singing, performing all forms of dance and sharing amazing talents with thousands of people. Some of those who actually participate in Folklorama go on to participate at Rainbow Stage or other theatre-type operations.

There are so many opportunities if we think of the bigger, holistic picture of it. When there is a young person getting involved, for example, in a showpiece at a pavilion, it takes a great deal of time and energy throughout the year for that young person. It instills skill sets, discipline and so much more. The benefit of seeing that sort of growth at the ground level and how that ground level works its way to the top is important.

We should be supporting that, whether it is in Winnipeg, Montreal or in our smaller communities throughout the country. One of the ways we could do that is by supporting Bill C-11, legislation that would modernize our broadcasting. It would ensure that Canadian content is not only important to CBC but that it is important in the digital world also.

That is why we will find every member of Liberal caucus supporting Bill C-11 and voting for it. We recognize and value the industry, the jobs that it creates and the enhancement of our heritage to our country. It helps identify who we are as a nation. We get a sense of pride, much like we do when an athlete wins a gold medal for Canada, when we see an actor in a major movie production or in a sitcom. We can relate to that because it is in our community.

These are some of the reasons why Bill C-11 should be universally supported on all sides of the House. Sadly, that is not the case.

Briefly, the bill would bring online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. It would require online streaming services that serve Canadian markets to contribute to the production of Canadian content and ensure online broadcasters showcase more Canadian content. In essence, it modernizes the outdated legislation.

What would the bill not do? I say this for my Conservative friends. The bill would not impose regulations on the content that everyday Canadians post on social media. It would not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. It would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. It would not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form. This is so upsetting, and I made reference to it at the beginning.

What is interesting in the comments thus far is that the Bloc members, the NDP members and now myself have talked about the misinformation. It is one thing when, through the Internet and other forms of media, misinformation is being espoused and commented on.

However, as legislators, as leaders within our community, we have a responsibility to be more transparent and honest with Canadians in regard to legislation we are passing.

I find it despicable that there are those who are actually assisting in validating misinformation. To try to give the false impression that this legislation would be taking away the rights of people in Canada is just wrong.

To try to say that this would somehow be telling Canadians what it is that they can and cannot watch through the Internet, through streaming, is just wrong. To try to tell Canadians that this has something to do with their freedoms and rights is wrong.

Any member who has had the opportunity to participate and engage, whether by listening or standing up and speaking on the legislation, knows that. All political parties know that.

Those who are going out promoting and encouraging that misinformation, I believe, as the NDP House leader has said, should really reflect on what it is that they are doing and give serious consideration to apologizing for spreading such false information. There is a segment in society that is believing it, unfortunately.

As I have clearly indicated in my comments, I like to think that, at the end of the day, this legislation is all about ensuring a level playing field. It is all about an industry that is so critically important to Canada. It helps identify our identity, who we are. It ensures opportunities for people, for Canadians, into the future, in an area in which we know Canadians can excel. Our arts community is a community we need to support, as we have in the past. This is a continuation. It is a modernization of the legislation. That is what it is.

I would ask for all members not only to support it but also to do what they can in terms of dispelling the misinformation that is out in our communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important legislation, legislation that has been in the works for a number of years. The government has continued to persist in getting it through the House as quickly as we can even in recognition of the opposition we have received from the Conservative Party.

This is excellent legislation. It clearly demonstrates what the Prime Minister, different ministers and the Liberal Party have been advocating for legislation in general. When we bring forward legislation, the government is very much open to ways in which it can possibly be improved. I and my colleague from Kingston often talk about how important it is to get legislation to the committee stage. Bill C-11 is a good example of that.

After a healthy debate at second reading, we were finally able to get the bill to the committee stage, and we saw a number of amendments. Unlike the former Stephen Harper regime, this is a government that actually listens to what other members have to say, whether they are members of the Conservatives, the NDP, Green or members of the Liberal caucus. At committee, where ideas surface, a number of amendments were proposed and actually adopted, all with the thought of making the legislation stronger for Canadians. We were able to get the bill through the committee, then third reading and it went over to the Senate.

I really want to emphasize that I appreciate the degree to which the Senate its invested time, resources and energy into ensuring the bill was thoroughly reviewed. That is in good part why it has come back: There were a number of amendments that the Senate believed would enhance the legislation and make it that much stronger.

The minister responsible for Bill C-11 and the fine civil servants working with that minister were able to look at the amendments and, in most part, accepted of them. We do have some concerns with some of the amendments and we will not support those. I would invite members of the Senate or others, if they have some specific questions in regard to those amendments, even amendments that we are not passing, to reach out to the minister's office. At the end of the day, we have not seen a modernization of this legislation since the 1990s.

The other day, we were speaking to other digital-type legislation with respect to cybersecurity and so forth, and I drew a comparison of the past and the present. It is long overdue. This is an initiative that the government has now been working on for a number of years.

There have been thorough consultations in every region of the country. The department has done a fantastic job of bringing forward the legislation, responding to the requests, thoughts and expressions from the many different stakeholders. As I pointed out, it listened to what opposition members were saying and it adopted amendments from opposition members.

We have before us a returned Bill C-11, on which the minister has given a very clear indication of where we are as a government with respect to wanting to see the legislation pass, and it is time. There is no need to see a filibuster of any sort. Members on all sides have had ample opportunity to express their thoughts.

I share many of the concerns that the NDP and the Bloc member have raised. I, too, have received emails that paint a very clear picture of misinformation. There is an incredible amount of misinformation out there, and sadly there are political entities in the House that are promoting and encouraging that misinformation.

I had an email earlier today from someone who said that a vote for Bill C-11 would take away his rights. Politicians in the chamber who are trying to support that information are being intellectually dishonest. Nowhere in the legislation would the rights of an individual be taken away. Nowhere in the legislation would freedoms of expression be limited or taken away.

A select group within the Conservatives are espousing false information with respect to the content of Bill C-11, or they are at least supporting the misinformation that is being spread in our communities. Bill C-11 is all about putting an industry on a level playing field with another industry that has been there for many years. It in essence is saying that in the digital world, the big companies such as Crave, YouTube, Spotify and Netflix need to be put on the same playing field as CBC, CTV and others.

The CRTC plays a critical role in who we are as a nation and amplifies that. For many years, we have seen the CRTC and its decisions and actions that it has taken on behalf of governments of all political stripes enhance our heritage from coast to coast to coast. I think the promotions and the advancement of so many careers in the arts are a direct result of the promotion of Canadian content.

My colleague just made reference to a very famous band, and I am not really up on music, The Tragically Hip.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had an exchange yesterday with the member for Lethbridge, and I am hoping the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby can help me straighten out a misconception held by other members in this place.

In talking about the artists and creators who want Bill C-11 passed, I referred to the writers of this country represented through a group called The Writers' Union of Canada. I am a member. It is not a collective bargaining union. Its name is the Writers' Union of Canada, but it represents creators in this country, many of whom earn $10,000 to $15,000 a year.

The response from the hon. member for Lethbridge, and I am paraphrasing, was basically that of course they want it: They are a big union, they will make money and they are not creators. I would love to take this opportunity to straighten that out. These are creators and these are writers. The Canadian Media Producers Association is for people who write screenplays and who are out of work until we get things balanced for Canadian producers with Bill C-11.

The hon. member from the New Democratic Party clearly knows unions. Would he think The Writers' Union of Canada is kind of like the writers' version of the CAW?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. Hopefully this is a climb-down from where the Conservatives have been on this bill over the last few months, as wacky things have been said in connection with Bill C-11, with wacky comments that were absolutely inappropriate. I am hoping this means the Conservatives will take a more measured approach to this.

The member threw out what I think she meant as a dig, saying that maybe we have been told something they have not been told. The reality is that through the extensive committee hearings, all members of Parliament heard explanations from ministerial officials, the CRTC and the many witnesses who intervened on behalf of Bill C-11. The vast majority of witnesses over the months of hearings were in favour of Bill C-11.

There is a legislative component but also a regulatory component, as the member points out. I agree with her on that, and the government has been clear there, although I would suggest it needs to be more clear on the regulations. However, the important thing is to pass the bill, and I hope this represents a change in the Conservatives' opinion of the bill.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions around the structure that seems to be a problem in the bill. It is complicated, and perhaps the member can help me understand what the Liberals are thinking here.

The trouble with it is that the digital libraries, like those on Netflix, cannot easily meet a percentage content requirement, and most TV networks are doing that with their sports and news programming. However, they could be made to invest a portion of their revenue in Canadian content, which was a requirement that our 2021 Conservative platform endorsed. The CRTC's definition of Canadian content would also need to change, since it often depends more on copyright ownership, which streaming services keep, rather than using Canadian staff, writers, actors and such. Netflix's major francophone film was made and written in Quebec, but it does not qualify as CanCon.

The Liberals have claimed that Bill C-11 would result in up to a billion dollars per year in investment in Canadian culture, but they have not explained it. Maybe they have explained to the NDP, as their partners, without explaining to Conservatives how and what streaming services would have to pay, which is what Canadians would want to know. I see in here in section 9 a very clear delegation of penalties. Why are they not clear here in what they are suggesting they would do in regards to these providers?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very rarely agree with the member for Winnipeg North, and I do not in this case either.

This is what we have had from the Conservatives in this debate. Their comments have been crazy. It is absolutely inappropriate that they made those comments in this place. I am hoping that if the member for Carleton comes forward, unlike what he did around the Conservatives' meeting with that despicable neo-Nazi, for which he never apologized, he will apologize for the comments the Conservatives have made in this House about Bill C-11.

There has been one comment that is less wacky but is nonetheless disinformation. That is the issue around saying that somehow Bill C-11 would take this untrammelled Internet and big technology companies that in no way provide any sort of guidance around algorithms, so it is a “what you see is what you get” kind of thing, and that it would in some way have an impact on those algorithms. This misconception that somehow algorithms are innocent needs to be questioned.

The whole issue around Bill C-11 is about having in place a transparent process that makes sense and that actually provides support for creators and artists who have been struggling to make a living, in the same way we did 50 years ago with the Broadcasting Act. It was a revolutionary idea that Conservatives opposed at the time, but that time has subsequently proven to have been the best possible decision for our artists and for the expansion of Canadian culture throughout the world. Back in the 1970s, the idea was to say to the big, American-owned music giants that they would have to start including Canadian content. They would have to take these great Canadian artists they had been shoving out and bring them in.

We saw an unbelievable renaissance of Canadian culture, as members know, literally dozens and hundreds of Canadian artists showing Canada and the world how skilled they were. All of them had a start because Canadian parliamentarians, back in the 1970s, actually took that step to ensure that Canadians could speak to Canadians, that Canadian content could actually be shown to Canadians. American music giants said, “No, no, we've given you a few; that's all we're going to give you”, kind of like big tech today. However, Canadian parliamentarians at that time had the maturity and the understanding that we had to move forward as a country. They put in place those Canadian content rules to ensure that Canadians would not be hidden anymore by foreign companies. We saw the results: Canadian music, Canadian films, Canadian television. We have seen the incredible ability of Canadians to show the world how effective, how incredibly imaginative and how wonderful our Canadian artists, actors, writers, directors, producers and all Canadians are when it comes to culture.

We now fast-forward to Bill C-11, and big tech has been doing the same thing, for those who somehow doubt that they would see big tech in the same way. I know Conservatives love big tech, big banks and big tax evaders; they love them all. They gave $160 billion to banks 15 years ago. The Harper regime just poured on the spigot for big banks. As we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we lost $30 billion a year to overseas tax havens. For the big tax evaders, the Harper regime just opened the door.

To our chagrin, and to the chagrin of Canadians, unfortunately, the Liberals have not closed that open door, so we are still losing $30 billion a year. That is a conservative figure from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I may well be, and I believe it to be, much higher than that. If we take that, over the last decade, that is $300 billion. Over the last 15 years, since the Harper regime opened the spigot to give big tax evaders money, that is half a trillion dollars. It is unbelievable.

It is no surprise that they side with big tech when big tech says it is innocent and all it wants is to do business. The Wall Street Journal looked into algorithms to see if what big tech says is true, that big tech is innocent and that what it does is in the best interest of the community. The Wall Street Journal, in this case, analyzed Google, but this applies to all the big tech companies. Its findings “undercut one of Google’s core defences against global regulators worried about how it wields its immense power—that the company doesn't exert editorial control over what it shows users. Regulators' areas of concern include anticompetitive practices, political bias and online misinformation.”

The algorithms are already biased. They are already ensuring that fewer Canadians can actually benefit from the incredible talent and imagination they have, in the same way that 50 years ago we saw, unfortunately, American music giants say they were going to give us a couple of artists and then Canadians could just go into our corner and be quiet, because they were going to dump foreign artists on the Canadian market and it is their market. Parliamentarians, at that time, said no, and parliamentarians were right to say no. As a result of that, we have a culture that has thrived, until big tech started doing the same thing.

What has big tech been doing? Where are its bias and emphasis? I think it is important to note what we have seen from the District of Columbia's top attorney and what he brought forward in the United States to the National Association of Attorneys General. In talking about big tech, he said they “host, facilitate and accept money from hate organizations and individuals who literally are spewing their toxic hate”. I am quoting from Politico, about the Washington D.C. attorney general Karl Racine: “Among the changes he’d like to see are...detail[s] [about] how much money they make from hate speech and more information on what is taken down and when.”

This is an issue that has been raised by the Stop Hate for Profit campaign in the United States, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and a whole range of other very credible organizations. They have all spoken out against algorithms that exist now in big tech that bring people into what has been described by those organizations as a “pipeline of hate”. The algorithms exist already. The algorithms have a bias, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out.

What this bill does, Bill C-11, is actually ensure that Canadians now have a way to get into big tech's boycott of much Canadian talent. Conservatives might say that some Canadians still succeed despite all of this.

The reality is that more Canadians will succeed because of Bill C-11, in the same way that, 50 years ago, we had a Parliament that was imaginative enough to understand that we had to stand up against the American music giants, that we had to stand up and ensure Canadian content, and by standing up, we had more Canadians benefit. This is really my message to my Conservative colleagues: More Canadians will benefit, more artists will benefit and more Canadian creation will happen as a result, which means more jobs in Canada.

I hope Conservatives will stand with every other member of Parliament here who understands that Bill C-11 essentially opens the door to more Canadians. It would ensure that all that money being vacuumed out of this country right now by big tech will actually be put back in to create jobs here in Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, I never refer to any member in the House in a derogatory way, but I do criticize their comments. They were wacky comments and Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for making those comments in this place without having read the legislation. All members are honourable. I never criticize Conservatives personally, but their comments have been beyond belief. They are wacky and Conservatives should retract them if they do not want me to call their comments “wacky”. Making a connection between Bill C-11 and the despicable, totalitarian government in North Korea that is killing its citizens is unbelievably wacky and crazy. Conservatives, instead of standing up on points of order trying to shut down my freedom to criticize their comments, should be standing up and apologizing to this House for having made the comments in the first place.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C‑11, which, of course, the NDP supports.

Sending the bill back to the Senate seems quite logical to us. Indeed, the Senate's motion is just common sense. The vast majority of amendments proposed by the Senate have been accepted, while some unnecessary or unamenable amendments to Bill C‑11 were rejected. It seems to me, then, that the Senate, in good faith, should look at what we are passing as parliamentarians and then ensure the passage of Bill C‑11.

What is the point of Bill C‑11? As everyone has said, this is a necessary bill. We saw our artists' incomes collapse, particularly prior to the pandemic, but even more so after it. We saw resources available to our artists collapse. At the same time, we saw the alarming increase in big tech profits. There needs to be a balance. As my colleagues from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Drummond just said, big tech must contribute to Canadian culture.

We did not just agree to Bill C‑11 blindly. The NDP made more amendments than any other party. We ensured freedom of speech and transparency. The amendments that the NDP moved in committee were adopted in the House of Commons. We ensured that indigenous peoples would receive their fair share.

When we look at the Broadcasting Act, it is very clear that indigenous peoples have been left out for years. Now they need to be at the very centre of this cultural renaissance. By making these amendments, the NDP has ensured that indigenous peoples will be able to benefit from the resources that large foreign tech companies will finally pour into Canadian culture and Canadian artists. Racialized Canadians also benefited from the NDP's amendments. All of these things were intended to improve Bill C-11.

We are happy that the Bill C‑11 that we worked on in committee and that passed third reading in the House is a marked improvement over the bill that was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Do we need Bill C‑11? Yes, we do. We are all aware of what our artists have been going through for years, especially since the pandemic began. Therefore, it is important that we put policies in place to ensure that the people who benefited the most during the pandemic are at least forced to contribute a little bit.

We will be supporting Bill C-11, like so many of the artist groups across the country. As I mentioned, the NDP brought a wide range of amendments, more than any other party, and succeeded in getting them adopted at committee and in having those same amendments adopted by the House of Commons. That is our role.

People often call NDP members the worker bees of Parliament, and we are proud of that. We are there working hard to get legislation improved. The need for Bill C-11 is very clear when we see how artists and creators across the country have seen their income collapse, and there is no other way to put it. This has happened particularly since the pandemic, but it was a trend we were seeing prior to the pandemic as well.

The companies, such as the big technology companies and the foreign technology companies, the giants that have benefited over the course of the last few years, have not contributed to Canadian culture in any way. We saw the need for Bill C-11. We saw the need to improve Bill C-11, and we brought forward amendments that were very important for indigenous peoples to finally be recognized in the Broadcasting Act in a way that artists and creators in indigenous communities could actually benefit from, as well as racialized Canadians. This included increasing the transparency of Bill C-11 and ensuring freedom of expression at all times.

Those are all the amendments the NDP brought forward and successfully passed at committee and in the House. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are very excited about this. I can see it on your face, that the NDP amendments made a real difference in how you perceive the bill as well. This is why I am so surprised and disappointed by the reaction from the Conservative Party.

This should not be surprising. Although, Mr. Speaker, you look young, I know you are a student of history and will recall, looking back to the 1970s, that Conservative MPs at that time sided with the massive American music industry and music giants, which were basically starving Canadian artists. There were no Canadian content rules, encouragement or policies, so the American music giants dumped whatever they wanted into the Canadian market. The reason why parliamentarians at that time, despite the opposition of the Conservatives, adopted putting into place these Canadian content rules was to ensure that Canadians could thrive in our cultural industries. They were being shut out. What we did, as a nation, was ensure that the door was open to Canadian content creators. What happened, as members know, was an unbelievable revolution of Canadian content right around the world.

I could literally filibuster this House for hours naming all the artists who have benefited from those Canadian content regulations. We can name any artist, singer or band in Canada. We had put in place a requirement that the American music giants had to consider Canadian content and that Canadian stations, often owned abroad, had to broadcast Canadian content. As a result, we saw the incredible talent of Canadian artists and creators and the unbelievable ability of Canadians to contribute. This was something that was opposed by the Conservatives. Quite frankly, they were wrong at that time, and they are wrong again now.

Some of their comments have been absolutely over the top. Bill C-11 would ensure that our creators get some of the massive pie that big tech makes in Canada and sucks out of the country like a vacuum hose, often without paying taxes, as members well know. Now we are saying they have to put some money back into the country. Instead of saying that this makes sense, the Conservatives are on this wacky tangent that is unbelievable. We have had Conservative members in the House stand up and say that Bill C-11 would mean that people can actually be followed by the government on their cell phones. It is unbelievable. Obviously, they did not read Bill C-11, but they stood up and made comments about it.

Where I come from, New Westminster—Burnaby, people expect me to actually read and know the legislation before I stand up and speak to it, and I know it is the same where you come from, Mr. Speaker. That is my humble advice to the Conservative members who are speaking to the bill, which includes the leader of the Conservative Party, to read the legislation first before they speak to it.

We have also had Conservatives stand up and compare Bill C-11 to North Korea. What is happening in North Korea is devastating. A totalitarian government has imprisoned its population and subjected it to forced starvation—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his very fine speech. I really enjoy working with him at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The Conservatives told the House that Bill C‑11 would allow the government to track individuals on their cellphones. They also compared the bill to what is being done in North Korea. The last time I checked, North Korea had concentration camps, a terrible famine caused by the government, and executions of political opponents. The Conservatives are making all these claims, but when I look at Bill C‑11, I do not see any reference to those things.

I would like to ask my colleague from Drummond if he sees what normal people see in the bill, or if he sees the things that the Conservatives see.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his great question.

I will even add that, once Bill C-11 is passed and the reform of the Broadcasting Act is implemented, it will enable certain TV and radio broadcasters with very specific missions that serve under-represented communities to survive and blossom.

As for my colleague's question about the Conservatives' stand, yesterday, I was very perplexed by the speech given by one of my Conservative colleagues, in which she talked about how much she loves artists in general, but especially digital artists. I am very perplexed that the Conservatives moved an amendment to do away with the bill, rather than trying to improve it. I think that says it all.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was once again excellent.

I think that we need to come back to a basic understanding of what Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, is all about. For years, cable companies like Rogers, Videotron and Bell have contributed to Quebec and Canadian cultural production. Meanwhile, digital broadcasters, the web giants, have been paying absolutely nothing. It is as though they have been getting a tax holiday for decades.

Aside from protecting the French language, there are very few things that are more important to Quebec's identity and culture than our television and film production, our songs and music, which tell our stories and show who we are.

What does my colleague think of the Conservatives' stand on support for Quebec artists and creators when they oppose Bill C‑11?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I think there are a lot of things that are going to have to be uncovered as the act is implemented. I also think this legislation will open the door to more creation, and that includes new types of creation as well. I think digital creators are going to benefit in the long run.

I want to tell the digital creators who have expressed concerns to us about Bill C-11 to wait and see what happens when the law is implemented. We will make adjustments if necessary. I am confident that it will be fine, but if they still have concerns after these changes to the Broadcasting Act are in place, we will always be there to represent them and make the necessary adjustments.

In fact, the Bloc got sunset clauses added to Bill C‑11, which means that the act will be reviewed every five years. That will ensure that we do not spend another 30 years with problems building up, as was the case with the last version of the act. Every five years, we will be able to do a review and correct the things that need to be corrected.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, when I heard the comments made by my colleague from Lethbridge suggesting that the artists would not benefit from the reform of the Broadcasting Act, I made a few phone calls. I contacted a few of my artist friends to ensure that the bill would benefit the cultural associations and businesses and not just the broadcasters. They all told me that artists and creators have been awaiting the bill just as eagerly as cultural businesses have.

In all humility, I have to say that I am not the most artistic member of the Bloc caucus. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Caroline Desbiens, had a brilliant career in television and theatre. There is also the extraordinary artist we call “La Marsouine”, the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. She is a songwriter whose work is well known among the international Francophonie. There are people in the Bloc Québécois caucus who know what they are talking about.

We were inspired by these people and we fought for this bill on behalf of our colleagues who were themselves part of the arts scene. They can tell us how regulating the broadcasting sector benefits our artists.

Here we find ourselves at another stage of Bill C-11. This may be the last step; we hope it is. As we have seen, our Conservative colleagues are once again trying to kill this bill.

After finding some particularly creative ways to delay its study in committee, yesterday they even brought forward an amendment to completely gut the bill. All this after accusing the Bloc Québécois of failing to stand up for the demands of the Quebec National Assembly.

Let us talk about the demands of the Quebec National Assembly. I found it quite rich to hear the Conservatives say that the National Assembly opposed the passage of Bill C-11 as is when, in June 2022, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution that stated the following:

Whereas the federal government is under pressure from multiple sources to ensure social media is not subject to Bill C-11, while many companies commercially stream musical and audiovisual content;

THAT the National Assembly recall that Québec’s cultural production and its uniqueness are strongly disadvantaged by the lack of regulation of online streaming platforms and social media;

THAT it affirm that it is essential that all online streaming platforms, including social media, be subject to federal and provincial laws, such as C-11, so that all digital broadcasters, whether Canadian or foreign, contribute to the creation, production, broadcasting, promotion and discoverability of Québec content;

I will spare members a reading of the full text of the resolution. It concludes as follows:

THAT, lastly, it urge the federal government to include social media governance in Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act.

Obviously, that does not align with the Conservative position.

I want to talk about Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications, Mathieu Lacombe, who did a bunch of interviews recently, answering journalists' questions about the mandate he took on last fall. When asked, “Should streaming platforms be forced to highlight homegrown content?”, he instantly replied “Yes, this is about Quebec's distinct culture”. Speaking to various media outlets, Minister Lacombe emphasized the importance of discoverability for francophone content from Quebec, meaning how easy it should be to access homegrown content on major digital platforms like Netflix and Spotify, for example. That is what Minister Lacombe said. The National Assembly is hoping for a speedy passage of Bill C‑11.

Certainly, Quebec had demands, legitimate demands, such as being consulted on regulations that will impact broadcasting in Quebec and Quebec culture. The unanimous National Assembly motion that set tongues wagging recently reads as follows:

THAT the National Assembly acknowledge that the federal government could soon pass Bill C‑11, which aims to amend the Broadcasting Act;

THAT it underline that this bill does not recognize the application of Québec laws regarding the status of artists;

THAT it recognize that this bill, as it is currently written, grants Québec no rights of inspection on the directions that will be given to the CRTC, and that those directions will have a significant impact on Québec’s cultural community;

THAT it remind the federal government that Québec’s linguistic specificity must be respected;

THAT it highlight for the federal government that as a nation, it is up to Québec to define its cultural orientations;

THAT it demand that Québec be officially consulted on the directions that will be given to the CRTC regarding the bill and that, for this purpose, a formal mechanism be added to the bill;

THAT it affirm that Québec will continue to apply, in its areas of jurisdiction, the laws democratically passed by the National Assembly;

THAT, lastly, the National Assembly inform the federal government that Québec will use all the tools at its disposal to continue protecting its language, culture and identity.

The minister has the means and the tools needed to respond to these demands from Quebec. The real question is whether he will do the right thing through ministerial directives to the CRTC. We will see over the next few days, but I really hope he does. We in the Bloc Québécois will continue to properly and faithfully stand up for Quebec's demands to ensure the protection of its culture and broadcasting sector.

Recently, my colleagues and I have all been getting a rather impressive number of emails from people who are opposed to Bill C-11. Oddly enough, they are not well-crafted emails written by an organization representative like the ones we received in previous weeks and months. They are very short emails that are more focused on the issue of censorship and control over what Quebeckers and Canadians will be able to watch online once Bill C-11 is passed.

I have no qualms about saying that this is blatant misinformation. However, I want to talk about it a little and explain to the millions of Quebeckers and Canadians who are watching right now what these scare tactics are all about. The word “censorship” is one that has been coming up a lot. People are talking about a law that is going to censor Quebeckers and Canadians and undermine their freedom of speech.

If we stop for a second and think about this, we realize that a person would have to be totally disingenuous or a complete conspiracy theorist to believe that, here in Canada, in our current system, a government could impose censorship with impunity like they do in totalitarian states. Feeding that fear is an act of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty. I am not sure that that is very healthy. It may be politically advantageous, but that is another issue.

People wrote to us with concerns about the control the government will have over what we can see online and what it wants to ban from being seen online.

Bill C‑11 does not say that the government will be able to force people to binge Les filles de Caleb on the weekend. Bill C‑11 seeks to have content produced by creators from here, to showcase stories from here, that our culture and the talent of our creators have their place on streaming platforms. No one is saying that people have the right to watch or not watch this or that. No one is preventing any content from being streamed.

I have lost track of how many times I have heard about the manipulation of algorithms. Web giants talked about it at committee meetings. It was like we were asking those companies for the recipe to build a nuclear bomb. It was a bit excessive. I do not think that anyone at the CRTC is going to tell Spotify to open its code so they can mess with it. That is just silly.

However, we need to give the CRTC the latitude and the tools it needs to ensure that the objectives are met.

Traditional radio used what were known as logger tapes. For younger folks, such as the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, these were reels that turned at very slow speed and recorded 24‑7. It was easy because radio programming was a continuous broadcast on a single frequency. Obviously, the same mechanism cannot be used with online platforms. However, it is important that the regulator responsible for verifying that the objectives are being met actually has the means to verify that they are, in fact, being met. Algorithm manipulation should therefore not be permitted. It is essential to keep the door open to allow future verifications, if this is how verifications must be done.

Then, there is the age-old issue of infringement on freedom of expression. I do not understand how anyone could believe that we could pass laws that literally infringe on freedom of expression. For some, any attempt to address disinformation and ensure that people have access to reliable, verified information amounts to an infringement on freedom of expression. We are certainly going to hear about it at length when we debate Bill C-18, but freedom of expression will not be violated by Bill C-11. In any case, a law passed by the government that would infringe on freedom of expression obviously would not stand up in court and would be quashed very quickly.

I do not see a problem with imposing discoverability obligations, obligations to promote Quebec, Canadian, French-language and indigenous content, and to showcase the distinct nature of the Quebec nation and of Canada on the online platforms of digital giants. I came up with what I thought was a useful analogy. For those opposed to regulating GAFAM, the major online broadcasting companies, I will present the following analogy.

Imagine if, instead of offering cultural content, these businesses were serving food. Would there be any objection to these food service companies being subject to the same health regulations that traditional restaurants are? I doubt it. I doubt there would be any objection if the rules set by MAPAQ, Quebec's department of agriculture, fisheries and food, which apply to restaurants, were also applied to any business that serves food. Even though we talk about a free market on the Internet, there are limits that must be applied there as well. I thought that was an interesting analogy for illustrating the importance or relevance of regulating online businesses as well.

I do not want to spend all day debating this. We have debated it extensively, and we are at the stage where we want to come to an agreement as quickly as possible and return this bill to the Senate so that it ultimately gets approval. Then we can move on to the much-anticipated implementation stage of this bill, which is eagerly awaited by the entire cultural community and by broadcasters. However, I am going to move an amendment in closing. It is an amendment to the amendment moved yesterday by the member for Lethbridge.

My amendment to the amendment is as follows: that the amendment by the member for Lethbridge be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that”; the motion be amended by adding to the last paragraph “further calls on the government to establish a process for consultation with the Quebec government so that Quebec's specificity and the unique reality of the francophone market are adequately considered by the CRTC” and recalls that the federal Status of the Artist Act respects Quebec's jurisdiction and is consistent with Quebec legislation on the status of the artist.

The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague from Lethbridge make very glowing comments on culture and artists in general. I think she may have wanted to clarify that she was talking about digital artists, digital-first creators, because they really are the ones my colleague defended throughout the work on Bill C‑11.

I just wanted to know if her sudden affection for culture and artists extended to Quebec artists and francophone artists. I wanted to know if she stands by what she said in spring 2021 when she gave an interview to a local paper in Lethbridge.

She said that the bill in question addressed a very niche group of artists who are stuck in the early 1990s because they have not managed to be competitive on new platforms. According to her, they produce content that Canadians simply do not want. She went on to say that this group of artists comes primarily from Quebec and that they are incapable of living from what they create and are therefore calling for government subsidies. She also said that these artists were outdated.

I just wanted to know whether my colleague from Lethbridge stands by what she said in that interview at the time.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, perhaps it is a bit about control.

Let me talk a bit more about this. This $5 billion that was invested accounted for more than half of all production in this country and 90% of the growth this sector enjoyed over the last decade. That is significant. We are talking about an association, Motion Picture Association Canada, which hired, trained and provided opportunities for more than 200,000 Canadians, who are incredibly talented in the world of creativity. It supported more than 47,000 businesses. These numbers come from 2021 alone. That is a tremendous investment in telling Canadian stories, furthering Canadian culture and celebrating what is possible right here on home turf.

In fact, this is far greater than traditional broadcasters have proven capable of, so perhaps a little truth telling could go a long way and we could take delight in the tremendous success being achieved within our cultural sector.

We have to ask then, given this incredible investment, do we really have a problem? Do we really need this legislation? Is it true investments are not being made into Canada's production industry or that somehow culture is at risk? No. On the contrary, the sector is alive and well. It is simply the gatekeepers, the traditional broadcasters and the unions, do not control the outcome anymore.

Furthermore, this bill is based on the false notion that Canadian content cannot thrive without government intervention. As I have outlined, these production companies are hiring based on merit and their films are succeeding based on consumer demand. Do we really need the government then stepping in and mandating what percentage of content needs to be Canadian, as if the government were to not do that somehow Canadian content would not thrive? A $5-billion investment tells me Canadian content seems to be alive and well.

The problem is that a great deal of truly Canadian content does not meet the government's imposed definition of what it calls “CanCon”. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, for example, is written by a famous Canadian author, is being filmed on Canadian soil, it stars Canadian actors and it employs Canadian producers, but it fails to meet the government's definition of CanCon.

It would be kind of funny, a bit humorous, to realize all that, except that it is incredibly damning to our cultural industry, which takes the humour out of the definition altogether and makes it antiquated and destructive.

Traditional broadcasters are forced to show a certain percentage of CanCon, and they feel stifled by this. Now the Liberals want streaming platforms and new media creators to come under the same rules, to wear the same shackles. Perhaps the government should consider taking the extra regulation off the traditional broadcasters instead of putting those same handcuffs on new media platforms. Perhaps instead of taking us back and maintaining the status quo, we should be looking forward toward a great, vibrant, creative, free future.

Make no mistake. This bill is not about supporting Canadian culture and Canadian artists. It is about protecting big broadcasters and the interests of the government.

Everything I have talked about up to this point is significant, but what makes this perhaps the most egregious piece of Liberal legislation is the fact that it does not just go after large streaming platforms or regulate traditional artists working with the support of a big union or a guild, but it actually extends to user-generated content. In other words, it is about the things that normal, everyday, average Canadians would post online, or ordinary content. Aunty Betty's cat video would be captured by this legislation. Now the government will implore the CRTC to weigh all of this material according to this definition of Canadianness, and that content will either be allowed to stand online or be moved to page 900.

It sounds like a big job. I do not know exactly how the Liberals are going to roll that out, but they seem to be very committed to it. Why do I say they are very committed to it? Well, it is because they had an opportunity to make sure user-generated content was not captured by the bill. They had an opportunity to ensure the bill really was just about the largest streaming platforms.

The Senate made an amendment. In fact, even before the bill got to the Senate, the House of Commons offered the same amendment. The government rejected the amendment here, and then the Senate, after wisely giving this legislation a sober second thought and listening to witnesses, made the same amendment to make sure that user-generated content, ordinary content, was not captured by the bill. What we have learned today is that the government is not accepting that amendment, which is very telling. It tells us that the bill is far more about the government controlling what we can see, hear and post online than it is about anything else. If it were not, then why not accept the amendment?

The bill is about censoring Canadians, all Canadians. The bill would stagnate the progress that is being achieved by modern creators such as the woman who goes by Aunty Skates. She is a South Asian woman based in Toronto. She is in her forties and learning how to skateboard. She decided, in the midst of the pandemic, to start creating videos and bringing people in on her adventure, and she is going viral. The bill would stagnate that.

The bill would also go after homegrown comedian Darcy Michael. He proclaims himself to be a pot-smoking gay man. He talks about how he was turned away from traditional broadcasters, and now he is enjoying tremendous success on YouTube. The bill would target him.

Instead of modernizing the Broadcasting Act in a meaningful way to address the complexities of the digital world, this legislation would simply target the next generation of creators, the next generation of artists and the next generation that thinks outside the box and beyond the gatekeepers. This legislation would pull them back from the future and put them in the past.

This legislation would make sure that these individuals are again put under a regulator, a gatekeeper, that would determine whether their content is sufficiently Canadian to be discoverable or it has to be buried. That is shameful. In short, this legislation is about protecting the status quo rather than allowing progress.

The Senate committee heard from many witnesses with regard to this bill: creators themselves, subject matter experts and legal experts. The thing that was said loud and clear was that a step back needed to be taken and that the content created by individuals needed to be respected, that it needed to be left alone. The government has made it clear at every turn that it does not wish to make that change.

It is scary, and today we are seeing that. We are seeing creators across this country speaking out against this bill. We have seen it for months. Today, knowing that the nail is potentially in the coffin, they are all that much louder. They are concerned about their future.

The truth is that it is not just creators who are concerned, but all Canadians. All Canadians are concerned because at the end of the day, they want to be able to watch what they want to watch. We like on-demand services for a reason. Traditional broadcasters are phasing out for a reason. It is because they take choice out of the equation and Canadians like choice. Canadians are very concerned about the censorship that this bill brings in.

The government says that it wants to remove barriers for under-represented artists. That seems noble. Unfortunately, again, that is not true. That is not what this bill does.

This was made abundantly clear in the Senate. The committee heard from BIPOC and indigenous creators, as well as francophone creators, who all said that this bill would hold them back, that it would stifle the success that they enjoy. They talked about the tremendous success they are currently able to achieve based on their own merit in the barrier-free world known as the Internet. As my colleague from the Senate, Senator Leo Housakos, said so well, “What Bill C-11 does is put limits and barriers back in place and perpetuates a system of picking winners and losers by dictating, based on factors other than individual user preference and choices, what Canadians should post and what Canadians will see.”

At the end of the day, creators do not want this bill because it would hold them back. Viewers do not want this bill because it would control what they have access to online. Creators wish to succeed based on their own creativity and ability, and they are doing so phenomenally well. Most Canadian creators enjoy an audience that is 90% outside of Canada. In other words, they are reaching the world. Is that not celebration-worthy? Furthermore, it has been stated by experts that this bill is so much about censorship and control that it actually likens us to places like China, North Korea and Russia, which Canadians are rightly concerned about.

Canadians want to be able to go online and access the material they wish to access. If they wish to go on YouTube and be given the stuff they want to watch, they can do that right now. They appreciate being able to do that right now, but unfortunately, under Bill C-11, they would be given more of what the government wants them to watch, not more of what they want to watch. Does it not seem dangerous to members that we would be so regressive as a nation that under the government we would succumb to being like North Korea, China and Russia?

On behalf of Canada's amazing creators who have achieved tremendous success, based on their merit, on new media platforms, or who seek to do so, and on behalf of Canadians who value the freedom to choose what they watch and listen to online, I move the following motion. In response to the government's motion, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the first word “That” and substituting the following: “the order for the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn”.

Kill Bill C-11.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-11 is a piece of legislation that would impact every single Canadian who has a cellphone, a television or a computer in their home and who enjoys online streaming, viewing or listening to content that is online. That is how big this legislation is. That is how dramatic its impact would be. Permit me to provide an overview of what this legislation does, and then I will dive into the intricacies of the bill and hopefully explain why Canadians would be so impacted by it.

I am going to speak to Canadians. After all, the House is theirs and theirs alone.

Through this piece of legislation, the government is about to give itself the authority to control what Canadians have access to listen to online or to watch online. For example, instead of giving a viewer more of what they want on a platform such as YouTube, things would be ranked in a way that YouTube would be forced by the government to put things in front of us according to its definition of priority. It says it would be in accordance with how Canadian the content is. I will dive into that shortly.

YouTube would be forced to give more of what the government wants us to see, rather than more of what Canadians wish to see. This is problematic, because Canadians go online to access the things they are most passionate about or most interested in. They do not go online to have things pushed at them by the government. The government claims that the bill is about “supporting Canadian culture”. It says that it is about “levelling the playing field”. It is just not true.

Bill C-11 amends the Broadcasting Act by bringing the Internet under its provisions. In the early 20th century, the act was originally put in place to regulate TV and radio. It has gone through myriad iterations since then, but its result has always remained the same. It wants to ensure that Canada's two official languages are both respected by being given airtime and that cultural diversity is upheld. Those are noble goals. This was necessary because the number of TV and radio stations were limited. This finite resource needed to be managed. It needed to be overseen in order to ensure that the platforms were shared.

Unlike these two mediums, the Internet is boundless. In other words, anyone who wants to have a presence on the Internet can have one. The government does not need to regulate which content should be given priority and which content should be demoted, because there is space for all. The success of one individual or one creator online does not take away from the success of another. Everyone can achieve success.

If there was ever a level playing field, the Internet is it. Anyone who wants a website can set up a website. Anyone who wants a channel on YouTube can set one up. Anyone who wants to set up a TikTok account can have one. People have access to platforms within the online world that is boundless. It is quite incredible.

It could be argued that it has never been easier for Canadian content creators from all linguistic and cultural backgrounds to reach a global audience with the content they wish to showcase. If they wish to set up a YouTube channel, to set up a TikTok account or to be on Twitter, they can. The traditional gatekeepers have been removed.

Creators used to have to put together media package. Basically, it was like a portfolio of sorts that showed off their skill, their talent, their ability and what they wanted to produce. They would then walk it over to CBC, to Bell Media, to Rogers or to Corus Entertainment, and would have to beg them to accept their package and to put them on the air. If one or all of these gatekeepers said no, then they were out of luck. They do not deal with that anymore. Now creators can succeed based on their own merit, rather than based on what these gatekeepers desire for them.

Today's creators do not function according to the same rules as in previous generations. That is part of what is so difficult for some to accept. We exist in a new space and we have new ideals, freedom and choice being two of them.

For the minister to say that this bill would somehow modernize the Broadcasting Act and provide support to artists is actually incredibly disingenuous. The minister fails to account for progress. Instead of meeting artists where they are at, and celebrating the tremendous success that they enjoy within the realm of freedom, the government is actually wanting to pull them back under an antiquated system where their content would be weighed and measured and creators would be made into winners or losers, based on what the government wants rather than what Canadians want.

I wish for Canadians to know that this bill would impact them in two damning ways: One, it would censor what they see; and two, it would censor what they say. With regard to what they see, if the Canadian government determines what gets promoted and what gets demoted, then that means only certain content is made available to me as the viewer. In other words, it is censorship.

Furthermore, this bill would censor what an individual can say or post online. Homegrown talent and creative content here in Canada would no longer succeed based on merit, as they do now. Instead, as mentioned, content would be subject to a list of criteria and we do not actually know what that is because the government will not be transparent about it. Through that, the government would direct that these criteria have to be weighed and measured to see if they are met by the artist, and then if they are, it would be deemed Canadian and if they are not, then it would not be. If it is Canadian, it would be discoverable. In other words, it would be bumped up toward the top of our screen. However, if it is not made discoverable, it would get bumped down to maybe page 400, 500 or 600 where nobody looks. This bill is censorship. Not only would it censor what we can see as viewers, but it would also censor what can be posted online by creators and individual users.

Content creators from across Canada, along with consumer groups, have been speaking out about this bill. They are calling it dangerous. Legal experts have called it a grotesque overreach of government. When speaking about this bill, Margaret Atwood, a fabulous Canadian author who is very famous here, did not mince her words when she called it “creeping totalitarianism”.

I want to take a step back and say that there are two things that we can agree on. One, the Broadcasting Act should be updated; that is not what this bill would do. This bill would actually make the Broadcasting Act incredibly regressive, but anyway it should be updated. Two, Canada has a rich and beautiful culture and amazing artists; homegrown talent that absolutely we should look for a myriad of ways to promote and celebrate. How we do these things is where the disagreement comes into play. While the government claims that Bill C-11 is the best way forward, we would disagree. The best way forward is actually a path that preserves individual choice and opens doors to boundless opportunity. This bill would fail to do that.

It might serve us well to just take a pause and step back and figure out where this bill came from. This bill started out as Bill C-10 in 2020 and it has gone through a number of iterations since that time. However, one thing remains true about it: It is still a terrible piece of legislation. It is a terrible piece of legislation that would hinder what Canadians can see online and what they can post online. To put it simply, it would give the government control of our search bars. We think we are searching for one thing and that we will be directed in that way and in actuality, instead, based on algorithms that would be dictated by the government, we are actually sent to something different. That is what this bill would do.

What brought us here? What brought us to this bill's being put in place? There are two groups that are involved in that: the broadcasters and the traditional art unions or guilds. For the broadcasters, we have CBC, Bell and Corus media and they contribute a certain percentage to an art fund. A certain percentage of their revenue goes into that fund and then traditional artists are able to apply for some of that funding and use it for their projects.

Traditional broadcasters, of course, are less and less popular and are contributing fewer and fewer dollars, but they feel penalized by this, so they have gone knocking on the door of the government, saying they should not be the only ones contributing to the art fund, that the government should capture the large streamers as well. Further to that, these broadcasters have to show a certain percentage of their content as CanCon. CanCon does not always sell to their audiences all that well and so, to some extent, broadcasters feel hindered by this obligation. Again, they are watching as streaming platforms are not subject to this rule, so they have gone knocking on the government's door, saying it should really impose this rule on streamers as well.

Many artists are absolutely fabulous and should be celebrated and promoted. There are those traditional artists who belong to a union. They are not at fault, but the union bosses have knocked on the door of the government, saying because the revenues for traditional broadcasters are drying up, there is not as much money going into the art fund, they do not have as much available for their production of traditional art and, therefore, they want more money to be found somewhere, some way. The government then has said it could make the streamers responsible for contributing to the art fund, and so it is.

At the end of the day, Bill C-11 is all about maintaining status quo. It is about protecting the interests of large broadcasters. The government claims, however, that it is about forcing large streaming platforms, such as Netflix and Disney, to pay into a fund that supports Canadian artists and that it is about protecting Canadian culture or levelling the playing field.

If the implication of the bill stopped there, the reality is that would be bad enough, but it actually goes even further. It goes so far as to include user-generated content, the content of ordinary Canadians and the stuff that they put on platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, YouTube or Instagram. It does not stop at large foreign streamers. It absolutely captures individuals, Canadians. In fact, the former chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, made this very clear at committee, not only in the House of Commons but then further at the Senate.

I will talk about this point more in just a moment, but I wish first to comment on the false foundation on which this bill is founded. First, this bill is based on the deceptive notion that Canadian content creators or artists cannot make it on their own merit. How degrading. This bill is based on the premise that they need government to step in and help them, but they are saying otherwise. This bill is based on the lie that the government needs to step in and also make sure that Canadian content is put in front of our eyeballs because, otherwise, we would not choose it. Again, how degrading can one be to Canadian artists and their ability to produce great content?

The fact of the matter is these things are not true, and I would like to explain my reasoning. The heritage minister has claimed that this bill would capture $1 billion from large streaming platforms. That is the amount that it would bring in, and that is meant to help further Canadian culture by helping to support these traditional artists. According to the government, it is forcing large streaming platforms to pay their fair share. At first blush, that might sound reasonable, but that is not actually what is happening here.

The government says that this money will save Canadian culture, but who says that Canadian culture actually needs saving? Who says that it is so fragile that it will fall apart without government intervention? Aside from all that, is Canadian culture not based on what Canadians determine it to be? The reality is the notion that large streaming platforms are not paying their fair share is a myth.

Investment in Canadian productions that would further our culture and tell our stories is not drying up, as the Liberals would like us to believe. On the contrary, huge investments are being made. It is just no longer being done through traditional broadcasters and the unions are not controlling it.

According to Wendy Noss of the Motion Picture Association Canada, who testified at the Senate committee, it spent more than $5 billion across this country in 2021 alone. The government is saying it is going to get $1 billion because of this legislation. This is one association and it is putting $5 billion per year into this country, so one cannot tell me or Canadians that somehow investment in homegrown talent is drying up. It is just not true.

If the money is being invested in talent, what is this bill really about?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague has said that the Conservatives are taking the side of tech giants. However, there are legal experts, as well as other experts in the field, including former CRTC commissioners, who have serious concerns with Bill C-11. Who is really misleading Canadians? Is it that member of Parliament, those legal experts or the former CRTC commissioners?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to catch up here, as we are, looking at the government's response to changes made to Bill C-11 in the Senate. However, I am going through this carefully, and it seems there are a couple of places where the government has rejected an amendment that came from the Senate, because as suggested here, it is beyond the scope of the bill.

My experience is, in cases where the government thinks it is beyond the scope of the bill, that an objection would be put before a clause-by-clause process in the other place, and that would usually stop it from going forward. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary could explain how this is, and explain whether the government would reconsider if these amendments are truly beyond the scope or if it has any discretion to accept these amendments at this point.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his speech. I also want to thank him for the very collaborative work we are doing at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We went through some tough times, battled some strong headwinds during our study of Bill C‑11. I congratulate him on his hard work.

Obviously, when we are working on a bill as important as Bill C‑11, which will have a huge impact on Quebec's and Canada's broadcasting systems and cultural industries, all kinds of stakeholders want to have their say at various stages of the process. Just recently, the Government of Quebec spoke up to say that it has a few demands. There are things that are important to the Government of Quebec. I believe the parliamentary secretary is aware of some of those demands.

I would like to know if the order the minister issues to the CRTC will address the demands laid out by the Government of Quebec.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments on Hon. Marc Garneau's retirement.

I was fortunate to serve as his parliamentary secretary when he was the minister of transport. It is funny, when I was appointed someone came to me and said, “Hey, you know, there are a pile of schools in this country already named after Marc Garneau.” It is unusual in this place to meet someone with such incredible history, such incredible service, who has already had schools named after him and had already been appointed to the Order of Canada before coming to this place. He engaged in a lifetime of service through the navy, as an astronaut through the Canadian Space Agency and in this place for 14 years. As was mentioned by many speakers, his absence will be felt significantly.

However, we are here today for Bill C-11, and this bill has had a long journey. In one form or another, we have been debating this bill since the fall of 2020. We have kept working hard and we never give up, because we know how important this legislation is.

Our goal has never changed. From the start, it has always been about making sure Canadian stories and music are available to Canadians. It is as simple as that. The stories and music are the beating heart of our culture, a culture we have always supported and promoted. We are not reinventing the wheel here. We would only be updating our laws to clarify that digital services and platforms have obligations to support our cultural sector.

It is kind of amazing that we would look to Canadian companies like Bell or Rogers and say that of course they have to support Canadian culture. However, some in this place would say that foreign tech giants have no such obligations.

We had an opportunity during the committee meeting to hear from Gord Sinclair of The Tragically Hip. He talked about how the Broadcasting Act helped his band, The Tragically Hip, which comes from a small town in eastern Ontario, to become well known and respected across the country. He spoke in support of the legislation so that there could be more Tragically Hips in the future.

The Broadcasting Act has helped Canadian culture to flourish and grow for more than 50 years. I mentioned The Tragically Hip, but we can think of all the bands and musicians we love, as well as the Canadian TV shows and films that have entertained us and found audiences all over the world, thanks, in part, to the Broadcasting Act. We want to ensure that the success continues to serve Canadians well, now and into the future.

So much about how we produce, engage with and access digital content has changed with the increasing dominance of digital broadcasting. We must act to ensure that Canadian artists, storytellers and Canadian culture do not get left behind. We must act to ensure that all voices have a chance to be heard and to ensure that Canadian culture reflects the realities of our diversity.

We know how important it is to get this right. That is why, from the start, our efforts to modernize the Broadcasting Act have been a collaborative effort. We have worked with and heard from Canadians to find the right solutions. We have held public consultations; heard from key stakeholders in the industry; listened to the ideas and concerns of artists, content creators and everyday Canadians; and worked across the aisle with members of all parties to help shape this bill.

Now, as we know, only one party in Parliament has decided that it knows better than Canadian artists, creators, producers and all the workers in our cultural sector. Conservatives, unfortunately, really went out of their way to protect the interests of web giants, just like they did during the committee study of Bill C-18. When Facebook came to testify, we saw Conservatives stand and act as the PR reps for the tech giants. They did not need to hire lobbyists, since they had, for free, Conservatives standing up and supporting them. I have to tip my hat because the Conservatives were pretty good at it.

They spent hours filibustering. The Conservatives filibustered when the minister was supposed to appear at committee. They filibustered when the CRTC commissioner was supposed to appear at committee after having demanded that the CRTC commissioner appear. They filibustered during clause by clause. They even filibustered their own motions. These committees do not need lobbyists representing them. As I said, they have the Conservative Party of Canada lobbying for them.

I hear an hon. member on the other side heckling because I know he is so upset at his party for acting for companies like Meta and Google. It is the only conservative party in the world that stands with tech giant. The Republicans in the United States and conservatives in Australia or Europe do not. In those countries, political parties are united for their citizens against tech giants.

It is unfortunate that Conservatives here cannot see past partisanship and that they stand with Facebook, Google and TikTok. Shockingly enough, time after time at committee, we heard Conservative members stand and defend TikTok, defend their lobbyists, and stand with and deliver their talking points as if they were coming straight from lobbyists from TikTok. These companies do not need lobbyists; they have the Conservative Party.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge a collaborative effort by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. I want to thank everyone who made a contribution to the long development of Bill C-11. They have helped make this bill stronger and better, and they have done a great service for Canadians. I particularly want to thank our colleagues in the other place for their careful study of Bill C-11 and the amendments they proposed for consideration.

I am pleased to say that the government is fully supporting 18 of the 26 amendments brought about in the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-11. We are also accepting another two amendments with modifications. This is another testament to the truly collaborative work that has gone on.

I think it is important to highlight many of the things we can all agree on when it comes to Bill C-11 and the many ways we have all worked together to make it a better bill. In the spirit of collaboration, we should make it easier to support this motion.

I would like to turn to addressing the proposed amendments. As I said, the government has agreed to adopt 18 of them. There are only eight amendments the government respectfully disagrees with or proposes changes to. Let me take some time to explain the government's position on each of these amendments.

To begin with, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendment to the definition of a “community element”. This amendment does not refer to the broadcasting undertakings that make up the broadcasting system, and may cause interpretive issues in the application of the act.

The government also respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendments to compel online undertakings to implement methods, such as age verification, to prevent children from accessing explicit sexual material.

While we understand the importance of this issue and have forthcoming legislation on it, which I hope will address it, we oppose this amendment for the simple reason that it seeks to legislate matters in the broadcasting system that are beyond the policy intent of the bill.

To reiterate what I said from the start, our purpose with Bill C-11 is to include online services and platforms, and broadcasting systems. This amendment falls outside the scope of the bill.

Next, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendment to clause 4 limiting regulation to sound recordings uploaded by music labels for artists. We disagree here because this would affect the Governor in Council's ability to publicly consult on and issue a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to the distribution of commercial programs.

We need the flexibility to make sure that, whenever an online streamer acts as a broadcaster, they do their part to support Canada's cultural sector. That is really what this bill comes down to. It would also prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time, which ultimately is the very matter we are trying to address with the bill.

The fourth is that the government respectfully disagrees with amendment 6 because of concerns that it could limit the CRTC's ability to impose conditions respecting the proportion of programs to be broadcast that are devoted to specific genres, both for online undertakings and traditional broadcasters.

This could have the impact of reducing the diversity of programming on traditional airwaves, an outcome which goes against one of the primary policy objectives of this bill.

Regarding amendment 7, we are proposing that a change of wording be made to subsection 7(a) in order to better underscore the importance of supporting creators and to sustain and build on Canada's creative sectors.

The government also respectfully disagrees with subsection 7(b) which proposes that no factor is determinative in establishing Canadian content rules. The proposed amendment would impact the flexibility of the CRTC to determine the appropriate definition for Canadian content. Our position on this is simple; we agree with the fundamental principle that Canadian content is first and foremost made by Canadians.

Another change we are proposing is to amendment 9(b) concerning public hearings. Here the government suggests the deletion of subsection 2.1, which calls for a public hearing to be held after a proposed regulation or order is published. The CRTC consults interested parties before a regulation is developed, not afterwards. Requiring a second public hearing after decisions are taken by the CRTC during regulatory proceedings would entail unnecessary delays in the administration of the act.

Finally, the government respectfully disagrees with amendment 11, which seeks to prohibit the CBC from broadcasting an advertisement or announcement on behalf of an advertiser that is designed to resemble journalistic programming. Here, again, our reasons for disagreement go back to the core objectives of the bill. The issue addressed by the amendment falls outside the scope of Bill C-11 and its policy intent, including online undertakings in the broadcasting system.

I have outlined the government's position with respect to the excellent and thorough work completed by our esteemed colleagues in the other place. We have agreed to the majority of the proposed amendments, and we disagree on just eight points. Overall, I see the collaborative efforts that have brought us here, and they were of great success.

We have arrived at this point, just shy of the finish line, thanks to the contributions and hard work of parliamentarians, public servants, industry experts, content creators and Canadians. Now is not the time to abandon the commitment to collaboration. We will continue to listen.

Should this bill receive royal assent, the Governor in Council would issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how the new legislative framework should be applied. This would require a notice period of at least 30 days, during which stakeholders and other interested persons may provide comments, concerns and recommendations regarding policy direction.

The CRTC would hold its own public processes prior to implementing the new broadcasting regulatory framework. This would provide a further opportunity for all stakeholders, including radio broadcasters, online streamers, distributors, artists, producers and industry groups to provide input.

As members can see, we will now continue to move forward together. We will ensure Canadian artists and storytellers thrive and prosper well into the digital age and that the beat of Canada's diverse culture is heard loud and clear, everywhere for everyone.

Freedoms in Canada

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Communist countries like China and North Korea, the government determines what online media content people can and cannot see. The government determines what content is suitable for the country.

The Liberal government has brought forward Bill C-11, which would allow cabinet to tell the CRTC what the criteria for acceptable content are. It would also allow them to use algorithms to either allow the content to be seen by Canadians or bury it.

The Senate tried to bring amendments to exclude individual content from being censored, but the Liberal government has said it will refuse to accept these amendments.

Canada is not yet a Communist country, and Conservatives want to ensure that Canada remains the freest nation on Earth. In order to do that, we need to kill Bill C-11.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is an unnecessary and grotesque overreach of government control. It censors what Canadians can see, hear and post online. The minister has said that this bill is about “support[ing] Canadian culture”, but that is actually not true. The bill stifles creators' voices. In fact, subject matter experts have said that it likens Canada to countries like China or North Korea.

Will the Prime Minister stop this damning overreach and kill Bill C-11?

Freedoms in Canada

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians love watching YouTube, they love listening to music on Apple or Spotify and they sure enjoy bingeing on things like Netflix, Disney and Prime. They love it because they have control over what they watch and when they watch it.

Creators have never had it better. As long as they have access to the Internet, they can start a channel or make a presence online. As long as they are willing to work hard and put in the creative energy, they can achieve great success, not just in Canada but around the world.

Bill C-11, however, is about to change that. Bill C-11 would give the government the power to censor what Canadians can see and post online. Content creators from across Canada, along with consumer groups, have spoken out about the dangers of this bill. Legal experts have called it a grotesque overreach of government. When referencing this bill, Margaret Atwood did not mince her words in calling it “creeping totalitarianism”.

Today, we are calling on the government to kill Bill C-11.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act. With this bill, the government seeks to bring Canada's consumer privacy protections up to date, to create a tribunal to impose penalties on those who violate those protections and to create a new framework on artificial intelligence and data.

For my constituents, I think the most important question is this: Why are consumer privacy rights important? Our personal information has become a commodity in the modern world. Businesses and organizations regularly buy, sell and transfer our personal data, such as our names, genders, addresses, religions, what we do on the Internet, our browsing history, our viewing and purchasing habits, and more. This happens so often that it is almost impossible to know who has access to our sensitive data and what they do with those personal details. Unfortunately, this bill fails to adequately protect the privacy of Canadians and puts commercial interests ahead of privacy rights.

The first part of this bill is the consumer privacy protection act, and I will note, as many others have during this debate, that it is really three bills in one. It is the largest part of this bill and brings in new regulations on the collection, use and sale of the private data of Canadians. I will cover three issues that I have found in this act in the first part of this bill.

The first issue relates to how organizations may collect or use our information without our consent. Subclause 18(3) states:

(3) An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for the purpose of an activity in which the organization has a legitimate interest that outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual resulting from that collection or use

Without defining what a “legitimate interest” is, this subclause risks giving organizations free rein to define “legitimate interest” in whatever way suits their own commercial interests.

The second issue I will cover relates to how the bill would protect the privacy rights of children. Subclause 2(2) states:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the personal information of minors is considered to be sensitive information.

However, nowhere in this bill are the terms “minor” or “sensitive information” defined. This will lead to confusion about how the personal information of children should be handled, and will ultimately lead, in my opinion, to weak protection of that information. There is also no other provision in this legislation that regulates the collection and use of children's personal data.

Every parent in the House of Commons is very concerned about their child going on Minecraft and about their interactions with other people and other gaming sites. This bill does not do enough to protect children in the context of online gaming.

The last issue I will raise in this act relates to when organizations can rely on implied consent to collect and use personal data. Subclause 15(5) states:

(5) Consent must be expressly obtained unless, subject to subsection (6), it is appropriate to rely on an individual’s implied consent, taking into account the reasonable expectations of the individual and the sensitivity of the personal information that is to be collected, used or disclosed.

This subclause highlights that the bill lacks a clear definition of “sensitive information”. This means that organizations will have free rein to determine when they can rely on implied consent, and they will be free to decide what information is or is not deemed sensitive according to their interpretations and not the legislation's interpretation.

The second part of the bill relates to the creation of the new personal information and data protection tribunal act. The bill would create a new semi-judicial body with the power to levy financial penalties against those who violate the CPPA, the first part of the act. I question whether this tribunal would be able to enforce the penalties outlined in clause 128, which are tied to global revenue and a proportion of profit in the previous fiscal year.

How does the government plan on ensuring accurate figures? Does the government really believe that it will go after Google in a global context, hold Google accountable and collect up to 4% or 5% of Google's global revenue? It is farcical.

We need very clear and very big amendments to this section. We need to question whether we even need a tribunal, because if it is in charge of enforcing clause 128 of the bill, I already know it is going to fail.

Under the third section of the bill, the artificial intelligence and data act, new provisions would be created that apply to the private sector. However, this bill does nothing to address the relationship between government and artificial intelligence.

Right now in Parliament, we are debating Bill C-11, which talks about the government's use of algorithms in the context of the CRTC. This bill has rightly infuriated Canadians across the country who are concerned about how the government would determine what people say and do on the Internet and where they would be directed. Why is the government not trying to apply the same standards upon itself as it is trying to apply on private corporations?

I want to address some other key oversights in the bill.

First, in the U.K., EU and even Quebec, certain personal details, such as race, sexuality and religion, are given special protection in comparison with other personal information. Why does the government believe the most identifiable aspects of our personal information are not worthy of being defined as sensitive information in the context of privacy law?

Second, the bill does nothing to regulate the sale of personal data. I am reiterating this point. In a world where the sale of personal data has become an integral part of our economy, why is the government not concerned with setting clear rules on how data and what kinds of data can be bought and sold, especially in the context of children?

Third, the bill fails to regulate the use of facial recognition technology. The RCMP used Clearview Al's facial recognition database, which was illegally created. Why does the government not think it is appropriate to ensure this never happens again?

Fourth, the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act proposed in this bill are nearly identical to the acts proposed under last Parliament's Bill C-11. The consequence is that Canada's consumer privacy laws will be out of date by the time they come into force.

This bill was an opportunity to put forward strong regulations on the collection and use of personal data, but it failed to meet some basic criteria and thresholds. While the increased penalties for violating the act are welcome, they are watered down by the implementation of a tribunal that would take months or potentially even years to make a decision and levy fines. It is even questionable whether such a tribunal could actually do what it is purported to be responsible for.

Do we really need privacy legislation that fails to protect the privacy of Canadians? Do we really want privacy legislation that fails to put consumer interests ahead of corporate interests? Do we really want privacy legislation that fails to protect the personal information of children? Do we really want Al regulations that do not apply to government? Frankly, the government needs to withdraw Bill C-27, break it up into different parts and come back to Parliament after it has looked at the drawing board again and done something a little more comprehensive.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member is aware, this bill is actually three bills packaged into one. It was the NDP that asked for a division to vote on artificial intelligence. The previous manifestations of Bill C-11 were enhanced with this bill.

What are his thoughts on the fact that this is the first time we are debating how to regulate artificial intelligence? Would it have been more appropriate to have an entirely separate process, as opposed to packing it in with two other pieces of legislation that we have done before? We have at least had some review in the chamber on one them, and they are less controversial in many respects. I would appreciate his comments on that.

I thank him for referencing Jim Balsillie, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this issue in protecting Canadians' privacy rights, which is the same as what the NDP has done. Physical rights and digital rights should be equal.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot about Bill C-18 and Bill C-11. There have been many comments from people outside of this place, like experts in the field. Lots of different things have been said, and the reality is this. The government is going to have gatekeepers in place who will tell Canadians what they can see and what they can hear on the Internet. That is what we as Conservatives are fighting against. We do not want the government to be the one to tell Canadians what they can see, what they can read and what they can post online.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, found my colleague from Saskatoon West's comments on Bills C‑11 and C‑18 quite interesting. There will be an opportunity to return to Bill C‑11, likely later. I was particularly surprised by the comments on Bill C‑18, especially in a context where Google is currently blocking access to news content for nearly 2 million Canadians, which is no trivial matter. By the way, we still do not know why.

I have heard so much misinformation, it is outlandish. Bill C‑18 requires digital giants to negotiate agreements. It is not forcing them to do anything other than negotiate agreements to pay the companies that produce the news content they use and get rich off of. It seems quite logical to me.

The point I took the most issue with in my colleague's comments was when he said that Bill C‑18 will allow the government or the CRTC to decide what news people will be able to access online.

Since he seems to be an expert on the subject, I would like him to tell me specifically what clause of Bill C‑18 would allow the CRTC to do such a thing.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have many things to say, but where to begin?

First, Google is one option. There are many other browsers that can be used. If someone does not like one of them, they can go to another. That is the beauty of the free market and companies providing services.

The other thing is that Google's response was a direct response to the government's proposed legislation. The government refuses to admit that there are consequences to what it is proposing. There are significant consequences to the government dictating what consumers in Canada can see. This will affect everybody from consumers themselves to the companies that provide content.

It is an example of the government being completely oblivious to the real implications of what it is proposing with its legislation in Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House.

Another day, another debate about an NDP-Liberal piece of legislation about Internet freedom in Canada. The good folks on the west side of Saskatoon have heard me speak in this place about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, two bills aimed at controlling what Canadians see and post on the Internet.

Today we are dealing with Bill C-27, which is aimed at protecting the online data of Canadians. This legislation is meant to put safeguards around the use of artificial intelligence and establish rules around Internet privacy. Sounds good, sounds noble and sounds like something we should support. To a certain degree I do support these initiatives.

However, I have deep reservations with this legislation as it exempts the Government of Canada from these very safeguards. Do we as Canadians need the protections in this bill from companies? Absolutely, but we also need protections from government, especially this NDP-Liberal coalition government that wants to take away some of our liberties and freedoms.

Some on the other side may accuse me of fearmongering about the NDP-Liberal suppression of civil liberties and freedoms on the Internet; I am not. Let me lay out the facts, and the people in Saskatoon West can decide for themselves.

Bill C-11 is the first piece of legislation meant to strip of us of our rights to free speech on the Internet. Conservatives such as myself and free speech advocates have been warning that the provisions put in place by the NDP-Liberals to have government-appointed gatekeepers decide what is acceptable speech or not in Canada will lead to disaster.

We have already seen that a prominent University of Toronto professor has been threatened with the revocation of his licence and livelihood for tweeting out against this legislation and the current Prime Minister. Imagine what would happen when the Prime Minister has the full weight of the law to simply muzzle this type of speech. Anyone who disagrees with him would be silenced and would be fined, lose their livelihood, and what is next, go to a re-education camp? We all know about the Prime Minister’s fondness for the basic dictatorship of the People’s Republic of China, heck, he does not even mind if the People's Republic of China funnels money to his family foundation and tilts elections towards the Liberal Party of Canada in this country.

How about the second piece of legislation meant to limit our Internet freedoms, Bill C-18? That legislation allows government-appointed gatekeepers to decide what is or is not news in Canada, and forces private companies to block content they do not like from their feeds and search engines.

If there is a story critical of the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Prime Minister, they call it fake news and ban it. If there is another fawning story by Andrew Coyne in The Globe and Mail about the Trudeau Foundation and the Chinese Communist Party, it is forced to the top of everyone’s news feed and search engine, like it or not.

When I spoke about Bill C-18 in December I warned of the consequences that this legislation would have. Specifically, I mentioned conversations I had with Google and Amazon Web Services and the impact on how they deliver services to Canadians. Google flat out told me it would simply get out of the business of delivering any and all news to Canadians as it did not want to become an instrument of the Canadian government to spread partisan messaging for the party in power. Just last month it began beta testing how it could shut down its news services for Canadians.

We need a 21st century solution to this problem, not one based on ideas from 40 years ago. Bill C-27 is supposed to protect people’s data from corporations. We need that but what we need, as well, is protection from this NDP-Liberal government when it comes to privacy.

Bill C-27 completely fails us in that area. The government has dragged its heels on Internet privacy for years, and unfortunately it has been a pattern to consistently breach our digital privacy rights. We saw it when the government waited until just last year to ban Chinese telecom giant Huawei from operating in Canada while other countries did the right thing years before us.

We saw it with the $54 million “arrive scam” app tracking Canadians border travel up until September 30, and the public bank account freezing for people who donated to the truckers last year. The list goes on and on. In the words of Alanis Morissette, “Isn’t it ironic?” when we hear the government start to talk about online privacy rights. I just hope it learns to start respecting the privacy of Canadians.

Let us take a look and see if this legislation actually protects the online privacy of the people of Saskatoon West. After all, they are rightfully distrustful of government and corporations when it comes to accessing their data

Here are some examples showing why they are distrustful: Tim Hortons tracking the movement of users after they have ordered something on their app; the RCMP using Clearview AI to access a data bank of more than three billion photos pulled from websites without user consent; and we cannot forget Telus giving the federal government access to the movements of over 33 million devices over the course of the pandemic.

When governments abuse their power, it destroys the level of faith Canadians have in their institutions. In fact, if we look at polling data, we see that the number of Canadians that have faith in their government is at an all-time low. With scandals like these, it is no wonder why.

If we want to improve the level of trust held between individuals and institutions, we must look at protecting Canadians' private data. If we dive into this legislation, it seems the intent is to create a level playing field between citizens and companies when it comes to how their data is used. However, if we look into it further, the balance between businesses using business data and the protection of our privacy is off.

The bill, as it is currently written, skews toward the interests of corporations rather than the fundamental rights of individuals. There are too many exceptions granted to businesses in this legislation. Some are so broad that it is like the legislation never existed at all.

For example, business activities are exempt if a “reasonable person” would expect a business to use their data, without including the definition of what a reasonable person is. The concept of legitimate business interests has been added as an exemption to consent. How does one determine if a business interest outweighs the privacy rights of an individual? Finally, the bill does not recognize privacy as a fundamental right. This absence tips the scales away from Canadians and could affect how their privacy interests are weighed against commercial interests in the future.

Artificial intelligence comprises a major component of this legislation. AI is becoming a key tool in today's world, much like engineering was in the last century. In the past, an engineer would sit down and design a bridge, for example. Obviously, the failure of a bridge would be a huge event with the potential for major disruptions, significant costs, potential injuries and even death. Therefore, we have professional standards for engineers who build bridges, but what about artificial intelligence?

In today's modern world, AI is used more and more to perform ever more complex tasks. In its early stages, AI was used as a shortcut for repetitive tasks, but as the technology advances, it is now being used for much more. In the future, it is not unreasonable to expect AI to play a significant role in designing a bridge, for example. Artificial intelligence also needs to have standards, which is why our universities teaching AI put a big emphasis on ethics, as there are huge implications.

I know first-hand the dangers of unregulated AI systems interfering in our day-to-day lives. On the immigration committee, we have studied this issue and looked at how Canada's immigration department is using Chinook, a so-called e-tool to help IRCC bureaucrats assess applications in bulk form. This AI program was introduced in-house by these bureaucrats, which means the software's algorithms are beholden to the beliefs of its creators.

The concerning part of all of this is that there is a known culture of racism within the department, and members do not have to take my word for it. The NDP-Liberal Minister of Immigration said this of his own department at committee: The IRCC “has zero tolerance for racism, discrimination or harassment of any kind. However, we know that these problems exist throughout the public service and in our department...[and] we must first acknowledge this reality.”

There were no outside consultations done on the use or creation of this artificial intelligence application, and rejection rates have climbed since its introduction. Although I am pleased that the government is finally looking to add a framework to address concerns surrounding AI, it needs to get its own house in order first.

I will wrap up with these final thoughts.

If we are going to address concerns surrounding our digital privacy, we must listen to Canadians, and many Canadians are worried that this legislation does not protect them. I have met with Bryan Short from OpenMedia, and he said this:

Bill C-27...only plays brief lip service to privacy being a fundamental human right in its preamble; Bill C-27 fails to do the more important task of inscribing the privacy rights of people as being more important than the business interests of companies.

The bill before us is supposed to be about protecting Canadians' privacy, yet it completely avoids inscribing privacy as a fundamental right. We all know the saying “There is no point in doing something unless you do it right”, and it is quite clear that the government needs to go back to the drawing board once again on some aspects of this legislation since there is not much evidence of it consulting Canadians on how their data was actually used.

I believe the former Ontario privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, said it best in 2020 during the initial Liberal attempts to bring in privacy reform to Canada when she stated:

[With] the Liberals under [the Prime Minister], it's been extremely weak. They have not addressed repeated requests from the federal privacy commissioner to strengthen existing privacy laws.... I'm tired of that. I want a party that will walk the talk. And I'm hoping that will be the Conservatives.

Canadians can count on the Conservative Party of Canada to walk the talk when it comes to strengthening our privacy laws, and Canadians can count on the Conservative Party of Canada to respect their freedom of expression online. We will scrap the online censorship legislation put in place by this tired, worn out, costly coalition. We will allow people to choose for themselves which news they want to consume, not just what the government wants them to see. Under our new leader, we will be the voice of those left behind by the NDP-Liberal government, and we will put Canadians back in the driver's seat of their own life.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke at length about administrative tribunals being a way in which people can access justice as it relates to their appeals processes and so on, but yet, this is in direct contradiction to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, who is clearly opposed to the creation of a new personal information and data protection tribunal, citing it would be unnecessary to achieve greater accountability and fairness and counterproductive in achieving quick and effective remedies. In fact, the OPCC states that adding a new level of appeals delays would delay resolutions of cases, especially when the power to impose monetary penalties is limited to the tribunal.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on how the OPCC argues that the system proposed under Bill C-11 encourages organizations to use the appeals process rather than to seek common ground with the OPCC when it is about to render an unfavourable decision.

Telecommunications Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it took eight long years for the Liberal government to recognize that cybersecurity threats exist in this country and around the world. Congratulations to them for coming to the party a little late.

The Liberals have now presented a bill to try to address issues of cybersecurity in the country. As I said, it took them eight years to get there, but I have to say I am pleased that the Liberals have decided to finally do something. I look forward to this bill being passed so that it can be extensively studied at committee.

There are some things in this bill that are good. I know praising the Liberal government is strange territory for me, but I will say that the bill would give the government some tools to respond quickly to cyber-threats. There is currently no explicit legislative authority in the Telecommunications Act to ensure that telecom providers are suitably prepared for cyber-attacks. This is a good reason why this bill should probably move forward to committee to be studied.

The challenge I have, though, includes a whole number of things. My issue with the government is trust. While I do want this legislation to go to committee, I have extraordinary concerns about this bill. Many of these concerns have been raised by many groups across the country, and I do want to speak to some of those in the probably somewhat whimsical hope that the government will listen and take some of these amendments seriously.

There has been a very bad track record of the government responding to concerns from the opposition or from outside organizations with respect to legislation. There is a view that the Liberals are going to do what they want to do on pieces of legislation and that they really do not care what other people have to say. I am very concerned that the government is not going to listen to the very serious concerns that have been raised about this bill.

I have my own concerns when I look at how the government has behaved with respect to other pieces of legislation. We have to look at Bill C-11. There has been a multitude of organizations that have said the bill needs further amendment. Margaret Atwood has said that she has grave concerns about the legislation, that she supports the intent but has grave concerns about the implementation and how it is going to affect artists and content creators. We have had folks who compete in the YouTube sphere who have raised all kinds of concerns about Bill C-11, and the government's response has been that it does not care what they have to say, and that it is going forward with the legislation as it is.

The Senate has made a number of amendments to Bill C-11. I suspect the government's attitude is going to be the same, which is that it does not care what the amendments are and that it is going to proceed with the bill as it sees fit.

We also have only to look to Bill C-21 as well. We had the minister clearly not aware of what constituted a hunting rifle and a hunting gun. The Liberals introduced amendments at committee, and it took extraordinary push-back from Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get them to wake up and withdraw those amendments that they had put in at the last minute.

What it speaks to is that, despite having at its disposal the entire apparatus of the Canadian government, the Liberals are still unable to get legislation right. It takes an enormous amount of effort and hue and cry across the country saying that this has to stop and that this has to be changed. If there is not a massive uprising, the government tends not to listen to the legitimate concerns of other constituents or other groups when it introduces legislation.

With that context, it is why I have real concerns that the government is not going to listen to some of the serious concerns that have been raised with respect to Bill C-26. I am going to go through some of those.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has some very serious concerns. It has issued a joint letter that says that the bill is deeply problematic and needs fixing, because it risks undermining our privacy rights and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process. This is a big bell that is going off, and I hope the government is listening. As I have said, I do not have a lot of faith, given other pieces of legislation where thoughtful amendments have been put forward and the government decided not to do anything with them.

I want to enumerate a few of the concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. On increased surveillance, it says that the bill would allow the federal government “to secretly order telecom providers” to “do anything or refrain from doing anything necessary...to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption”.

That is a pretty broad power. Where is the government putting the guardrails in that would limit the effects of this or protect the privacy rights of Canadians? That is something I think is incredibly concerning.

On the termination of essential services, Bill C-26 would allow the government to bar a person or a company from being able to receive specific services and bar any company from offering these services to others by secret government order.

Where are we going to have the checks and safety checks on this? Unfortunately, I am not in a position where I think I can trust the government to do the right thing on these things. We have seen it through vaccine mandates, in the legislation on Bill C-21 and in how the Liberals are trying to push through Bill C-11 without listening to reasoned amendments. If reasonable concerns are raised about Bill C-26, I just do not have faith the Liberals are going to take those concerns seriously and make the amendments that are necessary. I really hope they do.

On undermining privacy, the bill would provide for the collection of data from designated operators, which would potentially allow the government to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations. When someone takes the de-identified personal information of Canadians and does not say how they are going to deal with it or what protections they have in place to make sure it is not misused, what happens in the event that they take that information and somehow there is a government breach? Where does that information go? These are things I think we should be extraordinarily concerned about.

There was also an analysis provided with respect to this by Christopher Parsons, in a report subtitled “A Critical Analysis of Proposed Amendments in Bill C-26 to the Telecommunications Act”. Parsons raises concerns about vague language. The report notes that key terms in the bill, such as “interference”, “manipulation” and “disruption”, which trigger the government's ability to make orders binding on telecom service providers, are unidentified.

Where are the guardrails in the legislation to prevent government overreach and therefore protect Canadians? This is something that I think all Canadians should be watching and be very concerned about. They should be letting their voices be heard by the government on this.

The report talks about how the minister of industry's scope of power to make orders is also undefined. We would be giving a whole host of undefined powers to the minister and the government that would allow them to have all kinds of sensitive information. These are things that may be necessary, but I do not know. They are highly concerning to me. They should be highly concerning to Canadians, and I hope the government will hear from real experts at committee.

Let us not have a two-day committee study where we think Bill C-26 is perfect as it is and bring it back to the House of Commons, bring in time allocation or closure and pass it through. We have seen that story before, and we do not want to see it with the piece of legislation before us. My really big hope is that the government is going to take the time to really consider the seriousness and breadth of Bill C-26 and make sure we have the ways to protect Canadians.

I just want to add that the Business Council of Canada has released its own letter to the Minister of Public Safety, expressing its incredibly deep concerns with respect to the bill: there is a lack of a risk-based approach, information sharing is one-way and the legal threshold for issuing directions is too low.

There are three reports, right there, that are outlining significant concerns with Bill C-26, and I, for one, just do not believe the government is going to listen or get it right. It does not have the track record of doing so, but I am hoping it will, because cybersecurity is incredibly serious as we move toward a digital economy in so many ways. I really hope the government is going to listen to these things, take them seriously, do the hard work at committee and bring forward whatever amendments need to be brought forward, or, if the amendments are brought forward by the opposition, listen to and implement those amendments.

Canadian Heritage

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the government has said yes to various demands made by Quebec. We are working with Quebec. What Quebec wants is to see Bill C‑11 passed for the music, film and television industries.

The Conservatives, who have filibustered the bill the entire time, have suddenly woken up to say that culture is important. Since when has culture been important to the Conservatives? They could not care less. Our government will be there for our artists despite the Conservatives.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague understands what he is talking about.

If he is talking about Bill C-11, it is simply asking streamers to support Canadian culture. If he is talking about C-18, it is simply asking the web giants to support independent journalism.

One thing remains: the Conservatives keep filibustering things that are absolutely essential for Canadians. If they do not want to help, they should stay out of the way and let us do the job.

Freedoms in Canada

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian artists are succeeding on digital platforms with the support of fellow Canadians and from viewers around the world without Bill C-11.

The Liberals' plan is to regulate user content-generating websites, like YouTube, where hundreds of thousands of hours of video content are uploaded every minute. Canadian artists, legal experts and digital content producers are speaking out against Bill C-11, yet the Liberals are not listening. What we see and search online now is different from what we would have after the bill and after the Liberal gatekeepers put regulations in place that would change online algorithms.

Bill C-11 represents yet another example of the Liberals' waste of time and public resources in the name of demanding more control and power over Canadians. In a free and democratic country like Canada, the government should not tell us what we can and cannot see on the Internet. We need to kill Bill C-11.

Telecommunications Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of trouble putting any confidence in the Liberal government. It took seven years for it to ban Huawei. It is a government that sat on its hands and did nothing about cybersecurity for the past several years. I know this is a government I cannot trust. When I look at Bill C-11, the Liberals are now trying to censor Canadians online. They are trying to control what people see online, which violates charter rights, especially when it comes down to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the ability to actually have discourse online about our political situation in Canada and around the world. When the Liberals try to put veils over certain parts of our information system, I have to be very concerned.

I look at Bill C-21 and how the Liberals have gone after responsible firearms owners like hunters, sport shooters and farmers. To me, that builds no trust in the government to get the job done.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the last several months, we have seen accountability raise its head here in Parliament with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-11. Without accountability, it is as though the government does not actually care what we are doing because with a majority government, the NDP and Liberals can make decisions based on what they think is right and there is no accountability.

With Bill C-5, the evidence is not there. Bill C-21, taking legal guns from legal gun owners, is another non-evidence-based process. With Bill C-26, which we are talking about today, it is time that we start building in some processes for accountability so the government is actually accountable for what it is doing.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think there is some confusion as to what we do and do not stand for. I believe there are a lot of opportunities in Canada when it comes to online streaming and how we can get our products out to market. However, when we start talking about Bill C-11, we start talking about censorship and what can or cannot happen here in Canada. Everyone talks about how we are going to protect the rights of our artists, but I am very concerned about the time when the censorship starts taking place and Canadians actually start understanding there is going to be content that would not be allowed to be viewed. I sure hope the member is right that there will not be such censorship, but I am afraid he could be mistaken.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree somewhat with my colleague. Sometimes, the Conservatives want their bread buttered on both sides, especially when it comes to cybersecurity or Internet bills. They support the principle, but oppose the intervention. It is difficult for them to find the right balance.

My colleague did not address the concerns. He spoke instead about Bill C-11, which is a very important bill for the promotion of French content on the Internet, but which was blocked by my Conservative friends.

Over the past two break weeks, I spoke with many Quebec artists. The Union des artistes fervently hopes that Bill C‑11 will pass so that French content will be promoted on line. It is extremely important. However, the Conservatives are stonewalling. They did so in committee, and even now, they are delaying the work in this place.

How does my colleague feel about the fact that all Quebec and francophone artists across Canada are against his party?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act, introduced in June 2022 and split into parts 1 and 2. The former aims to amend the Telecommunications Act to include:

the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.

The latter outlines the introduction of the critical cyber systems protection act, which would create a new regulatory regime requiring designated critical infrastructure providers to protect their cyber systems.

I would like to emphasize that the safety and security of our telecom industry, with particular reference to foreign adversaries such as the Beijing Communist Party, has been a broad theme in communications lately. This is especially concerning the controversial Bill C-11, the online streaming act, or, should I say, government censorship, and new revelations from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, flagging election interference from those involved with the Beijing Communist Party.

We Conservatives believe it is of paramount importance to defend the rights and interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Thus, Canada's national security should be strongly well equipped to be prepared for cyberwarfare threats that could be presented by emerging digital technologies, intelligent adversaries or authoritarian artificial intelligence.

The NDP-Liberal government has had a long record of denying Canadians the truth. Instead of protecting their rights and freedoms, the government uses deflection tactics to divide Canadians, pitting them against one another to distract from the real issue: that the NDP-Liberal government has been too slow to address cyber-threats. For this critical lack of action, Canada has seen several serious incidents occur with no substantive legislative response for over seven years. After years of chronic mismanagement and utter failure, it is time for the government to step aside and let the Conservatives turn Canadians' hurt into hope.

We support the stringent and thorough examination of this legislation. We will always defend and secure the security of Canadians, especially with regard to cybersecurity in an increasingly digitized world. There is a pressing demand to ensure the security of Canada's critical cyber-infrastructure against cyber-threats. Let us not forget that these very systems lay the foundation of the country as a whole. It is these cyber systems that run our health care, banking and energy systems, all of which should be guarded against the cybercriminals, hackers and foreign adversaries who want to infiltrate them.

Akin to several other Liberal ideas, a number of aspects of this bill require further review, and it should thus be sent straight to committee where it can be further dissected and refined to ensure that all flaws are addressed. One can only imagine the disaster that a hospital system crash would add to the already horrible wait times in emergency rooms and shortages of medical professionals thanks to the NDP-Liberal government. The results would be disastrous. Furthermore, disruption of critical cyber-infrastructure in health care can bring severe consequences, such as enabling cybercriminals to access confidential patient health care information.

While we understand that it is imperative to provide the resources necessary to effectively defend against cyber-threats, it is still equally important to ensure that the government does not overreach on its specified mandate through Bill C-26. A research report written by Christopher Parsons called “Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness” highlights some recommendations to improve Bill C-26. Among these recommendations is an emphasis on drafting legislation to correct accountability deficiencies, while highlighting amendments that would impose some restrictions on the range of powers that the government would be able to wield. These restrictions are critical, especially concerning the sweeping nature of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act, as outlined in parts 1 and 2, which I have explained in my opening statement.

The sweeping nature of this legislation is not new, particularly for the Liberal government. It even goes back to Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which essentially placed the Liberal government as the online content regulator controlling what Canadians see or listen to online. If members ask me, the government policing what Canadians view online is a cyber-threat in its own way, but I will not get into that right now.

There are other flaws in Bill C-26 that I would like to highlight, which brings us back to having Bill C-26 closely reviewed in committee.

In terms of civil liberties and privacy, some civil liberties groups have flagged serious concerns regarding the scope and lack of oversight around the powers that may be granted to the government under Bill C-26. In September last year, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, along with other groups, released a joint letter of concern regarding Bill C-26, highlighting that the bill is “deeply problematic”, like several other questionable Liberal policies. They went on to further explain that Bill C-26 “risks undermining our privacy rights, and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process”.

From an economic perspective, the bill lacks recognition of foreseeable impacted enterprises, such as small and medium-sized businesses, which will undoubtedly bring forth unintended consequences. According to the Business Council of Canada, some concerns include the lack of transparency seen through the one-way sharing of information. This brings about serious concerns. Operators are required to provide information to the NDP-Liberal government, yet those same operators are not entitled to receive any information back from the government or other cyber-operators. This whole information-sharing regime is lacking and, simply put, completely misses an opportunity to implement a transparent information-sharing system that would benefit all parties involved.

There is also concern regarding government overreach. Considering what powers would be granted to the government to order what a telecommunications provider has to do under Bill C-26, I would have expected to see sufficient evidence to support this overreach. However, that was not addressed at all, if not vaguely, in this bill. This, on top of blatant disregard for the recognition of privacy and other charter-protected rights, proves how the government only cares about granting itself more and more power, even in the face of blatant transparency and accountability concerns like election interference or the Bill C-11 censorship bill.

I only highlighted a few of the several highly valid concerns regarding this critically flawed bill. Obviously, it is important to defend national cybersecurity and defend against cybercriminals or foreign threats. However, there is a fine line between upholding the best interests of Canadians and just using another faulty bill as a power grab for the NDP-Liberal government, despite concerns regarding cyber systems, privacy and security infrastructure.

We Conservatives believe that it is of paramount importance to truly defend the rights and interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. One of the best ways this can be done is by securing Canada's cyber-infrastructure from attacks. While we welcome the idea of protecting the interests of Canadians in terms of cybersecurity, we want to flag that Bill C-26 has some highly concerning content that should be closely reviewed and discussed in committee to correct flaws and prevent potential overreach from the NDP-Liberal government. In the interest of protecting Canada's cyber-infrastructure, we must also guard against the sweeping government powers outlined in the critical cyber systems protection act.

Canadian Heritage

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian heritage committee has been discussing this for a year, in both the House and the Senate. The hon. member has been absent and has just taken notice of it this week, after the past year of debating it.

In Quebec, artists have called upon the government, and the Quebec National Assembly has twice called upon Parliament, to expedite Bill C-11, but all we have seen from the other side is delay, blocking and filibustering. There have been no solutions from the other side.

It is amazing that the member has stepped up this week to say that he cares, when over the last year he has been silent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the government to be a bit more consistent. First my colleague says that we are filibustering, and then he says that we have done nothing, that we are asleep. It cannot be both.

In any case, what we have done is neither one nor the other. We have done our parliamentary work.

As we speak, the National Assembly of Quebec is asking to be heard by this government on Bill C‑11, to ensure that Quebec has a voice.

If the Bloc Québécois is okay with giving the federal government all of the power, that is its choice. However, we want Quebec to be heard.

We have been asking for this for five days now. Will the government hold a parliamentary committee meeting to listen to Quebec and also to review the Senate amendments?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that 240 jobs have been cut in the media sector in Quebec. That is 240 families that have lost revenue they were counting on. Our hearts are with them.

This is happening too often. It is time that tech giants pay their fair share toward our culture. It is time to level the playing field. Bill C-11 is about that.

What have the Conservatives been doing the last year? They have been filibustering. The hon. member's own seatmate acknowledged in the House of Commons that she has been filibustering this whole time.

Where has the hon. member been this last year to stand up for Quebeckers, Canadians and artists across the country? He has been absent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly has twice asked to be heard by this government on Bill C-11. However, with the Bloc Québécois's support, co-operation and complicity, the feds just do the work by themselves.

The government is maintaining its extremely centralizing, unilateral and heavy-handed position of giving the federal cabinet more powers to tell Quebeckers what the CRTC will let them watch.

Maybe the Bloc Québécois agrees with that, but we do not.

Will the Bloc-Liberal alliance finally let the Government of Quebec be heard?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Quebec expressed its concern about Bill C-11 by sending the government a letter and adopting a unanimous motion.

Quebec's request is simple. It wants a provision to be added to Bill C-11 that will require the government to consult Quebec on the CRTC's potential responsibilities. The response from the Bloc-Liberal alliance is a hard no.

We, the Conservatives, are bringing Quebec's legitimate request before the House.

The question is very simple. Will this government agree to convene the parliamentary committee to debate Quebec's proposal?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly of Quebec is calling for changes to Bill C-11 and Bill C-5.

This involves the ministers of Canadian heritage and justice. These two bills have the support of the Bloc-Liberal alliance and go against the direction the Government of Quebec wants to take.

Will our two ministers, who are Quebeckers, shamefully supported by the Bloc Québécois, refuse to provide Quebec the help it is looking for and thereby deny the existence of the Quebec nation?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we know that being a Quebecker means being able to reach out and that if there are disagreements over certain things, being able to work for the interests of Quebec. That is what we are currently doing with the Bloc Québécois and with the NDP, unlike what the Conservatives are doing.

Bill C‑11 is good for our artists, our producers and our artisans. It is good for the French fact and for French productions. The Conservatives want to kill this bill. Shame on them. It is good for Quebec and we will forge ahead.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that everything the Bloc-centralist-Liberal alliance is currently doing for Quebec is not working. Just think of Bill C‑5, which allows rapists to stay at home, or Bill C‑75, which lets criminals who have been released to obtain bail even if they are still violent. Now, there is Bill C‑11.

To add insult to injury, they are refusing to consider the motion that was adopted unanimously. Even the Bloc voted unanimously for the federal government to move on Bill C‑11.

Can the minister tell us if Bill C‑11 will be sent to committee to be studied together with the amendments?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc-Liberal alliance continues to work against Quebec's best interests. First, their proposed bill, Bill C‑11, fails to ensure that online businesses are subject to Quebec's status of the artist legislation. Second, this bill contains no mechanism for formal consultation with the Quebec government. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated that his government is collaborating extremely well with the government, yet he has ignored the input from April 29, 2022, and the letter from February 4, 2023.

Will the government send Bill C‑11 to committee so that it can consider Quebec's proposed amendment?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can a member from Quebec, a minister from Quebec, refuse to listen to the demands of the Government of Quebec?

I understand that the purpose of Bill C‑11 is to centralize power in Ottawa, with help from the Bloc Québécois, which I might have to start calling the “centralist bloc”.

Will the Liberal government and its Bloc Québécois buddies allow the parliamentary committee to study the Senate amendments and Quebec's legitimate request?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who often says that the Bloc is picking fights, all of sudden say that the Bloc is his biggest ally. As was the case for several bills, bills C‑5, C‑75 and C‑11, the Bloc is a great ally to the Liberals.

Can the minister give us an answer? Will the government send Bill C‑11 to committee so it can study the request of the Government of Quebec?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, interesting news this morning: the Quebec government is urging the Liberal government to include a mechanism for mandatory consultation in Bill C‑11 to ensure the protection of Quebec culture.

It is asking the Prime Minister, who still enjoys the Bloc's support, to ensure that, before Bill C‑11 passes, it includes an official consultation mechanism with the Quebec government.

Do the Prime Minister and the Bloc agree with Minister Lacombe when it comes to Quebec culture and the fact that the government needs to send the bill to committee?

Freedoms in Canada

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, using Bill C-11, the Prime Minister and his government will control everything that Canadians can see online. Renowned author Margaret Atwood has started speaking out about this. She has labelled the government's actions “creeping totalitarianism”.

Despite the enormous opposition, however, the government is ramming its way forward and steamrolling over opposition voices. It has ignored YouTubers, TikTokers and Instagrammers who have spoken up from all corners of this country. Voices of indigenous creators have been stifled. Black creators have been suppressed. French creators have been silenced.

Now, however, the Government of Quebec is standing up and speaking out. It is sounding the alarm bells. It does not want to be dictated to by the Liberal government, or for that matter, any government. Therefore, it is urging the Prime Minister to give the provinces a voice. Unfortunately, My NDP and Bloc colleagues are standing with the Liberal regime. On this side, my Conservative colleagues and I are standing with the Province of Quebec as it calls on the Liberal government to give it a voice.

We are asking that the government send this bill to committee, give an opportunity for voices to be heard and for this legislation to be adequately—

Canadian Artists and Creators

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Made Nous launched its new campaign, Made Better, designed to show Canadians how much they have to celebrate when it comes to the entertainment industry. Made Better includes a series of 30-second montages that highlight Canadians in film, television, video games and digital entertainment. Presented by the Canada Media Fund and Telefilm Canada, the spots will air on major broadcast networks from February to April, with shorter digital spots running online and billboards in Hollywood.

Canadian talent is behind some of the most diverse and impactful storytelling at home and around the world. Indigenous, Black, other racialized and LGBTQ+ talent are racking up a long list of industry firsts, and the Made Better campaign shows how Canadian creators are leading the way.

Let us not stop here. We can do more. Tech giants should pay their fair share toward our fantastic artists and creators. They should showcase them. That is exactly what Bill C-11, the online streaming act, is about. Together, let us support this new campaign and Bill C-11, because Canadian artists and creators expect it.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to join debates in the House of Commons. Here we are today. It is a Bloc opposition day, which is a day when the Bloc can choose anything it would like to put into a motion, and it is a bit of an unusual one today. The Bloc has chosen to spend our day and have a recorded vote on this motion, which purports to simply remind the federal government about the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Before I get too deep into this, I want to point out that it is my plan to share my time, so I want to make sure that we are clear about that.

The only way that one could really explain this debate to their constituents, or that I could explain it to my constituents, is that the Prime Minister thrives on dividing Canadians. The Prime Minister is always looking for different ways to divide Canadians. One of the tactics that the Prime Minister uses is to invent phony issues or phony responses to issues in order to divide political opposition. In this case, he has created a phony constitutional crisis over the use of the notwithstanding clause, and the Bloc has taken the bait; it has taken it hook, line and sinker.

The Prime Minister has divided Canadians throughout his tenure, east against west, Quebec against Alberta, Quebeckers against themselves, and all manner of Canadians over many different issues. The Liberals try to slice up and dice Canadians in enough different ways to squeak through and try to win elections with minimal support. That is something the Prime Minister has succeeded in doing.

However, now, instead of using a fairly precious opposition day to hold the government to account for its incredible, in fact spectacular, failures, the Bloc is burning an opposition day by falling right into one of the Prime Minister's traps. The person happiest to be having this debate today is the Prime Minister. While the House is rehashing decades-old long discussion points about the Constitution and reliving the now 40-year history of the charter and the notwithstanding clause, the Prime Minister is avoiding a debate about how his government has made life unaffordable for millions of Canadians.

We are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Inflation is at a 40-year high. People cannot afford groceries. People cannot afford to heat their homes. There are people in remote communities across Canada, including Quebec, who rely on heating oil to keep from freezing in the winter. Some of these remote residents are among the poorest people in Canada and they cannot afford to pay $1,000 or more per month for home heating fuel, but they cannot live in homes without heat in winter.

While we are debating this motion, the Prime Minister is avoiding accountability for how he has deliberately made life unaffordable for Canadians with his punitive taxes, in particular the carbon tax. Therefore, although it is always a pleasure to engage in debate in the House, I wish that on an opposition day we could spend the day talking about the failures of the current government, instead of giving the government a day off.

It is not quite that bad. I guess it must be conceded that, while we are talking about this motion, the government is not moving its own motions. We are at least going a day when the government does not get any closer to passing terrible bills, like, say, Bill C-11, wherein the government seeks to give itself unprecedented control over what Canadians, including Quebeckers, see, post or find on the Internet. In fact, it is a bit of a bizarre one, in that the Bloc has signalled that it will ultimately help the government pass Bill C-11 and give a federal agency the power to regulate what Quebeckers see and find and post on the Internet. It is a strange one, but at least while we are talking about this motion today, that bill is not advancing.

Under the current government, life is increasingly unaffordable for Canadians. Rents have doubled across Canada's 10 largest cities, interest rates are at a 23-year high and consumer debt is at record highs. Nearly half the people who have variable rate mortgages in Canada say they are going to need to sell or walk away from their homes this year because they cannot afford the payments on the homes they already own. There is nothing happening in this debate today that is going to help any of these Canadians struggling with affordability.

We are playing the Liberals' game today. We are avoiding these issues through the motion before us and engaging in this manufactured constitutional crisis while the Prime Minister dodges these questions about affordability. He is also dodging questions about the ethics of the government and himself, and about the steady stream of ministers who have broken the law, including himself.

Today, while we relive old debates about this issue, the Prime Minister is avoiding accountability for the repeated violations by himself and government members throughout their tenure, their eight years in office, and also the way they hand out billions of dollars in lucrative consulting contracts to their well-connected friends.

While this debate rages, no further progress is made in dealing with any of these issues or in the crisis of public safety that has emerged under the government. Violent crime is up 32%, gang homicide is up over 90%, property crime is up and fraud is up.

Intellectual property theft is an issue too. We see this in the failures of Bill C-34, which we debated yesterday and which is failing to protect Canadians from the effects of foreign investment by state-owned enterprises. Canada also remains a prime destination for international money laundering. These are real issues that impact Canadians in their neighbourhoods, and this is exactly the kind of debate we should be having.

The debate today, where this is avoided, is the kind of debate the Prime Minister wants. The Prime Minister wants a debate where he can avoid talking about how life has become unaffordable under the government and where he avoids accountability for his failure to deliver public services like the ability for the government to issue a passport and the ability of the government to process immigration applications, or any immigration services. Under the government, there is an immigration-file backlog of 2.5 million people.

The government is delighted to be talking about anything other than the colossal failures that have taken place under its watch. Its members are avoiding talking about the crisis of public finance that is brewing under the government, the spike in interest rates that is going to increasingly impair the government's ability to deliver basic services without cutting services or raising taxes as debt service costs continue to eat more and more of the federal budget.

This motion today is a lost opportunity to compel the government to be better. Oppositions should be about demanding better from the government through the process of debate to ensure the best ideas go forward, and challenging the government and identifying mistakes the government has made so it can correct them. That is how we serve our constituents. That is how we help ensure we have accountability from our governments and how we improve the services to Canadians.

I will end it there and let members ask questions, if they have any.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is excellent. I was just about to say the same thing. I think that the question is a valid one, because I referred to Bill C-11 in my speech when talking about the differences in views between the rest of Canada and Quebec.

In answer to the question from my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I would say that there have indeed been concerns about the possible manipulation of algorithms or their control over the web giants for rather nefarious purposes. However, that is not what Bill C-11 seeks to do.

One way or another, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission needs to be able to see that the objectives are being met. The CRTC is not being given the power to control social media algorithms, which is something that I do not agree with. However, I do agree that the CRTC should take all possible and necessary steps to ensure that the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met. That is the distinction, and perhaps we have different views on the way it is written. However, my colleague’s question is a legitimate one.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the member some leeway, especially since reference was made earlier to Bill C‑11.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I agree with him on the vast majority of his speech. As Quebeckers, we all want what is best for Quebec, for our culture and for our way of being. On that note, I support him 100%.

On the other hand, one thing is certain: If my colleagues want sovereignty, they should get elected to the Quebec National Assembly, because that is where it is going to happen, not here in Ottawa.

My question is about Bill C‑11. The bill contains provisions to protect French, as well as francophone and Quebec culture, of course. What worries me is the effect of the bill on the control of information on platforms and the possibility that the federal government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will decide, as some countries do, to change the algorithms to prevent foreign content on our platforms.

As a Quebecker, does my colleague not see this as a significant danger?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am not the star of this part of the show. I am merely opening for my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, and I am honoured to do so.

I love Quebec. I had the good fortune and great privilege to travel the continent in my previous job, and I have visited places around the world for pleasure. Everywhere we go, when we say we are from Quebec, people are curious. What is the deal with Quebec, anyway? Why will it not just melt into the English sea of North America? What is up with that place, where people do not eat the same foods or wear the same clothes as people in the rest of Canada? Just look at the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. He toned it down today, but he usually dresses to impress.

What is going on with this province, where the vast majority of artists would rather work in their own language than tap into the riches of the anglophone market at their doorstep? The entire nation steps up to demand that Quebec's artists get the space they deserve on our radio stations, on TV, in our theatres and on streaming platforms.

Bill C‑11 was briefly discussed earlier. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles talked about it in his speech this morning. Bill C‑11 really highlighted the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Whereas the cultural industry and community in Quebec mobilized to defend the distinct nature, specifically, of French language and culture, the rest of Canada had other concerns and opposed the bill for different reasons, reasons relevant to the rest of Canada. That is fine, but it proves once again that there are major differences.

I will continue to talk about those differences. What about this nation where women marry without taking their spouse's name? That is, when they do get married because fewer people in Quebec marry than in the rest of Canada. It is not because we are not beautiful or not in love. It is simply that we do not think the same way. It is a nation where parents, increasingly, give their children their mother's last name. That is quite new.

Abroad, people ask us what everyone thinks about the fact that Quebec rejects the exploitation of fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy and that it prefers electric cars to pickup trucks that are too large for our needs.

How does one manage a nation that wants to protect its language and culture, its fundamental values and its societal model at all costs? That is often the crux of the issue. We have differences of opinion on what integration should look like, on what society should look like. Quebec is open, but it also requires openness from those who want to integrate. We are not talking about openness to the point of forgetting oneself and melting into a homogeneous lump. No, that is not what we want at all. What we want is an openness to the fundamental values that form the bedrock of Quebec's society: equality between men and women, the separation of church and state, and French as the official language and as the common language.

Some members of the House may not know this, but Quebec has a declaration that immigrants who want to settle there must agree to abide by. It reads as follows:

Québec is a pluralist society that welcomes immigrants who come from the four corners of the earth with their know-how, skills, language, culture and religion.

Québec provides services to immigrants to help them integrate and participate fully and completely in Québec society in order to meet the challenges of a modern society such as economic prosperity, the survival of the French fact and openness to the world. In return, immigrants must adapt to their living environment.

All Quebecers, whether they are native-born or immigrants, have rights and responsibilities and can freely choose their lifestyle, opinions and religion; however, everyone must obey all laws no matter what their beliefs.

The Québec state and its institutions are secular; political and religious powers are separate.

All Quebecers enjoy rights and freedoms recognized by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and other laws and have the responsibility of abiding by the values set forth in them.

It then goes on to talk about common values. I named three of them earlier.

The principal values set forth in this Charter, which are the foundation of Québec society, are as follows:

Québec is a free and democratic society.

Political and religious powers are separate in Québec.

Québec is a pluralist society.

Québec society is based on the rule of law.

Women and men have the same rights.

The exercise of human rights and freedoms must respect the rights and freedoms of others and the general well-being.

Québec society is also governed by the Charter of the French language, which makes French the official language of Québec. Accordingly, French is the normal and usual language of work, instruction, communications, trade and business.

These are important reminders that should be made as often as possible in the House, because we have noticed that people tend to forget. It is not us who forget them. We remember them all too well.

It is no secret that the reason behind the resurgence of the current debate on the notwithstanding clause has a lot to do with Quebec's recent use of section 33 in the case of a bill that deals with the French language and state secularism. Public debate often comes back to the path Quebec has taken over the past 75 to 80 years. In fact, it was in the 1960s that the differences really started to be more strongly felt.

The affirmation of Quebeckers, the affirmation of their values, is the desire to have their values and their vision of society recognized without embarrassment, without shame. We broke free from something. It was a long process, but we broke free. We wanted a secular society with religion on the sidelines, because the Catholic Church held sway over Quebec society for far too many decades. We wanted a society where the Church did not meddle in everything.

I am a child of that generation. I studied in a religious school in the 1960s. I was an altar boy. We went to church every Sunday, sometimes more often, depending on my mother's mood, so I completely understand why Quebec society evolved the way it did, an evolution that led to the removal of religion from the affairs of the state. I am not talking about people rejecting religion. People have the right to practise their religion. In Quebec, everyone thinks that everyone has the right to believe in what they want, but these beliefs and religious convictions are practised in private. It is not something that is practised in any public services offered by the government.

When we understand and clearly explain this evolution, we also understand Quebeckers' vigorous protection of the separation of church and state. The problem is that as the years go by, those who have witnessed this evolution are being heard less and less. Therefore, it is even more pertinent today not to fall into the trap of wedge politics. This seems to be the Prime Minister's approach. I will cite an example from yesterday, when we heard him say that the Bloc Québécois does not give a damn about francophones outside Quebec. How shockingly insulting.

I will come back to Bill C‑11, the former Bill C‑10, a bill that the Bloc Québécois worked on with francophone associations across Canada, Acadians from New Brunswick and francophones outside Quebec across the country, to present with one voice the importance of promoting all of Canada's francophone culture in our broadcasting system. Hearing that yesterday was an unacceptable insult.

Let us not fall into the trap of allowing ourselves to be divided. Avoiding that is the only way to build a society in which we can collaborate despite our differences. We certainly have differences. Regardless of the kind of society we develop over time, whether it is within a somewhat functional Canada or within an independent Quebec that will be a good partner and a good neighbour, we will have to learn to keep the lines of communication open, to talk to one another, understand one another and respect one another if we want to work in a productive and intelligent way. Failing that, it will be a constant battle.

To hell with populist rhetoric, and to hell with misinformation. As I said, the notwithstanding clause, although not there to be used all the time, is an important tool for preserving Quebec's vision for a secular society and for preserving and protecting Quebec and its core values, values that may offend some people who might not understand Quebec's reality.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the speech by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Let me just say I have no problem with him having an opinion about the subjects the Bloc Québécois brings up on its opposition days. His opinion is fine, but it does not actually matter.

Personally, I find the motion we put forward for debate today much more interesting than calling for the cancellation of the carbon tax seven times and being shot down every time. People have to listen too. There was something else about his speech that I found pretty special: the way he likened the Bloc to the Liberals.

The member talked about Bill C‑11, and that got my attention. The Bloc Québécois will always defend Quebec's interests above all else, regardless of who is with us or against us in doing so. In this case, our position is slightly more in line with that of the Liberals than that of the Conservatives, who are spewing all kinds of lies and misinformation to scare people about Bill C‑11. To be clear, the purpose of the bill is to defend Quebec's interests and Québécois and francophone culture in Quebec and Canada.

Today, we are talking about the notwithstanding clause. I would like to know if my colleague agrees that Quebec and the provinces should be the ones to decide whether or not to use the notwithstanding clause, which is one of their prerogatives.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is very true.

At paragraph 018 of the Bloc's main position paper, we read the following: “We are opposed to censorship, cancel culture, intimidation, humiliation and people's courts that take over for the justice system, especially on social networks and under the cover of anonymity. We subscribe to open conversation and a society based on the rule of law.”

Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, will come back to the House of Commons after being amended by the Senate. Conservative senators did all they could to have the amendments adopted in order to prevent the CRTC, or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, from having excessive control over algorithms because of an authoritarian government having decided to impose certain rules. With respect to Bill C‑11, Conservative senators did everything they could to prevent any government from exercising additional powers to control algorithms for any digital environment. Independent Liberal senators refused. The bill will be sent back to the House.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-11. This bill does contain some positive aspects, but there are also some very harmful elements that we must absolutely oppose. Once again, I do not understand why the Bloc is supporting the Liberals on a bill that will result in more federal control over what Quebeckers can listen to and watch online. Is this consistent with the Bloc Québécois's original mission in 1991? I do not think so.

What we have here is a disconnected party, a leftist sovereignist party, walking hand in hand with the Liberals. It is unbelievable. The Conservatives, meanwhile, will work to fight inflation, repeal the carbon tax, end government waste and get rid of expensive consultants. The Liberals are creating division, but I have to agree with the Minister of Canadian Heritage who often says that the Bloc just wants to pick a fight.

Bloc Québécois members are very condescending. Unfortunately for them, they do not have a monopoly on the truth when it comes to Quebeckers. On our side, we want to work to enhance unity and respect among all Canadians, and that includes all Quebeckers.

Online News Act

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak in the House once again.

Before I begin, I also want to take a moment to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Jim Carr, the hon. member who passed away, as well as to his colleagues in the Liberal caucus who have worked with him over the years. I want to offer my thoughts and prayers to everyone.

When I decided to run for office in southern Saskatchewan, one of the driving principles for me and generally a lot of people in Saskatchewan was to see less government interference overall in our lives. That is one of the interesting elements in this bill, that it provides an opportunity to have less government interference in people's lives. That is the opportunity that exists with the bill. That is what we are going to get to as we get through the rest of this debate. As the bill has come through committee, we see how some of the interventions at committee reflect that.

Generally, a government bureaucrat in a distant office does not know what is best for individuals in a family given that family's own unique circumstances, so responsibility for those people should be left to the individuals and not to the government.

Usually, when there is a discussion about smaller government in Canada or somewhere else, it has to do with issues of expanding state power, which directly or indirectly restricts people's lives further. This results in less freedom, either because there are fewer options and choices available to make, or because sometimes it gets to the point of trying to plan citizens' lives for them. In this case, the problem with interference is not so obvious when we compare it to something like the situation in George Orwell's 1984, or maybe the other lurking threat that is another government bill, Bill C-11. It got a lot more negative attention in its previous iteration as Bill C-10, and later passed in this Parliament as Bill C-11.

The Liberals want to hand over way too much power to the CRTC with this bill, Bill C-18, which we are debating tonight. The Conservatives stood with the people and policy experts to make our opposition absolutely clear.

When the same Liberal government with the troubling history of Bill C-11 introduces yet another Internet bill, it is reasonable for Canadians to look at it with a healthy dose of skepticism. However, the problem with government does not always come from control or overreach; sometimes it seems friendly and tries to help out with something good, but it can still create problems despite the best intentions. Unfortunately, although what we saw with this bill when it was first drafted was an honest attempt to support small media outlets, it has turned into a large bill that needlessly grows the size of government institutions.

The CRTC already wields a great deal of power in regulating the Internet and the dissemination of information, and now the government wants to further add to it. Should it have the power to determine who is considered a journalist, or the eligibility of a news agency, which is part of the process of this bill?

It does not end there. The CRTC can resolve disputes and issue penalties. As part of that, the bill allows it to set mandatory terms to which both parties, news outlets and platforms, must agree.

What is perhaps most concerning of all is that the CRTC would have the authority to demand information from these platforms and news outlets whenever it pleases.

At the end of the day, Bill C-18 is inflating the size of the CRTC and giving it enormous power, with little accountability, to regulate the news all of us view. This begs the question: What are the impacts of doing this? An important part of a free society is having an independent press and free speech to hold our leaders accountable, but how much can we trust the Liberals to maintain these things? If the government and the Prime Minister want to talk as much as they do about defending democracy and promoting diversity around the world, they need to take these things seriously when it comes to our own country.

Sadly, over the last year they have damaged their national reputation with respect to these values by abusing emergency powers and allowing vulnerable Canadians, including veterans, for example, to be offered death instead of the help they need. They have undermined our freedoms and respect for human dignity.

My fellow Conservatives and I have spoken a lot about the danger of censorship. I also say that I understand the importance of small media organizations and their place in the local communities, because I represent a very large rural riding. To this day, many still rely on these small media organizations to inform them of the happenings both locally and on the global stage, and rural Canada is better off because of it.

There are many of them in my riding, and they all play an essential role. For instance, the Southwest Booster, which is located in Swift Current, has been producing a weekly paper since 1969. We also have the Prairie Post, which covers both southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. North of Swift Current, for example, in the small town of Kyle, we also have the Kyle Times, which has been operating for a number of years. Up in the northwest corner of the riding we have papers like Your West Central Voice and the Kindersley Social, both providing a unique perspective on what is happening in their communities.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands is also home to The Shaunavon Standard, which was founded back in 1913, along with the Maple Creek & Southwest Advance Times and the Maple Creek News, which provide a weekly newspaper and distribute it in the southwest corner. In the eastern half of my constituency, we also find many papers such as the Gravelbourg Tribune, The Herald and the Assiniboia Times. All these papers contribute greatly to the social fabric that we find in rural Canada. In a place where most people do not have access to reliable Internet, these papers are critical to keeping my constituents informed.

However, through the transition into a digital world, these organizations have had to adapt and provide their service online. Before the Internet, papers like the ones I mentioned used a physical newsstand or post office boxes to promote themselves, but today, with the Internet, search engines like Google are the updated newsstands. With Bill C-18 the government is trying to interfere with this updated newsstand, and is going too far in doing so.

In this discussion, we also need to talk about the existing government support for media and how we can fix this framework. As I said, having an independent press is fundamental. However, when our media are receiving multi-million dollar payouts from the federal government, their independence quickly comes into question. The common saying, “Never bite the hand that feeds you,” exists for a reason, and I believe it applies to this situation.

Let us be honest: The job of the media is at times to bite, to seek for answers, to find the truth and to hold those in power to account. However, they cannot fully do this when they know it may impact their subsidy. Many Canadians have seen a subtle shift in the private corporate media, with its reporting starting to resemble that of the CBC, which, as a state broadcaster, receives over $1 billion directly from the government. Because of that relationship, the question is raised as to how much the organization can operate like a PR firm of the federal government. That is why we have previously called for reviewing its funding and mandate.

Having said all this, my concerns with Bill C-18 do not stop with media independence and the newly proposed powers of the CRTC, but extend also to the current government's attempt to interfere in a free market. Bill C-18 would require search engines like Google to pay a royalty to an organization that is putting out information, but the government claims this is only minimal market intervention.

Earlier in my speech I talked about many of the small newsprint operations that we have in southwestern Saskatchewan. Here in the House, we have many former members of the press or journalists or those who have been news anchors or different things over the years. I would submit that the majority, if not all the organizations they worked for, would not receive a penny from any of the funds that would be raised by doing this.

First, the government would allow media outlets and organizations to reach a deal on their own. However, if they failed to do this, the CRTC would force both parties into a binding arbitration process whereby the government would get to set the terms of the deal. If an outlet and the organization reached a deal on their own, but the CRTC officials felt the outlet was not using the money appropriately, they would say the deal was invalid and force the two parties through the arbitration process.

They cannot call this “minimal market intervention” when they are giving an institution the power to force two organizations into a binding arbitration process as well as the power to apply hefty fines. A thing is not market-based when the government needs to step in and force two companies to make a deal or face a large fine from the government if they fail to make a deal.

While the government should aim to support small media outlets, protecting their independence should be front of mind. The implications of Bill C-18 are too far-reaching, and with the lack of guidelines there is great potential for the government to abuse this process. That is why we have opposed this bill and will continue to do so.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18.

The Internet is supposed to be a place where anyone, regardless of their wealth, status or background, can express themselves in a place free from excessive restrictions and regulations.

The Internet was designed to be open and free. It was supposed to be a place where one could contribute on one’s terms, where a business can grow on its terms, where society can learn, share and communicate on its terms, free from government overreach.

The absence of government intervention was one of the very reasons why the Internet flourished into what we know it is today, and few other inventions can be attributed to creating such a significant economic, social, and cultural growth as the Internet, but now the Liberal government has made it its priority to regulate the Internet in an unprecedented way.

The Prime Minister has decided to target the free and open Internet, and maybe for those very reasons. First, it was Bill C-10, then it was Bill C-11 and now it is Bill C-18. I believe that the expansion of the government will harm the principles of a healthy media environment for years to come.

When people hear about governments regulating the Internet, few think of Canada, and rightfully so.

At a time when inflation is reaching record highs, when the cost of gas and groceries continues to rise and when heating a home is becoming unaffordable, the Liberal government is fixated on Internet regulations. Maybe the Liberals hoped that Canadians were distracted by real-life pressures and would ignore the Internet regulations, or maybe they do not care about the real issues that Canadians are currently facing in their everyday life.

Here we are, debating another government bill to regulate the Internet. Bill C-18 would force online platforms to give away their revenues to news organizations who choose to upload their content to their platform. Canadians are rightfully skeptical when the government talks about wealth redistribution. Canadians are even more concerned when the government talks about wealth redistribution within the news and media industry.

A free and independent media is critical and important to our nation’s democracy. Whenever the government tries to intervene, elected officials should pay close attention. It is our job to thoroughly examine the consequences of any attempt to hand out money or change the rules for news and media in our country.

Canadians are still questioning the government’s $600-million media bailout, but now the government is trying to create a new revenue source for media with somebody else’s money. I must ask how we can maintain a free market if we indirectly subsidize companies by extracting the profits of their competitors.

It is important to note that no one is forcing news organizations to upload hyperlinks to online platforms. They are free to make this choice. Many publishers upload their content to platforms such as Facebook and Google to benefit themselves. It is no secret that more people are likely to read an article if it is uploaded online because it suddenly becomes more accessible to the public. When an article is uploaded to the Internet for the world to read, it breaks through those geographic walls that a print newspaper is restricted to.

Many writers across Canada have experienced incredible success because of their ability to upload content online. In fact, many publishers pay Google and Facebook to boost their content through ads. Without online platforms like Facebook and Google, many writers and independent news organizations would not exist today.

The Internet has provided a lot of opportunity for media companies who were previously unable to enter the market due to high barriers of entry. Members of the House should be proud of the positive outcomes that online platforms have created for content creators.

Not only is no one forcing news outlets to upload their content online, but also nothing is preventing them from negotiating individual contracts with online platforms. As of today, many news outlets have proactively entered business agreements with online platforms to progress mutual business needs without government intervention, as I heard in a previous speech here from my colleague.

We must also ask who will be eligible to receive the government-mandated shared revenue if Bill C-18 were to become law. The government claims that only legitimate news organizations will be eligible for these funds, but who does the government deem as a legitimate news organization? According to one of the government-written criteria in Bill C-18, a legitimate news organization must produce news “primarily focused on matters of general interest”.

However, I must further ask what the matters of general interest are and who determines them. I can assure members of the House that the general interests in rural Canada are different than in urban Canada, and general interests in Atlantic Canada are different than those in northern and western Canada. These are important questions that Canadians deserve the answers to.

Instead, the Liberals have left these important decisions to the CRTC, the same CRTC that is already bogged down in a mountain of responsibility from other Internet regulations that the government has initiated.

I should note that, if Bill C-18 passes, Canada's government-funded media outlet, the CBC, will be eligible for compensation. Members heard that right. There will be more money for the CBC. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that more than 75% of the money will go to the CBC, Rogers and Bell.

The government claims that Bill C-18 is to share the wealth of online platforms to smaller media outlets, such as newspapers. As an MP who proudly represents many small-town weekly newspapers, I understand that these businesses have experienced significant market pressures in recent history.

The reality is that most of the money redistributed by Bill C-18 will only go to the media giants, such as The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail. They are the ones that have the most content online, and therefore, they will get the most money from this legislation.

Many local newspapers I represent do not even upload their content to online platforms. That means they would not see any of the money the government claims they will get. I wholeheartedly agree with local newspapers across this nation that are frustrated. However, Bill C-18 is not the silver bullet. In fact, many are warning that Bill C-18 would be detrimental to Canadian journalism.

At the beginning of my speech, I spoke about the importance of free and open Internet. It is a principle that I, and many Canadians, strongly believe in. However, Bill C-18 breaks the concept of a free and open Internet. Bill C-18 is bad for independent media, and it is bad for competition.

At a time when many Canadians believe the freedom to express oneself is threatened, the Liberal government continues down a path of unprecedented Internet regulation. It would be nice to see the government put as much effort into reducing Internet and cell phone bills as it is putting into regulating the Internet, but I digress.

I will end with a quote from Vinton Cerf, a founding father of the Internet. He stated, “if all of us...don't pay attention to what is going on, users worldwide will be at risk of losing the open and free Internet that has brought so much to so many and can bring so much more.” That is very true.

The Internet, a creation that was built on the principle of being open and free, is now threatened. We can either allow the government to expand its power over the Internet, or preserve the principles it was founded on. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-18.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by saying that on entering the House of Commons earlier, I felt a twinge of sadness at seeing the bouquet of flowers placed on the desk of our departed colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre. Last week, I was lucky enough to have the privilege of shaking his hand after his very moving speech on the bill that he was sponsoring.

The bouquet of flowers placed on his desk today is a lovely tribute to him. I think that the thoughts of all members of the House, especially my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, are with Mr. Carr's family, to whom we offer our deepest condolences.

We are now at third reading of Bill C‑18. Earlier, I was listening to my Conservative colleague answer questions after his speech, and I noted that the Conservatives, in good or bad faith, are lumping Bills C‑11 and C‑18 together. Perhaps it is a matter of opinion or belief, I am not sure. They are lumping them together using the same unfounded, fallacious and somewhat warped arguments. One claim in particular is that, through these bills, the government is going to be able to control the news, entertainment content, music content, and so on that Quebeckers and Canadians consume on the Internet.

Perhaps it is time people heard the truth. I am not saying that there is no need to discuss these issues, because they are concerning, but it should be done using facts, not just the spin coming from those who oppose regulating the companies that have been running the show online for too long already.

Let me summarize briefly. Since day one, Facebook, Twitter and Google, but especially Facebook and Google, of course, have been appropriating news articles and reports without compensating the authors, media outlets or journalists. For too many years, these digital giants have been instrumental in methodically dismantling our traditional media. They may have done so involuntarily, but because they are corporations whose sole purpose is to generate revenue, they can hardly be blamed for doing so by any means at their disposal.

That is why the time has come to set up a framework to govern these sectors, which can no longer develop in a healthy way for everyone involved. A legislative framework is a must. We need rules. Contrary to what some of our colleagues would like, it cannot be a wild west. Some advocate for a free market, free access, and no rules governing these web giants, but the impact on some people is major and, in some cases, devastating.

Web giants like Facebook and Google have appropriated advertising revenue from local advertisers. This revenue is often the bread and butter of regional media and small weekly papers in small rural communities. In fact, it may even be their only means of keeping the lights on, paying their staff and journalists and providing high-quality news. In short, it may be their only means of survival.

It is estimated that web giants appropriate, or essentially swipe, 80% of advertising revenue, to the detriment of our regional media. Those web giants have never been asked to pay anything. Their revenue has never been taxed. They are not held to account. Even though it took some time, I think that we need to commend the government for taking the initiative, even at this late stage, to legislate and put its foot down. Oddly enough, there is only one party in the House that opposed this initiative and stood by its point of view throughout the study of Bill C-10, which became C-11, and of Bill C-18, which is currently before us.

There are dozens of media outlets, dozens of small newspapers that closed their doors over the past few years because of this crisis. Since I took office as the member for Drummond and as the communications critic for my party, not a week has gone by that news media stakeholders have not expressed their concerns to me.

One weekly newspaper in a region represented by a colleague wanted to be reassured. I was asked where we in the Bloc Québécois stood and what we were doing. I was asked if they would get what was rightfully theirs and if we would create a more balanced market. That is what Bill C-18 does. This is not at all about controlling what people see on the Internet. We will refute those lies. I will do that a little later.

Let me digress for a moment to talk about newspapers. Everyone has noticed this. My children are puzzled by the thing that lands on our doorstep every Saturday. I renewed my subscription to a newspaper that is delivered every Saturday, and my kids ask me what it is. The media world has changed. Printed newspapers are rarely seen anymore. Until very recently, the Journal de Montréal was the only newspaper that still distributed a paper version seven days a week. Quebecor announced last week that it could no longer continue publishing print editions seven days a week beginning in 2023. It is going to stop delivering the paper version on Sundays. The entire industry is changing. News organizations keep us informed and up to date, but in order to keep doing that, they will need to have the best possible resources and take advantage of the technology that is becoming the primary means of transmitting information, whether we like it or not.

Quebec and Canadian news media moved very quickly in 2020 to ask the government and elected officials for regulations. At the time, the government had commissioned the report "Canada's Communications Future: Time to Act". No one remembers the real name. It has been referred to so often by its other name that it is now known as the Yale report.

It was an excellent working document that suggested that part or all royalties should contribute to the production of news. Then the COVID‑19 pandemic hit, exacerbating the difficulties facing news media, and that increased the urgency for and the pressure put on the government by these businesses to follow Australia's lead and put in place a code or legislation similar to what was enacted there. Paul Deegan, president and CEO of News Media Canada, said at the time that the negotiating framework with arbitration, inspired by the Australian approach, is the best solution to the news media crisis.

Initially, the Bloc Québécois proposed an idea that I still think is excellent. It was not what the industry wanted. It was not in keeping with the existing consensus within news media groups. We proposed taking a percentage of the web giants' revenues. The exact amount had not been determined, but around 2%, 3% or 4% of their revenues earned on Canadian soil would have been used to create a fund from which we could have generated royalties based on needs that we consider essential, such as protecting regional news companies, which are often the most affected by the arrival of web giants.

The industry preferred something inspired by the Australian model. I think that I speak for my 31 colleagues in the Bloc when I say that we are committed to representing the people who elected us. We will not go against the will of those we want to represent, so we went with what was proposed, namely legislation inspired by what was done in Australia.

Bill C‑18, the online news act, requires digital platform businesses, that is, digital news intermediaries, to negotiate agreements with news businesses. That is a pretty broad summary. From there, we had to determine which news businesses are eligible to negotiate, which created an interesting challenge. In clause 27 of the bill, eligibility for news businesses relies mostly on fiscal criteria, the same criteria used to determine eligibility for various journalism assistance programs.

All of this is reasonable, but there are some gaps.

News businesses eligible for compensation were originally required, and still are, to be designated as qualified Canadian journalism organizations, or QCJOs, under subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. A non-Canadian company could also qualify if it meets certain criteria of a QCJO, namely, if it regularly employs two or more journalists in Canada, operates in Canada, actively produces news content, and is not significantly engaged in producing content that promotes the interests or reports on the activities of an organization.

That said, the bill also excludes magazines, companies that make specialized news content. For example, companies that publish automotive or sports magazines are not considered eligible under Bill C‑18.

The Bloc Québécois succeeded in getting what I felt was an essential amendment made to Bill C‑18. We want to protect news, but news evolves. The definitions of news and journalism have been watered down in recent years. There seems to be a lack of understanding, some difficulty distinguishing journalism from opinion pieces, columns and editorials. I felt it was very important to make that distinction.

In essence, what we want to protect is journalism, journalistic coverage, news, especially regional news, and weekly papers and small media outlets, which are vulnerable. These tend to be in the regions we represent that are more rural and located outside of major centres. Their reality is very different from that of big media outlets.

We felt it was important to have criteria relating to the quality of journalism, so we proposed an amendment after consulting with media organizations, such as the Quebec Press Council. We suggested adding the requirement that a news organization be a member of a recognized journalistic association or that it follow the code of ethics of a recognized journalistic association or that it have its own code of ethics that adheres to basic journalistic principles.

This is where the basic criteria and the principles of journalism need to be defined. We must not be too precise in doing so, because trying to be too precise can sometimes leave the door open to interpretation, which we do not want to see in this kind of legislation.

The three basic principles of journalism are as follows. The first is independence, which means avoiding conflicts of interest, ideological influences and commercial policies. The second is rigour, which refers to the accuracy of information, impartiality and the presentation of balanced and complete information. The third is fairness, which refers to respect for privacy and dignity, the absence of discrimination, openness to the right of reply and prompt correction of errors. These are the three basic criteria for journalism.

In the discussions on our amendment, some people raised certain fears. People wondered what would happen if, for example, a particular media outlet expressed an opinion that was not in line with what the government wanted to hear.

Once again, I want to come back to the difference between journalism produced in a newsroom that applies these fundamental criteria from the outset and opinion journalism, such as columns and editorials, that are based on opinion, a bias or a biased or different point of view. They certainly do not constitute impartial news coverage or information.

That gave rise to some interesting discussions both in society and in the journalism community, which is an ever-evolving environment.

It was very important for us that this amendment be included in Bill C-18. It was important that these rigorous criteria, namely the basic principles of journalism, be included in the eligibility criteria for companies that can benefit from the bill's legislative framework.

Bill C‑18 does not solve all the problems. I think everyone knows that. There are still major challenges facing news organizations, as is also the case for the cultural industry and any business working in an industry affected by web giants like GAFAM. That basically means every business because these days pretty much everyone is affected by the web giants.

What will have to be done to again protect regional news media? The government will have to continue supporting them and maintaining its programs.

Clearly, this is not an easy task, and this bill will not suddenly and magically address all the problems the industry has been grappling with over the past 25 years. The sector still needs to be given a huge amount of financial support through existing programs, which will have to be enhanced, tweaked and made permanent. That remains to be done.

What also remains to be done is to see what will happen to specialty magazines, such as consumer, automotive or sports publications. We will have to see how these magazines, which publish content shared by digital intermediaries, will fare in the digital world. We will have to watch them and possibly support them.

We will have to ensure that we stop believing all the lies and disinformation and that at some point we use common sense. We will have to stop believing everything we hear.

This is not a dictatorship or a banana republic, despite what we may think from time to time when we see some of the programs managed by the government. I do not have an example. If I gave examples, I would be here all night.

No one is going to start controlling what people can and cannot watch online. When we talk about giving our media, our companies, a place, that simply means rebalancing a market that clearly disadvantages our local businesses. Hundreds of our news businesses and media outlets have shut down. Billions of dollars in advertising revenue for those companies have been lost.

That is what this legislation seeks to correct. In that sense, it is very good. This is not going to penalize Google and Facebook. Believe me, they are not short on money.

The other lie or disinformation—whatever we call it—is that the lion's share will go back to the major industry players, while the little guy will be left behind. There is no set amount. Nowhere does it say that $500 million will be shared and that the bigger companies will take the largest share, with nothing being left for the smaller companies. It does not work like that.

Should this not work, there will be a negotiation process with arbitration. That model seems equitable for both smaller and major players. What is more, if the small players wish, they can come together and stand united to have more weight in the negotiation. I think everything is quite clear, that everything is in place to give the smaller players as much of a chance to get ahead as the major players.

I will conclude on the issue of CBC/Radio-Canada. I heard my Conservative colleague mention it earlier. It is a good question. Do we allow CBC/Radio-Canada to have the same negotiation rights and earn revenue from sharing their content on digital intermediaries or not, given that CBC/Radio-Canada is publicly funded? The principle here is not how the CBC is funded. The issue is whether those who produce content shared through digital intermediaries should be paid for it. The answer is yes.

I am open to the idea of having another debate on funding for CBC. I am sure there will be some good suggestions.

However, for now, this is how Bill C‑18 is structured. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good one. It is a good starting point, and we will support it.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to wish everyone in this chamber and all of the people of Saskatoon a merry Christmas and a very happy new year.

This is the time of the year that many of us get to spend with family, friends and other loved ones. For some of us, it is truly a joyous season full of wonderment. For others, the holiday season reminds us of people lost and of relations lost. It is a hard time for those individuals.

As we all reflect on the past year and look forward to the next year, I want to offer these words of hope to all of the good folks throughout Saskatoon. May 2023 bring new beginnings, peace, good health and prosperity to members and their families.

As the member of Parliament representing the west side of Saskatoon, I will continue to work hard to raise up our city, our neighbourhoods and each of us to the best that we can be in 2023.

As we get into these last days of 2022, Bill C-18 has landed back in the House of Commons for its final round of debate before being shipped off to the other place. This legislation is one of three Internet censorship laws that the NDP-Liberal government has brought in since the last election.

Its goal is to ensure that voices other than its own, and news stories it does not like, are silenced in our democracy. I had the chance to speak to Bill C-11, which would have given almost dictator-like powers to a branch of the federal government to decide what people post on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and other Internet platforms.

If the content is not in line with the NDP-Liberal messaging of the day, algorithms would be manipulated to remove that content from one's feeds and searches. Members do not have to take my word for it. The head of that very government agency admitted as much to the Senate committee when it took up that legislation. What is worse, the NDP-Liberals just shrug their shoulders because that was the very point of the legislation.

This legislation, Bill C-18, is the second Internet censorship law that the NDP-Liberals are forcing down the throats of Canadians. Simply put, this law would force Facebook, Google and other Internet companies to prioritize CBC and other government-approved news outlets on our feed over the smaller alternative news media platforms that may be more critical of the NDP-Liberal view of the world.

The third piece of legislation currently before this Parliament is Bill C-27, which I hope to address in the new year. That legislation is the so-called digital privacy legislation, which is a laughable topic from an NDP-Liberal government that tracked millions of Canadian’s cell phones during the pandemic without their consent and has been responsible for the personal data of hundreds of thousands of Canadians ending up on the dark web.

The truth is that the Internet and social media are an integrated part of our lives today. Until now, they have been an unfettered part of our lives. Canadians use social media platforms to access and share a variety of different news articles and information among colleagues, family and friends. Canadians I talk to are very worried that these three laws will limit their ability to have open conversations online.

For legislation that is supposedly about promoting online news, the NDP-Liberals and their allies in the CBC and traditional media have been spreading a lot of misinformation about it. The current government wants to have Bill C-18 so it can use algorithms to keep information it does not like away from our feeds and Internet searches.

Bill C-18 essentially grants the government the ability to force online platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to sign deals under the duress of government penalty to promote government-approved content. These commercial agreements do not just have to be acceptable to the platform and the news organization but to the government as well.

The government agency in charge of implementing Bill C-18’s censorship provisions is called the CRTC, and it would oversee every step of this process to ensure they are satisfactory to the NDP-Liberals. Surprise, surprise, all nine members of the CRTC are appointed by the Liberal Minister of Heritage.

I am not the only one seeing past the government’s spin on this. Outside experts such as Michael Geist, who is the research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said this at the heritage committee in relation to Bill C-18, “Bill C-18’s dangerous approach…regulates which platforms must pay in order to permit expression from their users and dictates which sources are entitled to compensation.”

The former vice-chair of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, told the committee how the government can influence news companies:

You could end up with companies wishing to please the CRTC or the CRTC feeling pressure to make sure money in newsrooms is spent on certain topics, and they might be good topics, but it's frankly none of their business to have.... An independent press spends its money on whatever it wants.

Who are we to believe, the independent experts or the CBC, which is already in the pockets of the NDP-Liberal government?

A question that comes to mind is who benefits the most from this Internet censorship? It certainly is not the average everyday user of the Internet who is logging into their feed to keep up with the news. It is definitely not the independent journalists trying to make a living and provide accurate news. It could be no other than the legacy media, more specifically the folks at the CBC.

The CBC and other legacy news organizations have been complaining for years about their inability to keep up with the modern online news media. Then they proceeded to lobby the government for $600 million in bailouts. CBC, for example, rakes in $1.2 billion in federal funding and receives $250 million in combined TV and online advertising revenue, yet it still struggles to survive in the Canadian market, as it cannot keep up with the modern tech era.

This is where Bill C-18 comes to play. The government is looking to tip the scales further in CBC's favour. The government has decided that it is a bad look to continue giving more billion-dollar bailouts to the CBC, so now the government is forcing tech companies like Facebook and Google to make NDP-Liberal approved commercial deals to fund the legacy media.

Instead, the legacy media should be competing on the open market, as many independent journalists are doing as we speak. At the end of the day, online platforms and Canadian taxpayers should not be footing the bill if the legacy media is unable to keep up with the times.

Let us talk about how this legislation would affect the news Canadians access.

Bill C-18 would prohibit digital intermediary operators from giving what the CRTC determines as “preference” in news ranking. That sounds relatively fine, does it not? No, it is not. With this unclear language added into the bill, just about anyone could call up the CRTC to contest their ranking and be brought up to the top of any search engine or platform.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Trying to regulate content on the Internet will always introduce bias into the conversation. At best, it is an innocent hassle. At worst, it can be used by the government to suppress real information and control people. In my view, the risk of the worst case is not worth it. As they say, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Let us talk about Google, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and the Internet in general.

First let me say that Elon Musk's recent purchase of Twitter has shaken up Silicon Valley and the status quo in big tech quite a bit and has perhaps breathed some fresh air into what was becoming a stale industry. His commitment to free speech and his willingness to stand up to the powers that be show how big tech can directly influence elections or stay neutral, as they should.

Of course, in Canada, this legislation has the potential to tip the scales toward the NDP-Liberals during elections. Big tech recognizes that and they do not want to be tools of censorship in Canada or anywhere else.

Last spring, I met the executives of Google and it was an eye-opening experience. They are concerned. They worry that Bill C-18 does not have the tools to provide relief to smaller news outlets. After all, it was not the small independent news outlets that wanted this in the first place. It was the large media networks that lobbied for this to get done and that are now foaming at the mouth to get this legislation rammed through Parliament.

Members should not kid themselves. Google is not just afraid for its bottom line. It is a multi-billion dollar business and will absorb the costs associated with this legislation. Its real fear is about freedom of speech on the Internet. They may run worldwide organizations, but the Silicon Valley boys are still hackers at heart, living out of their mothers' basements playing Halo, sharing on Twitch and posting on Reddit. Google is concerned that the government is making it more difficult for Canadians to access quality information.

I also met with Amazon World Services in the summer, and we talked about a variety of issues related to this legislation. I can tell members that Google and Amazon do not just meet random opposition members from Saskatoon unless they have real concerns about where this country is going. It is Canadians who are the best judge of what content they want to consume, not some government bureaucrats.

We have seen Canadian content creators thrive in an open and competitive market, one being Hitesh Sharma, a Punjabi hip-hop artist from Saskatchewan who built up a large following on TikTok and later made it to the Junos. He did not need the CRTC to give him a path to fame.

It is very important that we allow our creators, whether they are influencers or media, to flourish against the top creators in the world. That is not to say we should not support our local media when we can, but we should recognize the talent we already have, all of whom have succeeded without the involvement of big government interference.

With Bill C-18, local Canadian content creators could be squeezed out of our newsfeeds and replaced with the CBC. I guess that is fine for the few people who tune into CBC on a regular basis, but for most people, especially younger people, the desire is for a free and open Internet where we can search for whatever we want, free of interference by government or anyone else. That is what Canadians want.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent my community of Kelowna—Lake Country and speak to Bill C-18, which proposes a regime to regulate digital platforms and act as an intermediary in Canada's new media ecosystem.

In order to understand what this really means, it is like coming across a newspaper left in a coffee shop, waiting room or staff lunchroom. Dozens or hundreds of people might read that paper throughout the day, even though it was only purchased one time. Should the readers be required to send money to the newspaper each time it is read? Of course they should not. That would be ridiculous. However, the outline of what I just said forms the basis of this Liberal bill, Bill C-18.

The Liberals claim that Bill C-18 would uphold the survival of small community publications and newspapers. The government and the largest organizations say they are looking out for the little guys, but in most scenarios it always seems to be the little guy who ends up losing.

Bill C-18 would allow the news industry to collectively bargain for revenue from social media platforms that the government says are “stealing” journalistic content through users sharing links with friends, family and followers. However, like much of the current government's supposed small business policies, it would be the most prominent companies that would benefit the greatest. The more content they put online, the more money they would make with no effort.

The notion that linking articles is the equivalent of theft has already been ruled out by the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Abella wrote in Crookes v. Newton, a decision ruling that says links do not carry commercial value. She said:

Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other [aspects] of “publication”....

A hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers.

Conservatives believe in a robust local media ecosystem in this country. Should a Canadian newsmaker or collective group of small publications seek to negotiate with Facebook or Google for revenue, they could do so. Smaller organizations are always more nimble. We see this whether it is a municipality versus the federal government or a local credit union versus a bank.

The news industry is in transition with publishing methods and business models. Like its sister regulation in Bill C-11, this bill seeks to reject that kind of innovation in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach and enrich old, outdated and predominantly large organizations currently being outrun by technological change. Also, just like in Bill C-11, the Liberal government has called upon what it appears to view as its most agile, efficient and modern government agency, in their minds, to do this: the CRTC.

The government's prescription of new and continuing roles to the CRTC has stretched its mandate beyond all recognition and ability, and there are many questions on definitions in this legislation and how it would be implemented.

The CRTC is an agency that took over a year to produce a three-digit mental health number. The CRTC had no proactive oversight or risk assessing of telecoms that potentially could have mitigated the massive Rogers outage.

Its 500-plus employees are already charged with the management of large portfolios, including cellular networks, data plans, advertising standards, television services, radio broadcasting, closed captioning, described video, satellite content and now, with Bill C-18, the entire Canadian online news and digital industries. If Bill C-11 is passed, the CRTC will also be asked to measure the Canadianness of 500 hours of uploaded videos posted to YouTube alone every minute.

The government originally tried to shy away from the CRTC's role in this legislation. Now, we hear that the heritage minister is openly promising to “'modernize' CRTC so it can regulate Big Tech” with an unexplained $8.5-million price tag. Bill C-18 would massively stretch the already massive mandate of the CRTC, which one could argue it is already not fulfilling. Peter Menzies, the former CRTC vice-chair, states, “It seems like they [Canadian Heritage] want to have the most expansive, most intrusive, most state-involved legislation in the world in everything they do.”

The CRTC would have a central role in the government's prescribed arbitration process, starting with selecting the pool of arbitrators and ending with the ability to impose settlements outright. The large digital platform negotiations with every Canadian media outlet needs to be completed within six months or then forced into arbitration.

Can the government credibly claim that such an arbitration process would favour small regional publications over giants such as Torstar, Postmedia, Bell, Rogers or the CBC? No, it cannot, which is why, in a technical briefing with reporters, the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s staff acknowledged that the largest beneficiary of this legislation would be the CBC, a news organization the government publicly funds.

Here is how it would work: In this legislation, news outlets would be paid based on content shared or streamed. All the state-owned CBC would have to do would be to livestream 24 hours a day on the likes of Facebook or other platforms, and it would be raking in the cash. Small producers do not necessarily have the content or capacity to do this. This, in fact, would rank up these large organizations even higher due to the amount of content they would put on social media, and it would be funded by the structure of the legislation. The CBC’s advertising revenue is low compared to its massive budget, so this would be an easy way to bring in the cash with literally no effort.

We have heard the government cite Australia as the model to follow. However, our research shows complaints have been made by small media publications in Australia about its news media bargaining laws, the same laws the Canadian government is seeking to copy here.

In a submission to the Australian senate economics committee, the Country Press Australia association, a bargaining group of small regional publications, precisely the kind of group the large media organizations and government say would likely emerge to represent smaller publications in Canada, said of Australia's own Bill C-18, “The Bill is weighted to large media organisations and does not take into account the ongoing need for a diversified media across Australia.” It also said it “could in fact lead to an outcome that is opposite to the intention of the bill, i.e. a reduction in media diversity”.

I am very concerned with the unintended consequences that would be created by this bill, especially with the largest of organizations and the Canadian state-owned media being the biggest benefactors. Sports media companies such as The Athletic have found innovative ways to uphold local sports coverage under the umbrella of an international publication.

Copying Australia's homework would not help us very much if it has already gotten a failing grade. Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd testified that Australia’s legislation would be “enhancing the power of the existing monopoly”. Joshua Benton, the founder of Harvard University’s Nieman Journalism Lab, called it “bad media policy”. The inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, said laws like Australia’s could make the internet as we know it “unworkable”. Vint Cerf, another founding father of the Internet, once attributed its astonishing economic success to two words: “permissionless innovation”.

Regulations such as Bill C-18 are a permission, and they are the swiftest killer of innovation and the greatest tool of existing media powers to kill competition. We can forget Internet searching as we know it. Calling upon the threadbare CRTC to enforce a dysfunctional Australian-like media policy would do nothing to help the small media markets in places such as my community of Kelowna-Lake Country. It would make permanent the actions of the government to bail out legacy media giants from their own business model mistakes and lack of nimbleness.

If the government was so interested in ensuring that small, regional and rural media have their share of ad revenue, it should stop pumping millions into mainstream media, which gives them the ability to reduce advertising rates and remove $1.3 billion a year from state-owned media. If it is so valued by the Canadian public, it should be able to attract advertisers and fundraise, just as other public broadcast organizations do around the world.

The biggest winners in this legislation would be the biggest media outlets, which is why we see them advocating so strongly for this. In my life experience, anytime I hear the largest of organizations say they are looking out for the little guys and they have their best interest, it is always the little guy who ends up losing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, if I may, I would like to speak about the passing of Jim Carr, a dear friend and someone I have known for a number of years. I would like to extend my condolences, prayers, love and best wishes to his family and friends.

I had the opportunity in 1988 to be elected at the same time as Jim Carr. He was appointed as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba. I was the deputy party whip. From virtually day one to what we witnessed just a few days ago in the House, he served as an inspiration to me personally. I genuinely believe that, no matter where Jim went or what he went through in his life, he left a large footprint. He has deep respect in all corners.

I do want to make quick reference to what he said in his last speech in the House, because I think it embodies many of the wonderful attributes Jim brought not only to the chamber but beyond. He stated:

Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing some deeply held emotion. I love this country, every square metre of it, in English, in French, in indigenous languages and in the languages of the newly arrived.

He went on to say:

In wrapping up this debate, I want to thank the people of Winnipeg South Centre, without whose confidence this would never have been possible.

He concluded his remarks by saying:

It is with gratitude, thanks and a deep respect for this institution that I humbly present this bill to my colleagues in Parliament.

I am very grateful for the fact that the building a green prairie economy act passed. It was something I know Jim spoke at great length about both inside and outside the chamber. It was one of a number of visions he carried, one of a number of ideas that he shared with so many Canadians in many different ways.

I appreciate the opportunity to share those few thoughts.

With respect to Bill C-18, the online news act, this legislation is an absolute must. The minister made reference to Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act and now Bill C-18, the online news act. These would assist us in modernizing our systems. So much has changed in regard to Internet accessibility, from what it was to what it is today. The Internet is an absolutely essential service today. It continues to grow as an essential service, and we need to overcome some challenges that are there.

As we look to the weeks, months and years ahead, in terms of conquering some of those challenges, one of the biggest ones is getting that fast, reliable Internet service into our rural communities. We have made significant progress over the last number of years, ensuring that it is taking place. I believe we are on the right track and are aggressively pursuing better interconnectivity for all Canadians. It is absolutely essential.

The act itself is something absolutely essential. I am pleased to see it is at the third reading stage. I was listening to what the minister was talking about. One can sense the passion and urgency just by listening to the minister. When we think about Canada and our democracy, one of the fundamental pillars of democracy is to have a free, independent media.

I recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature and seeing at least 10 or 12 members of the media in the gallery. There were representatives from all the major networks and local community newspapers. There might even have been a few others. When I left the Manitoba legislature back in 2010, I might have seen one or two reporters in the media gallery.

When we look at what has happened to our media and our news sources over the last 10 years or so, we have seen a mass reduction in the number of professional journalists. We have seen literally hundreds of news outlets in one form or another close. I do not believe for a moment, and I do not think anyone would even attempt to suggest, that it is nothing more than what we have been witnessing taking place on the Internet. We have seen a tremendous rise in things such as fake news.

The minister made reference to the war in Ukraine, and we talk about what happened during the pandemic. Canadians and people around the world, but particularly here in Canada, are very dependent on that essential service and ensuring what we see and read is factual. One of the ways we can ensure that is by going to the mainstream media.

One of my colleagues made reference to that fact that we have a wonderful ethnic media. I often look at the Pilipino Express, CKJS and numerous Indo-Canadian newspapers. There is the Portuguese community, the francophone community, the indigenous community and all of those different independent news outlets. For our community newspapers, whether rural or urban, there are things we can do to ensure they continue to be independent and continue to be supported, rightfully so, because of the Internet.

These are some tangible examples. Google and its search engines have benefited from mainstream media and from our media outlets. All the work has been done at one level, which is the creativity and reporting, and Google has directly benefited from that. There is advertising on YouTube, and in social media there are things like Facebook. The amount of advertising done through Facebook has been estimated to be, in terms of the advertising dollars going into media, as high as 80% in those giant companies.

This legislation would ensure, by utilizing the CRTC, that we can level the playing field. We could ensure that, for the information being conveyed by these giants like Google, Facebook and YouTube, they are paying their fair share. There would be an obligation in the legislation. By doing that, there would be better, more appropriate and more fair compensation for those media outlets. It would ultimately ensure that we have a healthier and stronger independent media. That is good for Canada and good for our democracy. It is the type of legislation that is necessary to get us back on track with regard to what we have been witnessing over the last number of years with the reduction of news media.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly pleased to be here today to talk about the online news act.

I want to take a moment to express my sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of my friend and colleague, Jim Carr. Jim served Canadians with pride and dedication. He will be profoundly missed.

As I have been saying from the beginning, with Bill C-11, the online streaming act, and with Bill C-18, the current bill, Canada is leading the way. The whole world is watching. On the surface, the bill we are debating now is simply about ensuring fair compensation for Canadian media, but the issue is actually much bigger than that.

It is about protecting the future of a free and independent press. It is about ensuring that Canadians have access to fact-based information. It is about protecting the strength of our democracy, one of the most important legacies that we can leave to future generations, who will see the Internet and new technology play an increasingly larger role in their lives.

When the Internet first came along, we thought it was amazing. It was, and it still is. We were suddenly able to access information from around the world in a few simple clicks. Suddenly, we had an infinite number of possibilities at our fingertips, and we still do. We all love that.

That being said, it also brought incredible challenges.

The Internet has fundamentally changed the way we create, search and consume content, especially when it comes to news. Right now, our news sector is in crisis: 468 media outlets, newspapers, television, radio stations and news websites, closed between 2008 and last August, 84 of them since the beginning of the pandemic.

Why is this happening? More and more Canadians are turning to digital platforms like search engines and social media networks as gateways to find news. At the same time, the number of Canadians who read their news in print or watch it on TV is rapidly declining.

Right now, the news is largely disseminated by these platforms, but the companies creating that news are not benefiting from it as they should. The impact on our press has been devastating.

The numbers speak for themselves. Since 2010, about one-third of journalism jobs in Canada have disappeared. In the last 12 years, Canadian television stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines, which depend on advertising revenue, have lost $4.9 billion, even though online advertising revenue in Canada surpassed $10 billion in 2021. The lion's share of that $10 billion went to the tech giants, which pocketed 80% of the revenue. The digital platforms dominate the advertising markets, so they can set their own terms, which are often unfair. In the midst of all this, the media has lost its economic influence. Right now, the digital platforms have absolutely no incentive to fairly compensate the media for its content.

The status quo is not an option and it never will be. There is absolutely no doubt that a free press, an independent and thriving press, is absolutely essential to our democracy.

We all rely on timely and accurate news to make rational decisions, to counter disinformation and to fully participate in our democracy. In these challenging times, we need it more than ever.

The pandemic gave us a strong reminder that access to quality information could literally save lives.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the global protests inspired by Mahsa Amini are also devastating reminders that we must never ever take our freedom, our democracy, for granted. We must fight for it every day.

Dominant platforms have a responsibility to support news and journalism in our democracies. Tech giants have a choice to make, and I want to work with them. We want to work with them, but we must act now.

What will the online news act do? It will help build a fairer news ecosystem, one that supports a free and independent press, one that will hold the tech giants accountable to Canadians.

How will it work? The act proposes a simple, practical and market-based approach. It is not complicated. Digital platforms will have two options. Either they enter into fair agreements with news media, or they will be forced to negotiate based on specific criteria.

The agreements will have to satisfy seven criteria. First, the digital platform must pay fair compensation to the news media. Second, an appropriate portion of the compensation must be used to support the production of local, regional and national news content. Third, the agreements must show that they defend freedom of expression and journalistic independence. Fourth, the agreements must contribute to the vitality of the news sector. Fifth, the agreements must reflect the diversity of the Canadian news sector, including with respect to language, racialized groups, communities and local characteristics. Sixth, the agreements must support independent local news businesses in Canada. Lastly, the agreements must contribute to the vitality of indigenous news outlets.

News businesses would also be able to negotiate collectively, giving smaller news outlets more bargaining power. This is extremely important. If platforms and news outlets are unable to reach voluntary agreements, then, and only then, would the act mandate negotiation, with final offer arbitration as a last resort.

Members may say that this model is very similar to the one introduced in Australia, and they are right. However, we have learned from its experience, considered the feedback from stakeholders and adjusted it to fit our Canadian context. As I have said before, Canada is paving the way.

Canadians expect us to act to protect their local journalism and to do so transparently.

This is a complex task. We are hearing concerns and criticisms, and that is normal. Unfortunately, we have also seen misinformation in connection with the bill.

Our job as a government is not to stand up for the web giants or repeat their talking points like the Conservatives are doing. Our job is to be there for Canadians. It is the right thing to do. We will face challenges, because we are breaking new ground and that is never easy.

The online news act is one piece of a large and complex puzzle that aims to build a safer, more inclusive and more competitive Internet for all Canadians.

I have spoken with my G7 colleagues about all of this and I can say one thing: The whole world is watching Canada right now.

I hope that together we will rise to the occasion. We must never take our democracy for granted. We must do whatever it takes to preserve it. This is why I am asking all colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was going to be taken to task by the Liberals after my speech, but instead, in hockey parlance, they are giving me an assist. I thank my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He knows where I stand on the media, artists and the cultural industry.

There are two extremely important bills that really should be passed quickly. One is stuck in the Senate, which is outrageous. The Senate needs to stop playing games with Bill C-11. The cultural industry is depending on it. The web giants need to pay their fair share in every sector in which they are making a profit in Canada and Quebec, and that includes both the cultural industry and the broadcasting industry. This is also about protecting our news media.

We are working hard on Bill C-18, which is currently being examined in committee. Things are moving along well, and there is goodwill. I completely agree with my colleague. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the web giants contribute in sectors where they are making exponential profits.

Telecommunications Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place, especially when it comes to issues that are so very pressing in relation to national security and some of the challenges that our nation is facing. I would suggest the whole discussion around cybersecurity is especially relevant, because we are seeing highlighted, each and every day, a drip of new information related to foreign interference in our elections.

It highlights how important the conversation around cybersecurity is. It is often through computer and technological means that these malicious, foreign state actors will attack Canadian infrastructure. It is particularly relevant that I rise to debate Bill C-26, relating to the Liberals' recently introduced bill on cybersecurity, and I would like to highlight a couple of things.

The first thing is about seven years of inaction. I find it interesting, after seven years, how it was heard at the ethics committee from a whole host of experts in the field, including on cybersecurity and a whole range of issues, that the government is missing in action. It is not just about the government's inaction, but it is missing in action when it comes to some of the key issues surrounding things like cybersecurity. It has the direct consequence of creating uncertainty in terms of the technological space in the high-tech sector, which has massive opportunities.

We hear the Ottawa area referred to as silicon valley north. We have the Waterloo sector that has a significant investment in the high-tech sector. In my home province of Alberta, there is tremendous opportunity that has been brought forward through innovation, specifically in the Calgary area where we are seeing massive advancements in technology, but there is uncertainty.

Over the last seven years, the government has not taken action when it should have been providing clear direction so that industry and capital could prosper in our country. That is on the investment and economic side, but likewise, on the trust in government institutions side, we have seen an erosion of trust, such as the years-long delay on the decision regarding Huawei.

I and many Canadians, including experts in the field, as well as many within our Five Eyes security partners, were baffled about the government's delay on taking clear and decisive action against Huawei. Even though our Five Eyes, a group of countries that shares intelligence and has a strong intelligence working relationship, sees how inaction eroded the trust that these other nations had in Canada's ability to respond to cyber-concerns and threats. There is the fact that a company, a state-owned enterprise, has clear connections to a malicious foreign actor.

That delay led to incredible uncertainty in the markets and incredible costs taken on by private enterprise that simply did not have direction. Imagine all the telecoms that may have purchased significant assets of Huawei infrastructure because the government refused to provide them direction. There were years and years of inaction.

I will speak specifically about how important it is to understand the question around Canadian institutions. I would hope that members of the House take seriously the reports tabled in this place, such as from the public safety committee, which in the second session of the last Parliament I had the honour of sitting on. There is a whole host of studies that have been done related to this.

Then there are the CSIS reports tabled in this place containing some astounding revelations about foreign state actors and their incursions and attempts to erode trust in Canadian institutions. Specifically, there was a CSE report for 2021, which I believe is the most recent one tabled, that talks about three to five billion malicious incursions in our federal institutions a day via cyber-means. That is an astounding number and does not include the incursions that would be hacks against individuals or corporations. That is simply federal government institutions. That is three to five billion a day.

There are NSICOP reports as well. The RCMP, military intelligence and a whole host of agencies are hard at work on many of these things. It highlights how absolutely important cybersecurity is.

I find it interesting, because over the last seven years the Liberals have talked tough about many things but have delivered action on very few. Huawei is a great example. Cybersecurity is another. We see a host of other concerns that would veer off the topic of this discussion, so I will make sure that I keep directly focused on Bill C-26 today. The Liberal government is very good at announcing things, but the follow-through often leaves much to be desired.

We see Bill C-26 before us today. There is no question that action is needed. I am thankful we have the opportunity to be able to debate the substance of this bill in this place. I know the hard work that will be done, certainly by Conservatives though I cannot speak for the other parties, at committee to attempt to fix some of the concerns that have been highlighted, and certainly have been highlighted by a number of my colleagues.

The reality is Canadians, more and more, depend on technology. We saw examples, when there are issues with that technology, of the massive economic implications and disruptions that take place across our country. We saw that with the Rogers outage that took place in July. Most Canadians would not have realized that the debit card system, one of the foundational elements of our financial system, was dependent upon the Rogers network. For a number of days, having disruptions in that space had significant economic implications. It just speaks to one of the many ways Canadians depend on technology.

We saw an example in the United States, so not directly in Canada, when the Colonial Pipeline faced a ransomware attack. A major energy pipeline on the eastern seaboard of the United States was shut down through a cyber ransomware attack. It caused massive disruptions.

Another Canadian example that has been reported in talking to some in the sector was Bombardier recreational products. The Quebec company is under a cyber-lockdown because of hostile actions. There are numerous other examples, whether in the federal government or in the provinces, where this has been faced.

There are a number of concerns related to what needs to take place in this bill to ensure that we get it right. It needs to align with the actions that have taken place in our Five Eyes allies. We need to ensure that the civil liberties question is clearly answered.

We have seen the government not take concern over the rights of Canadians to see their rights protected, their freedom of speech, whether that is Bill C-11. I know other parties support this backdoor censorship bill, but these are significant concerns. Canadians have a right to question whether or not there would be a civil liberties impact, to make sure there would not be opportunity for backdoor surveillance, and to ensure there would be appropriate safeguards in place and not give too much power to politicians and bureaucrats as to what the actions of government would be.

As was stated by one stakeholder in writing about this, the lack of guardrails to constrain abuse is very concerning. In Bill C-26, there is vague language. Whenever there is vague language in legislation, it leaves it open to interpretation. We have seen how, in the Emergencies Act discussion and debate, the government created its own definition of some of the things that I would suggest were fairly clearly defined in legislation. We have to make sure it is airtight.

Massive power would be given to the Minister of Industry in relation to many of the measures contained in this bill.

I look forward to taking questions. It is absolutely key we get this right, so Canadians can in fact be protected and have confidence in their cybersecurity regime.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-11 is a terrible bill. It seeks to censor, and there is no rationale to have such a bill in place. It would do no good for any freedom-loving, law-abiding citizen in this country and it must be struck down.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, in which she mentioned something very interesting.

She said that giving too much power to the executive would undermine the work of parliamentarians. I found that quite odd because Bill C‑11, which is exceptionally important for the discoverability of francophone content and for supporting francophone culture in Canada, is currently being held up in the Senate, where Conservative senators have been filibustering it for months.

Does the member think that her friends in the Senate are currently undermining the work of parliamentarians?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, who is also from Winnipeg and a fellow Manitoban.

I take the member's point regarding former pieces of legislation that need work. The leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, has been very clear in his desire to protect data and the rights of Canadians, especially if we are looking at Bill C-11, which is the Liberal government's attempt to control and regulate the Internet, so to speak. He put forward the very first, very public and very well executed defence of Bill C-11, so I would say that the capability for data sharing between departments and between ministers, which is a large part of this bill, raises a lot of significant privacy concerns of the data of individual Canadians.

We have been very clear that our intentions with this bill and others are to protect those freedoms and that privacy of Canadians. Therefore, that will be the underlying theme of our approach, certainly to this bill during the committee process and in the days and weeks to come.

Freedom of Speech

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is about Bill C-11, a bill currently before the Senate. The government has now admitted that it is seeking to give itself the power to regulate social media algorithms. The petitioners are opposed to that bill. They call on the Government of Canada to respect Canadians' fundamental right to freedom of expression and call on the government to prevent Internet censorship in Canada.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the fall economic statement, and I am lucky I got the chance before the government shut down debate, which it is doing today. In my usual format, I will look at the different sections of the fall economic update and tell members what I think about them.

To start off, the first section is called “Sound Economic Stewardship in Uncertain Times”. That sounds like something everybody would want. These certainly are uncertain times, so sound economic stewardship sounds like just what we need. The problem is the document has nothing to do with sound economic stewardship.

We have more inflationary spending, after economists and experts have said that more inflationary spending is just going to cause more inflation. We have the highest levels of inflation we have had in 40 years. I am not sure why, but I expected more from a Prime Minister who has spent more money in his term in office than all other prime ministers have spent put together. The earning power of Canadians is at the lowest point it has been in decades, and I am very concerned that we have not taken the appropriate actions in the fall economic statement to address sound economic stewardship.

Our debt is so large that we will pay $22 billion of interest on the debt next year. In two years, we will be paying $44 billion for interest on the debt. That is not the debt itself; we are not paying the debt down. Just the interest on the debt will be $44 billion. That is more than all of the health transfers to all of the provinces. I really think that was a missed opportunity.

Let us move on to the second part: “Making Life More Affordable”. Again, it sounds like a really good idea. I think Canadians would say they need life to be more affordable. However, this is what the Liberals always do: What they say sounds good, but what they actually do is not that good.

Fifty per cent of Canadians cannot pay their bills. Personal debt is at an all-time high. What do the Liberals do? They increase the tax that is going to drive up the price of groceries, gas and home heating. Is that going to make life more affordable for Canadians? No, it is not; it is just going to make it worse. I really think the government needs to listen to what Canadians are saying and understand the dire straits that many Canadians are facing in losing their houses and having to choose between heating and eating. Something needs to be done and the “something” is not what was in the fall economic statement.

There is a lot of wasteful spending going on, and I was shocked to find out about the $450 billion we pumped out the door during COVID. Some supports were definitely needed during the pandemic, but I heard the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that 40% of them had nothing to do with COVID. That is an incredible amount of money. We have to stop wasting it.

I agree that climate change needs to be addressed and I agree we need to reduce emissions, but we have spent $100 billion and the Liberal government has failed to meet any of its emissions targets. We are number 58 out of 60 on the list of countries that went to COP27 with Paris accord targets. We spent $100 billion, but what do we get for it? We get absolutely nothing.

We have to do better about spending taxpayer money to get results. Members today were saying that it is a real emergency; we have flooding and wildfires. They can ask themselves how high the carbon tax in Canada has to be to stop us from having floods or stop us from having wildfires here.

As a chemical engineer, I will say that Canada is less than 2% of the footprint. We could eliminate the whole thing and we are still going to have the impacts of floods and wildfires until the other more substantive contributors in the world, such as China, which has 34% of the footprint, get their act together. We can help them get their act together. If we replace with LNG all the coal that China is using and the coal plants they are building, it would mean jobs for Canadians and would cut the carbon footprint of the whole world by 10% or 15%. That would be worth doing, but it was not in the fall economic update.

I do not know if there are problems with math on the opposite side, but the Prime Minister ordered 10 vaccines for every Canadian. I do not know if he knew that two or three vaccines, or four or five maximum, were all we were going to take. Now all the rest of the vaccines have expired and have all been thrown away. What a huge waste that is. They could have gone to countries that do not have vaccines or that cannot afford to buy them. That is just one example of the wasteful spending.

The next section was called “Jobs, Growth, and an Economy That Works for Everyone”, and I think that sounds like something everybody would like. Every Canadian wants jobs, growth and an economy that works for everyone. However, in the fall economic statement we saw that we have only half the GDP growth we expected and predicted earlier this year, so we did not get the growth, and we have lost a lot of jobs and gotten a few jobs back, but it did not work for everyone.

If someone was unable to take a vaccine due to a medical issue or because they made a personal choice, they got fired, lost their job. Just to make the pain double, even though they had paid into an employment insurance program, paid the premium and should get the benefit, the government made sure that nobody who refused a vaccine could get that, so it does not work for everyone.

The last section is called “Fair and Effective Government”. Again, who could disagree with fair and effective government? I want the government to be fair. I want to live in a fair democracy, and I want the government to be effective. That would be wonderful, but today we have passports taking seven months to process, and there are 2.5 million immigrants caught in the backlog at IRCC. The average wait time for some of those types of permits is 82 months. We have the Phoenix pay system and the ArriveCAN app. Everything is broken all over the government. There is not any effective government happening. Yes, I think we should have it, but it is not in there.

With respect to a fair government, this is the Liberal government that brought in the Emergencies Act. We are waiting for the final word on it, but a lot of people have said there was no threat to national security and there was no emergency. The law enforcement people did not ask for it and the provinces did not ask for it, yet the government froze the bank accounts of Canadians without any warrants. That is not a fair democracy.

There is a freedom of speech war going on in our country. Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and all the bills the government brings forward whereby the government is going to get to control the speech of Canadians and the media, are not fair. We have evidence that CSIS talked to the Prime Minister and said Chinese money from Beijing was funnelled to 11 election candidates, with no transparency on who they were, and that there was interference in the 2021 election, again with no transparency. That is not a fair, democratic government.

I could go on about rental and dental, where the government has driven up the cost of housing. The average cost of housing rental was $1,000 in Canada, and now it is $2,000. With one hand the government is going to give a cheque for $500, but with the other hand its policies cost an increase of thousands of dollars, $12,000 a month on average in Canada. That is the way the government is working. It gives a little but takes a lot back, and that is not what we want to see, so I cannot support the bill that goes with the fall economic statement. I think we have to do better.

Freedoms in Canada

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, freedoms are under attack in this country, from the freedom of speech, with a censorship bill, Bill C-11, that would control Canadians' online content, to freedom of the press, with Bill C-18, which may result in news content being blocked from Canadians or may disadvantage small, independent news outlets.

Then there is freedom of religion, with the infamous Canada summer jobs attestation, the burning of 15 Christian churches in Canada without a word from the government and the hiring of an anti-Semitic racist to advise the Liberal government on anti-racism. Also, our freedom to enter and leave Canada and freely move between provinces was violated for two years during the pandemic for the unvaccinated.

As for freedom from unlawful search and seizure, the Liberals will be confiscating the property of lawful gun owners.

I am here to stand up for our freedoms, and I hope others will do the same.

Bill C-11

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who have been shut out by Canada's traditional media gatekeepers are finding their voices on places like TikTok, Spotify and YouTube. It is amazing. I am talking about creators like Oorbee Roy, a South Asian mother from Toronto who shares her skill in and her love for skateboarding on TikTok. I am talking about Vanessa Brousseau, an indigenous woman who shares her artistry and her passion as she advocates for missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.

These creators leverage digital platforms to share their uniquely Canadian stories with the world. Despite this, the government wants to kill their success and actually silence their voices. Through Bill C-11, the government would pick winners and losers by determining which content gets to be seen and which content has to be hidden.

As for everyday Canadian users, we are out of luck too, because whatever we post online, see online or hear online would be censored by the government. Hello, state censorship, and goodbye freedom. It is time for the government to read its notifications, because if it did, it would see there is a massive thumbs-down.

Government Business No. 22—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West.

Here we are again. I was in the process of recapping a bit of history on the draconian motions the Liberal government continues to bring. I had described Motion No. 6 in 2016. It was the same thing of wanting to extend the hours and basically obstruct, and that of course was where “elbowgate” came from. The Prime Minister was upset because there was legislation pending and many amendments were brought, so that evening turned into a fiasco.

The government then withdrew Motion No. 6. It realized it had pushed everyone too far and it was very undemocratic. In fact, I quoted the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who said that the motion was fundamentally anti-democratic. The NDP seems to be supporting its costly coalition now, but at the time he said that it was fundamentally undemocratic.

Then the government came forward with Motion No. 11, which was about sitting until midnight, but not for everybody to be sitting until midnight. The Liberals and the NDP would have been able to be home in their pyjamas with Motion No. 11, because there would not need to be quorum. They would not need to have a certain number of people in the House, which is actually a constitutional requirement to have 20 in the House. They were recommending something that was not even constitutional back on Motion No. 11.

The irony is they have now brought Motion No. 22, which is twice as bad as Motion No. 11, and mathematically, people will see the irony there. On the one hand, we hear Liberal members say they are trying to give us more time to debate, but actually that would only happen when Liberal and NDP members would be here, and they would not need to be because we would not need to have quorum. It is a little insincere.

The other thing is that the government continually moves time allocation. It promised not to do that when it was first elected in 2015, back in the old sunshiny days. Its members said they would never move time allocation, and now they are moving it all the time.

Rushing things through the House can be disastrous. We saw that with Bill C-11, where all kinds of draconian measures were used. It was forced to committee, and it was time allocated at committee to get it over to the Senate. Now we can see there are so many flaws in the bill that the Senate is taking quite a bit of time with it and is likely to bring numerous amendments.

That is why we need to have time here in the House for reasonable debate. Debate means people need to not just speak but also be heard. For that to happen, one needs to have an audience, which of course Motion No. 22 would eliminate. The role of the opposition is to point out what is not good about legislation that comes before the House. It does no good at all for us to point it out if nobody is listening to what is being said.

I find it particularly awful that the Liberals talk about family balance and try to promote more women to come into politics. The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and the member for Shefford, who are young mothers, have stood up and said that this motion is not good for family balance. It is not that people do not want to work, but if we want to encourage more women to come in, these kinds of measures are not encouraging them. There is a lot of hypocrisy for the government to talk on the one hand about getting more women in politics and promoting that and on the other hand putting draconian measures such as this in place, where mothers with young babies would need to be here at 11:30 at night debating legislation.

I am very concerned about committee resources, and so that is really the amendment the CPC has brought. We have seen there has been a lot of trouble at committees getting interpreters and committees not being able to extend their hours when there are important issues because there are just no resources. A valid concern brought by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was that we want a guarantee we are not going to be shortchanged at committee. Perhaps at the end of the day, that is what the government is trying to do, which is to escape the examination it gets at committee. In a minority government, we can actually try to get to the heart of the issues the government would like no transparency on.

The amendment that has been brought forward is a good one. Overall, I have seen an erosion of our democracy. I think this motion is fundamentally undemocratic, but I would add it to the list of attacks on our democratic rights and freedoms in this country.

We talk about freedom of speech, but we have seen a continual onslaught against it from the government through Bill C-10, Bill C-36 and Bill C-11, including when it comes to freedom of the media and freedom of the press. We have Bill C-18 at the heritage committee right now, and I have lots of concern about that bill. There is an erosion of freedom of religion in this country, from hiring a consultant who is an anti-Semite to advise the government on anti-racism, to having 15 Christian churches burn down in Canada, yet crickets are coming from the side opposite.

I am very concerned. I see the rise of Chinese influence in our elections. There are three police stations that China has claimed in Toronto. What is the government doing about any of this? Nothing.

This motion is just another in a long line of motions eroding our democracy, so I am certainly not going to support it. I cannot believe that the NDP is going to support the government when previously the New Democrats said this kind of motion was fundamentally undemocratic. I understand in no way why this costly coalition exists. The NDP got in bed with the Liberals to get 10 sick days, through legislation that was passed in December last year and was never enacted, and dental care for everybody, which they got for children under 12 and poor families who are mostly covered in other provincial programs, with nothing else coming until after the next election. On pharmacare, there are crickets.

Why is the NDP supporting the government on this draconian anti-democratic motion that is intended to take away the accountability of government? I have no idea. I am certainly not going to support it, and my Conservative colleagues will not either.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I could put up with all the other heckling, Mr. Speaker, but when the member for Winnipeg North says, “Go, Bombers”, I have to react to that and ask if that is parliamentary. I am pretty sure that should get him ejected from the chamber.

In a football context, imagine if the Bombers got the ball and they tried to unilaterally tell the referees they were not going to run the clock while they had the ball. It would not be fair. It is not part of the game. It is not part of how the dynamic works.

To have a situation mid-session where, all of a sudden, the Liberals were going to rig the clock, rig the calendar, to help them ram through more of their legislation, hoping to exhaust Conservative MPs from using our time in the House to make these points. It is not just about time, when the government counts the number of hours or days when the debate is actually going on. That is just part of the picture. We can think of many examples where, thanks to the debate taking some time, flaws in the bills were exposed. I can think of the medical assistance in dying bill that the chamber has debated in several Parliaments now.

I can appreciate the goodwill from members on all sides to try to get aspects of that right, and to put in proper protections for vulnerable Canadians. It was because it took time to go through that many people expressed their concerns and identified flaws in the legislation, saying that vulnerable Canadians, people with mental health issues, young Canadians and our veterans would be more susceptible. They may fall through the cracks and may have this type of medical action taken, maybe without their full consent or by catching them at a vulnerable time.

Conservatives used that time to help expose it and inform Canadians. As a result, we saw many disability groups and other types of groups become more engaged and ultimately try to make the bill better when it did get to committee.

There are lots of examples I could run through. Thanks to the fact that we had more time in the House, not just time in terms of hours of the day or number of speeches given, but literally days off the calendar, it gave those industry groups, stakeholder groups and people affected by the legislation more time to run through the bill and inform their members of Parliament. Therefore, before the bill even came to committee there was already a plan in place to try to fix the deficiencies.

Right now we have Bill C-11 in the Senate. It is a massive expansion of the government's power to regulate the Internet and control what Canadians could see and say online. If the government had had its way, it would have sailed through all stages and it would have been law by now. However, it was because we took extra time to debate it that more Canadians realized that this would have a massive negative impact on Canadians' abilities to express themselves freely. We were able to hear from content creators, who are very famous people with their own YouTube followings and social media presences. They talked to individual MPs and said that, as Canadian content creators, Bill C-11 would have a negative impact on them. They did that because we gave them that time to do so.

Rather than seeing the number of days as a problem, the government should see it as an opportunity and welcome it. What the government does has an impact on every single Canadian and I, for one, hope that it would want to get that right. That goal is actually good government not just Liberal priorities being passed.

If it should come to light that there is a flaw in a bill or unintended consequences, it should welcome that the same way that a small business owner does who hears from one of their staff that the way they operate is making them lose money or annoying customers. A good small business owner wants to hear that. Any business owner wants to hear that. I want to hear from my own family if there are certain things we do that have a negative impact on one of my kids or my spouse. We want to hear that. We want to have a good family environment, and business owners want to have successful operations with happy employees and happy customers. We should welcome that.

When Conservatives say they want another day of debate or we want to talk about this a little bit longer, the government should say that is great and it wants to hear what we have to say and the constructive feedback. The government House leader spoke at great length about this type of thing, encouraging conversations, encouraging feedback and critiques and admitting that the government does not get it right all the time. That is why it is so hypocritical to hear a House leader talk about all this context while he is putting through a motion that is going to assist the government to ram through its agenda at an even greater pace. That is why Conservatives are opposed to this piece of legislation.

We are in favour of good government, we are in favour of good legislation and we will do our part. The government continuously ignores the feedback from Canadians. When Canadians are saying they do not want record-high inflation and to stop the printing presses, stop the deficit spending and stop borrowing money to throw it into an economy that drives up prices, it is not listening. We have to be that voice. It is our constitutional role to do that. We actually have a moral obligation as the official opposition to do that. We are not going to be cowardly or apologetic just because the government is frustrated with its timelines.

To close, it is so difficult to hear a Liberal member of Parliament, the government House leader, talk about cultivating a climate of respect and talk about cordial and constructive conversations when his leader, the Liberal Prime Minister, speaks with such contempt for anybody who disagrees with him, pitting Canadian against Canadian and dividing us.

Remember the government's reaction during the pandemic when many Canadians wanted to make their own health care choices and make their own determination for themselves as to what medicines they put in their body? The reaction from the government was that it forced people to choose between keeping their jobs and taking a medical treatment that they may not have been comfortable with. That does not sound very constructive or respectful to me.

Then the Prime Minister openly asked if they should even tolerate these people. That is the type of language we hear horrible dictators use against segments of their population that they would rather do without. We saw the contempt that he had for those who came to Ottawa to fight for their freedoms. He invoked an Emergencies Act that had never been used in Canadian history. By the way, now it is coming out how flimsy the excuse was for doing that, as police entity after police entity, from the Ottawa police to the Ontario Provincial Police are all saying that they did not ask for it and that existing laws were sufficient to do the work that they were asked to do. We have a Prime Minister who insults, demonizes and bullies.

The government House leader talked about the impact that type of toxic environment has had on its own family, yet he sits in a caucus where many members on this side witnessed the Prime Minister get up out of his seat, walk over and bully a former Black female member of Parliament who was forced to leave politics. She said that one of the reasons she was leaving politics when she did was the personal treatment that the Prime Minister inflicted upon her.

The Prime Minister fired the first female indigenous justice minister. What did he fire her for? She would not go along with his corruption. She had the audacity to stand in her place and say no. As the former minister of justice and the attorney general, she had a higher obligation to the law than to her political master. He fired her.

The government House leader has no problem sitting beside the Prime Minister and supporting the Prime Minister in all he does. It is a bit rich. The reason the opposition party does not put a lot of stock in his words is that he is clearly quite comfortable with the toxic behaviour that his own Liberal leader has put his own colleagues through.

Since it is a massive undermining of a very important check on the government's ability to ram through its agenda, because of the hypocrisy of a government that has so mismanaged its own timetable and its own calendar and because of the direct impact that this motion would have on committees, Conservatives cannot support this motion.

Since we are hopeful that some of what the government House leader said may have been sincere, we are hoping that they may support an amendment to specifically protect the very important work that committees are doing.

I move:

That the motion be amended, in paragraph (a), by replacing the words “and that such a request shall be deemed adopted” with the words “and, provided that if the Clerk of the House personally guarantees that there would be no consequential cancellation or reduction of the regularly scheduled committee meeting resources for that day, the request shall be deemed adopted”.

Finance

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will give some other examples. What is happening in the area of culture? What is being done for our artists and creators? Instead of helping culture by supporting Bill C-11, the Conservatives are blocking the bill in the Senate. Once again, instead of defending our culture, our music and our television programs, the Conservatives are repeating the web giants' messages. For once, instead of repeating the rhetoric of Facebook and the web giants, the Conservatives should stand up for Canadians.

Alleged Intimidation of a Committee Witness by a Member of Parliament

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, for which I gave notice earlier this same day, regarding the conduct of the member for St. Catharines, who attempted to intimidate Scott Benzie, a witness appearing before a committee of the Senate studying Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, as reported yesterday by the Globe and Mail.

While I appreciate that this attempt to intimidate relates to proceedings of a Senate committee currently studying Bill C-11, the culprit in this case is a member of the House, and that same witness appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during its deliberations on Bill C-11, an appearance where Mr. Benzie, no doubt, first established himself as an undesirable witness for the government on the merits of Bill C-11.

Normally, it is members who bring to the attention of a committee of the House the matter of outside actors intimidating witnesses before committee, but this case is unique in that it is a member of the House of Commons doing the intimidating in another jurisdiction, the Senate. In addition, it relates to a bill, for which I have responsibility for as the shadow minister of Canadian heritage, that originated in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. While this type of offence may not fall within one of the specifically defined categories of privilege, the category of contempt allows the House to deal with the unorthodox nature of this case.

On pages 81 to 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, they state:

Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized. Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “...while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”.

Another perspective of parliamentary privilege is the notion that the behaviour of members falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of this House. At pages 181 to 183 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it clearly states that the House of Commons' jurisdiction over its members is absolute and exclusive, whereby the House has the power to enforce discipline on members of the House of Commons. Page 76 of Bosc and Gagnon refers to one of the rights of the House recognized by the Supreme Court, which is disciplinary authority over its members.

The next question is why the House would exercise its disciplinary authority over a member in this case. Simply put, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Attempts by anyone to intimidate a witness before a committee is considered a contempt. It is particularly offensive that it is a member of the House who is attempting to interfere with the work of a committee in a manner that would be considered a contempt, had it been attempted by a member of the public.

The Globe and Mail story I referred to earlier reports:

A Liberal MP has asked the lobbying commissioner to investigate an outspoken critic of the federal government's online-streaming bill for failing to immediately disclose funding from YouTube and TikTok.

The Heritage Minister's Parliamentary secretary...asked Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger to launch an investigation into Digital First Canada, an organization that advocates for YouTubers and people posting videos on platforms.

The article continues:

[Executive director] Mr. Benzie questioned the motivation of the minister's parliamentary secretary in referring him to the lobbying commissioner. He said the MP had not asked for a probe into organizations receiving outside funding, both public and private that had given evidence in favour of Bill C-11....

Mr. Benzie said that he was speaking out about the bill because no other group was representing the views of individuals posting videos on YouTube — including “creators making $16 a month” — and he was concerned about the impact of the legislation on their livelihoods.

A similar situation occurred on December 4, 1992. The then member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell rose in the House to bring to the attention of the Speaker the intimidation of a witness appearing before a committee of the House for remarks she made during testimony at that committee. The CBC threatened a lawsuit against the witness because of evidence she presented at the committee. The Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facia question of privilege. Also noteworthy in that case is that the Speaker came to this conclusion without a report from a committee. In this case, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is threatening an investigation against a witness because of evidence he presented to a committee.

Page 267 of the 24th edition of Erskine May states, “Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.” Similar statements are made at page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, which explains that witnesses are protected from threats or intimidation.

Paragraph 15.23 of Erskine May, 25th edition, states, “Both Houses will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which they may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a contempt.”

On April 13, 2000, the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders presented its fifth report dealing with allegations about reprisals against a witness. The report stated, in part, as follows:

The Senate, and all senators, view with great seriousness any allegations of possible intimidation or harassment of a witness or potential witness before a Senate committee. In order for the Senate to discharge its functions and duties properly, it must be able to call and hear from witnesses without their being threatened or fearing any repercussions. Any interference with a person who has given evidence before a Senate committee, or who is planning to, is an interference with the Senate itself, and cannot be tolerated.

Our privileges are necessary to allow us to perform our duties and to defend against threats against the authority of this Parliament. The fact that this threat came from within this place is particularly distressing.

Mr. Speaker, even if you have some doubts about this case involving a Senate committee and the conduct of a member of the House of Commons, I urge you to give this case the benefit of the doubt.

I refer the House to Maingot, second edition, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 227, which I will quote for everyone's benefit. It states:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.

In a ruling on October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of the Debates, the Speaker said:

In considering this matter, I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...and considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.

Further, on March 27, 1969, page 7182, the Debates states the following:

[The member] has, perhaps, a grievance against the government in that capacity rather than in his capacity as a member of parliament. On the other hand, hon. members know that the house has always exercised great care in attempting to protect the rights and privileges of all its members. Since there is some doubt about the interpretation of the precedents in this situation, I would be inclined to resolve that doubt in favour of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, there are ample precedents to allow you to put this matter to the House and to have it decide on the best course of action and what it might be. If you do give this matter the benefit of the doubt and find a prima facie question of privilege, I am of course prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Child Health Protection Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-252, which focuses on the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children.

This bill is mostly a preamble, and there is some strong language in the preamble about protecting kids from manipulative media and about their vulnerability to marketing and media. We should be concerned about marketing that is targeting kids with things that are beyond their age or could be harmful to them.

What about sexually explicit materials and their impact on kids? Numerous studies show the harmful impact that exposure to pornography and hypersexualized media can have on kids, including mental health issues such as depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, increased likelihood of accepting sexual violence or rape myths and an increased risk of girls being sexually harassed and boys committing sexual harassment. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that exposure to pornography by children may shape a child’s expectations in relationships, blur boundaries and increase a child’s risk of victimization, increase a child’s health risks through, for example, sexually transmitted infections or sexual exploitation, and increase a child’s risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment.

We know that children’s exposure to sexually explicit content, particularly that which is violent and degrading, causes serious and significant harm to mental and emotional health. We know that much of the pornographic content published and hosted on MindGeek websites is sexist, racist or degrading to particular groups. We also know that some of the content involves actual violence or coercion, or is shared without consent.

We need to be focused on the marketing that targets children, and one of the most pressing areas is companies that publish sexually explicit material. If we want to protect “vulnerable children from the manipulative influence of marketing”, particularly harmful content online, we should be starting with predatory porn companies. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to kids online but they do, and they have no requirement to make sure those accessing their sites are actually over the age of 18.

For example, MindGeek is a Montreal-based company not too far from the riding of the sponsor of this bill. MindGeek employs around 1,600 people. It is based in Montreal and the online platforms it owns include Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers. According to MindGeek's own data, its websites received approximately 4.5 billion visits each month in 2020, equivalent to the monthly visitors of Facebook. Many of those visitors were kids.

That is why last spring, when Bill C-11 was going through the Canadian heritage committee, I proposed amendments to help protect kids from exposure to sexually explicit content. Specifically, my amendment would have added to the policy objective of the Broadcasting Act that it “seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”. It was supported by multiple child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation in briefs submitted to the heritage committee.

Defend Dignity, a great organization, pointed out that these amendments are supported by general comment 25, which was recently adopted by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada is a signatory to it. The Convention on the Rights of the Child's general comment notes:

States parties should take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks to their right to life, survival and development. Risks relating to content, contact, conduct and contract encompass, among other things, violent and sexual content, cyberaggression and harassment, gambling, exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse, and the promotion of or incitement to suicide or life-threatening activities, including by criminals or armed groups designated as terrorist or violent extremist.

To be clear, they urge signatories like Canada to “take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks...relating to...violent and sexual content”. That is why Defend Dignity said, “Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority.”

Timea’s Cause, another great organization, and OneChild, with a combined 32 years of experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children, wrote to the heritage committee and said:

Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....

This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values, and ideologies. In the case of children, who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them-this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of online content has frightening links to rape, “sextortion”, deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.

At the heritage committee, when it came to a vote on my amendment, it had NDP support, but the Liberal Party voted it down. It was puzzling that, for the Liberals, who want to control the posts of regular Canadians and now target food advertisers, porn companies get a free pass when it comes to our kids.

I will say it again: Predatory companies such as MindGeek should not have unlimited access to our kids online. This is not new. Over two and a half years ago, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him for help to stop this. We got no reply. Then, two years ago, MPs and senators from across party lines wrote the justice minister, and this was followed by a New York Times exposé asking, “Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?”

We then had an ethics committee study last year, a committee that the sponsor of the bill sat on, with 14 recommendations supported by all parties, and still there was no attempt by the government to provide oversight to a part of the Internet that has caused so much pain and suffering to women, youth and vulnerable individuals.

Now, there is a courageous, independent senator who is taking on predatory porn companies like MindGeek with the goal of keeping kids safe online. She has introduced Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, in the Senate, which would require all that publish sexually explicit material to verify the age of the consumer.

The preamble of Bill S-210 states:

Whereas the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms, including the development of pornography addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — particularly against women;

Whereas Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit material online for young persons are an important public health and public safety concern;

The preamble then continues:

And whereas any organization making sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes has a responsibility to ensure that it is not accessed by young persons;

This bill is at committee at the moment in the Senate, and it is hopefully headed to the House soon. When it gets here, I hope it will have strong support among all the parties.

When it comes to Bill C-252, I support the intentions and the aims of the bill, and I commend the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her efforts. As parents, we want our children to be healthy and protect them from marketing that could be harmful.

The striking difference between Bill S-210 and Bill C-252 is that the former has a clear framework put in place to do what it aims to do, and I do not see that in Bill C-252, which is not written in a way that could actually accomplish what it claims to do. We know that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at kids under 13, and it has largely been ineffective in lowering child obesity rates.

I also believe that parents should be able to make informed food choices for their families and have affordable access to nutritious foods, the latter of which has become incredibly difficult due to the inflation crisis caused by the Liberal government.

To be successful on this, we need co-operation across all sectors, and I look forward to working with members of the House and across the economy to ensure that we have parents and corporations working together to encourage healthy living.

Consideration of Motion Resumed

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very relevant. It is not lost on me that every time any member on this side—and even in the Bloc Québécois, for that matter—starts saying things that the member does not like, he jumps up on a point of order just to disrupt the interaction. That is too bad. If he does not like what I have to say, too bad.

I want to focus as well on a couple of other things that are critical in this debate on whether we return to a hybrid system in the fall.

What is not being taken into account, and I know Madam Speaker is fully aware of this, is that there have been increases in injuries within the interpretation bureau. We have received numerous reports over the last several years that there has been a ninefold increase in injuries among those people who work so hard to ensure that we have world-class interpretation in this place, and when I say “world-class”, I mean it is unlike any other around the world.

We are seeing increased workplace injuries. We have been told that those workplace injuries are going to continue as long as we continue with a hybrid system here in the House and at committee. Why the government and the NDP are proposing to jeopardize the health and safety of our interpretation bureau is beyond me, especially since the warning signs and signals have been sent.

We are seeing a diminishing pool of interpreters, for which these workplace injuries are not the least reason. That puts the bilingualism component of our Parliament at risk for all of us, especially those who are francophone in this place and those who listen in who are francophone, and calls into question the future of bilingualism and the ability of interpreters to relay what is going on to francophone Canadians. I think that needs to be strongly considered as we consider moving into this hybrid Parliament format.

It is no surprise to the House that we want to signal to Canadians that we are getting back to some sense of normalcy, but there is no reason, no science, no evidence and no rationale as to why we are dealing with this in the waning hours of this session of Parliament, all because the government House leader and the NDP House leader do not want to return to normal. That is the only alternative. They want to continue the decline in the relevance of this institution by allowing ministers and members to not be here. It is sad.

I wear this bracelet around my wrist. It says, “Lest we forget”. I have said this before in this place, because I often think about the lives that have been lost and the families that have been decimated by war. Those who have defended our country in faraway lands to allow us all the privilege to sit in our symbol of democracy did not fight so we can sit on Zoom. They did not fight so ministers can hide from accountability. They did not fight to see a decline in our democracy. They fought to strengthen our democracy and to ensure that it was sustainable for years to come, but what the government is proposing is limiting and diminishing our democratic institution.

I know the government is going to argue otherwise, but we have seen it. We have seen a lack of accountability and transparency. We have seen the government hide using these tools. We saw it with Bill C-11. We saw the chaos that ensued at committee when the chair was sitting in her living room trying to manage and deal with a complicated and substantive bill with hundreds of amendments.

It is done. It is over. Its time has come. It served a purpose at the time, but it serves a purpose no longer when no other legislatures in this country, provincial or territorial, or around the world, are using a hybrid system. It is done. It is over.

In the time I have left, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy Royal, that the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (i) by deleting all the words after the words “motion is adopted” and substituting the following: “or adopted on division, provided that precedence shall be given to a request for a recorded division followed by an indication the motion is adopted on division”;

(b) in paragraph (p) (i) by adding after the word “videoconference” the following: “provided that members participating remotely be in Canada”, (ii) by adding after the words “resources for meetings shall be” the following: “subject to the provisions of paragraph (j) of the order adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022”, (iii) by adding after subparagraph (vi) the following: “(vii) any proceedings before a committee in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”; and

(c) in paragraph (q) (i) by deleting all the words in subparagraph (ii) and substituting the following: “members participating remotely shall be in Canada and shall be counted for the purpose of quorum”, (ii) by adding after subparagraph (v) the following: “(vi) any proceedings before the committee in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate and amendment”.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the NDP House leader for his version of Liberal karaoke. That was very nice, and I appreciate his interjection.

I will continue with what we talked about as far as the pairing situation, which is an option. Since, and well before, Confederation, politicians have contracted serious illnesses, suffered critical injuries, welcomed new children into their families and said tearful farewells to loved ones, among other significant life events. In short, life happens to members of Parliament, just like it does to all other Canadians.

For the first 153 years of Confederation, we ably managed to square our personal circumstances with our professional lives, even if it might not always have been ideal. As unprecedented as some aspects of the pandemic were, the demands on us to balance our personal and parliamentary responsibilities are not, and we can easily revert to the tried and true practices that we know work.

Again, on the issue of pairing within the standing rules and Standing Orders, while pairing has been largely based on a series of customs and practices, with only a tangential appearance in our rules via Standing Order 44.1, we would be open to considering proposals to strengthen these arrangements, to render them more transparent or to empower further individual members. If there were ideas on this front, I would have been happy to entertain them. Otherwise, I suspect that this will come up in the procedure and House affairs committee, as it is charged with studying and issue, which I know the Liberals and the NDP want, and that is a more permanent movement toward a hybrid Parliament.

Speaking personally, I got elected to Parliament with an understanding of what that responsibility was, and it is a great responsibility, as we know, to represent, in my case, the residents of Barrie—Innisfil.

I also understood, and my family understood, that there was a requirement for me to come to Ottawa. Being elected in 2015, and with the pandemic happening in 2020, it was common practice for me, and all of my colleagues, all of us in the House, to show up in the seat of Parliament. There is the constitutional requirement for us to be here in Ottawa.

As difficult as that was, that was a choice I made. It is a choice that all of us make. Notwithstanding some of those family pressures that I highlighted or outlined and some of the demands that go with this job, it is an incredible privilege to be able to sit in this place, to be able to come to Ottawa and represent my constituents, not just to engage in debate, not just to engage in the committee work that we do and interact with all of our colleagues on all sides of the aisle, but to actually sit in this seat and be able to vote and to stand up and be counted in person. Those were the expectations that I had when I was to become a member of Parliament and those expectations continue today.

As I said earlier, one of the issues that came up in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was the concern that there would be perpetual electioneering in those close ridings.

I say this with great respect, that if it is one's intent to be elected as a member of Parliament, the reasonable expectation of that intent is to come here to Ottawa. If a person is not willing to do that, if they want to stay in their community to continue to electioneer, perhaps the choice that they should make is to run for mayor, council or school board trustee if they are concerned at all with any imbalance in their lives because, as we know, this is a difficult job and a difficult thing to do, to be away from our family, in some cases, 29 or 31 weeks a year.

It is hard. It is a choice we all make because we want to be here to do the best for the people that we represent and the people in this country.

It is a vast country. It is a transcontinental country, from coast to coast to coast. People get elected to be representatives in our House of Commons and the expectation was, is, and should always be that this is the place that they take their seats. Members can call me a traditionalist. Members can call me a Conservative, as long as they call me someone who believes in our institutions, who believes in the institution of Parliament and who believes in the institution of our democracy.

The challenge I have with everything that has been going on in the last little while is that we have really seen a decline in our democracy. When government ministers are not held to the same account and transparency as they typically are by being here, and not just by us as an opposition but also by the media, it poses challenges.

There is no greater evidence of that than what we have seen over the last couple of months, particularly when we were going through the WE scandal, which was happening a year and a half or two years ago. All of that was happening on Zoom, and there were technological challenges going on with that. It was difficult. It was not the same dynamic as in-person committee meetings or the same fiery exchanges we would see, which is all a healthy part of our democracy.

We saw it recently again with Bill C-11. I am not even sure how many times the chair of the committee has been in Ottawa, but she was chairing a committee virtually on a substantive piece of legislation such as Bill C-11, which the government rammed through. We saw how difficult it was to deal with the amendments going through, and the chair was on Zoom. Anybody who was watching those exchanges in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage could see just how dysfunctional this system has become, especially when people are not present.

Some of the other things we talked about, as I said, is that we were open-minded to meeting and supporting the pairing needs of all colleagues in this House. The current hybrid system, with minor modifications, could be reactivated in the event of a serious reversal of the current trajectory of public health guidance concerning COVID-19, upon the agreement of recognized parties and House leaders, for a period of time they agree on.

That simply means that instead of precluding some southern hemisphere variant I have heard about from the two doctor House leaders in this place, why could we not revisit this in August? Why could we not come back in September and look at the situation to see if there was a need to flip to a hybrid Parliament? We have learned our lessons over the past couple of years, and that should be an easy thing to do, so why could we not do that in August or September?

Instead, as I said at outset, here we are in the last couple of days of this session of Parliament before our summer break, and we are dealing with and precluding something none of us can predict. In fact, we can in a way because the world has moved on at this point. Public health measures have been eliminated, but not in this place. There is no reason we cannot come back in August and September to revisit this situation.

I did speak to the government House leader and gave him my word, because I will still be House leader at that point, that if there was a need at that point to flip the switch on a hybrid Parliament and get back to the virtual voting app, we would be open to it. I am not unreasonable. I can read the room. We would be open and amenable to doing that.

Some of the other things we were focused on in my May 31 letter to the other government House leaders is that the arrangements we were talking about could take effect, as I said, after the current arrangements expire, which is happening tomorrow and hence the rush for this, and be in place for a year. The House would be instructed to acquire an adequate supply of N95 face masks to allay the concerns some of our colleagues may have going forward.

This is a suggestion I made. There is no masking requirement outside of this place. I gave the example of members of Parliament, including Liberal members and NDP members, at receptions not wearing masks when they are required to, and even on the parliamentary precinct, so this theatre needs to end.

We are at a point right now where if an individual requires or wants to wear a mask, they should have the option of doing that. Those who choose not to wear a mask, just like the rest of the world and the rest of Canada is going through right now, maybe we can supply them with a higher quality mask like an N95 just to allay their fears and make them feel a little more comfortable. It should be the right of an individual, if they choose, to wear a mask. For those who do not want to wear a mask, they should not have to wear a mask. That was in the proposal.

The procedure and House affairs committee would be instructed to study these arrangements with a view of producing a report next May, ahead of the scheduled expiry of these proposed arrangements.

We believe in the work of committees. We believe in the ability of the procedure and House affairs committee to look at this and to revisit the issue, as we did a couple of years ago, but in anything the committee does, any work it engages in, it should never be under the guise or direction of moving to a more permanent system of hybrid. We should not be doing that. We need to be here in Ottawa.

The tide is turning on this. Just this past week, when the issue of Motion No. 19 came up and the government indicated, with the help of its NDP partners, that it wanted to move to a year's prolongation of the hybrid system, we were starting to see pundits and people who watch this place really start to turn on this and ask why we are not getting back to normal, why we are not getting back to a level of accountability and transparency that this place is designed and structured to do, when everybody else is returning to normal. We have seen editorials that have occurred. Here are some of the comments we have seen in these editorials:

That’s all well and good, but the government has not yet properly addressed the toll the hybrid system is taking on the support staff who make it possible for Parliamentarians to work remotely, especially the interpreters—a limited workforce without whom parliamentary work cannot function.

I addressed that earlier, and I think that we have to be empathetic to the plight of our interpreters and the interpretation bureau. It is becoming a real problem, one that is going to manifest itself if we continue down the path we are on with this hybrid system.

Just the other day, Campbell Clark of The Globe and Mail wrote about this. His editorial piece starts with this:

Another year of hybrid Parliament? No.

If the Liberal government wants to extend this semi-artificial version of the people's house, it can come back to the House of Commons in September and ask for a month. If it absolutely feels another 30 days is needed, it can ask MPs to vote again.

That goes back to the suggestion I made earlier. Why are we dealing with this now? There are so many important issues in this country that we have to deal with, such as affordability, the inflation crisis that is going on, and the fiasco going on with the government's ability to provide the most basic services to Canadians, and of course over the last couple of days we heard about Nova Scotia and political interference. Why we are dealing with this now and not in September is beyond me. This is what causes me great anxiety.

The Toronto Star talked about the decline in our democracy and how we need to get back to some sense of normalcy. That is really the theme of what I am talking about tonight, this decline in our democracy and the fact that the hybrid system is proving itself to be an old and tired system. Yes, it was needed at the height of COVID, but we need to get back to some sense of normalcy. That is what I expect.

One of the other things that we found over the course of the last couple of years was that when Canadians were not allowed to travel, when there were mandates that restricted them from boarding airplanes, the Prime Minister had no problem travelling all over the world. It was hypocritical that he could just get on his government jet and travel anywhere he wanted when Canadians were restricted by the government's policies. We have seen this over the course of the last several years. I gave the example of the chair of the heritage committee, who was sitting in her apartment. I do not know whether she has even been to Ottawa once. She may have, and I have not checked, but certainly not during the course of dealing with this substantive bill. She was sitting there while the committee was doing its work here. It created chaos within the committee. That did not deter the Prime Minister from travelling all over the world when Canadians could not.

I will give members an example of how much the Prime Minister has travelled, just in 2022. On March 4, he went to Toronto. On March 6-11, he went to the U.K., Latvia, Germany and Poland. On March 16-17, he was in Alliston, central Ontario. On March 23-25, he went to Belgium. On March 27-30, he went to Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Williams Lake. On April 8, he went to Hamilton. On April 11-18, he went to Victoria, Edmonton, Laval, and Whistler. He flew from Edmonton to Laval for a morning of promoting the budget on April 13, before flying to Whistler that afternoon to start his vacation. On April 19, he went to Dalhousie, New Brunswick; April 20, Waterloo; April 22, Winnipeg; April 29, Montreal and Toronto. That is half of the list. Here comes the second half: May 2, Windsor; May 3, Montreal; May 6, GTA and Hamilton; May 8-9, Ukraine and Poland; May 17, St. John's, Newfoundland; May 20, Sept-Îles, Quebec; May 23-25, Kamloops, Vancouver, and Saskatoon; May 27-29, Nova Scotia; June 2, Siksika, Alberta; June 5, London, Ontario; June 7-11, Colorado Springs and Los Angeles; and today, the Prime Minister left for Rwanda.

Now, the Prime Minister can fly all over the place. He can go to places where arguably the virus is still active, but parliamentarians cannot come to this place. It just does not connect.

I know that the Prime Minister has a job to do, and I know that he represents Canada around the world, but he can fly to places that do not have the same vaccination status that we do in this country, and put himself at risk. He had COVID last week, and he has had COVID twice in the last couple of months. If he can put himself at risk by doing that, then there is no reason, given the safety measures that are in this place, the option to wear a mask if members choose to and the safety that is in aircraft across this country, why members of Parliament cannot be here, unless, of course, they do not want to be here, unless they want to be in their ridings to perpetually electioneer if they are in a close riding so that they can do everything they can to win the next election, or unless they want to hide behind the virtual Parliament and the voting app. It does not make any sense.

I know there are members who are flying across the country and perhaps not coming here, but we can check. There is public disclosure, and we know where people can go. People are flying to other parts of the country, but they are not coming here. Why? This is their job. This is what they were elected to do.

I am going to make a suggestion, and I may bring it up at the BOIE committee, for members who want to be here on a part-time basis and who do not want to be in Parliament. There are many situations where apartments around this precinct are being paid for, in some cases $2,500 a month, and not being used. Why are taxpayers expected to pay for those apartments if members do want to be here? I think it is a fair question. Maybe there are other expenses that are being put in, and we can certainly look at that. However, if members do not want to be here, in their proper seats, then why are taxpayers subsidizing their apartments here, which are sitting empty? I think that is a fair question to ask.

As I said, the tide is turning. I was hoping, by sending that letter on May 31, that we would actually engage in and initiate some consensus. I was really hoping that the government House leader and his partner in the NDP would actually see the sense of what we were proposing. The unfortunate reality is that they did not, and we are in the position that we are in right now, where we are dealing with Motion No. 19 and the government is going to propose closure on this motion. We are effectively going to have a few hours to debate it. I know that it disrupts the plans of NDP members to discuss this, because what they want to talk about, as is their common theme, is the Conservatives obstructing things.

The reality is that the Conservatives are doing their job. They are actually fulfilling their constitutional obligation, as is the Bloc Québécois, to hold the government to account. We were elected in this place in a minority government. The government was sent here with less than a majority, and it was not until the coalition agreement with its partners in the NDP that it actually formed a majority.

I can tell members that I went through the election and I was certain, at the time, that all the Prime Minister wanted was two things. He thought people were going to throw rose petals for the way he handled COVID and the billions of dollars that flowed through the treasury, which we are now paying for with inflation. He thought people were going to throw rose petals at his feet for the way he handled that, and he wanted a majority government, but he did not get it. The reason he wanted a majority government is that he knows, and we knew at that time, that there was a convergence of factors that was happening.

One cannot print that much money and inject that much liquidity into the system and expect that there would not be an impact on inflation and that it would not increase inflation. When we have more money chasing goods, the resulting effect of that is what we are seeing today, what was announced today, 7.7% inflation, and it is only going to get worse.

We are seeing that interest rates have gone up almost a point in the last month. The expectation is that on July 13, in order to fight inflation, the Bank of Canada is going to increase interest rates by another three-quarters of a point. We can think about the impact that is going to have on the lines of credit that people have. We can think about the impact that would have on variable-rate mortgages. If we have an affordability challenge now and Canadians are anxious and angry about their situation, it is only going to get worse as long as the Liberals continue to pour gas on a raging inflation fire.

We were predicting this a year and a half ago. It is not that we did not want to support them, because we did support many of the programs the government was proposing. The challenge was that there really was a lot of money going out and it was not targeted into those areas of the economy where it needed to be in order to support the economy. The Liberals basically let money rain. They were printing money like crazy, and we predicted a couple of years ago that this would happen.

Now, because of these converging factors, all of them, the economy, interest rates and the inflationary pressures that are going on right now, we are in a situation where Canadians are hurting, and I said this the other day. We had better start listening to what they say. I know I am listening to my constituents, but we all need to do a better job of listening and understanding where that anger and anxiety are coming from, because they are coming from fear. People are afraid right now, because debt levels are so high and interest rates are going up, and that is causing significant challenges.

We were talking about this a couple of years ago, and I remember my mom, when we were together two or three weeks ago, reminding me of something I said two years ago. She was upset about some of the government policies that were going on, and I said that until and unless it starts affecting people in their pocketbooks, people will not be concerned about what the government is doing. Now, we are at that point and people are genuinely concerned, because it is impacting them in their pocketbooks.

Many of us were projecting this, including some of our finance critics, our industry critics and others. They were standing up, and I was standing up, saying this is a disaster waiting to happen. What it comes down to is this: People of integrity expect to be believed, and when they are not, time will prove them right. Unfortunately, right now, with all that is going on, time is proving us right about the things we were predicting two years ago.

I really worry for my constituents. I worry for Canadians in general, because despite the lollipops, gumdrops, rainbows and unicorns the government is projecting right now, I do not think that reflects the reality. I know it does not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and the anxiety people are feeling, especially those who overleveraged in an inflation-induced real estate market.

I think it was CMHC that recently said that 52% of Canadians have variable rate mortgages. Just think of how susceptible they are to these increases in interest rates, and the impact that these are going to have on their household budgets and their ability to pay not just for housing, but also for the costs and inflationary pressures that are being borne right across the economy by the supply side because of the price of gas.

Gas is $2.09 a litre. For people in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil who have to go to Mississauga, Markham, Vaughan or other communities around the GTA, and who are doing that five days a week, they are putting $115 or $120 in their little cars. Business owners and construction workers, for example, are putting $245 or $250 worth of gas in their trucks and getting three or four days out of that. They are not even getting three or four days out of that when they are driving to Mississauga or Markham every day. That adds up and eats into the household budgets.

Not least, we need to be concerned about our seniors: those on fixed incomes and those who are seeing, because of the stock market right now and as a result of what is going on in the economy, their investments start to diminish. They are watching that closely. It is creating even greater fear and even greater anxiety for them.

When we sit here and talk about a hybrid Parliament and try to project or predict something that is going to happen in September, I am not sure why we are not dealing with those particular issues that are of grave importance to Canadians. We are dealing with this, when Canadians are moving on. When Canadians, health experts, legislatures around the world and legislatures in Canada have all moved on, we are sitting here debating something that we should not be debating.

There is another thing that I would say in terms of the tide turning, and it kind of gives me a chuckle. Dale Smith sits up here almost daily in Question Period. I do not know if he has missed any, quite frankly. We have been on the opposite sides of issues. I have a lot of respect for the work that Mr. Smith does. He kind of leans or works toward the government on a lot of issues. Even he, in a series of tweets over the past couple of days, has said that the acoustic injuries and possibilities of permanent hearing loss are well documented, and that this is taking an unconscionable toll on the interpretation staff.

In another tweet on June 20, he said, “Imagine telling the interpreters, 'Sorry, but you have to face the possibility of permanent hearing loss, but we can't,'” here he uses a slight expletive, “'ourselves to take reasonable COVID precautions in order for us to do our jobs', which is unacceptable”.

There were a few more tweets that he put out there.

Like me, he is a traditionalist. He believes that we are near the end of the pandemic, and that we have to return to some sense of normalcy. We actually have to signal to Canadians that this beautiful place is back to normal, and that all is right in the land. That is not to say that we do not have to be cautious or we do not have to remain diligent as to what could happen. I do not disagree that there may be some other things that we may be facing, but that does not mean that at this current moment we move into what I predict would become a permanent solution of this hybrid Parliament.

We do not move in that direction at this point. We could certainly come back in August or September to deal with it at that time. As I said earlier, we have seen a lot of hypocrisy and a lot of theatre by the government on this issue. I am not diminishing, in any way, the toll that this has taken. I had two friends who died directly as a result of COVID, but we are certainly past the point of where we were not just in March 2020, but at the height of some of the new variants.

We have a 95% vaccination rate in this country, and that is a credit to Canadians who decided to take the vaccine. I had never injected myself with anything. I was a firefighter. I never took a flu shot. I just did not feel comfortable doing that, but I did take a vaccine. I have actually taken three shots right now, and I am not ashamed to admit that. I did that because I know how concerned my mom and dad were. I wanted to make sure that I protected myself, first and foremost, but it was also to protect them as well. I made that determination for myself.

There were many Canadians who felt the imposition of a mandate or the suggestion that they should be vaccinated. Even friends of mine who took the vaccine and had adverse reactions to the vaccine were told by their doctors that they should not get another shot. In one case, someone spent three days in hospital because of a severe allergic reaction to her first dose. Her medical doctor suggested that she not get another dose because of this allergic reaction. Despite the effort of trying to get a vaccination, that effectively made her a prisoner in her own country. I was down in Florida in March with her husband and she could not come.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we saw this with Bill C-11: Conservatives blocking witnesses at committee, blocking the tabling of amendments, blocking systematically improvements that needed to come to Bill C-11. Fortunately, we were able to—

Online Streaming Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to an order made on May 2, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-11 at the third reading stage.

Bill C-11

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are down to the last week for the government to attempt to ram through legislation through the final session since the last unnecessary election in the fall.

There remain more questions than answers about Bill C-11. Is user-generated content covered under the act or not? Does the wording of the bill allow for platforms to censor or not? With the government bulldozing through fulsome debate on this legislation, it appears that these questions will remain unanswered.

The irony of stifling the freedom to speak in the House on the very bill that has the greatest consequences of freedom of speech in our country's history cannot be understated. Whether it is of the heritage minister, the public safety minister, the emergency preparedness minister or the Prime Minister, this bill is another example of the government's disdain for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightly named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians.

We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage.

On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.

Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that on Tuesday we saw democracy thwarted. We saw a cloak of secrecy used. At the command of the NDP-Liberal government, Bill C-11 was forced through committee without adequate consultation with witnesses and adequate debate on amendments. There was no listening and no discussion. It was just rammed through. That was their mode of operation. It was censorship upon censorship.

Canadians are rightly frustrated and very concerned by the assault of the House on their online freedom. My question is very simple to the minister and the Prime Minister; either or both could answer. Do they truly believe that this is transparency, according to what they promised Canadians?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of fact that on Tuesday, the government, under a cloak of secrecy, did in fact thwart democracy. At the committee, the NDP and Liberal government took Bill C-11 and forced it through without adequate debate or adequate testimony from witnesses.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard, the Liberals have shut down debate on Bill C-11. In fact, MPs voted on over 100 amendments without any debate at all.

The Liberals are actually changing what Canadians see online without debate and behind closed doors. It is clear from expert testimony that this bill would allow the CRTC to regulate user-generated content. That is why, through a series of vital amendments, the Conservatives tried to fix this bill. Our common-sense amendments were shot down by the Liberals and the NDP without any debate.

When will the government listen to some reason and fix this disastrous bill?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Conservatives will always stand up for our arts and culture sector, but in the dead of night, the Liberals rammed through dozens of amendments to Bill C-11 without debate or explanation. In fact, the Liberal chair of the committee would not even allow Canadians to know what was being voted on. Not one amendment to clearly exclude user-generated content was approved. Canadian—

Judges Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I normally do not want to see bills rushed through this place. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock may know that I supported the Conservative vote on not rushing Bill C-11 through in the way that it was rushed through earlier this week.

However, in this case, this bill has had an unusual course. In the last Parliament, it actually started on the Senate side, so it has already been studied in the Senate. On top of that, of course, there were deep consultations with the Canadian Bar Association and others in developing the legislation. On many issues, Canadians are inadequately consulted, but maybe if it does come forward, I would hope that we do find a way to move it quickly, because it should have been passed probably about five years ago, if not 15 years ago.

Canadian Heritage

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report in both official languages.

This is the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to give specific thanks to all the officials, the clerks and the interpreters who helped us with this extraordinary committee work as we went through clause-by-clause, specifically to Mr. Philippe Méla, the legislative clerk.

Government Policies

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives who are trying to heckle me now can take a look at Hansard and see that the member for Provencher asked me the question of whether I was concerned about Bill C-11 and the government following people on cellphones. I have Bill C-11 right here on the desk, and there is not a word about cellphones or the government following people on cellphones. Conservatives are inventing things around Bill C-11. Is it because they never read the bill or is it because they believe in deliberate disinformation? Either way, they simply do not have credibility on this bill.

The Conservatives have simply shown themselves not to be a responsible opposition party. They cannot invent things that are not in the bill. They cannot not read the bill and then show up in the House of Commons and simply throw out things that are not true. We have seen on social media how Conservatives have tried to equate this with some kind of censorship.

When Canadians read through the bill, they will see that the intent of Bill C-11 is very clear. It is levelling the playing field with the web giants, ensuring that there are more Canadian jobs, ensuring that we actually have Canadian content, and that we can develop the kind of prosperity in our sectors that we have seen under the traditional Broadcasting Act.

For Conservatives to pretend that there is a wide, wacko number of things that are not in the bill, never were in the bill and are not listed in the bill, and to pretend that has some kind of credibility in connection with the bill, is very rich.

We had Conservatives blocking witnesses who were trying to testify. We had Conservatives filibustering for weeks, refusing to have consideration of the improvements that must necessarily be made, in the opinion of the New Democratic Party and in this corner of the House. We see Bill C-11 as an important step forward, but we have heard testimony from many witnesses who want to see improvements. We have been tabling amendments as we go along and as witnesses have come forward, making sure that the bill actually reflects that important witness testimony and is improved.

Again, Conservatives refused to set any sort of deadline around amendments and refused to put in place a kind of structure around amendments. In this place, there is the incredible work of the legislative clerks that takes days to do. We have the translation facilities that are so important, because as a bilingual country we need to make sure that every document is accurate in English and French. With Conservatives refusing to submit amendments, it meant that work had to take place not in the way that it had for every other party that submitted their amendments a week and a half ago. It meant we were now going to have to cater to the Conservatives and spend a few hours making sure that the Conservative amendments were not mis-drafted and that they were available in both official languages.

The other parties already took care of that. The other parties, being responsible and not having a “the dog ate my homework” approach, actually believed that it was important to get the amendments to the legislative drafters in time and that it was important to make sure the translators, who do such a remarkable job in the House of Commons, actually had the time to put together those translations.

This is another way the Conservatives have been wreaking havoc in the House of Commons, rather than submitting the amendments. Why would they refuse to be responsible and respectful to the workers in this chamber who do such valuable work in drafting legislation and amendments, and in translating them? It shows a profound disrespect. Conservatives have been wreaking havoc in so many ways with a profound disrespect that they have for parliamentary institutions.

Here we are. We finally have an opportunity, as the House of Commons, to call the Conservatives on the Canadian heritage committee to account. These are the same Conservatives who blocked important testimony from witnesses who had a lot to offer: witnesses who should be questioned in some detail about their approach on Bill C-11. These are the same Conservatives who refused to submit amendments, the same Conservatives who blocked additional witnesses and the same Conservatives who have delayed, by weeks, consideration of clause-by-clause that should normally occur once we have heard from witnesses.

The Conservatives have done all of that at the Canadian heritage committee. Now, in the coming minutes, we will be called upon to judge them on their actions. I believe that the majority of the House of Commons will say that the Conservatives were wrong to do that.

The Conservatives, at committee, need to get to work. They need to work to improve the legislation the way the other parties at committee want to do. When the Conservatives get what I can only call condemnation from the House of Commons that they have not been acting appropriately, they have no one to blame but themselves.

It also indicates a bigger problem within the Conservative Party. As we will recall, right after the election, there was one of the culminating moments of this Parliament so far. It is a moment we were all proud of. We had the ban on conversion therapy come forward, and it was passed at all stages unanimously. That was a remarkable victory for common sense and equality. The ban on conversion therapy passed.

After that, there were all kinds of divisions within the Conservative Party, and ultimately, the member for Durham lost his job as leader of the Conservative Party. Since then, the Conservatives have dissolved into factions. I regret this because I know there are moderate MPs in the Conservative Party who I have a lot of respect for. Then there are other Conservative MPs who endorsed the hate and disrespect for democracy that was embodied in the so-called “freedom convoy”.

Right outside this House, there was a so-called “freedom convoy”, which called for the overthrow of a democratically elected government, expressed hate, flew the Nazi emblem and confederate flags, which are disgraceful emblems of hate, yet some of the more extremist Conservative MPs endorsed those aims and the so-called “freedom convoy”. One of them is even running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton. What does that say about the Conservative Party when we have seen this disintegration of its respect for democratic institutions?

Again, I note that there are moderate Conservative MPs who do respect democracy. I think their voices, tragically, have been muted within the Conservative caucus, but when Conservative MPs, including the interim leader of the Conservative Party, endorse the aims of the so-called “freedom convoy”, it should cause all of us to question what the direction of the Conservative Party really is. It was not a high point for the Conservative Party. Subsequently, we saw the concerns around the vandalism and violence with the so-called “freedom convoy”. It is simply not anything that any member of Parliament should be endorsing.

The aim that we have seen over the last few months seems to be that the Conservative Party is essentially refusing to let any legislation through. I have said before, and it bears repeating, that there are two block parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the block-everything party. The block-everything party is the Conservative Party, which has simply refused to let any legislation through. That has included important legislation, for example, that would provide supports to farmers and teachers. The Conservatives blocked it.

There was the budget implementation act, which the NDP was proud to have negotiated through confidence and supply. For the first time, an adequate and substantial investment in affordable housing was going to be made to meet a housing crisis that has been so hard on so many Canadians. The NDP and the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, negotiated that. For the first time in decades, we would see, coming down the pipeline, enough investments in affordable housing to create tens of thousands of affordable housing units, but they would not be based on market prices.

In my part of the country, New Westminster—Burnaby, a one-bedroom apartment can be $2,000. That is not something that most people in Burnaby or New Westminster can afford, but when there is affordable housing based on 30% of people's incomes, then it become affordable. Then, regardless of people's income category, they can afford to have a roof over the heads and put food on the table. This is all a result of the confidence and supply agreement.

As well, the national dental care plan, for the first year, would be put into place for all children 12 years of age and under. We know that good dental care early in life allows for better dental care later in life as well.

As the Speaker would know, because I know how closely she is tied to her constituency, people in our country, millions of them, have never had access to dental care. We can see what that does to their teeth over the course of years without access to dental care. I have seen constituents whose teeth are literally rotting out of their mouth. Now for the first time, over the next couple of years, thanks to the NDP push and the confidence and supply agreement, we are going to see national dental care.

Dental care for those 12 and under and housing were very much part of the budget implementation act, yet the Conservatives blocked them as well. I say that sadly because there is no doubt this would make a difference in people's lives, but the “block everything party” just blocks by reflex. It just wants to block every piece of legislation. That makes no sense when Canadians need the supports in the legislation before the House.

The Conservatives' refusal to accept, in this case, the ability of the heritage committee to put in place and improve Bill C-11 and add the amendments that we have heard from many witnesses will make the bill better, and the Conservatives' refusal to allow amendments to be tabled and allow a discussion to be held, have brought us to tonight and Motion No. 16, which I will again cite as a motion to stop the Conservatives from wreaking havoc at the heritage committee. It will allow us to finally improve Bill C-11, after hearing from witnesses and after weeks of delay due to the Conservatives blocking everything. It will make Bill C-11 better, and make it, in a very real sense, a bill that creates more Canadian jobs, levels the playing field for Canadians against the web giants and ensures that we will have a vital broadcasting industry for years to come that will tell Canadian stories to Canadians.

With that, I will conclude my speech. It is now eight o'clock, and I believe the bells will be ringing and soon we will be called to vote. I will be voting yes on Motion No. 16.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to close debate tonight on motion 16, which I have also entitled the “stop Conservatives from wreaking havoc at the heritage committee” motion.

What we have seen over the course of the last few weeks is Conservatives wreaking havoc at the heritage committee. Bill C-11, as so many speakers have pointed out over the course of the last few weeks of debate in Parliament, would do important things to actually help to foster Canadian content, help to build the industry in Canada and make sure that there is more Canadian employment. There are many aspects of Bill C-11 that are important and that actually would make a difference.

How have Conservatives acted in committee? We saw it. After having an agreement for the equivalent of five weeks of hearings into Bill C-11, we saw the Conservatives systematically obstruct and wreak havoc at committee. They did a number of things, and they are important to put on the record.

First off, when there were witnesses outside—and I will point notably to the chair of the CRTC and also to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, all of whom came to answer questions from members of the committee, and they were often tough questions—what did Conservatives do? They actually blocked them from testifying and answering questions.

Who does this? We are parliamentarians and we are supposed to be asking the tough questions. Conservatives said, “No, we are going to just talk out the clock and refuse to let these people actually come in, testify and answer questions about the bill.”

Weeks ago, about a week and a half ago, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all filed their amendments, yet we saw Conservatives systematically obstruct and wreak havoc within the committee by refusing to actually file the amendments that are to be based on testimony from the witnesses we did hear. I should note that it turned out that the Conservatives finally admitted to actually filing their amendments on Friday. The idea that somehow this was accelerating a process that was unfair to them is simply false; they also tabled their amendments.

We heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses. We also had a whole slew of amendments suggested, and people and organizations also submitted written testimony to the heritage committee. Our job, as members of the heritage committee, is to take all of those suggested amendments, all of that witness testimony and all of the memoirs that were submitted and improve the bill, and it is important to note that the vast majority of witnesses support Bill C-11.

We have not had a single Conservative stand up in the days of debate we have had around Bill C-11 and actually admit that most of the witnesses who came to committee support Bill C-11. Not a single Conservative has admitted to that. That is a problem. There is a question of credibility when we are hearing from witnesses saying that Bill C-11 is necessary and would make a difference, that it would level the playing field between the web giants and help create more Canadian jobs and more Canadian economic prosperity, when not a single Conservative is prepared to admit that most of the testimony has been in Bill C-11's favour. I think that fundamentally undermines their credibility on this issue.

I will say something further about the Conservatives' lack of credibility on this issue: We have had absolutely wacko claims by Conservatives. Members will recall Conservatives saying that somehow Bill C-11 had something to do with the government actually following people on cellphones.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member this. He has referred to Bill C-10, so we know that similar legislation came to this House of Commons before. As well, in Bill C-11, there have been improvements made, so there has been ample opportunity for the Conservative members to read the bill and understand the bill.

I am wondering if we can get to the amendment stage, the clause-by-clause stage of the bill, and whether the member has some actual amendments to propose.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and bring the voice of Chatham–Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I want to thank my colleague for splitting his time with me.

I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 16. Actually, I am not pleased to speak to it, but I am honoured to have this opportunity on Motion No. 16, the programming motion on Bill C-11.

Canada is home to some of the best talent in the world. Our artists, our actors, our musicians and other creators in our arts, culture and heritage sector continue to develop incredible Canadian content on a daily basis. The development of the sector is alive and well, with young talent consistently emerging across the country. These exceptional artists and creators deserve nothing less than an even playing field and to be supported with all the tools they need to thrive in their industry. They deserve fair compensation and a competitive economic environment that enables them to continue sharing their stories through their medium of choice, whether it be television, film, music, prose, theatre, the concert hall or perhaps the fastest-growing medium, the online content on the Internet.

I can personally relate to this field, as my oldest daughter is making her way through life as an artist, teaching music, singing opera and producing opera, albeit live at this moment, and living a gig-economy lifestyle.

The last time any major changes were made to the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, over 30 years ago. Given the rapid pace at which technology has been advancing in the past decades, it is undeniable that we have seen major technological changes in that time. Unfortunately, the legislation and regulatory framework have not changed with it. The government and, consequently, the CRTC need to adjust the way Canadian arts, culture and media are treated to match these changes. What we see, however, is the government failing in its attempts to bring the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century by adapting existing policy to reflect the digital reality of our times and failing to help future-proof it for future technologies and challenges yet to come.

Let me be clear: Conservatives support a requirement for major streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney to reinvest back into the production of Canadian content in both official languages. These requirements would also incentivize these platforms to partner with independent Canadian media producers. What is crucial, however, is that Canadians who upload content to social media platforms continue to enjoy the freedom of speech and the ability to express themselves freely within the confines of the law.

Sadly, Bill C-11, much like its failed predecessor in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, would give the CRTC unprecedented powers to monitor online audiovisual content. These powers would include the ability to penalize digital content creators and platforms that do not comply with these regulations. These powers would be used and applied to Canadian content at the discretion of the CRTC, based on three criteria: whether it directly or indirectly generates revenue, whether it has in whole or in part been broadcast on a more traditional broadcasting platform, and whether it has been assigned a unique identifier under any international standard system.

As most digital content generates some kind of revenue, and given that most social media platforms have a system by which to provide a unique ID to their content, the CRTC could regulate almost all online content under this bill, including independent Canadian content creators who earn their living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. This represents a major concern about the freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach in this bill, just like Bill C-10, in how it could affect Canadians.

Canada is known as being a world leader in many fields. Contributions by Canadians have revolutionized medicine, communications, agriculture, domestic life, entertainment and much more. Experts have testified that this bill would represent an unprecedented move and that Canada would once again become a world leader, but this time in its heavy-handed practice of regulating user-generated content. Not a single other country in the world has taken this approach. This is not an area Canadians should be proud to pioneer.

Instead, what we are seeing is a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns with the approach their government is taking to their livelihoods and entertainment, respectively. This attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and restrict the free speech of Canadians was unacceptable under Bill C-10, and it is equally unacceptable now.

I want to talk about what this bill would not do. This bill would not reduce the regulatory burden faced by Canadian broadcasters, nor would it reduce the cost to Canadian broadcasters. The part II licensing fees in 2019-20 alone amounted to over $116 million. I would rather see that money go into creating new Canadian programming and content than into CRTC coffers.

In the previous version of the bill, Bill C-10, there was an exclusion for user-generated content, which was then excluded at committee. Now, in Bill C-11, the government has reintroduced an exclusion on user-generated content on social media; however, this is written in the most convoluted and bureaucratic of languages. The exclusion to the exclusion is so broad that the government, through the CRTC, could again regulate a large amount of content uploaded to social media.

What concerns me and my colleagues, and we have certainly been hearing about it from our constituents, is the impact this is going to have on our Canadian digital content creators. It is estimated that there are 28,000 full-time jobs in Canada created by content creators who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels through places like YouTube. This type of digital-first Canadian content creation is something we should be supporting instead of hindering.

We have heard from creators across Canada who are concerned that government-approved Canadian content is going to be put ahead of independent Canadian content. More to this, Canadians also want to see Canadians telling Canadian stories, but what is not clear is how the CRTC is going to adjust the criteria to ensure that real Canadian stories are being told.

Our artists deserve an even playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, as technology evolves and carries on into the future and as we move further and further into the digital reality and online spaces. We need them to tell our stories, whether through music, movies, television or online content. Without that, part of our history will be lost.

I think we can all agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated to reflect our current technology growth, but the last thing we want is Canada to fall further behind or to pass a law that would detrimentally affect our artists.

We need to support our Canadians artists in all the various forms and mediums they use to tell their stories. Our young talent continues to develop and contribute to our national culture. It is part of our role as elected officials to pave the way for the next generation's success. We should not be passing bills that disrupt the creation of new content. We need to help innovation happen. Innovation happens every day here in Canada through many venues, and we need to enable our creators to benefit from and export our talent around the globe.

Our artists, musicians and creators are deeply invested in the future of the industry and the future of this particular piece of legislation. These creators and artists deserve to be treated fairly and to have the tools they need for success, and they need to be heard at committee; dozens have yet to be heard.

We have been there for Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by asking the tough questions, both here in this chamber and at committee. We carefully reviewed every aspect of the bill and expected the Liberal government to make the adjustments necessary by adopting amendments that were brought forward to protect Canadians' free speech and the livelihoods of independent content creators.

Proposed section 4.2 and any provision that enables the inclusion of user-generated content need to be removed. There needs to be a clear definition of “discovery”, and there needs to be an update to clearly articulate what Canadian content is. What is the definition of it? Very importantly, the policy directive to the CRTC on how this whole legislation will be implemented needs to be made public.

We have been clear in our position on the bill. We will not be supporting the bill until we are confident that Canadians do not need to be concerned about their rights and freedoms on the Internet. Our concerns have not yet been addressed, and I will not be supporting this motion to ram through Bill C-11 at committee, as the Liberals have done at every stage of the bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough issue for me, as an individual MP, because I do not like a motion that says we are going to fast-track all amendments, close things down and push something through on this basis, as the government is proposing to do on Bill C-11.

I am honestly still trying to decide how I will vote on the Conservative motion. I would rather we stay in this place and do it right, even if it took sitting into July. I do not know about taking until September. That is what I am struggling with right now. I also know in the previous Parliament, with Bill C-10, and in this Parliament, and I do not want to make this personal in any way, shape or form, but the tactics of the Conservative Party cannot be described as anything other than obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

I would like him to try to tell me what he thinks would happen if the government did not push this through. Would we have a chance to improve this bill and then get it passed?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the NDP's intervention. It is always nice and appreciated to give a Canadian shout-out to a Canadian artist. That is appreciated.

On the revenues, as I said in my intervention, we need to make sure that companies such as Netflix, whether of a national or foreign nature doing business in Canada are paying their fair share, and also contributing to Canadian content using the revenues they have and the power they have to generate Canadian content of Canadian stories, creating Canadian jobs and so forth.

The example I laid out concerning The Handmaid's Tale speaks of how broken the idea of Canadian content is. Bill C-11 is not the solution. It does not tackle those problems appropriately, and I think it is going to leave a lot of confusion in the industry about coming into Canada and creating authentic Canadian content and jobs for actors and producers. There is also all the behind the scenes we see from a wide variety of platforms and the media viewing aspect of things. We are to be left behind.

We need better clarity on this. This bill does not do it. Just saying a title and that it is for artists does not actually mean it is going to benefit all those it says it is going to.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way was talking about receiving emails from people who had concerns about the bill. I know that members in the House can say whatever they want in the House and then post it on their Facebook, Twitter and so on. I am curious if the member has had any communications in his householders on Bill C-11 and what he says to members in his community about it that is resulting in people contacting him from across Canada. The previous speaker mentioned that he gets tons of emails from across Canada, as do I, from people not in my riding, about certain legislation.

Does the member opposite feel his party is maybe playing into the fact that they are igniting this fake outrage about this piece of legislation?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight once again to speak to the government's proposed Bill C-11. In the last Parliament, it was Bill C-10, and it certainly generated a lot of feedback and frustration from Canadians across the country. We have been witnessing that here again in the last couple of months with this bill in its current form.

I have been receiving a lot of emails and advocacy petitions from constituents, both online creators and those who consume the content. They are concerned about what this bill entails and, frankly, among several things I will get into, what it does not entail. I believe that kicking the can to the CRTC and other organizations is a slippery slope and not a good precedent, based on the precedents that have caused a lot of frustrations to build up over the years.

I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

We are debating this motion tonight because of an attempt by the government and its NDP partners to try to jam this legislation through the House of Commons once again. I know there are still numerous witnesses who want to provide their perspectives and voices at the heritage committee and share the legitimate and reasonable concerns they have and the clarifications they wish to see that they are not getting from the government and its partner.

One of the problems we have that is typical of the Liberal-NDP strategy when it comes to legislation, which we are seeing in Bill C-5, the criminal justice reform legislation, is that if members do not support the Liberals and NDP on the bill, it means we do not care about racism. If members want an end to federal mandates and the chaos we are seeing at the borders and airports, it means the members hate vaccines and health care workers. Now, with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, if we do not support their way and their ideas, we hate content creators and arts and culture in this country. It is an either-or, a divisive approach, but it is not surprising. It is one that we see more and more.

I will repeat what I said in the last Parliament because Bill C-11, as we have it, is very similar to what we saw in Bill C-10, and a lot of the concerns we had last time are not addressed or clarified in the bill in its current form.

Let me start with a positive in terms of agreement in Parliament. The Broadcasting Act was created in 1991. I do not remember it. I was about five years old at the time. Boyz II Men, Paula Abdul and Bryan Adams had some hits then, but since that original piece of legislation, a lot has changed in how Canadians create content and get it out there as well as in how they consume it.

We have the Internet, social media platforms, YouTube, Spotify, TikTok and so forth. There is an agreement that we need to have a level playing field with these large conglomerates of a foreign nature and how they do business in this country. At the same time, we also need to make sure that we protect the individual freedoms and rights of individual content creators, like those on YouTube who have been able to explode in not only the Canadian market but also the international market with the evolution of the Internet and social media platforms.

There are serious flaws, and I have a perfect example. My colleague from Perth—Wellington, the shadow minister for Canadian heritage, raised this as a perfect example today. We all want to make sure Canadian content is created and is fairly represented on Netflix, Hulu, Crave and all the different platforms. He alluded in the chamber today to this bill not creating the specific measures to clarify some of the red tape about what is Canadian content. A perfect example that was illustrated was The Handmaid's Tale. I do not agree with Margaret Atwood and a lot of her politics, but I will admire her and give her respect as an artist and an author and for what she has done over her incredible career. A proud Canadian she is.

The Handmaid's Tale, a blockbuster TV series, was filmed in part in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. One would think Margaret Atwood and filming in the province of Ontario, the GTA, would classify as Canadian content. It does not. That speaks to the need to define this content better, to set better parameters and better definitions when it comes to this. Sadly, the bill would not do that. One would think it would when we talk about the modernization that we face.

I want to specify my concerns during my time. This comes perhaps from my background before being in the House, as a mayor at the municipal level, and perhaps it is a bit affected by my experience in the past few months on the public accounts committee, which reviews Auditor General reports on programs and efficiencies and how they run.

I want to reiterate my concern with regard to the vague definitions particularly around user-generated digital content, claiming there is an exemption, but section 4.2 is there. The government says not to worry about it. The CRTC says not to worry about it. I do not think Canadians have a lot of faith in that approach to what we have.

The CRTC is a public entity, but considers itself very independent. I have a lot of frustrations with the organization that I will not get into tonight when it comes to providing Internet service to rural and remote communities. That is a speech for another night.

Particularly, what is happening is that the government's legislation is extremely vague. Conservatives have been standing up in committee and in the House, not just in this Parliament but also in the last Parliament, and I have foreseen and I am foreshadowing what I know is to come. We see it over and over again. The government says, “That is not our intention. Do not worry.” The legislation would pass and then it would go to the CRTC, after which, at some point down the road after the bill is passed, after it has come into law and been enacted, suddenly we would see algorithms or we would see content. At that point, the CRTC would say, “We are independent. There is nothing you can do. This is the law that was passed and this is the way it is interpreting it.”

The minister has tried to claim that user-generated digital content and YouTube creators, TikTok creators and Canadians who have been able to burst onto the scene, not just in this country but internationally, are free from having their content regulated. They say that they have no interest in looking at that.

If that is the case, the government should be going for what we have been advocating for: it should specifically rule it out and make it black and white. It should make it very clear so that there is not a little door poked open for the CRTC, when it is batted over there to look after, all of a sudden to decide that, in the public interest, it is going to be doing this.

This is the time for Parliament, for Conservatives, for us to stand and be on the record to say that there are amendments. There are a lot of things that need to change, but there are specific amendments at least on that. I believe that just speaks to the rushed attempt that we are seeing from the government. It speaks to the secrecy of what it is trying to do. It is trying to pass the buck over to an independent organization, one that is overly powerful in my personal view, to interpret these laws, at which point the government can later say that it was its goal but secretly it was not the government's problem but somebody else's.

It is government creep at its worst. We have seen it before. We see it at the public accounts committee, in terms of leaving it to bureaucratic organizations to organize, and the success of that.

In my time remaining tonight, I want to acknowledge some of the comments made by a Canadian YouTube creator who spoke at the Canadian heritage committee a few weeks ago, J.J. McCullough. I go back to what we could agree on: Modernization is needed for the Broadcasting Act to make sure that large companies such as Netflix pay their fair share and also create Canadian content for us to have as Canadians. J.J. McCullough noted the following, which really hit home when I heard his testimony:

The tremendous success and even worldwide fame of many Canadian YouTubers in the absence of government regulation should invite questions about the necessity of Bill C-11. An unregulated YouTube has been a 17-year experiment, and the result has been an explosion of popular Canadian content produced by Canadians of every imaginable demographic....it is important to understand that it is simply impossible to regulate a platform like YouTube without also regulating creator content.

We have seen more Canadians become known. We have seen more Canadians make a living on these platforms. What the government is proposing is not that if one does not support this, one does not care about Canadian artists. We are standing up for individual content creators to say that platforms like these have given them the opportunity to make a living, to get known and to get Canadian brands, Canadian stories, Canadian music or other things we could name out there.

Our colleagues will stand up for those individual creators in making sure that we get the government to better define the very slippery slope it is on, not just with Bill C-10 in the last parliament. It is repeating the same mistake with Bill C-11.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I joined the ranks of journalism, as well. I know it well and went on to be an online content creator and know what it can do. I am sorry I am not speaking in French. I am working on that.

I am actually really curious, because my office has received hundreds of emails opposed to Bill C-11 from very concerned people. Has his office also received the same concerns, and how does he respond to his constituents?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we both started our careers in radio, but I have to say that I started a few years before you. I know that is somewhat hard to believe.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on the progress he is making in learning French. Last year, it was much more difficult for him to speak French. He just asked me a question entirely in French and I congratulate him.

It is not a secret. We talk about it often in the House. French in general is at risk and in decline, and it must be protected. It is true for the French language in everyday life, but it applies even more so to francophone culture. We are a francophone island in the sea of North America, and we are being invaded by American culture. We must protect francophone culture as best we can, especially Quebec culture, but francophone culture across Canada also. With bills such as Bill C‑11, we can make this difference and this distinction by protecting our culture.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for Avalon for sharing his time with me today.

Allow me to make a quick digression to talk about my family. I just returned to Parliament Hill after waging my own battle with this nasty virus that has been talked about so much over the past two and a half years. I am fine now. We fought it off as a family. I want to thank my partner, Caroline, who is recovering as well, her daughter Alexandrine and my daughter Lily Rose. The girls and I are warriors, and we are fine now.

I am happy to be back, but not so happy to be debating Bill C‑11, or more specifically, Motion No. 16, which is preventing us from talking more about Bill C‑11. There are both pros and cons here.

It is never feels good to forgo our duty and privilege as parliamentarians to debate bills as much as necessary before voting for or against. The debate needs to stop at some point, however.

One day I will be able to say that I was there in 2022. I was also there in 1991. Some might think I am not old enough for that, because I do not look my age, but I was working as a radio host in 1991 when the Broadcasting Act was modernized. At the time, I have to say that we had the same concerns, fears and criticisms that are being expressed today about what we are trying to add to the act through Bill C‑11.

We heard criticisms about what is now being called discoverability, but used to be called quotas, those infamous quotas of Canadian content, those French-language music quotas for the radio.

I can say that in 1991, radio stations had quotas to meet, and it was a source of frustration for me and most of my fellow radio hosts at the time because it took a real effort. We could not get away with just playing the big hits from the U.S. anymore. We had to make the effort to discover content that we knew nothing about, since French-language music and Quebec artists were nearly impossible to find at the time.

The same was true for Manitoban artists, with the exception of Daniel Lavoie, who was one of the French-Canadian artists who was doing well at the time. Fortunately, there was a place for him on the radio waves. Discovering the others, however, required showing curiosity, going to the record shop, then listening to albums and deciding to try something that people generally had not heard on the radio.

Those quotas allowed us to offer our artists something they would not otherwise have had: a showcase on Quebec radio. As a result, this music has gained popularity over the years, and now it is being increasingly played and increasingly requested on the radio. Thanks to that, Quebec has now a French-language music industry driven by francophone artists and a thriving music industry in general, independently of language, because the market has been well protected and has fostered homegrown content.

Therefore, it is not true that the concept of discoverability that we are attempting to impose on today's various broadcasters, primarily those online, is bad or evil, nor is it an infringement on the freedom of choice and freedom of expression of music consumers in Canada and Quebec.

The future will confirm what I am saying now, because it has been proven time and time again in Quebec. There is a good reason why there is such massive support for this bill in Quebec. Clearly, what we are trying to include in the bill is well-thought-out and positive.

I was around in 1991, and I was still around 2021, when the bill was called C‑10. Earlier, I heard a member say that the only difference between last year's bill and this one was the “1” in the title. One thing I know for sure is that, when Bill C‑10 was introduced on November 3, 2020, it was like a big, blank paint-by-numbers document. All the real work had yet to be done.

Some 130 amendments to this bill were put forward. The Bloc Québécois suggested some extremely important amendments that were debated and adopted so as to include discoverability of not only Canadian, but also Quebec, francophone and indigenous language content. For Bill C‑10, we had to reintroduce the concept of Canadian ownership to prevent our own homegrown undertakings from being swallowed up by giants for what to them is pocket change.

We added all kinds of things to Bill C‑10, and those things are in Bill C‑11. The fact is, the bill we are debating this year—or, rather, will be debating for a short time this year—is not the same as the one we debated last year. There is still room for improvement. We may run out of time for that, but I will still urge my committee colleagues to do the right thing and work efficiently and collaboratively. That may be wishful thinking.

The Conservatives want to hear from more witnesses. That was one of the arguments they used to hold up the process during the committee's recent work on Bill C‑11, yet they were the ones who proposed limiting our time with witnesses to 20 hours. I remember because I was there. We agreed to that proposal.

During those 20 hours, they could have invited the witnesses they say they did not have time to invite, like APTN, which is an extremely relevant witness and one of the first witnesses we should have heard from, but no. Our colleagues in the Conservative Party decided to invite YouTubers, TikTokers, creators of digital content. This is their choice and their legitimate right. Still, did they really need to invite the 160,000 creators who make YouTube videos in Canada? I think we got the message. We could have moved on to more relevant witnesses.

However, I am somewhat responsible for what happened. Since we had already heard from many witnesses and met with dozens and dozens of organizations since the beginning of this great adventure dealing with the broadcasting bill, I myself convinced a bunch of organizations not to testify, telling them that we would be able to study the bill faster clause by clause, and saying that we knew what they wanted and that we would represent them properly. I apologize to my Conservative colleagues, because I am perhaps somewhat responsible for the fact that we did not consider it essential to receive witnesses for hours and hours, as they would have liked.

It is important that this bill pass. I would really have preferred for it to pass in a more democratic manner, and for us to have a healthy debate on it. That did not happen in committee. However, it is important that it pass, and it needs to be flexible so that it can be adapted to new technologies. Soon online platforms will have the final say on what music and content we consume in our cars. Who knows where will be next. However, the CRTC must be given the opportunity to set out the rules and regulate this industry that is so dear to us, and it is up to us to do just that.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avalon, for whom I have tremendous respect. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We all appreciate his work as chair, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank him. I also want to thank him for his speech. I was very happy to hear him talk about independent producers, who are literally the driving force behind the cultural economy in Canada and Quebec.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the work that committee members, specifically my colleague from Drummond, have done on the discoverability of French-language content. Can he comment on why it was important to protect French-language content in Bill C‑10 and, of course, in Bill C‑11?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Drummond.

The government is committed to implementing a digital and cultural policy agenda that will serve Canadians' interests not just today but well into the future. It will support our cultural and artistic ecosystems, including our many talented creative sector workers. This is urgently needed.

Today, I am pleased to speak to the important elements of the online streaming act. First, I will have the pleasure of talking about Canadian independent producers and the important role they play. Second, I want to talk about the importance of ensuring that Canadians can find and access Canadian stories and music.

Delaying Bill C-11 would do harm to our production industry. It would leave the creative ecosystem in a very uncertain and difficult place, without support and predictable funding for Canadian programs. Ultimately, the online streaming act aims to foster an environment where Canadian music and stories can thrive and be discovered. The time to act is now. There is a lot at stake.

However, just like last time, the Conservatives have proven that they have no interest in making our broadcasting system fairer by levelling the playing field between tech giants and Canadian broadcasters. They have decided to use every tactic in their tool box to delay and block our study on Bill C-11. It is disappointing but not surprising. On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting the incredible creators across our country, telling stories that reflect our diverse experiences and building cultural bridges that bring us together.

Turning an idea into a cultural product is no simple task. From coast to coast to coast, our creatives have undeniable talent and an unparalleled work ethic. Canada's independent producers are an example of this.

A Canadian independent producer is a Canadian person or entity, usually a corporation, that creates an audiovisual media project that is not owned or controlled by the broadcaster or distributor. In other words, independent producers make movies, TV shows and documentaries that are not subject to creative control by a TV channel, network, streaming service or cable company. They are crucial to creative risk-taking, authentic storytelling and diverse representation in our audiovisual sector.

In film and television, independent productions cover a wide range of formats and genres, from art house films to popular animated kids shows and everything in between. Popular independent programs include comedies like Letterkenny, French-language originals like M'entends-tu? and science fiction like Orphan Black. There are also many acclaimed indie films, such as Ruba Nadda's Cairo Time and Kim Nguyen's French-language film War Witch. These are only a few examples of the range of quality programming that our independent producers create.

To successfully realize a project, independent producers do many things. They invest in development, make pitches, secure financing, hire creative and technical teams, scout locations and navigate complex trade, tax and labour arrangements to make projects happen. Not surprisingly, Canadian independent producers often work closely with Canadian musicians for scores and soundtracks.

There are over 600 independent production companies in Canada, most of them small and surviving project to project. Canadian independent film and television accounted for $2.9 billion in production volume and more than 81,000 jobs in 2019-20. Many of these independent production companies are undercapitalized and often face difficulty obtaining project financing. In Canada, once a finished project is in hand and all the rights for its creative elements are clear, the producers then make money. However, it is a risky business with a lot of upfront costs.

While we may recognize Toronto landmarks in the background of an episode of Suits or even in the foreground of Pixar's Turning Red, these are American productions. They work with Canadian talent below the line: the “best boys”, “grips” and “gaffers” listed in movie credits. They work with our visual effects, post-production and virtual production studios, such as Stoic in Vancouver, Deluxe in Toronto and MELS in Montreal. They are valuable, without a doubt.

Canadian productions, and specifically independent Canadian productions, are important for ensuring that cultural industry investments touch down and take root in the places where our stories come from. For example, the long-running Canadian television series Heartland is set in Alberta. It is produced by Calgary-based Seven24 Films and Dynamo Films and has a big local economic impact. For just one season of Heartland, they spent over $28 million on production, saw each dollar of federal tax incentive produce more than $11 in GDP and hired more than 1,400 vendors across Alberta.

Independent Canadian productions also tell untold stories and develop diverse programming. Consider Indian Horse, a film adaptation of Richard Wagamese's novel about a talented Ojibwa hockey player who survives the racism and residential schools of his time. Its independent producers were committed to engaging with local indigenous communities, providing jobs and working with elders to ensure respect for cultural protocols.

Diversity is one of Canada's greatest strengths. Without independent producers taking risks, we would never have films such as Water in Hindi and Edge of the Knife in the endangered Haida language. In children's and family programming, Canadian independent producers are innovators. The Kratt brothers are pushing boundaries in the multiplatform arena, while WildBrain has become a global programming powerhouse.

Our stories and our creative talent are at the heart of the online streaming act. The legislation lists several important factors for the CRTC to consider in its definition of Canadian programs, including, for example, collaboration with Canadian producers, Canadian ownership and exploitation of IP by Canadians. This would give the commission the flexibility to require all types of broadcasting undertakings, including online streaming services, to financially contribute to the development of Canadian programs and Canadian talent. That is what Canada's important independent production sector needs to continue to thrive.

A strong independent production sector ensures Canadian stories are told by and for Canadians. However, it is not enough to encourage the production side alone. It is important that Canadians can find and access Canadian stories and music. As we see more of ourselves reflected in these popular mediums, it creates a sense of pride and a sense of unity, which are precisely what we need in these difficult times.

The influx of streaming programs has meant access to endless content, but it can be difficult to find or even recognize Canadian programs. This is in part because online platforms are not required to showcase Canadian programs in the same way as traditional broadcasters.

Our independent productions, and especially Canadian music, deserve to be discovered and supported. However, in the current context, it is a challenge for independent producers to remain visible in the marketplace.

With major artists like Kanye, Adele and Ed Sheeran dropping new music every few weeks, new content simply outpaces our ability to consume it. While we find pride in Canadian artists such as Drake, The Weeknd and Shawn Mendes dominating streaming playlists, we know that production and quality music alone are not enough to get noticed. If that were the case, we would see artists such as k-os, Hawksley Workman, Ada Lea and the quartet Corridor find the global success they deserve.

Word-of-mouth marketing is no longer sufficient. Our musical tastes are increasingly dictated by algorithms. What we are asking for has proven successful in the past. Forty-one years ago, the federal government stepped in with requirements for CanCon to save our singers and musicians from being lost to the radio hits from the United States. We are adapting this policy to safeguard Canadian music for the future.

Without prominence, Canadian stories and songs will not be discovered, heard or remunerated. Discoverability is important. It is an opportunity to be introduced to up-and-coming Canadian artists such as Morgan Toney, a young Mi'kmaq fiddler from Nova Scotia.

I will end here, as I know my time is short. Anything I did not say I can hopefully get to in a question or two.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about holding the web giants accountable. MindGeek and Pornhub claim to be one of the largest sites on the Internet with over 11 billion viewers every year. There is enough content on their website that, if someone had to watch it all, it would take them 572,000 years. MindGeek and Pornhub are a major part of the problem on the Internet. It is probably one of the biggest web giants, if there is such a thing, in the world.

I am very disappointed that Bill C-11, while attempting to tackle holding so-called web giants to account, does nothing of the sort when it comes to a company that is in our own backyard and based in Montreal. This bill does nothing to tackle the exploitation that this particular web giant has participated in.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised—and that is putting it mildly—by the member's speech. As the saying goes, “give a dog a bad name and hang him”. His speech was a bit like that. He spoke about pornography and child exploitation, but that is not at all what Bill C-11 is about. I would invite him to introduce a different bill on that topic.

Bill C-11 is about forcing the web giants to make room for our creators, our artists. That is what we are talking about. Please do not tell me that we are rushing things. We have been working on this for two years, and artists and creators have been waiting 30 years for the act to be revised.

I just want to say to my colleague that I am really surprised by his speech. I do not think I really understood where he was going with it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what my whole speech was about. There is an area of the Internet that we need to work on to ensure that children are not gaining access to it and ensure that it is not ending up in front of the eyes of children. This is something that is going to be hard. It will be difficult, and it will take effort. However, one of the things that I have been frustrated with is that the government does not put in the effort to get pieces of legislation that we need across the finish line.

Bill C-11 would do nothing to prevent the exploitation of children online, and I am very disappointed to see that is not being addressed. I have moved amendments for Bill C-11 to work in this area, but as it stands, the bill would do nothing to prevent sexual exploitation online.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is duly noted.

I would like to think that the Liberals would have learned their lesson after the debacle of Bill C-10 in the last Parliament, but only this government would be able to introduce a bill that is even worse than the original. The Liberals claim they are trying to level the playing field between traditional and online media. However, it is already incredibly difficult to start a radio station in this country, but it is very easy to start a podcast. Why would the government not make it easier for traditional media to operate instead of policing online content?

In all of this, the Liberal-NDP coalition has refused to listen to Canadian experts, content producers and other witnesses at the heritage committee to fix this incredibly flawed bill. Today's motion only limits the ability of parliamentarians to hear from witnesses, and to debate and study the proposed amendments. Essentially, the Liberals and the NDP are censoring MPs from speaking on their censorship bill.

One of the greatest concerns is proposed section 4.2 of the act, which outlines what is considered a program for the purposes of regulation. In answer to this question at committee, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was adamant that social media posts would not fall under the definition of a program, yet the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, said the exact opposite when he testified, “Proposed section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.”

He, on another occasion, reassured Canadians they had nothing to worry about because the folks at the CRTC, “have lots of things to do. We don’t need to start looking at user-generated content.” How is it reassuring that they do not need to start looking at people's social media? In other words, they will eventually start looking at people's social media, but they are just too busy at the moment.

The Liberal government is telling Canadians to just trust it, except Canadians do not trust this government. They do not trust it when it comes to mandates. They do not trust it when it comes to protecting Canadians online. They certainly do not trust it when it comes to ethics. I think of the SNC-Lavalin and the WE Charity scandals. They do not trust the government at all.

Rather than policing Canadian social media, why would the government not tackle online sexual exploitation? I believe there are some areas where the Internet should have oversight. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to our children online, but they do, and there are no requirements to make sure that accessibility to their sites is for those over the age of 18. I also believe porn companies should not be able to post their content without verifying the age and consent of each person depicted therein.

Too many women and kids have been horrifically exploited online, and porn companies, such as Montreal-based MindGeek, have made billions of dollars from exploiting these women and children, but the Liberals' Bill C-11 does not tackle any of these important issues. The Liberals are more interested in policing our political, social and religious views online. Despite multiple calls for action by survivors, NGOs and parliamentarians, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have done nothing to address companies like MindGeek, which have been publishing and profiting from online sexual exploitation for many years with impunity.

It has been over two years since nine parliamentarians wrote the Prime Minister to alert him to the fact that companies like MindGeek were profiting from child sexual abuse material, sex trafficking and rape in his home province. It has been a year and a half since 20 parliamentarians from four parties wrote the justice minister inquiring why Canada's laws have failed to hold online exploiters accountable, and it has been 18 months since the world has asked why Canada allows this company, MindGeek, to profit off of videos of exploitation and assault.

It has been over 70 weeks since the Canadian heritage minister promised legislation to fight online exploitation within three weeks. It has been 498 days since the survivor, Serena Fleites, shared her horrific story and called on parliamentarians to do something. It has been one year since the ethics committee tabled a report with 14 unanimously supported recommendations. There has been nothing, no action, from the government. Within three days, Mastercard and Visa were able to make findings and judgments that ended their relationships with MindGeek and Pornhub, yet the government has been unable to come up with anything to end this online harm.

To be clear, there have been multiple lawsuits from survivors in Canada and the United States against MindGeek, but zero government legislation to prevent companies from exploiting or profiting from the victimization of children, sex-trafficked victims or rape victims. There have been zero known investigations in Canada, zero charges laid in Canada, and zero justice for survivors. This government's priority is to police law-abiding Canadian citizens online and turn a blind eye to exploitation.

The government could have even used Bill C-11 to tackle online exploitation to protect minors, which is why I have provided some amendments to Bill C-11 that would do this. Specifically, I am proposing that Bill C-11 amend section 3 of the Broadcasting Act to set out policy objectives that the CRTC is mandated to implement to protect children from sexually explicit content and to prevent broadcasting of sexual violence. Specifically, I am proposing these policy objectives to seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content and to safeguard the human rights of women and marginalized people by preventing the broadcasting of programs that include pornographic material that is violent, sexist, racist or degrading or that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion.

I have put forward these amendments at the committee, and I hope that the government will support them. These amendments are supported by child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation.

In a brief submitted to the heritage committee, an organization called Defend Dignity highlights, “Children are spending more time online” than ever. It also notes, “Exposure to sexually explicit material is detrimental to children’s [health and] well-being” and “The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child...recently adopted General Comment 25”. It continues, “Sexually violent material perpetrates discrimination and abuse [with the] connection between sexually explicit material and sexual exploitation”.

Defending Dignity also wrote:

Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority. As an organization working to end sexual exploitation in Canada, we call on all members of the committee to support [the member's] proposed amendment to section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

There was also a joint submission to the Heritage committee from Timea's Cause and OneChild, two organizations with a combined 30 years' experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children. They wrote:

Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....

This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values and ideologies. In the case of children who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them—this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of content online has frightening links to rape, 'sextortion', deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child sexual abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.

That is why Timea's Cause and OneChild are urging the committee and this government to adopt these amendments to Bill C-11.

Conservatives will continue to defend the interests of Canadians. We will stand up to the exploitation, and those at risk of exploitation. We will stand up for those who are artists and creators, speaking out against this bill because it will harm their livelihoods. We will stand up for all Canadians.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in regard to the Liberals' efforts to fast-track a bill through Parliament that would allow the government to censor what Canadians post. The Trudeau Liberal government and its NDP allies are pushing through a motion in the House to curtail Parliament's responsibility to examine Internet regulation, Bill C-11—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

From what I understood from it, she is saying that Bill C-11 protects those who have yet to adapt to new approaches, the new digital reality.

Is my colleague aware that Quebec francophone culture, with 8.6 million people, must still have some sort of protection in this ocean of 350 million anglophones that is the Americas?

I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I am rising today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country to this motion to close debate on Bill C-11. It is a bill that the government continues to insist should not be of concern to Canadians, yet barely allows it to be debated. The previous iteration, Bill C-10, had massive backlash last year, and damning testimony and expert analysis of the Liberal bill, so we can see why the Liberals want to shut down scrutiny as quickly as possible this time around.

Bill C-11 is a piece of legislation that the government continues to insist is entirely different from last year's Bill C-10. After reviewing the legislation, I can confirm there is definitely an 11 and not a 10 in the title of the legislation. Unfortunately, the rest of the deeply flawed Bill C-10, which would limit what Canadians could see, share and view online, has been sadly left in place.

The government can say that it listened and that regulating user-generated content is off the table; however, legal experts and digital content producers can read, and what they are reading in this legislation is still deeply concerning.

The government is moving to shut down debate, shut down committee study and prevent dozens of witnesses from sharing their thoughts and concerns on this bill. Probably the most recent conflict comes between the heritage minister and comments from the current CRTC chair, Ian Scott. Mr. Scott confirmed that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, would be able to regulate user-generated content under the current iteration of Bill C-11.

The government has stated that this legislation intends to support Canadian artists, promote the spread of Canadian content over that of international competition and update the Broadcasting Act to cover the rise of digital streaming content. None of these goals is wrong. Our Canadian arts and culture sector is flourishing and deserves our support. More Canadians than ever are making films about Canada. More Canadians are making music than ever in Canada. More video games are being made here in Canada, not to mention e-books, podcasts and YouTube content.

Canadians are producing and watching great Canadian content. Sometimes they will see it through Disney+, and occasionally getting that content made will involve international investment. Under the current rules, this may make it un-Canadian. It is not what the government would prefer for Canadians to watch.

A constituent of mine recently wrote to me with his concerns on Bill C-11 and the threat of censorship that is always present when a government looks to prefer one source of information over another. He told me the story of tenants of his who had grown up in the Soviet Union. He wrote:

Some time ago, a couple from Russia rented our basement suite. We got to know them well and had many discussions over how Russia-controlled media impacted them.... We asked, in your opinion, what was the biggest lie ever told to the Russian citizens. Slava didn’t hesitate: “That Russia won the 72 Canada Russia hockey series!” We were astounded… how could they not know that Canada won? We had the videos. They said the government simply eliminated the last four minutes of the winning game and controlled the narrative.

They only saw what the government wanted them to see. Bill C-11 gives the Canadian government the powers to do this: it has broad powers that could be used to censor what Canadians can see and say online according to the government’s preferences.

If the government is genuinely interested in updating the Broadcasting Act, let us work together to do that. If the government wants to ensure that Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are not playing by different rules than Canadian producers are, Conservatives are happy to help them in that. Canadians want to see digital platforms pay their fair share, but do not trust Bill C-11 to do it with all the extra censorship power.

To quote very specifically from the bill itself, Bill C-11 seeks to bring platforms like YouTube under the following content regulations. It says the CRTC:

May, in furtherance of its objects, make regulations

(a) respecting the proportion of time that shall be devoted to the broadcasting of Canadian programs;

(b) prescribing what constitutes a Canadian program for the purposes of this Act...

The government says it is looking to bring the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century, but applying those regulations to user-driven content platforms is trying to bring digital content into the 20th century. As my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill put it, “It is like playing an MP4 on a VHS machine: It is just not going to work.”

Regulating digital platforms and social media is beyond the scope of the CRTC's mandate and abilities. Right now, Canadians are succeeding on digital platforms with the support of fellow Canadians. People of every background in this country are making their full-time living creating digital content while receiving billions of views. We know Canadians are succeeding in these spaces.

Social media platforms already have reach within Canada. Why would the Liberals fork over $600,000 in taxpayer dollars in 2021 to pay for social media Internet influencers to sing the Liberals' messages if online platforms were so ineffective? This does not include the money the Liberals spent on the various digital platforms themselves, only to pay influencers. This was only discovered through investigations by Conservatives.

Governments should not look to discourage Canadians from watching Canadian YouTubers just because they make content abroad. We should not look to saddle the success of homegrown content makers with checklists to prove the Canadianness of their videos. Over-regulation is the swiftest eliminator of innovation. It benefits the previously established who may be too out of touch to keep up with the pace of change. Canadian digital content creators are on the cutting edge of new media. They do not need Bill C-11 to succeed, and they have proven that. Canadians are already watching what they are making. They do not need the federal government to tell them to, or to have the CRTC analyzing every online post to see if it is something that meets whatever rules it comes up with and is worthy of its view.

This is truly unbelievable. The Liberals are also refusing to release the policy directive they are giving the CRTC. The only ones who are seeking the government's assistance really are the legacy media companies that once enjoyed monopolies on television and radio. They did not innovate to the new media landscape, and are now looking for backdoor bailouts in partnership with a government seeking greater control of the lives of everyday people.

Any government looking to impose new regulations on a service so vital to everyday life as our digital devices would need to first demonstrate that its actions are not self-interested and that it would not choose to discriminate based on the viewpoints of those it is seeking to regulate.

The current government has proven that it cannot be trusted to be fair and equitable. In the past two years, we have seen two public protest movements that blocked public infrastructure get two entirely different responses from the same Liberal government. Of course, I am talking about the 2020 rail-line blockades, which brought pretty much all passenger and commercial rail, including from ports, to a dead stop for almost three weeks across the entire country and laid off 1,000 people. That is compared to the 2022 trucker convoy border closures at a handful of border crossings for a few days of that critical infrastructure.

Even though there was damage to infrastructure during the rail blockades, the Liberals worked with law enforcement and met with protesters. When the Liberals disagreed with trucker protests over mandates, they turned to the Emergencies Act to give themselves new powers, which were proven not to be necessary as our border crossings had already been reopened under our existing laws. The Liberals froze Canadian bank accounts without verification, which is something just admitted by the Department of Finance. The Liberals were called out by the Privacy Commissioner for failing to notify or ensure the privacy of Canadians whose cell phones were tracked by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Nothing can make the government's track record of secrecy, control and division clearer today than to repeat the same tactic of cutting short debate it used in the prior piece of legislation, Bill C-10, in the previous Parliament.

This motion to impose an arbitrary deadline to send the bill back to the House does not help the Liberals' case. The House is not a short-order kitchen. There is no need to push on law-making, especially on a piece of legislation such as Bill C-11, which has so many holes of uncertainty that its symbol should be a piece of Swiss cheese. However, as the Prime Minister has constantly proven, the work of Parliament is secondary if he can move up his vacation plans in Tofino. As currently written, and with the government having no interest in hearing from witnesses or entertaining amendments, I cannot support stopping debate on this poorly thought-out, full of holes, overreaching piece of legislation.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate her on becoming a grandmother. That is a joy and beautiful gift in life.

We can also collectively offer a beautiful gift by passing Bill C‑11. There is certainly room for improvement. That said, it makes changes to the Broadcasting Act, which does not happen every year. This bill needs vision.

We could have used more time. I can understand moving motions to have time for a report. I think that will be done tomorrow, according to this morning's motion. It is not a lot of time. That said, sometimes perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, I think that perfect is what should govern us.

My colleague wants the majority of the House to pass Bill C‑11. If she had an argument to convince those who are hesitating, what would it be?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight about Motion No. 16 in support of Bill C-11 and about the importance of getting this piece of legislation through the House as quickly as possible.

The online streaming act is a crucial step in fostering a more inclusive Canada. Online streaming is quickly becoming the most important way in which Canadians consume audio and audiovisual content. Media have a big impact on how we see the world and how we see each other.

Canadians, creators, producers and broadcasters have been waiting for this legislation for many years. The last major reform to this legislation was in 1991, the year I graduated from high school, and as members can see from the colour of my hair, this was quite a while ago.

We have to act now. I urge all members of this House to focus on the important nature of this bill, which is to provide greater support to Canadian artists and creators from all communities and backgrounds. It is therefore essential that we move forward quickly with Bill C-11 so that our Canadian broadcasting system can thrive in the digital age.

It is great that many of my colleagues in the opposition understand the urgency of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have taken every opportunity to delay and block us from moving forward on our study of the legislation, and I will speak more about that a little later in my speech.

Our objective is to have diverse and representative voices in the broadcasting sector, including in online streaming services. In this way, we create the space for Canadians from official language minority communities, racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages to tell those stories.

Over the years, the Broadcasting Act and the regulatory system it created have helped ensure that stories created by and for Canadians continue to be created and appreciated by Canadians. That will remain its main objective.

Bill C‑11 will put today's viewing and listening audiences, including the diverse and marginalized voices that have historically been under-represented in the broadcasting system, in the spotlight. Bill C‑11 recognizes that some communities have had very little choice in terms of content, be it created by them or for them or in a way that accurately reflects their reality.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about how the online streaming act would help ensure that Canada's broadcasting system will appropriately reflect and support diverse audiences, creators and artists, and this is to the benefit of all of us. Our broadcasting system has aspired to embody the important Canadian values of fairness, respect and inclusion. Canadian audiences have always been diverse, and we have seen the broadcasting system evolve to better serve their needs and represent all Canadians.

It is because of these values that we have had broadcasting in French and English right from the start.

It is those same values that underpin the extension of television broadcasting services, first to underserved rural and remote communities, then to the north, and then through the introduction of closed-captioning in the 1980s.

The values of fairness, respect and inclusion are behind the move to offer broadcasting choices in languages other than French and English and to remove some barriers to broadcasting these services on radio and television.

These values have been the basis for creating a more representative and inclusive production sector through contributions from the Canada Media Fund. Public funds further support efforts to promote diverse Canadian creators, including spaces like the Vancouver Asian Film Festival and organizations like the Black Screen Office.

These values have made us leaders on the world stage with respect to children's programming focused on diversity and inclusion. Our children can watch the wonderful stories of Teepee Time on APTN or Chevalier héroïque on TFO.

However, as the world sees growing ignorance and racism, including the rise of xenophobia, we know that more needs to be done. There remains a gap. There is a gap between the reality of the Canada we live in and the diverse and inclusive Canada we strive for.

In 2020, approximately 63% of Canada's Black population reported experiencing discrimination five years prior to the beginning of the pandemic or during the pandemic, nearly double the proportion of the white population at 32%. Discrimination does harm. It is associated with adverse impacts on social and psychological outcomes, including less trust in public institutions such as Parliament, our justice system, police and schools.

I would like to share a quote from Joan Jenkinson, the executive director of the Black Screen Office, in her appearance at the heritage committee study of Bill C-11. It really captures exactly why this bill is so important.

She stated:

Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country.

Through broadcasting we can make space for different stories to be told, and those stories need to be told. Representation matters. Canadians should be able to see more of themselves reflected in the media they stream in a way that honours their identities. Canadians have the right to share these stories in a way that is culturally relevant and appropriate.

Our broadcasting system must continue to meet the needs of different groups and be inclusive for all Canadians. However, at a time when digital services have become more and more predominant, we must support the development of the work of these artists and creators. It is also extremely important that their projects receive fair contributions that take systemic barriers into account.

We want the future Atom Egoyans, Robert Lantoses, Sandra Ohs, Xavier Dolans, Ivan Reitmans and Nia Vardaloses of this world to find the support they need to tell their stories. To truly have the diversity and representation that we are proud of in Canada, it must be built into the broadcasting system.

What are we doing now? Broadcasting is about cultural policy. Canadian culture is not monotonous, static or monolithic; it is a living, breathing, dynamic element of who we are. We need an audiovisual sector that reflects that we are bold, dynamic and inclusive.

Our government's strong commitment to inclusivity is demonstrated through ongoing initiatives, including budget 2021, which provided $60 million in new funding over three years specifically for the Canada Media Fund to increase support for people from equity-deserving groups working in the Canadian audiovisual industry. These resources help the CMF to realize its equity inclusion strategy and deliver on its mandate to enable a diversity of voices.

On top of this, the COVID‑19 recovery fund extended the previous third-language COVID relief allocation through the CMF for another two years to provide further supports for independent television production in languages other than English and French.

Our budget commitments and mandate letters clearly show that our government continues to prioritize diversity and inclusion.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is currently working with the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion to provide racialized artists and journalists the support needed for their productions, adequate investment to support local journalism in underserved communities, and new funding to provide diverse communities with the tools needed to tell their own stories and to promote the diversity of voices in the arts, culture and media.

With the growth of streaming services that provide unlimited content, we must ensure that the values of equity, respect and inclusion are given even more space in the regulation of the Canadian broadcasting system.

That is why Bill C-11 underscores the need for diversity, inclusion and representation.

The online streaming act amends the Broadcasting Act to make the broadcasting sector more inclusive for all Canadians. It enhances the objective of the law whereby the broadcasting system should

serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples within that society

This objective will broaden access to the system and provide programming for these communities that speaks to their needs and interests regardless of their preferred broadcasting medium. As before, the government intends to direct the CRTC to support and promote programming and creators from diverse communities and backgrounds. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over the airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped to ensure that Canada's broadcasting system provides programming for, about and by persons from diverse communities.

I want to reflect again on the importance of understanding this. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped. Essentially, we are making sure that the channel on which this content is sent to Canadians is equalized, because right now it is not.

I would like to speak a bit about Motion No. 16 and the procedures.

I get a lot of questions from citizens in my riding who say they do not understand, a vote came up, this happened or I heard this, and they ask why this is happening. I will be honest. I have been here almost seven years now and I am a bit of a procedural geek. I really like procedure, so I read the Standing Orders often. I have read Bosc and Gagnon and Beauchesne's. I like reading more and more about the procedures. When I explain to citizens who write to me how things work in the House procedurally, often at the end of the conversation people say they did not realize that. In a perfect world, these little procedural tactics, which I am assuming everyone uses when they are in opposition, would be known to people.

Let us think about procedure. This piece of legislation was introduced in early 2022. It was in a previous government and brought back. Members voted to send it to committee at second reading. The majority in the House agreed that it should go to committee. At committee, committee members agreed that they would allow 20 hours of witness testimony on this bill before reporting it back to the House. This was agreed upon by the members in the committee.

Seven hours of that time were then spent filibustering by the Conservatives. It is a procedural tactic that is used, I guess, by all opposition members at committee and so on. However, that prevented part of the CRTC from presenting. It also prevented the minister from testifying and answering questions. Right now, the committee cannot even get to clause-by-clause to bring forward amendments by the opposition.

I understand full well that the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP may want to propose amendments to the bill. However, we cannot even get to that stage because the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage are obstructing the process.

We cannot learn, talk or debate about these amendments or the concerns people say they have, because the reality is that they are being blocked by their own members. The Conservatives are actually blocking their own motions.

I have been listening to the debate in the House today and I have heard from my colleagues. I come from Quebec.

In Quebec, our artists are incredible. Artists want the bill to move forward. It is urgent.

What I heard today is people saying, “Look, we like it. We've heard. We know that this piece of legislation is important. We need it to move forward.” On the other side, I heard the Conservatives saying that we need more time to debate it, but they had seven additional hours at committee with which they filibustered, when they could have been hearing from additional witnesses who they thought were necessary. It is kind of chicken-and-egg. Did they want to debate and hear from more witnesses, or did they want to filibuster?

We have a thing called parliamentary privilege here in the House, which means that I can stand up in the House and I can say whatever I want, because I have parliamentary privilege. I can say that this bill is doing x, y and z when I know it is not.

This bill is not about the users and the creators. This is about the platform. This is making sure that whatever platforms someone is using, whether it be YouTube, Amazon Prime or Netflix, they are following the same rules as the airwaves or television and they are contributing to Canadian content. This is not someone uploading a cat video. Trust me, I love cat videos. I can watch them all day. After a day here in the chamber, I love a good cat video. We are not going after the cat video creators. That is not what we are doing. What we are saying is that the big broadcasting companies that are using the Internet and livestreaming need to pay their fair share and they also need to contribute to our culture.

I know I have a few minutes left, but I have to get this in there. I have a couple of colleagues who know that I am a new grandma. I am a first-time grandmother and I got to see my grandson on the weekend. He is seven weeks old. Of course, I am asking them how to calm a crying baby. It has been a while since I had a crying baby in the house. They said he likes to listen to this music that is on YouTube, called CoComelon. Anyway, it is singing and it is on YouTube. It is funny, but to get the baby to stop crying I am playing CoComelon so that he can hear the music that he really likes. We sing along with it.

However, YouTube is not contributing to our cultural content or to our industry, and it needs to. I want to make sure that my grandchild can hear music and watch television and shows, whatever way he streams it, because I am assuming things will change in another 15 years when he is older, and that he will also be able to see Canadian content that is reflective of our Canada, with indigenous voices and racialized voices, the real reflection of Canada.

For our two official languages, it is important to support our cultural industry in Quebec. For that reason, I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C‑11.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, a constituent of mine, Alexis Utatnaq, wrote to me supporting the passing of Bill C-11. She said that it was long overdue and that an update needed to be made. She also said to me, “I am proud of our cultural productions and want to make sure Parliamentarians pass C-11”.

Does the member intend to put an end to this injustice, or rather protect the profits of web giants, which would ultimately lead to less cultural indigenous content if the bill is not passed?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will read another quote from Professor Geist about exactly that point on proposed section 4.1. I recognize that Bill C-11 is improved, at least to an extent, with the inclusion of the wording in proposed section 4.1, but this is what the professor says: “While this is true in the sense that users are not regulated like platforms due to an exception in the bill, the truth is the bill regulates indirectly what it cannot do directly.”

It has not really solved the problem. There is still something that needs to be addressed. I would again reflect on what the professor had to say about going to the European Union and taking a look at what it did. It did things right, at least in his eyes. Our committee needs to look at this further to make sure that it reflects the modern usage of Internet autonomy.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it should not come as a total surprise that the Liberal government would make strategic moves to limit my freedom of speech as a member of Parliament who wishes to speak to the topic of freedom of speech. It seems very ironic.

Today, we are talking about a programming motion that would cut off debate on the substance of a very important piece of legislation: Bill C-11. I am hearing from so many constituents who are deeply concerned that their freedom of expression on the Internet would be impaired by this legislation. People want the Internet to remain free. It is the new marketplace for the exchange of ideas, and people are starting to wake up to the thought that their government wants to regulate this forum, this new public square.

What is the big holdup? What is the big rush? Why, in this last week of Parliament, does the government feel that it has to push this legislation through? The big open question hovering over this legislation is whether Bill C-11 would regulate online audiovisual material uploaded to sites such as YouTube and TikTok, which is user-generated content. That is the big question that needs to be answered.

An earlier draft of this legislation, because this is the second time it is before the House, was Bill C-10 from the last Parliament. It was clearly offside, flawed legislation, although the minister at that time said he wanted to make it crystal clear that the “content that people upload on social media won’t be considered as programming under the Act”. That is as clear as the minister had wanted it to be, or thought it was, and this legislation, I am sure, would have proceeded through the normal debate and legislative process, would have passed both Houses of Parliament and today would be law. However, it was flawed, it was poorly thought out and it got bogged down in the Senate. The backlash from social media users, amateur content producers and social media sites was swift and very harsh.

As an aside, I feel compelled to note, as we are thinking about why there is a big rush, that a year ago this could have been put through the House, but the Prime Minister saw that his popularity numbers were up a bit in the middle of a pandemic and decided to call an election. Then everything fell off the table. This very important piece of legislation fell off the order table and was basically put right back to square one. However, there was one positive outcome from the election that nobody wanted and was a waste of $610 million, and it is this: Bill C-10 fell off the order table.

We were optimistic that with a new minister, new Parliament and an opportunity to start afresh, we would see a substantially revised and improved piece of legislation, but bad ideas rarely die in the Liberal Party. The bill came back pretty much the way it was before, and things are getting bogged down again. Now the Liberals are saying that it is all the fault of the official opposition; we are obstructing the bill. Well, if they come here with good legislation, we will help them pass it through the House. Now, instead, they have to rush it through.

This is the biggest revision to the Broadcasting Act in 30 years. Many voices need to be heard. Many people have expressed themselves publicly. They need to come to committee and we need to listen to what they have to say, but sadly that is not going to happen because of this programming motion.

I do want to give credit where credit is due, and there are some good pieces in this bill. The government says that it wants to level the playing field and we the Conservatives support that. As the member of Parliament for Langley, where there is a big and burgeoning movie industry, I have heard from a lot of stakeholders, and they are telling me that there are good pieces to this legislation.

I have a quote from somebody who wrote to my office just the other day. He is a producer in the movie industry. He said:

Please pass on to Tako my sincerest thanks for making the time and listening to my feedback related to building a strong film industry in Langley and Canada. It was a great meeting. I appreciate Tako's thoughtful commitment to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, and to the benefits such work will have for Canada's film workers and production companies.

That is positive. They are positive comments. He goes on to say, “I am concerned about unintended consequences and protecting the freedom of expression within user generated content.” Even from somebody who is generally supportive of Bill C-11, these concerns are being expressed, and they need to be listened to.

I will concede this: The government's intentions were good, namely to promote Canadian content on the Internet, as we have grown accustomed to on legacy media platforms. It was good for them, so why is it not good for the Internet? That is a very important question to ask. However, I am reminded of Napoleon's famous quote: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. I think that is what we have today. We have legislation that is written incompetently.

This is what Ms. Morghan Fortier, CEO of Skyship Entertainment, told the heritage committee on May 24: “Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate”. She is one of Canada's leading experts in the field.

Matt Hatfield, the campaign manager of OpenMedia, at the same meeting of the heritage committee, said this: “We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed at the front of our bookstores, but that's exactly what the discoverability provision...of Bill C-11 is currently doing.” He calls that unacceptable.

The minister says they are all wrong, they are misreading Bill C-11 and they are misunderstanding it. He says that is not what the intention is. Law professor Michael Geist, who has been quoted here a few times, is trying to reconcile the difference of opinion between what the minister thinks Bill C-11 means and what many other experts think it means or what the consequences of it are going to be. In response to the minister's comments, Professor Geist said this: “While this is true in the sense that users are not regulated like platforms due to an exception in the bill, the truth is the bill regulates indirectly what it cannot do directly.” Therein lies the problem.

The minister further tries to explain or attempts to clarify what this bill means. I was not at the meeting, but I did read about it. He said he is focusing now on commercial user content. That is what will be regulated. When he was pressed on what “commercial” means, as there is no definition, he said it is tied to whether the person uploading to social media is earning revenues.

When he was grilled on how much revenue that is, he was not answering. Either he does not know or he has not thought about it yet. Better yet, I think he is going to delegate that to the CRTC to decide, so he can let someone else decide and let someone else take the heat. That is unacceptable. The Liberals are in government. They need to write laws that are going to make sense, that are going to work and that are based on what experts are telling us.

Here is where we are. We have poorly thought-out legislation, objections from many stakeholders, a summer recess looming and the government wanting to rush things through so it can say it has accomplished something. We also have a programming motion that is going to cut off further debate. We have today for all amendments to be submitted by midnight and have one day for clause-by-clause scrutiny. Then June 14 is for voting on all amendments and we will have a final vote by the end of the week.

This is important legislation and there are voices that still need to be heard. We need to hear them. This needs to go back to committee for further study.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is interesting because last week in committee, on Wednesday, the clerk gave me 20 printed submissions that we had to deal with. That tells me that as a committee we are not doing our job because these are submissions that have come through the clerk to the committee from people and organizations wanting to speak to this.

I want APTN there. I have been requesting that APTN come to committee. We need the indigenous voice on Bill C-11. We have not heard it. That is one of the flaws with this bill. We need APTN to see its future and how Bill C-11 would affect that network.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, before I get under way here this afternoon, I just wish to tell everyone that I am going to split my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We get the good 10 minutes at the later part of the speeches, so I will set him up for it.

I am very thankful to speak to the bill today, Bill C-11. It is the programming motion regarding the online streaming act: the successor to, or should I say the copy of, Bill C-10, which we debated here in the House of Commons. Let us step back. We really did not have any debates last June on Bill C-10. It was pushed through the House with no amendments to it.

I am really desperate on this one because I thought the government learned last June about Bill C-10 and the flaws that we moved forward now on Bill C-11. As most remember, the Liberals tried the same tactics here in the House with the deeply flawed Bill C-10. It was wrong and undemocratic then. Nothing has changed. It is still wrong and mostly undemocratic now. The Senate is not even going to deal with the bill. To say that we need to pass it in the House today is ridiculous because the Senate, at best, will not see the bill until October.

Bill C-10 drew much controversy in the previous Parliament, and I talked about that, due to the proposed infringements on free expression, and massive granting of powers to the CRTC. I have talked for over a year and a half on the CRTC, and I will have more to say on that body and the potential to open up the Internet to broader regulations in a moment, among other serious concerns that I have.

Bill C-11 is the same flawed Liberal bill that could have potentially disastrous consequences for Canadian content creators, and most importantly for consumers. Conservatives said then that Bill C-10 needed more study, and we continue to say that today with this bill, Bill C-11.

As a former broadcaster, members can believe that I completely understand how desperately the Broadcasting Act needs to be upgraded. It has been 31 years since we started. The act is indeed badly outdated. It does not address the realities of modern broadcasting and content creation, and Canadian broadcasters and creators today are struggling because of that.

We absolutely need to put foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters on a level playing field, whatever that looks like. However, the solution, I feel, is not simply to force new realities into this old and outdated structure, or to have the CRTC regulate to its heart's desire.

The CRTC is in charge of broadcasting. Seventeen months later, it still has not updated the licence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has been 17 months, and we have heard nothing. That is the CRTC's responsibility today: local licensing. We have heard nothing from chairman Ian Scott on CBC, saying, “We are busy. We are going through it.”

Seventeen months later, the public broadcaster still does not have a licence, because the CRTC is looking at it. I do not have to tell everyone in the House, all 338 of us, that we desperately want a three-digit suicide line. As of the month of June the request is a year old. We still have not got it. Why? It is because of the CRTC.

Do we see where I am going on this? It is not capable today of doing anything. As for its chairman, Ian Scott, his five-year term is up and he is leaving in September. We are going to have a new chair. He or she will get a five-year term and they will have to be re-educated on what the CRTC actually delivers to the citizens of the country.

Regulating the Internet, the Pandora's box that is being opened up in this legislation, is also simply not in the best interests of Canadians. We need to make sure that we are protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. Ensuring those protections cannot start by regulating the Internet and restricting the free speech that we have in the country today.

These are issues that need further study at committee. There are dozens of important witnesses that still wish to be heard. As for one of those witnesses, it is kind of interesting to listen to everyone talking about indigenous voices, because we have not heard from the indigenous peoples television network, APTN. We have not heard from it.

The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has not come to committee to speak about what Bill C-11 would do for that network, which was started years ago because the public broadcaster did little with indigenous programming. That is why APTN started: it heard voices. In fact, I was at an event on Saturday in Saskatoon, and the Filipino community is asking about Bill C-11. The Filipino community does a half-hour televised tape show in Saskatoon on cable, and they have asked about whether they can continue if this bill passes. I had no answers for them.

This is the diversity we are hearing in our country that Bill C-11 has not answered in committee. We have not had a chance to even slice through the first level of onion to get to this bill, and now the Liberal government, as it did last year with Bill C-10, is pushing it through the House, but this time there is no excuse for it. The Senate will not even look at this bill until maybe late in September or early in October. We have all summer to deal with Bill C-11.

I remember when the government came into power, and we all remember when it came into power in 2015. It promised sunny ways and made a commitment not to use closure and time allocation as the Conservatives did in the previous government. They have forgotten that in six and a half short years. All I have heard is “Harper this,” and “Harper that”. Now, I am going to suggest that it is the member for Papineau who is shutting everything down in the House of Commons.

Now, whenever there is the slickest push-back against the Liberals' agenda, they go straight to time allocation and, today, the programming motion. I participated in the study on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, when the government passed a similar programming motion. Several legal and industry experts came before the committee and raised concerns about the legislation. They were the same concerns from 2021 that have come in 2022. As legislators, have we looked at this bill and said we have done the best we can with it? That is our job. We 338 are elected to get the best bills coming out of the House. Have we done that? We have not done that at all, and the Liberals agree with that, yet they are moving forward today.

Tomorrow we will have a full day, going through from noon to nine o'clock, with amendments, then we will push the amendments through from nine until midnight without a word we can say or object to. We proposed further witnesses and debate in the last Parliament, and Canadians deserve better on this bill. The government, however, is clearly sick of hearing about the problems with the legislation. We have gone through two heritage ministers already, and probably will a third when we come back in the fall, and shut down Bill C-11. Thankfully, Bill C-10 did not complete the legislative process because of a useless election. What is it going to be this summer?

Now, the chamber has a second chance to get this bill, Bill C-11, right. This time we have the opportunity, as members of Parliament, to give Canadians what they want out of this bill, Bill C-11.

First of all, despite claims to the contrary by the minister, Bill C-11 absolutely would leave the door open to the CRTC regulating user-generated content online. In other words, the CRTC could still, under Bill C-11, decide what Canadians can and cannot see. These powers pose a clear threat for free expression in this country, which is the most fundamental right in a democratic country. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC could regulate away free expression online.

Second is the fact that the powers the bill grants to the CRTC are so broad and wide-ranging that they empower the commission to essentially regulate any content in a manner it sees fit, and I have talked enough about the CRTC, but that second bullet should be a concern to everyone in the House of Commons.

What will happen to the foreign services that are small players in this Canadian market? Where did the Canadian market go? In a small part of the user base, we have new regulations and requirements that we can thrust upon them.

Third, the government is asking us to vote on legislation that we do not have all the pieces to. The government says it will address the problems through ministerial order, but it has not shown us what the orders will be. Bill C-11 is a flawed bill.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question touches on a very important point, which is the fact that small tight-knit towns and communities, and we all know communities like that, are going to be crushed by the weight of large corporations that continue to derive what is important to them from the economy. What is very different in small communities, whether in rural Quebec or rural Alberta, is that they value the members of their community. They value the things they do. They value what is happening around them.

It is so important that we make sure there are financial resources to support small communities. Bill C-11, by way of making sure that we force those large industries, those large multimedia Netflixes of the world, to pay their fair share would mean that small communities can continue to do that work, but we need to pass this bill first.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut spoke so eloquently to the importance of making sure we address the long-standing issues that have been relevant to indigenous peoples' success in retaining their language, their stories and their culture. It is important that we understand the real impacts that have resulted in the dispossession of these things from indigenous people.

Oftentimes, what we have seen in the last many decades is a rejection of indigenous peoples' own solutions as to how we teach young people the language, demonstrate the modernity of our culture and continue to find ways to have our culture survive. One of the emerging, and I think strongest, ways of encouraging these solutions is by making sure that artists of all cultures have an opportunity not only to speak directly to those persons and communities, but to also represent those communities.

I am one of the younger members of this Parliament and growing up, in my short lifetime, there has been a huge gap in media, the arts and television shows. I have heard many members today speak about how important certain programs, such as Corner Gas, are in their homes and their living rooms, but this was not there for indigenous people when they turned on the TV. My parents would never watch TV because they felt as though it never represented them.

However, young people take in media, language, culture and items that make our country better. They take in items and information that formulates who they are, and that is a simple kind of justice that every indigenous person needs.

Here in the 21st century, as modernity has continued, we have seen these large Internet platforms often take up and suck up so much of the space that indigenous people require to make sure young people have access to these things. In the absence of legislation, such as what Bill C-11 would provide, indigenous content providers and existing indigenous producers are being forced to find other ways to finance their means. They are being forced to look at cutting wages for certain folks. They are also being forced to look at the arts as not a viable economy for indigenous people. This hurts indigenous people's culture and language, which is so valuable and important, particularly now in the age of truth and reconciliation.

What I would like to see for my niece and nephew, and for the next generation of those who are growing up indigenous across Alberta, is for them to not only have a chance to be able to tell the stories of our people, the stories of this land, or even the story of treaty, but also be able to have the support, space and financial resiliency to get that done.

We are remarkable in our country in highlighting so many of these artists, but what we are often not good at is supporting them. The bill before us would directly do that. Bill C-11 would ensure that Canadian content is visible and protected on online platforms, which is important. Another really important piece is that freedom of expression is explicitly protected within this process, which means that individuals who are participating in online streams would not be subject to the kinds of things that the platform itself would be, and some of that includes the platforms paying their fair share.

When it comes to supporting our arts industry in Canada, the existing laws look at radio and television. They require that those providers pay to ensure Canadian content is present and protected, and that Canadians have the opportunity to access it. This is vitally important when thinking about the 21st century and how our next generation will continue to absorb content and share that with the rest of Canadians.

When I look at, for example, some of the remarkable art happening in Edmonton and across Alberta, I see passionate, strong, well-deserving people who are doing their level best to make sure they have an opportunity to share what is so awesome about our province with the rest of the world. We see across the country, further east, indigenous nations taking a bold stance and furthering their productions by supporting them through great initiatives, including the current funds that are available through the National Film Board.

One of those films I had an opportunity to watch not long ago is a film called Wildhood. For those who do not know it, it is a Canadian-made film about two-spirit folks within indigenous communities, two-spirit youth. What a remarkable contribution it is for indigenous people, particularly for young people as they navigate so many questions about their identity and who they are. Oftentimes, they look to media. It may not be the best form of information, but it is a form of information people are absorbing. It is incumbent on all of us as members of Parliament to make sure we can guarantee to Canadians that what we produce here, what we learn here and what we show folks will be given to Canadians in a responsible way.

I think about the economy and what this means for artists. We looked at, for example, the pandemic. It was a devastating time for our arts producers. We saw a massive vacuum of finances that had been, at that time, supporting artists. This was prior to the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, we saw an evaporation of their revenues, which was $233 million. That was money that was supporting artists, storytellers and those who were working with communities to tell the story about who they are. Especially for a country as young as ours, we are trying to understand who was here, what we are here for and what we would like to be. Those are important questions that our country must be able to have the courage to lay a strong foundation for.

When it comes to levelling the playing field, it is really important that we understand that Canadians deserve a chance. I think every single member of Parliament today supports that. They support the fact that all Canadians deserve an opportunity to share their stories, share who they are and share that with the world.

However, it is troubling to me to know that members of the Conservative caucus want to withhold this bill and slow it down after so long. This bill was introduced in the last Parliament, albeit it has absorbed some good changes. There are still some changes, I think, that the committee responsible will definitely delve into, but it is important that we actually get to discuss this at committee.

I am really excited for the opportunity this will provide indigenous peoples, the francophone community, persons with disabilities and all marginalized groups in Canada. It is going to guarantee them access to something they have been rejected from for so long, whether it is because of finances or not having the ability to organize properly. What we have now is the chance to actually create that revenue and create that model so they would actually have an opportunity to share it and be a part of the mosaic that is Canada.

It is important that we look at some of the folks who are validating this. There are people in Canada who need this. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists said, “Other countries are taking measures to protect their economy and their cultural sovereignty. Canada must not fall behind. Sovereign countries must have the...tools to tell their own stories in the 21st century.” That is us. They are speaking directly to us.

The Canadian Independent Music Association said:

While most [companies] operating in Canada are subject to some form of regulation, U.S. and international online steaming services that distribute audio and audio-visual content are currently exempt from Canada’s regulatory system. This means, for example, that unlike commercial radio stations, these services are not required to [contribute financially] towards Canadian Content Development or to showcase Canadian content on their platforms.

This must change. I am so proud to represent the folks of Edmonton Griesbach, who are continuing to ensure that our city and our province can contribute across the country in ways and means that are going to protect their story, but alto make sure that they level the playing field and get financially supported for it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it is a pleasure, as always, to stand to represent my riding of Nunavut. I always appreciate my constituents' ongoing support and the feedback that they provide to me.

I will share my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach. I always appreciate his great interventions in the House. He is such a great role model for young indigenous men and for all those who identify as two-spirit.

I am pleased to stand to debate Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I have debated this bill and I am pleased that the New Democrats support this important bill. Having heard the debates since the bill was first introduced in February, I have maintained that it is an important bill that supports the broadcasting of indigenous content.

In Canada, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation has been a leader in broadcasting Inuit content on television. It has broadcasted a lot of Inuit cultural content, as well as content in Inuktitut; by Inuit, for Inuit.

I think that this bill has the potential to ensure great Inuit content by online streaming providers like Uvagut TV and Isuma TV. Both of these online providers have already made a huge dent in information that is already available online. I am sure that Inuit TV, which will be a new broadcasting streaming provider, will also be able to share some great Inuit content, hopefully with a huge audience as well, especially if this bill is allowed to pass.

There are specific sections in this bill that directly lead to the support of indigenous programming. Without this bill, these important broadcasting and programming providers will continue to struggle with competing against web giants like Netflix. I appreciate the space provided in this bill to improve and update the Canadian broadcasting policy by clarifying that the system needs to respond to the needs of Canadians, and specifically to the needs of racialized communities and those who represent the diversity that Canada enjoys, including indigenous peoples.

What I would like to see discussed by committee are assurances that require broadcasters to broadcast indigenous languages, as this bill has a gap that needs to be filled to ensure that indigenous languages are also included.

I had the pleasure of sitting at PROC when it was studying the Elections Act. It was talking about the study on indigenous languages in Canada. We learned some interesting statistics about indigenous languages.

For example, there are 175,825 people who speak Algonquian languages. Manitoba has 21.7%, Quebec has 21.2%, Ontario has 7.2%, Alberta has 16.7% and Saskatchewan has 16%. As for Inuit languages, there are 42,065 people who speak Inuktitut in Nunavut and Quebec. There are 23,455 people who speak Athabaskan languages, with Saskatchewan at 38%, the Northwest Territories at 22% and British Columbia at 18%.

I am not going to go through this whole list, but I do want to highlight that there are hundreds of thousands of indigenous languages, and we need to do our part to make sure that we can help promote, preserve and revitalize them as Canadians. If we are to remain true to reconciliation, we have to ensure that we practise that in any bill that has an impact on all indigenous peoples.

I appreciate in addition that this act does address the concerns related to freedom of expression by stating that this act would be directly guided by ensuring that freedom of expression is understood and used in this bill. I have been surprised in past debates by concerns that freedom of expression would be restricted through this bill. I have stated that I do not think the bill would do that, given that it would promote and ensure that content that is important to Canadians, especially indigenous content, is allowed to be supported. We all know that in online streaming there is huge competition in mainstream Canada that does not create enough space for indigenous content to be incorporated into any of the airwaves that we are talking about.

Finally, I have very much appreciated the priority in ensuring that we all work together to make sure that we are doing what we can for all indigenous peoples, including first nations, Métis and Inuit, and specifically in this bill's support it so that not only are we ensuring well-being for our current indigenous peoples but are also focusing on protecting our indigenous cultures, including first nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, for the future.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support so much of Bill C-11, but I am very troubled by the sections that I think need more work. I hate to see anything rushed through this place, and my friend from Lac-Saint-Louis will know that is my view.

In the past number of years, I have been so blissfully happy since I got married to John Kidder. I am suddenly related to Eric Peterson, who is my brother-in-law. My stepdaughter, Janet Kidder, is a serious actor who has been successful. There are parts of Bill C-11 that work for them.

The other day on a flight, just by coincidence, my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre ended up sitting next to the fantastic Stewart Reynolds, the comedian who goes by the name Brittlestar. He said to him, “I don't think the people who drafted Bill C-11 understand our industry of content created YouTubers. I don't think the bill has it right yet.”

I would do anything to see us get help to Canadian culture, to Canadian content and to our brilliant actors, directors and all the people who need to do the work for production without getting it wrong for the new and emerging sector that I have to admit I do not understand the way I understood Canadian content, as my friend talked about, when we started making sure radio had Canadian content.

The bill is not perfect. Why do we not work on it more?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get a better grasp of the question. It seems to relate to Bill C-18 on news content, the bill that will force web giants and traditional media to negotiate together and ensure that compensation is provided for the content used and paid for by traditional media.

I saw somewhere in Bill C‑11 that schools, for example, do not have to worry because they are exempt. I believe, although I am not certain, that this does not really have to do with community media.

Another clause in the bill states that it will not apply to a service that is too small. The CRTC will not have time to regulate the thousands of websites belonging to creators. Let us face it, the CRTC does not have the capacity to regulate all of that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time I am rising in the House to speak to this bill. I also spoke when Bill C-10 was introduced and first debated. I have been very interested in this subject for many years.

I would like to share an experience I had before I was elected. I was a legislative assistant to my predecessor, the well-known Quebec and Canadian politician Clifford Lincoln, who, at the time I worked for him, was the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the 1990s. Mr. Lincoln is a visionary. He wanted the committee to undertake a fairly thorough, wide-ranging study of the Canadian broadcasting system. The study was spread over several meetings, over several weeks and months. In the end, the committee produced a huge document, an extraordinary tome, on Canada's broadcasting system. I think it was even used in some post-secondary courses, because it essentially became the bible on our broadcasting system.

We realized, even then, that the system was changing very quickly with the new technologies. The committee hired two researchers on contract for the adviser: an academic from the Université de Montréal and an academic from the University of Calgary. I remember that one of the academics, who was an expert, said that in a few years, everyone would be their own documentary filmmaker. He said we would have a device that we could use to film all sorts of things and create our own videos and our own high-quality films, real documentaries of everyday life. In fact, that is where we are now. The broadcasting system has changed extremely quickly.

This bill is essential if we want to adapt to new realities, and we need to adapt urgently. Franco-Canadian and Quebec culture are under constant pressure—obviously we all know that, it has been said in the House—by the cultural machine that exists for the most part in the United States. It is well funded, very powerful and it attracts a wide audience on a regular basis. That means there is enormous pressure on Canadian culture, including Quebec culture.

When the Conservatives constantly challenge this bill and, before that, Bill C‑10, they are not doing any favours to those who want to protect and promote Canadian and Quebec culture. By dragging their feet, the Conservatives, in my opinion, are harming our Canadian creators, including our Quebec creators.

We keep hearing from the Conservative opposition that Bill C-11 is a form of censorship and citizen control by the government, and that Canadians will somehow have their freedom of thought limited by seeing a streaming service menu with a smattering of Canadian works visible on it. I ask members to think back to the 1970s, when the federal government created the MAPL system for radio. Suddenly, we had to listen to a minimum percentage of Canadian music on the radio. Imagine: a kind of music dictatorship.

The boost to Canadian musical performances was significant after the MAPL system was instituted. By the 1990s, Canadian music artists dominated the charts around the world in multiple categories. Actually, by the 1990s, Canadian women music artists dominated the global market. Alanis Morissette, Shania Twain and Diana Krall come to mind.

We do not hear the Conservatives referring to the introduction of the MAPL system as the dark age of radio censorship by the Liberal Pierre Trudeau government. After all, unlike today, there was a limited of number of musical outlets available to access music then. There were no Internet-based music platforms, only a finite number of radio stations owned by corporations, not listeners.

Why did the Conservatives at the time not cry “censorship” or “lack of free choice”? Why did they not say, “We cannot choose what we want to listen to”, “There are no alternative sources”, “There is a limited number of radio stations”, or “If we want to listen to something else, we have to pay at the music store, which is a form of taxation”?

Why did the Conservatives not say, “Stop telling us what to listen to on the radio”? They never asked, “Why will these Liberals in Ottawa not let us listen to what we want?”, or “Why do we have to listen to The Band, The Guess Who, Susan Jacks, Robert Charlebois, Ian and Sylvia, and Michel Pagliaro, alongside the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan and so on?”

Do members know why? It is because the Conservatives had moderate and reasonable leaders in those days, such as Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. Do members know why the Conservatives do not object to CanCon in radio today? It is because they know Canadians love their Canadian music and Canadian music artists, and to attack Canadian music would be unpopular, even among the members of their base.

To say the government would be censoring the Internet through Bill C-11 is laughable. No, it is actually preposterous. Such talk creates unfounded fears, and it alarms Canadians for no reason. To say one can censor the Internet today is akin to standing next to Niagara Falls and saying that one can stop the massive and endless flow of cascading water. There is as much chance of the government being able to censor the Internet as there is of me capturing air with my hand, so let us stop the hyperbole and let us stop the antics. They are not worthy of this place.

I received an email from a constituent the other day who strongly opposes Bill C-11. They were obviously on the Conservative Party blast email list. I could tell by some of the themes that kept coming up. I wrote back to explain the facts about the bill, including the reference to charter guarantees in the body of the bill, so I think I will take a moment to read some of these charter guarantees.

It says this quite clearly in the bill:

10.‍1 For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.‍1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings.

It is here in black and white. It is in the law.

We can tell the opposition not to worry about it, that it is in the law and that all these guarantees are laid down in the law, but they will not believe it. They still send those emails to their supporters saying the Liberal government is trying to censor their thoughts and trying to influence the way they think for political purposes. It is in the law.

It says this as well, in proposed subsection 2(3), under “Interpretation”:

(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with

(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings

It is not even legalese. It is extremely clear, and even a non-lawyer like me can understand it.

When I wrote back to this individual, I also referenced the mandatory charter statement that accompanies all bills tabled by the government, a requirement, as members know, that was instituted by our Liberal government. This was not a requirement before 2015. At that time, when the government introduced a bill, there was no independent charter statement by Department of Justice lawyers, who have the professional responsibilities of integrity and calling it like it is. There was no independent charter statement on a bill, so we saw a lot of bills being introduced by the Harper government that really pushed the limits of charter rights.

I told the individual who wrote to me that the bill is an extension of the decades-old policy of taking measures to ensure Canadian culture is supported in a cultural marketplace dominated by a powerful cultural industry centred outside of Canada and whose priority is not, understandably, Canadian cultural content, to be honest. The person wrote back and said that if Canadian cultural products cannot stand on their own and if they cannot compete in the Canadian cultural marketplace, those products should be left to wither. I thought deep down that this is exactly the Conservative mindset when it comes to culture.

The problem with this view is that it is based on a naive conception of the marketplace and on how the marketplace works in today's reality. It is the ideological belief that today's marketplace is Adam Smith's marketplace: a small town square market where there are no power imbalances between buyers and sellers, and no one buyer, seller or small group of these distorts transactions and bends them to their financial interests. However, that is not an accurate description of the modern marketplace, and I think members will agree.

The fact is that whoever controls distribution controls the market. They control what the market has the opportunity to choose from and consume. This is true in the market for goods and services, which is why, as we know, the banks want to get their hands on insurance. They want to monopolize that market and make sure we buy insurance from them in addition to everything else. This is a normal impulse on the part of market actors, but it is the job of the government to make sure that there are measures in place to prevent this natural tendency toward market dominance from taking place.

In the cultural marketplace, the distributor decides what the audience will see. That is why we have worked so hard to maintain a Canadian-owned broadcasting system in Canada. It is about maintaining an independent distribution system for programming, domestic homegrown programming. If we did not have CTV, Global, CBC/Radio Canada and Télé-Québec, and only had ABC, CBS and NBC in the Canadian broadcasting space, none of the popular Canadian programs we have come to know and love over the years would ever have seen the day. It is that simple.

It is important to mention that streaming services are both distributors and producers. They therefore have an interest in showcasing their own content. The Internet and streaming services are, by definition, not traditional broadcasters, but they are distributors of cultural products nonetheless, and powerful and ubiquitous ones. There is no reason they should not contribute financially to the creation of Canadian cultural products. There is no reason they should not pay their fair share like everybody else.

It is time for the Conservatives to get on board, stand up for Canadian culture and creators and stop telling Canadians that there is a conspiracy to control what they see, think and feel. Such persistent efforts, in my opinion, are a nefarious form of disinformation, and that is why we are at this point here today where we have to get on with the bill. It is a bill that has covered two legislatures and time is pressing. The cultural sphere is galloping ahead with new technologies and new streaming services surrounding us and, of course, providing cultural content that we like to consume. It is not all going to be Canadian, but we should be able to see what the Canadian offerings are.

Somebody asked me the other day if I guessed this means that the CRTC, that great force of evil in the Conservative mind, is going to be writing algorithms for Netflix and Crave TV and whatever other streaming services that we have. The bill says, in black and white, on page 14 of the bill, “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)‍(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.”

Why does the opposition not come clean and mention this in its speeches? It is here in black and white in the bill. The opposition does not care. Even if it is in the legislation, somehow it does not exist. Let us keep going with the talking points that we probably see, I do not know as I do not subscribe, in those blast emails that are moving around the cybersphere as part of the Conservative leadership campaign.

It is here in black and white in the bill. It is also in black and white that the bill does not apply to users of social media. I think it is time to move on. Canadian culture needs the support. It needed the support yesterday. It certainly needs it now. It is time.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. We worked on Bill C‑10. We consulted the entire creative industry, all the groups, all the associations. In the end, we failed because the Senate blocked it. We started over with Bill C‑11, which is more fleshed out. We tweaked a few details to keep everyone happy. We have been working on this for two years. An extra month will not change anything. Everyone has been consulted, everyone agrees and everyone is eagerly awaiting this. Everyone in the creative industry is waiting.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is an urgent matter for actors, creators, producers, and film and theatre directors, but I have a problem with one section of Bill C‑11 that I would like to change at committee. I think it would be better to have more days in July so we have enough time to do a proper study and give the creative sector what it needs as soon as possible.

What does my colleague think about putting in some more time here so we can do a good job on Bill C‑11?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that it is mid‑June and we are still debating the long-awaited bill to reform the Broadcasting Act. We have been waiting for 30 years.

My colleague, the member for Drummond, and his colleagues at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage almost managed to pass Bill C‑10, the first version of the current Bill C‑11, in the last Parliament. Our democracy and our work are dependent on royal assent, which was refused. We had to start over.

I applaud the very useful work done during the 43rd Parliament on the former Bill C‑10, which resulted in the current bill, Bill C-11, being more substantive. It has already been well-received by the creative industry. We therefore saved time.

However, today, I am getting the unpleasant impression that this is the same movie over again. All that does is fuel cynicism among Canadians. I wonder if those who are dragging this out by filibustering really care at all about culture itself, its creators, its broadcasters and its audience. The audience is worried there will be no new content. They are worried about losing their content creators, who are stretched thin. That would mean losing the thing that has been giving life to modern societies, all the way back into antiquity: culture.

For those watching our debates, I want to talk about the crucial steps involved in creating a finished work, or rather one that has been allowed to leave the nest. Indeed, a work is never really finished. It is a bit like raising children: We pour our love, values, time, energy and emotions into them, but there comes a time when we simply have to let them fly on their own, taking the best we have given them. A work of art is the same thing.

I could talk about creating a painting, a dance, a circus show or a sculpture, or writing a novel or a play, but my world is music. Music is what I know.

I know that all artistic endeavours go through essentially the same stages: research, development and creation of the idea through to final composition, preproduction, production, deciding where to release the work and how to promote it, marketing, and public performance. No matter the art or expression, there are many stages, all of them demanding.

It is important to remember that, for many singers and musicians, the creative process does not end with recording their music and songs.

Artists have to work on their instrument. Singers have to develop and refine their vocal technique. They have to pay a voice coach to help them manage their energy and polish their raw talent, just like professional athletes train to master their technique. It is hard work, and the best trainers are expensive.

Singers also have to develop their musical ability. Many accompany themselves on an instrument or two. Those musical instruments are pretty much essential tools for setting lyrics to music. The next step is a comprehensive creative process that unites words and music.

Some participate in workshops. Others are more self-taught. Still others call on the musical talents of veteran musicians. Eventually inspiration strikes. As if by magic, lyrics find their musical match, words weave their way in and out of chord progressions. That is the joy of creation.

Once the song is written, or rather, the songs are written, because it takes more than one to market an artist, some fine-tuning is needed. Artists have to surround themselves with good musicians and find a producer to finance the recording of the songs, since the basic vehicle for the art of songwriting is people hearing the songs. Some will invest the money and produce it themselves. Others, a very small percentage, might be able to access a few government incentives. Most—and I emphasize that word—are their own producers and will invest their own money, or worse, go into debt to try to break into a market that has become increasingly opaque.

Let us talk about the production stage. I will talk about my own experience, because it is mine, and it is the one I know best. I recorded one of my albums at my family's home in Isle-aux-Coudres. I wanted my collaborators and the musicians to be captivated by that majestic river, which I wanted to celebrate in song. I was hoping the setting would enrich their musical performance and therefore further enhance my songs.

My father, who had always been a bit skeptical about this whole singing business, and who thought, like many people, that it was easy, fun and simple to make music if you had a bit of talent, was genuinely amazed at the science behind the recording process and the amount of time it requires. When he saw that it took half a day just to balance the drum and bass levels, he could hardly believe it.

For a good week we worked on guitar, violin, the accordion, keyboards and vocals. We started the preproduction; we played all the songs to become familiar with them, to find the sounds and harmonies, to find the right instruments for each song. Then we were finally ready to record.

Each song has its own universe. We start by recording a guiding vocal track. It is not the final vocal track; it is just the one that will guide the musicians. Then we record one by one and we record the final vocals and the vocal harmonies that support and enhance the whole work. We do all that for the 10 or 12 songs that will be part of the album that we hope will be the best one of our lives.

Is that it? No, far from it. Then each song needs to be mixed, because all these sounds need to have a pleasant balance and appropriate audio to make it pleasing to the ear, which will drive the rest.

After the mixing, is it done? No, not at all; then comes the mastering, what we call matriçage in French. We need a master in the art to ensure that every volume is appropriate for the different broadcasting forms, either the radio, headphones or outdoor broadcasts, at low decibel levels or high decibel levels. It is an art and it is expensive.

Is it done? No, not yet. The next step is to find a graphic artist who will be able to showcase the entire work and create an attractive presentation for a CD booklet, the cover for a vinyl record, which is my favourite medium, or the visual accompaniment for the music on streaming platforms.

Now is it done? No, not yet. The artist still has to get their music out there by hiring a manager or an agent, as the case may be, to promote the album to various broadcasters and promoters. It is of course imperative to create a show in order to bring the work to life. Then the process starts all over again: looking for a venue, a sound technician, a lighting technician and a stage manager, finding some available musicians and putting on a show. If, and only if, the work is a success with the public will the artist earn a little income from the process.

I have to emphasize that regardless of the artist's popularity, it is only if streaming platforms have copyright and reproduction rights obligations that all these efforts and the financial risk taking will be compensated with a small amount of royalties.

That is what creating involves. Creators are resilient, patient and firmly convinced that their works play an important, not to say fundamental, role in the social universe of the community.

The last time that I rose in the House to speak to Bill C‑11 was 34 days ago.

According to the former minister of Canadian heritage and current Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for every month that goes by without passing this bill, creators lose roughly $70 million. Using cross-multiplication, we can calculate that the creative industry has lost a little over $78 million since my last speech. Since the beginning of this Parliament, our culture and its content creators have been deprived of $1.33 billion.

We cannot wait any longer to pass Bill C‑11. The survival of our artists, the very essence of our cultural past and future, has been hijacked by these political squabbles. We need to stop treating creators like drones that create art to entertain us. Yes, they do entertain us, but that is their job. It is a demanding job that requires a lot of discipline and courage. It is also, above all, how they earn their living.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C-11

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am going to share my time with one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

It is a pleasure to speak to Government Business No. 16, which is for Bill C‑11. Unfortunately, it is not exactly a great pleasure because it feels like Groundhog Day. We went through essentially the same thing with Bill C‑10, which was introduced in the previous Parliament and was kind of hit or miss as far as the wording went. A lot of work was done. A year on, I feel like we are still bogged down for various reasons that are not necessarily the fault of a single person. All parties contributed to the delays in modernizing the Broadcasting Act. The problem is that, in the meantime, artists and small radio stations and media outlets are suffering and struggling to survive in this high-tech world.

I would like to begin my speech with a look at the current situation. A year has passed and, not surprisingly, the situation is no less urgent. In an article in La Presse just this morning, Alexandre Sirois wrote about the “digital barbarians” that have to be reined in. Here is what he said:

A bill like this to rein in the “digital barbarians” is long overdue. Alain Saulnier uses that colourful expression as the title of a very relevant essay in which he explains the massive devastation caused by companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Google.

The journalist explains that the fate of local culture on the web giants' platforms is quite similar to that of the soft drinks that are relegated to the bottom shelves in grocery stores because the big brands monopolize the best spots.

“That is why access to our content, its discoverability, is the most important issue for the future of all non-U.S. cultures.”

Discoverability is at the heart of this matter. It reminds me of a little anecdote. I was fortunate enough to be part of a delegation abroad recently, along with some of my colleagues from English Canada. Something really struck me. When we were talking about culture and what we watch on TV and listen to on the radio, I noticed that there were almost no common references between Quebec culture and English Canadian culture. Our common references are to American culture. This illustrates how global U.S. culture has become and what a strong impact it has on other cultures, to the detriment of our local culture.

We need to urgently legislate the broadcasting situation because of the repercussions it is having on small players in a context of globalization and the Internet, which is an ever-growing presence in our lives.

Some reports published in 2020, including one by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, projected losses for radio and television broadcasters to the tune of $1.6 billion between 2020 and 2022. That is major. CAB also mentioned that, in the six months following the 2020 report, there could potentially be 50 radio stations at risk of closing and no fewer than 150 more in the next 18 months. That represents a potential loss of 2,000 jobs, or the equivalent of roughly 24% of the jobs that existed in 2019.

Revenues are down across the board. Roughly 40% of private stations have posted a negative net income over the past few years. It is a disaster. This is a huge loss of $336 million between 2010 and 2020 for general television networks. Things are not going very well at all. We also know that this erosion is having an impact on local content in traditional media to the benefit of everything that is on the Internet. Roughly 52% of audiovisual content produced in Canada is not Canadian content. We import a tremendous amount of products because our products are less discoverable.

In this context, production by francophone minority communities is only 4%. Meanwhile, the digital platforms are thriving, but our local content is not on those platforms because of the discoverability issue. Only 2.7% of the 10,000 most popular songs on digital platforms are French songs, so there is also a linguistic aspect that is worrisome here.

I am not saying that Bill C-11 is perfect. Some parts could be improved, or have been improved compared to Bill C-10. One of the issues that the Conservatives were particularly concerned about was algorithms, and that has been addressed. With the first version of Bill C‑10, the CRTC would have been able to intervene and require businesses to change their algorithms to improve discoverability. That was taken out of Bill C‑11. I would say that may be a good thing because, at this time, we may have a tendency of being more preoccupied with the letter of the bill than the spirit. The bill now better reflects the spirit. We want local content to be more discoverable, but we will let the companies determine how to achieve that through advertising, suggestions or other means.

People have mentioned and are still mentioning that there are concerns about the platforms that could be included. The bill does not set out which platforms are included and which are not. Things are being left open so that more platforms could be added in the future. I tend to think that might be a good thing because the bill needs to be adaptable, given how quickly things change in the online realm.

Finally, some definitions may not be clear. The bill is perhaps not perfect, which is why it would be a good idea to give members more time to work on amendments in committee. However, I understand that the Conservatives have been filibustering and putting up roadblocks. I would have liked to talk more about this, but I do not have much time left.

I do want to say, however, that what the Conservatives are unfortunately doing to interfere in this file is a tremendous act of bad faith. The Bloc Québécois recently moved a motion on what happened at Hockey Canada, and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage must be the one to look into these allegations of assault. The committee members proposed adding hours so that we could deal with both issues at the same time, but the Conservatives refused. This shows that they are more interested in wasting time than anything else.

There was also a motion to allow the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to travel. At the same time, the Conservatives denied approval for the foreign affairs committee to travel, showing once again that this is a tactic to waste the House's time. Conservative members claim that there is not enough time to hear from witnesses, but when asked how many witnesses would be enough, they are unable to provide a number. This, even after the committee already heard from a number of witnesses, including some YouTubers who came to testify in committee not once, but twice.

That said, the Liberals are not beyond reproach either. The time that was allocated to debating Bill C‑11 in committee could have taken place between June 2021 and February 2022. Last June, we knew that we were on the verge of an election, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported a closure motion that was much more restrictive than this one. The super-closure motion we are debating today makes the seven other motions recently voted on in this place look like mere technicalities.

If the House had not shut down for an election, we probably would have been able to get Bill C‑11 through third reading, get it through the Senate and get it passed. All of the time we lost from June to February is much longer than the time that the Conservatives have wasted here in the House.

No one is without blame here. One side is unfortunately systematically obstructing our work. I can understand, to a certain extent, the use of some form of closure on this matter. This is why the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of closure on Bill C‑10 the last time, in a completely different context, because we knew that we were headed into an election.

That does not justify this closure motion, which is much broader and less appropriate given the urgency. In fact, we know that even if we vote in favour of closure now, the bill will not make it through the Senate in time, since there will only be a few days left for the Senate to sit after the motion has been passed in the House, most likely around June 20, 21 or 22, depending on how things are going, and if there is another filibuster.

Unfortunately, no one is without blame here. As I said at the outset, the two main parties in the House keep this going like Groundhog Day. Sadly, the ones who are paying the price are our small traditional media.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am so tired of hearing the Conservatives spout lies about Canada's arts industry. I cannot take it any more. I have spent so many nights here working on Bill C-11 until midnight and listening to the same speeches about censorship and freedom of expression, speeches about things that have never been proven, that do not exist. The only place those things exist is in the Conservatives' parallel universe.

This nonsense needs to stop. We need to help Canada's arts community. Everyone agrees.

If we accept the Conservatives' premise and do not pass Bill C‑11, what is the Conservatives' solution? What will they do?

We are not saying that it is perfect. However, if we do not go ahead with Bill C‑11, what will the Conservatives do to help our artists in Quebec and Canada?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the question: why? Why would the government not just be open and transparent and release the policy directive?

Bill C-11 would provide the CRTC with a significant of regulatory authority, but without the direction from the government, we do not know how the CRTC will interpret that regulatory authority, and we will not know until after we have already been forced to vote on this bill. That is the issue.

If the government wanted to be open and transparent, it would table that document today, as it did with Bill C-10. The question is, what is the government trying to hide?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a dull rumble in the room because everyone is so outraged about this motion that they cannot constrain themselves, given the concern they have.

Folks at home might have read the newspaper over the weekend and wondered why there is a rush with this programming motion. The Minister of Canadian Heritage himself said that he was not going to force it through the Senate and that it is not going to become law before the summer, so why the rush to force it through the House? In fact, in The Globe and Mail this week, an article by Bill Curry and Michelle Carbert said this:

The Liberal government says it will not press the Senate to rush the Online Streaming Act into law before the summer recess, even though it moved Friday to shut down debate on the bill in the House of Commons.

In a statement to The Globe and Mail, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said the government does not expect the Senate to rubber stamp the bill after it receives final approval in the Commons.

He does not expect a rubber stamp in the Senate, but here in the elected House of Commons, where each of the 338 of us was elected by 100,000-plus constituents to represent 100,000-plus constituents, we are expected to rubber-stamp this piece of legislation. We are expected to rubber-stamp the largest change to the Broadcasting Act in over three decades.

The government wants to say that the bill has had plenty of debate, that it has had tons of time for debate. Do members know when the bill first came before the heritage committee? The first day of meetings on Bill C-11 at the heritage committee was May 24, less than three weeks ago. We have had less than three weeks to hear from parliamentarians and hear from witnesses across the country.

After that, we were still receiving requests to appear before committee, requests from concerned stakeholders across the country who were not able to testify before the committee. These are Canadians and owners of small businesses who will be personally and directly affected by this piece of legislation, but Parliament and its committee could not hear from them. That is what has brought us to this programming motion to force the bill through the House without meaningful debate.

We as parliamentarians have a duty. We as opposition parliamentarians have an exceptional duty and a role to play. I would like to draw the House's attention to one of the great former leaders of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the right hon. Bob Stanfield. In a memo to his caucus, he said this: “Not only is it unnecessary for political parties to disagree about everything, but some acceptance of common ground among the major parties is essential to an effective and stable democracy. For example, it is important to stability that all major parties agree on such matters as parliamentary responsible government and major aspects of our Constitution.”

Like the great Bob Stanfield before us, we agree on the importance of parliamentary responsible government, whereby Her Majesty's loyal opposition holds the government to account. When certain parties decide that this is no longer necessary and we are derelict in our duties as opposition parliamentarians, we get a motion like this.

I always like to use a thought exercise. What would members of the House, members of the Liberal government and members of the New Democrats say if Stephen Harper had brought forward a motion as draconian as this one? They would be up in arms. They would be up in question period. They would be up in the House complaining about the draconian measures. However, members of the Liberal government, who for years ridiculed and raised the alarm on closure and time allocation, are the worst perpetrators.

As I mentioned, the bill did not come before the heritage committee until May 24, yet here we are. This is not the first time, either. We will recall that this is the same playbook the Liberals used for Bill C-10, the predecessor to this piece of legislation. They used Motion No. 10 to force Bill C-10 out of committee and into the House.

The government wants to say that we need to get this bill through immediately, but what happened with Bill C-10? The government called a summer election and killed its own legislation. It is awfully rich today to hear the Liberals say that we need to act with great haste to pass this piece of legislation when it is just going to sit in the Senate all summer long.

Many of my colleagues have not yet had a chance to speak to this bill, and will not have a chance to speak to it because of the government using time allocation. This is a piece of legislation that will not only impact the entire broadcasting industry, but also every Canadian who listens to music or watches videos online. This motion is being rushed through to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Last week, on Tuesday, the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage sent to members 20 different submissions. Among them were submissions from the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, the Canadian Ethnocultural Media Coalition, Blue Ant Media and Spotify, all of which have been denied a chance to appear before the committee by the government. Now, the government House leader has decided they do not deserve an opportunity to speak before the committee.

There are, in fact, many witnesses who have yet to be heard despite the fact that Bill C-11 would have detrimental impacts on their businesses. These include Anthem Sports and Entertainment, the Consumer Technology Association, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, which represents radio stations, Blue Ant Media, which I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and Ethnic Channels Group.

The government could have taken a different approach to how to modernize the Broadcasting Act that meets both the needs and technological realities of today, but does so without impacting digital-first creators and new technologies moving forward. Unfortunately, instead of modernization, it is forcing a 30-year-old regulatory system onto Canadians using new technology that old rules are not compatible with. Perhaps most disappointingly, the government ignored those in the digital media sector and went so far as to accuse them of spreading misinformation.

The tactics the Liberal government has used have been an attempt to discredit anyone who has raised legitimate concerns about the implications of this bill. It has been shameful, and it is not up to the standards of decency Canadians expect from their government.

There are obviously several crucial flaws with this bill that need to be fixed. First and foremost is section 4.2. It is a legislative pretzel: an exception to an exception, and a clause in the bill that leaves open to regulation content that indirectly or directly generates revenue. It seems the government does not even understand how the Internet works or how indirectly gaining revenue works.

I draw the House's attention to an expert, Morghan Fortier, who runs the largest YouTube channel in our country and has found great success globally by using new technology. She says the following when referring to the bill:

It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad. It mistakes platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Facebook for broadcasters like the CBC, Netflix and Amazon Prime. It doesn't understand how those platforms operate, and it ignores the fundamental importance of global discoverability. Worst of all, proposed section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate...small businesses like mine that are not even associated with broadcasters.

This is from the person who has Canada's most successful YouTube channel. She has found success globally, yet this piece of legislation would constrain and restrain that success globally.

They have said time and again that the CRTC will not regulate user-generated content, but the bill, in black and white, gives it the power. Worse yet, despite repeated requests, the government has refused to release its policy directive to the CRTC that would provide the interpretation of how this bill would be implemented. This “just trust us” approach that the Liberals are following does not inspire confidence.

In fact, just last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage appeared before committee and told us outright that he would not provide the policy directive until after the bill had received royal assent. After the legislation has been passed, after parliamentarians have passed the legislation, only then will the government tell us how it will be interpreted and how the CRTC will do so.

What is more is that during the minister's appearance at committee, he refused to offer a definition of discoverability. In fact, discoverability is mentioned in the piece of legislation. It is mentioned in Bill C-11, but it is never defined. Until we see the policy directive, we do not know how the CRTC will be directed to implement discoverability.

It comes back to what the Liberals said they would never do. In their 2015 election platform, the Liberals said, “We will also change the rules so that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries no longer have a vote on committees.” That did not last very long, because now parliamentary secretaries not only sit on committees, but they also have votes and are directing the work of committees.

In fact, last week in the House of Commons, the government House leader said, “let us talk about some of the things we do not do. What we do not do is use parliamentary secretaries in committee to control committees and not allow members to ask questions.”

A little more than one hour after the government House leader said this, it was none other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, at the beginning of questioning witnesses, filibustered witness testimony to try to move a motion without debate and to move to clause-by-clause. This not only prevented members from questioning witnesses, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself, but it also would have had the effect of preventing dozens of other witnesses who wished to testify from testifying.

On Monday and Wednesday of last week, it was again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who introduced motions to end study and proceed to clause-by-clause, while dozens of witnesses who wished to appear had been prevented from appearing.

Perhaps what is most concerning is that last week, the Liberal chair of a committee accidentally let it slip that the Liberals had been instructed by their party leadership to have the bill sent back to the House quickly. The member for Vancouver Centre said, “we do not have a lot of time to stretch anything out, because this bill is supposed to be reported back to the House before June 23”. It is supposed to be by who? It is by the Liberals.

The Liberals are directing the chair of a committee to report a bill back. It is shameful. In fact, this closure motion, Motion No. 16, I would dare say is a vote of non-confidence in the Liberal chair of the committee: the member for Vancouver Centre.

I also want to share the words of a digital-first creator, Oorbee Roy, one of the very few digital-first creators who had the opportunity to appear before our committee. She said, “I literally have never gotten a seat at the table—except now, as a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters.... Please don't suppress my voice.” Again, that is from Oorbee Roy who found success online as a digital-first creator. As a skateboarding mother, she found success in that market globally. Under this bill, the Liberals are trying to prevent that success.

We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition want to see Canadian creators succeed here in Canada and around the world. We want to see them be able to access and use the tools available to them through the Internet to find that success globally so that Canadian stories, Canadian voices, Canadian music, Canadian television and Canadian film can be enjoyed around the world. Is that not what it is about? It is about sharing the talents of Canadians globally.

I have been very clear that we support making sure that the major streamers, the international foreign streamers, contribute to Canadian productions. We want to see that happen more, and we applaud those companies that are already doing it. We applaud the billions of dollars that Netflix and Disney are investing in Canada and in Canadian-made productions. We want to see more of that. We want to encourage more of that. What we do not want to see happen is Canadian creators being hampered by their ability to export.

We have made some clear commitments about what we want to see changed with Bill C-11. We want to see the removal of section 4.2 to ensure that user-generated content is not subject to CRTC regulation. We want to see a clear definition of discoverability, so we can ensure that one Canadian performer is not lower down to another. We want to see an equality on the Internet to ensure that Canadian arts and Canadian programming are able to excel. We want to see a threshold so that small, independent creators are not captured in a large, cumbersome bureaucratic process.

We want to see updates to the Canadian content definition so that Canadian stories are being told by Canadians. The current definition often sees Canadian stories not being considered Canadian. A perfect example is The Handmaid's Tale. It was written by the great Margaret Atwood and filmed in Ontario, but is not Canadian.

Before we move forward with Bill C-11, we have to get the definition of Canadian content right. Finally, we need to see the policy directive. We need to see the government's instructions to the CRTC of how it will interpret Bill C-11. In the former Bill C-10, the government did that. It released its draft directive before debate in the House of Commons. This time, it refuses to do that.

Bearing in mind these important things and the lack of witnesses we have yet to hear from, I move, second by the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington:

That the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (a),

(i) by substituting subparagraph (i) with the following:

“(i) the committee be instructed to continue hearing from witnesses, including especially Canadian content creators, this month and through the summer adjournment,”,

(ii) by substituting, subparagraph (ii), all the words after the words “11:59 p.m.” with the following: “on Monday, September 19, 2022”,

(iii) by substituting, in subparagraph (iii), all the words after the words “no later than” with the following: “Tuesday, September 27, 2022, provided that the committee has reported back to the House in relation to its order of reference of Thursday, June 2, 2022, in relation to Hockey Canada”,

(iv) by deleting subparagraph (iv) and (v); and

(b) by deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we have to go back to the numbers. There have been 15 hours of debate at second reading, 21 hours of debate at committee, with seven hours of filibustering, including the Conservatives filibustering their own motion.

To the hon. member's question, what is at stake here and what is important is that the whole thrust of Bill C-11 is to showcase Canadian creators and to make sure that Canadians can discover more of the great stories that Canada has to offer. We will always, as Canadians, have the choice to watch and listen to whatever we want. Bill C-11 just asks platforms to showcase more Canadian stories. What could be nefarious about that? Absolutely nothing about that is nefarious.

This will make it easier for Canadians to discover up-and-coming homegrown talent. Quite frankly, I grew up and discovered The Tragically Hip. I fell in love with Corner Gas, Kim's Convenience and Schitt's Creek. I can go through the list.

I also discovered Mensonges and Tout le monde en parle. Everything we have in Canada is worth broadcasting around the world.

That is what this is about.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear from the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance and to see how passionate he is about Bill C‑11. I completely agree. Canadian content has not been promoted like this in years, and our neighbour to the south is a threat.

I would like to ask the minister if Bill C‑11 will help creators, especially francophones in Quebec. We know there is a lot of talent there and that they need to be encouraged. Will the bill help our creative industry in Quebec?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, this afternoon the minister is trying to defend the indefensible from coast to coast. Bill C-11 is a disaster, as was Bill C-10, and it is being shut down once again. We had 20 written submissions handed to us last Wednesday at committee from people who wanted to come to committee. The member talks about LGBTQ and indigenous issues. We have not heard from APTN, which was one of the guests the NDP wanted to bring to the committee. It has yet to come to talk to us.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Why do the Liberals want to shut the bill down in the House of Commons, do nothing over the summer and hand it over to the Senate? We have time to bring other issues forward. Proposed subsection 4.1(2) has always been an issue. It was an issue a year ago when we debated Bill C-10 in the House, which they rammed through and then called the unnecessary election. This is the same situation we are seeing today with Bill C-11.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, fact: We have had Conservatives in this House who obviously have not even read the bill, as they are comparing it to things like the government following people on cellphones. The disinformation has been unbelievable.

Fact: We had witnesses before the committee, including the chair of the CRTC, who were filibustered by Conservatives so they could not come to testify.

Fact: The majority of witnesses overwhelmingly want to see Bill C-11 pass, but want to see improvements. They want the committee to do its work.

Fact: As we found out last Friday, even the Conservatives have submitted amendments, and the NDP, Liberals and Bloc Québécois submitted their amendments a week and a half ago. The committee should be getting to work.

What I do not understand is that we have two block parties in this House: the Bloc Québécois and the block-everything party. The Conservatives are blocking everything that comes forward.

Why are they doing that when the vast majority of witnesses want to see this bill improved?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must have been naive and idealistic, to be honest, when I was first elected to Parliament. I thought we were here to make laws. I thought we were here to move Quebec and Canadian society forward. In the nine months since this new Parliament began, progress on legislation has been minimal. Between the Liberal government's closure motions and the Conservative government's filibusters, no progress has been made.

I heard a journalist on CBC radio this morning who was talking about how poor the Liberals' legislative record is. Even with an alliance with the NDP, they are not making any progress. They cannot move these bills forward.

The Bloc Québécois worked very hard on Bill C-11. The hon. member for Drummond and our party have been working on it for the past year. We were prepared to vote in favour of the bill to modernize the Broadcasting Act last year, before the election. We even tried to speed up the process, but the government called an election. Now it has cooked up a motion that is meant to get Bill C‑11 passed. The motion before us today is really embarrassing.

Is my hon. colleague not a little embarrassed by his government's limited legislative results since the election?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Charlottetown for his intervention and for sticking up for the creators in his constituency and his province, who have been unduly hit by the pandemic.

As we are coming out of the pandemic and as we are trying to modernize the act and as we are making sure that creators can be part of the 21st century, we are going to make sure that islanders have access to these platforms. We are going to make sure that LGBT, indigenous, people of colour and disabled creators on P.E.I. are going to be able to get paid what they are worth and make sure that the broadcasters making money off of these great creators in P.E.I. and across Canada are paying into the system so that we can experience more Canadian content.

We have shifted away from cable. We are now onto streaming. This bill, Bill C-11, helps us to make sure that the CRTC has the tools to make sure that Canadian content continues to thrive. It is a good thing for islanders. It is a good thing for Canadians. That is why we are here today.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that there has been hours and hours of debate at committee. He also knows that their side continues to filibuster. The conspiracy theories and nonsensical ideas of censorship are just beyond the pale.

Quite frankly, this is one in a list of examples of the Conservatives going past opposition to obstruction, whether it is Bill C-8, the budget implementation bill or Bill C-11, the Conservatives do not want to debate; they want to obstruct the work of this Parliament.

Canadians elected us to do good work, and they know that the CRTC is independent. They know there is nothing here that is going to affect Canadians' uploading material to the Internet. This is about making sure that the platforms contribute into the Canada Media Fund, that they develop more content here in Canada, and that we open up the platforms to racialized people, LGBTQ people, indigenous people and disabled people who are creating content for Canadians. This is about moving into the Internet age, not the past, where the Conservatives are stuck.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, none of what the minister just said is accurate.

The Senate is not going to pass this bill before the end of June. We just heard that the committee has been considering this bill since the middle of May. I have been to that committee. What the cabinet is calling filibustering is what I call debate and raising the issues our constituents are raising.

Thousands of Canadians emailed us and said they did not want to see what was called Bill C-10. The government brought it back as Bill C-11. The bill has not been fixed. They have not fixed section 4.2, which does generate the ability of the government, through the CRTC, to moderate and censor the content uploaded by users.

This motion is truly a lack of confidence in the chair of the Canadian heritage committee. This is entirely of the government's making and entirely the government's fault. This legislation has not been reviewed or debated in 31 years. There is no reason to rush it through in the next few weeks. The government is being completely inaccurate in the way it is presenting it. It is a darn shame that we will not be able to review this bill as it deserves to be reviewed, because Canadians are interested to know if they will still be able to use the Internet, their YouTube channels, their Facebook and their TikTok in the ways that they have always been able to without the censorship of government and the CRTC.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister why his government is blocking the release of the policy directive that they will issue to the CRTC.

We are waiting to hearing how the Liberal government will force the CRTC to implement the measures contained in Bill C-11. I note that on Friday the minister said he would not rush this through the Senate in order to allow the Senate lots of time to debate it. The bill only came to the heritage committee on May 17. Now the government is rushing it through both the committee and the House.

Now that the government is not going to rush it through the Senate, would the minister at least commit to tabling, for all Canadians to see, the policy directive that it would issue to the CRTC?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have had dozens of hours to debate this bill, and so have other members. Conservatives have been filibustering and have been blocking, and they do not want to see this bill move forward.

Just one of the benefits of Bill C-11 is that we would be updating the mandate of the CRTC to include specific focus on supporting francophone, racialized, indigenous, LGBTQ+ and disabled creators in Canada, and this means a portion of the contributions from broadcasting and streaming platforms would be directly supporting the development of these creative platforms and of people in the ecosystem who have been shut out.

As such, it is up to the Conservatives to tell Canadians why they are blocking legislation that would help creators who have been disadvantaged since the Broadcasting Act was first in place in 1991. Why are they not doing their job and making the bill better, instead of blocking it at committee?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be speaking directly to the camera and to Canadians at home so they can hear the question I am about to ask the government.

The motion that was just moved is a motion called “closure”. It is that the debate on Government Business No. 16 not be further adjourned, which means it is closure. What the government is doing through this motion and through Government Business No. 16, which we are debating today, is having a closure motion on a time allocation process, which means we will time-allocate time for Bill C-11 in committee to come to this House, time-allocate report stage in this House and then time-allocate third reading of that bill in this House. Anybody who is following Bill C-11 knows of and has great concerns about the censorship of the Internet in that bill, so what the government is doing today on a censorship bill is moving closure on a time allocation motion. They are censoring the censorship of their own censorship bill.

That is what is happening today. Why?

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct the record and confirm that the Conservative Party, as of last Friday, has submitted a number of amendments to the committee clerk for the purposes of this legislation, but we are not done. We have not finalized all of our amendments because we have not finalized the review of this piece of legislation.

We have made very clear publicly, and did so in a release, the challenges and concerns we have with this piece of legislation, including section 4.2, the definition of discoverability, the redefinition of Canadian content and the thresholds that these institutions ought to meet.

The question I want to ask to the NDP House leader is very simple. Much of this interpretation will be left to the CRTC, based on the policy directive of the minister. The minister has said that he will not release it until after this piece of legislation receives royal assent. Would the member not agree that it would be better for transparency and for the benefit of all of us in the House who are debating and voting on this legislation if the minister would simply, as the government did with Bill C-10, release the draft policy directive to the CRTC so that we can see it, review it and make a judgment on it before we vote on Bill C-11?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Trumpism in the United States we have seen the idea that one can just invent whatever truth one wants and throw it out there and that somehow it is acceptable. I would agree with the member that it is not acceptable.

For the member for Provencher to compare Bill C-11 to governments following people on cellphones is simply unbelievable, yet not a single Conservative MP said that it was wrong and that he should not be saying that.

In the same way that the Conservatives throw out this idea of censorship without any due regard for the bill itself, which they have not read or do not care to read, this does a disservice to democracy. The behaviour of the Conservatives over the last few weeks at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in a similar way has done a disservice. Our job is to take legislation and ultimately vote yes or no. That is true, but it is also our job to work to improve it. That has not been an objective of the Conservative Party in the last few months.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have a lot to say, so I appreciate that additional time.

There are areas within the bill that can definitely be improved. There is no doubt about that. We have the ability to ensure that we are actually improving that bill.

We have had the debate today, and there have been a number of comments. I referenced earlier the issue around Bill C-11 and Conservative MPs who obviously have not read the bill, who have not opened it or even turned to page one, saying that it had something to do with the government following people on cellphones or the government censoring people's opinions. Obviously, that is not accurate and not true.

At the same time, at the committee level, we have had a number of inaccuracies, and I call it disinformation, that have come up through the course of the day. First is the issue of amendments. As I mentioned earlier, all of the other parties submitted amendments last week. We had been calling for amendments for a couple of weeks before then.

We flag that for a number of reasons. First, there is the time that is required for translation and the time that is required to prepare the amendments. We have to work with legislative staff. All of us around the table, with the singular exception of the Conservatives, did that work to make sure that those amendments are put in place, that they are in order, and that they are conceived in an effective way to make sure they do what they purport to do. As we know, that often involves a back-and-forth. It often involves working with the legislative clerks, and then submitting it for official translation.

That way we have a translation that is accurate, but sometimes corrections are needed. Last week I corrected some amendments that had been submitted in English. I felt that the translation was inaccurate, so we tweaked the translations to ensure that the two versions matched. We had been talking about it for weeks, saying that the amendments really needed to be submitted. The Conservatives refused all attempts to give the clerks and translators enough time to do their work.

The member for Perth—Wellington said a few minutes ago that we have to think about the translators and the clerks. Fortunately, their task will be much less onerous, because the committee members, with the exception of the Conservatives, have already submitted their amendments. Three-quarters of the amendments have already been translated, fortunately. This means that the work is already done. In a way, we have made the Conservatives' work easier.

Second, the member for Perth—Wellington just said that members should be able to vote on the proposed elements. Once again, the Conservatives filibustered the motion moved today. It amounts to the same thing. Each amendment will be voted on by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This means that members will be called upon to decide the fate of each amendment.

Third, although we are going to have a nine-hour day of debate on these amendments, we also need to vote at some point. The vote is important. We might be working until one or two in the morning, but that is not a problem for me. We are supposed to be here to work. That is why we decided to condense five weeks of hearings into a shorter period. We held the equivalent of five weeks of hearings in a shorter period, but we had time—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am contrasting Conservative behaviour at the heritage committee with what the NDP has sought and obtained: dental care, affordable housing, all of those things that make a difference in people's lives.

The Conservatives at the heritage committee heard the vast majority of witnesses say that Bill C-11 is good but could be better, suggesting specific amendments that could improve the legislation. Why are Conservatives simply refusing to even submit amendments? Every other party, every other member of Parliament around that table has tried to submit amendments. We tried to set deadlines weeks ago, but ultimately we just sent them in. We did our work. We did our homework. We worked late. We made sure we had amendments that could be put forward to the heritage committee for consideration to achieve those improvements.

I think I have maybe a minute left.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no relevance. He is talking about dental care, not the issue of Bill C-11.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for pointing out, yet again, that this is not a point of order. I can understand Conservatives' sensitivity about their deplorable actions, both in the House of Commons and in committee. I can imagine Conservatives being defensive about the incredible hypocrisy of trying to say that they are for something and then doing the exact opposite.

What Conservatives owe Canadians is to stand up and say they have not been doing what they were elected to do. We are supposed to be working to improve legislation, to bring amendments and to listen to witnesses. When the vast majority of witnesses before the committee say they are in favour of Bill C-11, and when the vast majority of witnesses also say that there are some improvements that could be made, then we have a responsibility as legislators both to hear that testimony and to put it into action and actually get to the point where we are improving the legislation.

That is the unbelievable contradiction of what we have seen transpire in the House of Commons over the last few months. There are members of the Conservative caucus whom I deeply respect, and the member for Perth—Wellington is one of them. However, the actions of the Conservative caucus as a whole have been profoundly detrimental to the work we have to do to make sure that legislation is ultimately passed, but also to improve that legislation.

What has the NDP done over that same period? We have pushed the government, and it is a minority situation, so every party has that ability, to put in place, for the first time, national dental care. That would be starting soon for children 12 and under, for the many families—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that these are radical actions certainly. I do not impugn any member, and I certainly think there were disruptive actions over the last few weeks. They have definitely been disruptive actions. Most witnesses come forward to say that improvements need to be brought to the bill, but Conservatives systematically refused to have any consideration for the bill itself. They refused even to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he was outside the room, and they refused to hear from the chair of the CRTC when he and his staff were outside the room. This kind of conduct is simply not acceptable.

We are engaged by Canadians to examine legislation and to improve legislation. That is part and parcel of our job in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have lamentably failed that over the last few weeks. We were able to get an agreement, which was tragically the last agreement other parties around the table at the heritage committee were able to obtain. The idea of the equivalent of five weeks of hearings is something that made sense. We heard from the major witnesses that we had all submitted. It made sense then to take what they had addressed, the kinds of suggestions that they put forward and from there, get to work on improving that legislation.

As I mentioned, the NDP filed their amendments more than a week ago, yet the Conservatives are a little like someone with a dog that ate their homework. They are refusing those amendments for a bill we believe can be improved. Where does that leave us?

I do need to put in this context the very clear disinformation that we are hearing from some Conservative members. The member for Provencher asked me in one of the evening debates on Bill C-11 about his concern that the government would be following us on cellphones and the connection to Bill C-11.

Mr. Speaker, I know you read the bill assiduously, but there is no reference at all to this. It is a wacko comment to say that somehow Bill C-11 is connected to governments following people on cellphones. It is just an unbelievable piece of disinformation.

We heard repeatedly today from Conservatives talking about censorship. Again, this has absolutely no relevance at all to the bill. As legislators, we are responsible for reading through the legislation. We are responsible for comments that have something to do with the actual legislation that is before us.

It is disappointing to me to see the Conservatives' attempts to block every piece of legislation we have seen over the last few months, even important pieces of legislation that would make a difference in people's lives, and I will reference a couple of them in a moment. This is now being replicated at the committee level where we have Conservatives simply refusing to allow the due diligence that is our responsibility for each piece of legislation.

That is the fundamental issue here. Conservatives basically tried to break the committee. We have three other parties in the democratic system, and the issue of representation is very important. Three of the four parties let us move forward and actually tabled their amendments and did the work. I have a great staff team. We put together those amendments and submitted them. It would then make sense for us to get to consideration of these amendments, but the Conservatives clearly indicated that they have no interest at all.

This happens even when they purport to support something. We can take the issue of Hockey Canada and the horrific allegations of sexual assault around Hockey Canada. The Conservatives said they wanted to study this, so I put forward an amendment for meeting next Monday and next Wednesday at our regularly scheduled times, and Conservatives refused to allow a vote on that. That is serious. They cannot say one thing, do completely the opposite, and expect to have credibility.

The Conservatives said they were concerned about Hockey Canada. The NDP shares those concerns. Members from all parties share those concerns. Why would the Conservatives be the party that blocks the vote that would allow us to actually have those hearings next Monday and Wednesday? There is nothing on the committee business yet for next Monday, when we could be hearing from Hockey Canada or from the Minister of Sport. However, because of the irresponsible Conservative actions, we will be listening to another Conservative filibuster—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, all of this is relevant to the behaviour of the Conservatives in the heritage committee, but I will continue because it is important to have these timelines to explain why we have come to the debate today.

Subsequent to that, we saw the Conservatives become the second block party in the House of Commons. We have the Bloc Québécois, and now we have the block-everything party. Subsequent to the “freedom convoy”, every single piece of legislation has been blocked in the House of Commons. No matter what good it would do for people and no matter what things it would change, the Conservatives have blocked everything.

This, of course, brings us to the heritage committee. I will pay tribute to the member for Perth—Wellington, who is the moderate within the Conservative caucus. Despite the fact that he had the more extremist members represented in the committee not allowing him to do this good work, we did, in the end, agree to the equivalent of five weeks of hearings at the heritage committee around Bill C-11. It made sense. The Conservatives raised at the end of it that perhaps we could hear from further witnesses. There were a couple of witnesses I thought it would be wise to hear from, yet the Conservatives blocked, through filibuster, hearing from the witnesses whom they said they wanted to hear from.

They also blocked at the heritage committee, unbelievably, the ability of the CRTC chair to come and answer questions from members of Parliament. We all had questions, and we had this surreal committee hearing where Conservatives were filibustering as the chair of the CRTC and members of the CRTC were outside the room. While we were all wishing to ask questions of the CRTC, the Conservatives were trying to block that. Eventually, we were able to break that filibuster.

There was another filibuster that stopped the Minister of Canadian Heritage from coming to answer questions on Bill C-11. We had to break that filibuster as well. It has just been an exercise in chaos at the heritage committee, provoked by the Conservatives and their block-everything philosophy.

It is fair to say that, when five weeks of hearings is not sufficient and when there is no attempt by the Conservatives to actually work out a schedule, because it is important in this place that we work out a schedule, the dysfunction that the Conservatives were bringing to the heritage committee then extended to the issue of amendments. The vast majority of witnesses whom we heard from over that five-week equivalent time period were witnesses who were endorsing Bill C-11, but many of the witnesses had clear improvements that they wanted to see to the legislation. Members of all of the other parties understood that.

We tried for two weeks to have an amendment deadline, which makes sense. We want to make sure that, in the administration of the House, timelines are respected. Conservatives categorically refused to set a deadline. Last Friday, all the other members of Parliament from the other parties on the Canadian heritage committee submitted their amendments. We had received texts. We had received a series of interventions and memoirs. We had also heard from witnesses for the equivalent of five weeks, so we knew. The three other parties, the parties that are taking a more adult—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost without words to see what the Conservatives have done concerning Bill C-11. I am saddened by what we have seen. The deterioration and the disintegration of the Conservative Party over the last few months is something that I think has saddened all of us.

I would remind members that, back in the month of December, and I will pay tribute to the former leader, the member for Durham, the Conservative caucus, led by moderates, was able to actually work with all parties. We had the—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question posed by the member opposite. Unfortunately, I do not think I am in a position best suited to answer it, as it is perplexing to me as well. It is perplexing because foreign affairs has to do with international relations with other countries. All members who are working in the House are vaccinated, and members would be willing to participate in this type of travel.

It is beyond me why the Conservatives would oppose travel for one committee and then force a vote in the House on that very issue in another committee. It seems to me that this is just another tactic from their tool box, which they are trying to use to delay Bill C-11.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about some of the great benefits that the bill brings. As the debate continues today, I want to hear from the members opposite as to what the issues are that they have with the bill exactly, because I believe there has been confusion around this issue. We have tried to make it clear. I do not know how much clearer we need to make it that this applies to commercial content and does not apply to user content.

In determining whether content is commercial, it has been set out in this piece of legislation that the regulator needs to evaluate it based on three elements: First, if the content is monetized. I know this would be of some concern because there is user content that can be monetized, but there are other elements and factors that they also have to weigh in connection with that. Second, they need to weigh whether the content exists on another non-social media platform. A non-social media platform would be something such as Netflix that we basically do not interact with. We are just consuming the content that is on there. If there is a show that YouTube is streaming as either paid content or unpaid content, and at the same time Netflix is also streaming it, that is a distinction to be made because that will get us closer to the definition of commercial content.

The third thing the regulator would be looking at is whether the content has a unique international standard code. The example would be a song that is uploaded to YouTube with an international standard music number. We know that many people are now consuming their music not from the radio or CDs, or from downloaded music or records for that matter. They are consuming it from these streaming platforms, but this is commercially produced music and content.

It is only fair that if the radio stations that are playing this content today, and have been all along, are playing by a certain set of rules, then those streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube Music also have the same rules applied to them. That is fair, and I think all members in the House should agree that one set of laws in Canada should not be different for one group of people and different for another. We should make sure that the laws are the same.

When I was first elected to the House, my father was a taxi driver. I remember many people from the taxi community. Many live in my riding. For some reason, I have a large number of constituents who are taxi drivers. They came to me and said that Uber did not have to pay HST, yet taxi drivers that provide the same service had to pay HST on their fares. I thought this was not fair. Why was one service provider, which provides exactly the same service, operating under one set of rules? Another service provider was promoting itself as being a digital company and providing the service slightly differently. However, it was not teletransporting people. Quite frankly, it was doing the exact same thing. It was picking up riders in cars and dropping them off at another location.

I brought this point up, and our Minister of Finance took that very seriously and said our laws and regulations should apply equally. I would say that Bill C-11 is a very similar situation. He quickly resolved that issue, and now Uber drivers also have to pay HST on their fares. That was justice served to the ride-share and taxi community. That is what we are trying to do in this bill by making sure that our regulations are applied across the board, equally and fairly.

Once again, I am not saying that any piece of legislation is completely perfect. There could be some gaps or some holes. We want to make sure we get the support of the Conservative Party, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party to make sure we fill those gaps and those holes. We want to see the amazing amendments they will hopefully bring forward if we ever get to that point.

However, what we are so tired of is the constant delay. It is not democracy. The members are saying that this is democracy, but delay and cutting off the ability to discuss in a way that is productive and constructive is different from saying, “We are not going to let this legislation see the light of day.” That is what I would argue the opposition has been trying to do.

There are many stakeholders who are eager to see this legislation pass. They feel their content has not been given the prominence it deserves. They have not been able to get the support they once did when their content was regularly watched on television. Now all these new content creators, and even the old, are not getting the financial support they used to get. We want to be able to continue telling those amazing stories that we were once able to on these new streaming platforms, because that is where people are consuming.

I want to further contrast the spreading of misinformation that has been going on on social media and Twitter. Members need to be responsible. They need to properly read and understand this piece of legislation before guiding their constituents, before responding to correspondence from their offices, and before putting stuff up on their social media. They should be giving Canadians the proper information.

This bill has nothing to do with what Canadians say on social media. Obviously, the members opposite are free to say whatever they like on their social media platforms, but I would just request that they be responsible members and make sure that the information they give Canadians about what is in this piece of legislation is accurate.

If the Conservatives really want to go and record themselves saying whatever they would like about this piece of legislation or on my speech in the House today, they are free to go and do so, and even once this piece of legislation is passed, they would still be free to do so. That is the clarity that Canadians really need to understand.

I do not want to see a repeat of what happened the last time around, when Conservatives sided with web giants instead of with Canadian artists and creators. I constantly hear from the opposition benches that they are here to be the voices of the people of Canada and the voices of their constituents. Unfortunately, I am afraid that what is happening is they are benefiting these huge, multi-billion dollar corporations, these huge web giants that do not have the same challenges that our local cable stations do. We want to bring fairness to the system.

Furthermore, I would also like to say that clause 12 of the online streaming legislation explicitly states that any regulation the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. Clause 12 should cause Canadians to give a sigh of relief, because I know a lot of the confusing messaging they have been receiving has led them to believe that this could somehow infringe on their freedom of speech.

I can assure Canadians that this piece of legislation is not made to do that. It is made to make sure that our artists in Canada and our content creators have the ability to express the stories that they would like to share with Canadians and the world about our wonderful country and about the experiences our people have in Canada.

I know that many members in the House support this piece of legislation, so I think it is quite unfair to hold it up any longer. We have seen it in the previous Parliament. We want to make sure that all members have the right to amend this piece of legislation, not just in this place but also in the other place as well.

Let us vote and get this show on the road. Let us make sure that the senators in the other place also have equal opportunity to put input into this piece of legislation. Let us get this work done for Canadians, for our artists and for our creators.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing the opposition member's concern about wanting to spend time on amendments to Bill C-11. I think that is a valid concern, and I believe that the committee has had ample time. What we in the government benches, and what I as a member, would like to see is that we get to the amendment stage, that we get to clause-by-clause and that amendments are put forward, and that we are able to discuss those amendments and then vote on them. That is the crux of the issue that we are looking at right now.

As has been mentioned here before as well, the committee and the members at the committee had agreed to 20 hours of witnesses. The members of the committee agreed to this: It was not the House or the government. It was the members of the committee. They have, since then, seen over 20 hours of witnesses.

I believe, from the debate that we hear from the Conservatives, that they have ample reasons to bring amendments forward. That is their right. We would like to see those amendments. We would like to discuss them and vote on those amendments. The previous motion, and now the opposition's motion, just do not seem to make sense. It seems like these are more delay tactics, rather than getting to the amendment stage, which we would desperately like to see.

There was also the issue of Hockey Canada brought up, and that the Conservative members on the committee would like to get to that issue, as well.

I would like to clarify that the members on the committee I have spoken to have said that there was an offer made to study that in parallel, and an offer to even sit on non-sitting days and get that important work done, but there was a filibuster by the Conservative members on the committee and nothing got done. The issue of Hockey Canada was not dealt with, nor was the issue of Bill C-11 thoroughly dealt with, so I really would request that the members reconsider this motion and really get to the stage that is important for all Canadians and especially our artists and content creators.

Another thing I would like to touch upon is the constant referral to the bill limiting freedom of expression or freedom of speech, or somehow being anti-democratic. It is absolutely not that. For decades, our system here has guaranteed creation for Canadian content creators when it comes to TV and radio: all of those platforms that we grew up with.

This is nothing new. We have always had legislation in place that made sure the CRTC was there to oversee our content, our networks and our cable providers. This is now just an extension of that.

There has not been an update to this legislation for a long time, and we know that today not many of our constituents, and probably not many of us in the House, are watching content in the traditional way we grew up watching it. We are watching it on streaming devices; therefore, it is crucial that we make sure that our laws are applied equally to radio and television, as they should be, and to streaming networks such as YouTube, Crave, Netflix and so many different networks that are out there that we are consuming content from.

I think it is really important that we make sure that these networks contribute to Canadian content, and make sure that bilingualism is respected in the country, as well as our indigenous communities and heritage. Without having these types of regulations to begin with, we would have missed out on incredible content that we have grown up watching.

Kim's Convenience is a more recent show that I know many of my friends appreciate very much. It has allowed Canadians to experience the diversity that we have here in Canada, and to share true Canadian stories that we can relate to.

That is a story, in particular, that I can relate to because of the immigrant struggle that my parents faced: having a small business while keeping their culture, staying connected to their roots and raising a young child within the Canadian context. It is a brilliant show, as is Schitt's Creek. Many members have probably appreciated the story that it has brought of inclusion and acceptance. Those stories are really important. They are the stories we want to be able to share with Canadians and make sure these platforms do their part in sharing those stories.

That is the crux of what this legislation is about. It is not about muzzling people or making sure their content does not get out. It is about commercial content. I want to be very clear that commercial content is different from user content. For instance, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, just the other day, put a video on Twitter talking about how Bill C-11 is a scary piece of legislation that is somehow going to remove the very video that he put on Twitter to talk about this legislation. Of course, that video is still there and even after this legislation is passed, it will still be there because this legislation has made an exception and carved out freedoms for those who are creating user content. On any social media platforms such as YouTube or Facebook, which many members of Parliament use, those types of posts and content will not be affected.

This bill would make sure that the CRTC and any of its advice does not muzzle freedom of speech or impose any restrictions on the people who—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for my hon. colleague because he said he has been following the deliberations of the heritage committee. He knows that the committee had the equivalent of over five weeks' worth of witnesses, that the committee was going to call additional witnesses but the Conservatives blocked that with a filibuster and that all other parties and all other members of the committee have filed their amendments. For a couple of weeks we tried to move forward, but the Conservatives refused, and the amendments were all filed last week.

The Conservatives also blocked having hearings for the very serious allegations that have come up regarding Hockey Canada. These are very serious allegations of sexual assault, and the Conservatives blocked those hearings, which would have been held next Monday and Wednesday, from being voted on. It is a very curious and very destructive strategy the Conservatives have adopted at committee in refusing to do their work and put in amendments, and in refusing and blocking witnesses.

With all of that as a background, my question to my colleague is this. We have heard Conservative MPs say that somehow Bill C-11 is linked to the government following people on cellphones and to censorship, none of which is in the bill at all. Why did Conservative MPs not read the bill before we had the consideration we have had over the course of the last few weeks?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed about the motion that has just been moved and need a bit of clarification. The member acknowledged himself that the Conservatives have been opposing committee travel. Now, all of a sudden, for a study on Bill C-11 that they have spent an extended amount of time on, with over 20 hours' worth of witnesses, they would like to see travel.

Can the member please explain this 180° turn?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that, during its consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee, provided that the travel does not exceed 10 sitting days.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for seconding what I believe to be a very important motion.

As members are aware, Motion No. 16 was presented today. It is basically a draconian way of dealing with issues and matters of the House by the government. It is a way of stifling debate. It is a way of silencing the voices of millions of Canadians who sent their elected representatives here to Ottawa.

Bill C-11 has been universally panned, for lack of a better word, by content creators and others who are concerned about censorship on the Internet and concerned about content creation. We heard this morning the member for Perth—Wellington give a very good description of some of the concerns with this bill.

Effectively, what Motion No. 16 has done is basically taken the work out of the hands of the committee on this extremely important bill. The government is ramming it through, with the help of its NDP partners, in order to get it passed through Parliament without addressing many of the concerns that are being brought up by those who, as I said earlier, are expressing significant concerns about issues related to censorship.

I have been hearing from my constituents on this. Over the last two or three days, Canadians have become increasingly engaged on this issue. They are finding out what is going on.

Similar to a previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-10, Canadians are concerned. In fact, I would suggest they are more concerned about what is going with Bill C-11 and the impact it is going to have on their ability to see what is on the Internet and produce what is on the Internet. There are concerns, as we heard, as to the power the bill gives the government and the censorship role it gives to the government. It contributes, in my opinion, even more to what we see as a decline in democracy here in Canada, whereby millions of voices, including the Speaker's voice, is silenced as a result of draconian measures.

What this motion would do is allow the committee to travel across the country to hear from those who it has not heard from before. This motion is important because the Conservative opposition has said we are not going to agree to committee travel. The motion highlights the importance of hearing from those in Canada who are extremely concerned about this bill and the censorship it can create. It would allow the committee to do its work, function properly and hear the voices that are being silenced in this place. “Parliament” comes from parler, or “to speak”, yet we are being silenced on this bill.

There is another interesting part to this. I have been watching closely the deliberations at the heritage committee and have been speaking to our shadow minister of heritage about the level of dysfunction that has been created as a result of the chair of the committee not coming to Ottawa and being on Zoom. It speaks to the overall dysfunction of this place. Hybrid Parliament is having such a tremendous impact on the ability of the committees to do their work, and there are health implications for the people who work here, namely the interpreters.

In my opinion, it is time for hybrid Parliament to end. We need to get back to normal. That forms the basis of every argument we have been making in this place.

I am moving this motion in the hopes that we can allow the committee to have its deliberations and speak to Canadians who are concerned about government censorship and the impact this bill will have. We need the support of Parliament to allow the committee to do its job.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C-11

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South says there cannot be more, but there is more, unfortunately.

The government has tools available to it in the House to force through legislation. On motions it can use what is called closure, and on pieces of legislation it can use time allocation. That is the traditional process. If Bill C-11 were to be reported back to the House and the government felt that it was not proceeding as fast as it would like, it could move time allocation. However, it did not. At least with time allocation there is an opportunity to put questions to the minister for a period of 30 minutes. It is not a lot and it is not sufficient, but at least there is a process. Motion No. 16 pre-emptively time allocates this piece of legislation before clause-by-clause happens, before the process even begins.

I want to quote paragraph (b) of the motion. It states:

not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment

That means one day for Bill C-11 at report stage.

Canadians listening at home may not quite grasp the severity of this provision. In the House, there are certain days of the week when government orders are debated for a lengthy period of time, for multiple hours. Sometimes when the government moves time allocation, it will say five hours. This is still, in my opinion, not enough time for an important piece of legislation, but five hours is more than what is foreseen for this piece of legislation.

If Bill C-11 is called before the House at report stage on a Wednesday afternoon or on a Friday, there will be not more than two and a half hours of debate in the House on each and every report stage amendment that may be brought forward. There is no discussion to extend hours. There is no discussion of additional time for Canadians to hear from their elected representatives.

I know that in my caucus, my Conservative colleagues want to discuss this bill. Many of them have eagerly volunteered to sit in on deliberations at the Canadian heritage committee because they have an interest in this piece of legislation. However, they have not had a chance to speak to it in the House of Commons. Why? It is because at second reading the government moved time allocation and they did not have a chance to speak.

My friend from Cumberland—Colchester is here today listening intently because he wanted to speak and did not have the chance. It is the same for my friend from Beauce. He has not had a chance to speak to this piece of legislation, and neither has my friend from Calgary Signal Hill. Each of them has been denied the opportunity to speak to this bill, and now they will be pre-emptively denied the opportunity to speak to the bill because of the limited time available for it.

That is not all. The final paragraph of this motion time allocates the bill at third reading. Paragraph (c) of Motion No. 16 states:

on the day the bill is considered at the third reading stage, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

That means one day of debate for the third and final reading of this piece of legislation.

I will remind members of the House that this bill only got to committee and began the committee process on May 24. Now, less than four weeks later, the government wishes to see this bill arrive at third reading and pass without meaningful debate in this place and without meaningful debate during clause-by-clause in committee.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I was in the chair for that meeting, and as members know, the chair does not actively participate in the debate. However, I listened intently to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in his opening comments. He made the comment that when the committee was finished its process, there would be more debate in the House of Commons at report stage, at third reading and then in the Senate. Then, just three days later, on notice on the Order Paper was this guillotine motion, which does not fulfill the minister's commitment to allowing more debate on this bill.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and I get along very well, so I take him at his word that he was committed to more debate. Unfortunately, the government House leader's failure to manage the legislative agenda of this place means that our colleagues, members of the House, will not have the opportunity to fulfill their duty as parliamentarians, to fulfill their duty to the people they represent.

It is interesting that with the current government, what was old is new again, because in the previous Parliament there was a similar motion. It was Motion No. 10, and it also dealt with a bill, Bill C-10, the predecessor to this bill. It forced Bill C-10 through committee, forced it through the House of Commons and forced it into the Senate.

Had the government actually been committed to passing that piece of legislation, it could have, but something else intervened: the political interests of the Prime Minister. We saw the political ambitions and self-interest of the Prime Minister in his attempt to try to win a majority government during a pandemic, when he and every Liberal member on that side had committed to not calling an election during a pandemic.

They saw an opportunity to try to get their majority, and they did not. However, what happened is that every piece of legislation that was before the House or the Senate died on the Order Paper, including the previous Bill C-10. To hear Liberal members and ministers talk about having to expedite legislation through the House and through committee because it has to get through is simply horse feathers. It is horse feathers because they had an opportunity to do so but killed their own legislation by forcing an unnecessary election, which included the dissolution of Parliament.

However, the Liberals do not learn their lesson. These undemocratic processes keep coming back time and time again, and we have seen this with different pieces of legislation. I know I have heard Liberal MPs talk about the other matters we need to get to. Our Conservative Party put forward a proposal at the heritage committee to prioritize a review of Hockey Canada. We put forward a motion to prioritize the review of the disgusting situation we have learned about from four years ago. That should be our priority at committee. That is what we as parliamentarians should be looking at.

I see that I have one minute before question period, and as I assume I will have time to resume my comments after question period, I will leave with a few interim closing comments.

Canadians expect us to do better. Canadians expect us to review legislation. They expect opposition MPs to improve flawed legislation, and that is what we as Conservative members of Parliament will do. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, we will do what we can to protect Canadians, to support our creators and to ensure that Canadian creators are able to succeed at home and around the globe.

I look forward to resuming after question period.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to open by sharing a quote, which states:

We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says. It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation.

The quote goes on to say:

We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government.

Do members know who said that? It was the member for Vancouver Centre, the current chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. What she said in 2011, we agree with. The current government does not listen. The government does not accept amendments. The government does not accept the testimony and advice of digital-first creators and experts on communications and on the Internet. The government does not listen.

We have heard a lot from the opposition parties that we have had 20 hours of witnesses. The fact is that this committee did not begin studying this bill until May 24: That was 17 days ago. Today, we have Motion No. 16. In the House lately, we are all used to time allocation and closure motions, but this is not just a time allocation motion. This is not just a closure motion. This is a guillotine motion on steroids. This is a motion that not only forces this bill through committee stage and clause-by-clause, but also through the final stages in the House itself. It provides for only one day at report stage, one single day, and there is no guarantee that day has any more than an hour or an hour and a half of debate in the House.

Report stage, as it currently stands, would likely fall on next Friday, meaning that the total time the House would have to debate it, at its very maximum, would be about 150 minutes. There would be 150 minutes to discuss report stage amendments to the largest and most comprehensive updates to the Broadcasting Act in more than 30 years. The government thinks that two and a half hours in the House is sufficient to do that.

As Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we have a duty to play our role: to criticize when warranted, to make amendments and to approve when necessary. That is what we, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, want to do. We have been clear throughout the process and the debate on this bill and its predecessor bill in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, that we believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated.

The Broadcasting Act dates to 1991. It is a time when VCRs were king, when we had to borrow VHS tapes from the grocery store or the corner store and when the member for South Shore—St. Margarets claims he had hair. I will look for photographic evidence of that. I will point out, because this is relevant, the member was a senior staff member in that government of the day when this legislation first came through. If we consult Hansard from that time and review the comments and commentary by the minister at the time, Minister Masse, we will see that in that time and at that place, the legislation to update the Broadcasting Act and the lead-up to 1991, when it took effect, was done with the broad-based support and consultation not only of members of the House, but also of Canadians. It recognized the challenges that were being faced at that time by broadcasters, by Canadians and by individuals who wanted to see Canadian content creations from across our country.

We want to see the major exhibitions and creations of Quebec creators, and we want them to succeed here and around the world.

We want to see that success, and that is why we are not opposed to necessary updates to the Broadcasting Act. In fact, in our last election platform in 2021, during that unnecessary election that gave us a repeat minority Parliament, we committed to updating the Broadcasting Act, but we committed to doing so in a way that ensured digital first creators were able to succeed and that did not unfairly regulate user-generated content. Now, here we are today with Motion No. 16, which is forcing this bill through Parliament.

I wish I could say I was angry. I wish I could say I was mad. I am not angry, and I am not mad, but I am disappointed. I am disappointed the government would use such an arbitrary and draconian measure as Motion No. 16.

My friend from Edmonton West pointed this out, but it is worth reaffirming what this motion would actually do when it comes to committee resources. Motion No. 16 states “the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings”. Members in the House know the hard work interpreters do each and every day. I know sometimes I have difficulty understanding myself in one language, let alone having that translated and interpreted to a second language. The interpreters in this place and in committee do exceptional work interpreting into English and French each and every day, and they deserve our respect.

Over the past two years, the strain and workplace injuries the interpreters in this place have experienced are unacceptable. It is entirely unacceptable. The two official languages of this place, the two official languages of this country, must be respected. It is the interpreters who enable that. It is the interpreters who allow that to happen. However, each and every day we see challenges with resources. We see challenges with the Translation Bureau being able to provide us with sufficient numbers of people who can interpret at committee.

Under this motion, under Motion No. 16, only one committee shall have priority for committee resources. Only one committee shall be able to have its meetings occur no matter what, which is the Canadian heritage committee, so the government can force through its flawed pieces of legislation. No other committee can have that priority.

My friend from South Shore—St. Margarets, on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, would not have priority for committee meetings, and meetings keep being cancelled. My friend from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who chairs the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, would not have priority for House resources. Her committee meetings would be cancelled if the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage needed those resources.

My friend from Edmonton West on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has already noted his committees have been cancelled, when they are looking at multi-billion dollar procurement. Those meetings could again be cancelled so the government can push through its repeat legislation, Bill C-11, which was formerly Bill C-10.

If it were only that matter alone, I would say it was sufficient to vote down this flawed motion, but it gets worse. Not only does this motion have a negative impact on each and every other committee, but it also rushes through what ought to be a deliberative process. Subparagraph (ii) states, “amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, 2022, and distributed to committee members in both official languages by 9:00 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

I am sure we are all probably thinking, well, that is Monday, and today is Friday. How does the government expect this motion to take effect by Monday and have amendments due by Monday night? Not only is this a guillotine motion, but this is a guillotine motion that will be guillotined. By the end of business today, a minister of the Crown will stand in their place and state that a minister of the Crown will introduce closure. A minister of the Crown will stand in this place and state that agreement could not be reached and closure will be necessary on Monday.

On Monday, the first order of business, when orders of the day are called, will be a closure motion on a closure motion on steroids, which means that debate will not be further adjourned and that, at 8:00 p.m. on Monday evening, the bells will ring. The Speaker will call in the members, the bells will ring, and at 8:30 p.m. on Monday night, the House will pronounce its judgment on Motion No. 16.

At midnight, under the terms of this motion, amendments would be due, which would be three and a half hours after this motion passes. Amendments on the first update to the Broadcasting Act in 31 years, a complicated and complex matter, would be due in three and half hours.

The government likes to talk about work-life balance, but we, as politicians, are used to this. We are elected. We are well compensated. We are ready and able to work hard, but let us talk about the administration staff of this place. Let us talk about the clerks of our committee, who are now being told that at midnight on Monday night they have to be ready, able and available to accept amendments from each recognized party and from any independent member. This is at 11:59 p.m. on Monday night, and then they have to ensure that each of those amendments are then distributed by 9:00 a.m. the next morning to members of the committee. That is nine hours and one minute, through the dead of night, for the committee clerk and the committee staff to make that happen.

Members, the employees of the House and the employees of Parliament deserve better. They should not be forced into that situation.

It gets worse. After receiving those amendments at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 14, and this is from the motion, “the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than 11:59 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

Committee members will receive the amendments from all parties and from independent members at 9:00 a.m., and then two hours and 59 minutes later, they will proceed to clause by clause. We will be forced, as parliamentarians and as members of the committee, to pronounce judgment on potentially dozens of amendments that we will have seen for the first time only hours before.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his always constructive work at committee. It is always a pleasure to work with him.

Second, I want to say that I carefully avoided in my speech even referring to what political party or what people were not allowing us to move forward. I never mentioned a word about the Conservatives once in my speech.

The end result here is that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has, on multiple occasions, proposed motions, amendments and subamendments to have us move to the Hockey Canada study at next Monday's meeting and next Wednesday's meeting. The reason we never were able to actually get there was that Conservative members filibustered those discussions. I am sure they want to hear from Hockey Canada. I am sure that all of us want to hear from Hockey Canada. We all agree what an important study that is, but the Conservative members on the committee do not want to get to the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-11. Because we had said that we would hear them in parallel, the Conservative members did not want to get to a vote on that.

It is frustrating, because I know that we all want to get to the Hockey Canada study as well.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague. He is a member of Parliament representing a riding in Quebec, which has a single official language, French. The riding he represents is also in Canada, which has two official languages, French and English. He gave about 10% of his speech in French, so I want to congratulate him, truly.

I am wondering whether my colleague is not a little embarrassed. We have been talking about Bill C-11 for two years now, if we include its predecessor, Bill C-10. We in the Bloc Québécois were ready and worked very hard to move this bill forward. The hon. member for Drummond worked very hard and was even congratulated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his work in committee on this bill.

Before the election, the Bloc Québécois was even ready and willing to vote in favour of time allocation on Bill C-10, which it never does. We normally oppose time allocation, because we want democracy to work and we do not want to shut down debate. We were ready, but then an election came along, and Bill C-10 was postponed indefinitely. Now we have Bill C-11 before us.

The government has hurriedly cobbled together a motion that sort of paves the way for us to maybe pass this bill.

Is my colleague not a little embarrassed that after all those debates the Liberals prorogued Parliament a year and a half ago and called an election? Now they are throwing this motion on the table two weeks before the end of the session and telling us that we must adopt this motion or Bill C-11 will not be passed. For artists, that is shameful.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the hon. member: This bill has nothing to do with censorship. Freedom of speech is protected in this country under section 2, and it is very clear that freedom of speech is protected under this bill.

Second, this bill would not be necessary except for the fact that members of the hon. member's party have continued to filibuster the committee, preventing us from ever getting to a vote on any of the many motions, amendments and subamendments the Conservatives are making. In meeting after meeting, and now I have seen it on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, their end goal is for the committee not to be able to get to clause-by-clause. I think this frustration is shared not only by the Liberal members of the committee, but also by the NDP and Bloc members of the committee.

In the end, we are doing something that is asking the House to instruct the committee to do its job and get to clause-by-clause, so it is actually very democratic and parliamentary.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed to have to be speaking to a programming motion today. I am disappointed because I truly believe in the committee process. I believe that House committees do really important work. I believe they are the heart of how bills get improved, the place where members from all parties give detailed advice to the government on studies and do detailed studies of legislation.

In the first four years when I was an MP, I had the true pleasure of chairing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had really tough bills that we tackled, ones that involved issues like medically assisted dying, recognizing gender identity and gender expression in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the most significant reforms to the Divorce Act and the Criminal Code in decades. We heard from witnesses for many hours and we studied amendments, sometimes hundreds of amendments, and yet, in each and every case, nobody ever tried to stop the process.

The committee agreed on how many witnesses we would hear from, and once that ended, clause-by-clause would start. Each amendment was properly discussed, dealt with and voted on, and we moved on and returned the bill to the House. This applied to bills where there was a philosophical difference between the different members of the committee from different parties, such as medically assisted dying. It also applied to bills where the members of the committee from all other parties disagreed with the government on the bill, such as genetic discrimination, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. Committee members worked together. I see my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and he was part of that committee and knows how well we worked together. We treated each other with respect, and the committee respected the process. Everyone debated, a vote happened and the majority will was respected.

In the case of Bill C-11, this is not what is happening at committee. In fact, this bill is meeting a fate similar to that of its predecessor, Bill C-10. Having been a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in both cases, I know we have been treated to some members using the committee rules in a way to stop us from getting to clause-by-clause to try to improve the bill.

At committee, members have the right to speak to motions as long as they want, provided they do not stray too far from the topic. As a result, we have been blocked from ever voting on a motion to move to clause-by-clause, even though it is the clear wish of the majority of the members of the committee to do so. Based on what I have seen at committee, it is abundantly clear to me that there is no desire on the part of some committee members to ever allow clause-by-clause to happen on the bill. The members propose motions, amendments and subamendments, but never allow any of them to actually come to a vote. This is truly unfortunate, because if the goal is to improve legislation and propose and support amendments to improve the bill, we need to discuss and debate and vote on those amendments. We need to see those amendments. That is the way things are done constructively.

Those members using the filibuster to stop the committee from reaching clause-by-clause are certainly following the rules. Therefore, much as I would prefer that we not have to do this, other members have the right to follow other House rules to move us to clause-by-clause, because if we do not receive instructions from the House, we will never get there ourselves. Let me be clear: If any members think the bill needs to be improved, they should want us to get to clause-by-clause so that they can propose amendments, the country can hear those amendments and we can vote on those amendments. Let us try to get there.

As a result, the motion before us would provide the committee with priority for House resources so that we can sit outside of our standard hours. It proposes that amendments need to be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, which is a full 10 days after the original date that was proposed for those amendments to be submitted and is eminently reasonable. All members of the committee are certainly already in a position where they have their amendments prepared, or can have their amendments prepared by Monday.

The motion then proposes that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause deliberations no later than June 14, in the morning, and provides at least nine hours for the committee to consider amendments before the amendments are deemed moved and submitted. The reason for this time limit is, once again, to prevent filibustering of each amendment. The goal would be to actually have a constructive discussion and vote on each amendment, and not spend nine hours filibustering the first amendment we discuss. Sections (b) and (c) of the motion then discuss how the bill would be treated at report stage and third reading.

If we want the bill to get to clause-by-clause consideration by the committee and not to be unreasonably filibustered, I feel we have no alternative but to do this. Therefore, I support this motion.

Now let me speak to the importance of this bill to many Canadians.

Bill C-11 addresses an important imbalance by requiring online audio and video broadcasting services to contribute to the achievement of important cultural policy objectives in the same way that traditional broadcasters always have. As early as the 1990s, concerns were raised about the potential for online streaming to disrupt the broadcast sector. An early decision was made not to place requirements on online streaming services then, given the relatively limited impact of those services at the time. We should remember that broadcasting regulation only applies where it has a material impact on the broadcasting sector.

Today, the rationale to exempt online players simply no longer stands. The world of broadcasting has changed. We all know this. We regularly turn to online streaming services such as Netflix, Spotify, Crave, CBC Gem and Club Illico to access our music and television, in addition to more traditional services like radio and cable.

Times have changed. It has taken us over 20 years, but online streaming services are now the method through which a growing majority of Canadians access their content. There has been a drastic shift in Canada’s broadcasting sector, which has directly impacted the level of support for Canadian programming and talent. Jobs are threatened. Continuing to regulate online and traditional broadcasters differently is not fair, and it is not sustainable. It is putting the support system for Canadian stories and music at risk.

To explain how modernizing the act will create sustainable funding for our cultural industries, it is important to look at how transformative digital disruption has been for broadcasting in Canada.

Let us recall how things were at the beginning of Canadian broadcasting. Radio stations and TV channels, as well as cable and satellite distribution companies, had to be Canadian owned and licenced. They were allowed, and still are, of course, to show foreign programs or carry American channels. In return for participating in Canada's broadcasting system and accessing our domestic market, they were required to fund, acquire or broadcast Canadian programs. They were also required to make programs accessible to Canadians and contribute to the creation of Canadian programming, including original programming in French.

Over time, broadcasters' demand for Canadian programs increased. The system was working as intended, and domestic creative industries flourished. Thousands of Canadians found careers in broadcasting as journalists, producers, actors, writers, directors, singers, makeup artists, set designers, showrunners and so much more. There was upskilling in Canada's cultural industries and investment in production clusters. We became known for our creative and technical talent.

Broadcasting plays a key role in supporting Canada’s creative industries and evolving cultural identity. The Canadian broadcasting, film and video, and music and sound recording sectors are also important economic drivers. They contribute about $14 billion to Canada’s GDP and accounted for over 160,000 jobs in 2019.

The online streaming act would build on the economic and social benefits of the Broadcasting Act. It is about ensuring the continued viability of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is also about securing our cultural sovereignty. Canada is home to continuous innovation and emerging talent. It is imperative that we support our creators and creative industries, and this requires that all broadcasters in Canada compete on an equal footing. We must bring the online streaming services into the system.

As an artifact of outdated legislation, online broadcasters are not required to support Canadian music and storytelling or any other important broadcasting objective. As the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters stagnate and decline, so too will the level of support for Canadian music and stories, and for the creative professionals behind them.

This is not right. The implications for our broadcasting system, which is the bulwark of Canadian cultural expression, are grave. Canadian broadcasters have responded by cutting costs, and that has had a real impact on their service to Canadians, on their contribution to Canadian culture and on good middle-class jobs. As Canadians, we would be the poorer for not seeing homegrown talent supported and more diversity on screen and in song. Previous generations enjoyed Canadian programs knowing that others across the country were sharing a similar experience, and they are important for our culture and our cultural industries.

We are not alone. Countries across the world are making moves to protect and promote their cultural sovereignty. Unlike others, we share our borders with a dominating force in the realm of content creation.

What matters most, what matters now, is that Canadian voices, perspectives and stories remain relevant, heard and groundbreaking. The online streaming act is needed to achieve greater diversity in the broadcasting system and ensure the long-term viability of our broadcasting sector.

The online streaming act is not meant to create winners and losers or promote one platform rather than another. The goal is to enable the creative sector to keep evolving. Regardless of how Canadians access their content, they should be able to see themselves in stories and songs that reflect their experience and their communities.

The Broadcasting Act of 1991 got us to this point. Bill C‑11 will move us forward. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and hope that our Canadian stories and unique perspectives will be shared without the protection and supports provided by the online streaming act. That will not work.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of democracy is voting and showing up to this place and participating, and that is of course what we do. Whether it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-21, there will be an opportunity, obviously, to continue debating legislation.

On Bill C-11 specifically, there were nine days at committee and many days at second reading. We have opportunities at third reading, and it will be going to the Senate. It is taking essential action to protect Canadian creators and Canadian heritage. We are proud to support this bill, and part of the thrust and parry of this place is that sometimes we disagree. That is not a representation of a decline in democracy; it is proof of it working.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-5 in respect of mandatory minimums. We will then call second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate government Motion No. 16 regarding proceedings for Bill C-11, as I was mentioning, on the Broadcasting Act.

When we return next week, we will focus on this government motion debate and continue our work on Bill C-5 and Bill C-11, as well as on Bill C-14 concerning electoral representation.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see you in the chair. I hope you are getting your strength back. You sound like it. You are doing a good job of keeping everybody in good spirits.

Before my question, there are a couple of issues that I want to bring to the attention of the government House leader.

Number one is that we are requesting a take-note debate on the issue of food security, which is having a significant effect around the world, as members know, as a result of many geopolitical issues.

The second thing is a request to split Bill C-21 so that we can work on victims and the protection of victims in domestic violence.

The third thing is that there have been significant concerns among stakeholders and advocates right across the country regarding Bill C-11. We are seeing some draconian measures being proposed by the government to deal with this piece of legislation. I am concerned about that.

Before I ask for the schedule, I am wondering what the government House leader's plan is to effectively silence the voices of millions of people who voted for opposition MPs in this place and, furthermore, what his plans are to contribute to a further decline in democracy in this place over the course of the next week.

Sport

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians, I am disgusted by this situation, and I want to make sure that no public funds were spent to cover up such actions.

That is why I have ordered a financial audit to get to the bottom of this. Hockey Canada must explain why, despite the allegations of such egregious actions, these players faced no consequences and were allowed to continue on to a professional career.

The culture of silence must stop, and it will stop, but using this situation as an excuse to block Bill C-11 at committee is unacceptable.

Access to Information

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just these documents. That is just one of many actions being taken by the NDP-Liberal coalition government.

Let me give other examples. Ministers can now end democratic debate without notice, just at will. In addition to that, of course, documents are being refused to be granted with regard to the study of the Emergencies Act. In addition to that, the members opposite are now moving Bill C-11, which would shut down our ability to use the Internet with freedom. It would control what we can see, what we can hear and what we can post online.

Why is the government so determined to kill democracy?

Canadian Heritage

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yes, individual creators are protected under this legislation. It is the platforms that we are targeting.

Let us not forget that we have been able to protect Quebec and Canadian culture by making Canadian creators more discoverable on platforms, including radio, TV and now the Internet.

We want to ensure that Canadian creators are seen, heard and appreciated. That is exactly what Bill C-11 does, and that is what the Conservatives still do not seem to understand.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to two great online content creators. Julia Westlin and David Michaud get millions of views on YouTube and are known throughout the world. They make a living from their art.

Under Bill C-11, as it now stands, the CRTC could regulate their content, which would have a major impact on their livelihoods.

Can the Prime Minister categorically assure us that the content that is generated by all social media users, including Julia and David, will be exempt from this bill, yes or no?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that Bill C-11 applies to platforms, not to users.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister was not able to answer any of my questions on Monday, so I am hoping that perhaps the Prime Minister might be able to assist me today.

The heritage minister has claimed repeatedly that Bill C-11 does not capture user-generated content, but the chair of the CRTC, Mr. Scott, has said that, in fact, user-generated content is captured within Bill C-11.

Both of these men cannot be correct. I am wondering if the Prime Minister could clarify this for the sake of Canadians watching today: Should they believe his minister, or should they believe the chair of the CRTC?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite the many flaws in Bill C-11, the Liberals continue to force this legislation through Parliament.

Last week, the CEO of Canada's most successful YouTube channel told the heritage committee that Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It has been written by those who do not understand the industry that they are attempting to regulate.

Artists and creators who work in digital media have been clear: Modernization does not mean taking an outdated, 30-year-old regulatory system and simply applying it to today's technology. While the Liberals claim there is now an exemption for user-generated content, this legislation clearly allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That means that virtually all content can be regulated by the CRTC.

It is clear: Bill C-11 is flawed, and it must be scrapped.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that user-generated content will be exempt from regulation under Bill C-11.

However, the bill states in black and white that the CRTC will have the power to regulate all content that directly or indirectly generates revenues. This means that almost all content will be regulated. Experts are against the idea.

Can the minister categorically assure us that all user-generated content will be exempt, yes or no?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we are standing up for them, as we are standing up for other cultural workers, for producers, for actors, and for our technicians, which is something the Conservatives cannot do. They cannot say they are going to support Bill C-11 because it is important to tell their stories, because it is important for music, or because it is important for television. They never said that, and they never will.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about representation. Yesterday, we heard a troubling revelation at committee. An organization dedicated to opposing Bill C-11 admitted that it was paid by YouTube and TikTok, but they claimed to represent exactly that, digital creators, saying they were grassroots. That is called astroturfing. Of course, this was never revealed before, and it raises serious questions. Did the Conservatives know this when they invited that organization?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives care about Canadian creators, but the Liberals continue to ignore the negative impacts of Bill C-11. This morning, digital creator and 47-year-old skateboarding mom Oorbee Roy told this to the committee: “not only does this bill not help me; it hurts me and actively undermines my needs.... I literally have never gotten a seat at the table, except now. As a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters.... Please don't suppress my voice.”

Will the government do the right thing and fully exempt user-generated content and remove proposed section 4.2 from Bill C-11?

Broadcasting Act

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that Canada needs a modernized Broadcasting Act that fits today's digital age. Unfortunately, Liberal Bill C-11 is another in a long line of bad Liberal bills. Bill C-11 would create more red tape for businesses and creators, put more control in the hands of the incompetent CRTC and open up a Pandora's box of Internet regulation.

If passed, Bill C-11 could give the government the power to decide what Canadians can and cannot post on their social media profiles. Bill C-11 would limit consumer choice, drive up prices, create further uncertainty for Canadian businesses and creators and limit the free expression of all Canadians. It is time for the government to scrap Bill C-11 and get back to the drawing board, once and for all.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are the ones who got rid of the boutique tax credits. By the way, it is a tool to use in the marketplace to incentivize consumer choices; that is why we do it like that.

Let us get back to what the member said earlier. I actually really appreciated the beginning of his response to that question. He said their job is to critique legislation and to make it better. He said to look at Bill C-11, and that he did not think the government should be doing that.

That is not what the Conservatives are doing, though. The member and his party are not coming here and saying they want to make the legislation better. They are coming here and putting up every single roadblock possible to prevent anything from happening. That is not their job.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a fair question. Lots of people wonder what the role of the opposition is in government.

The role is to make sure that government legislation does get better. We have some very thoughtful but maybe critical arguments on some of the legislation, for example Bill C-11. I do not think the government should be legislating the Internet and regulating what people can and cannot see. I believe in free speech. The Liberals do not. There is another example. I do not think people should have to pay a carbon tax on the gas they use in their vehicles, on the equipment they use to seed or on the machinery they use to grow food for people across Canada. I do not think schools should have to pay carbon tax on their heating. I do not think there should be a carbon tax on bussing kids to school in Saskatchewan. These are policy debates we could have.

The Liberals say, “But they get it back.” My question or comment, and Premier Wall made the same comment, would be this: If the government is just going to give the carbon tax back to Canadians in boutique tax credits, why take it in the first place? Please, why do we not let Canadians keep the money in their own pockets?

Canadian Heritage

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree that we may disagree on some points, but we can still respect each other. I think that is fundamental in the House.

Bill C-11, once again, is very simple. We are asking those big streamers, those platforms, to contribute to Canadian culture. Why? Because that is important for us. It is important to be able to tell our stories and to keep telling those stories that are fundamental. That is the only thing the bill does.

We hear a lot of theories, conspiracy theories, and this and that, but we want to help our culture. For once, I would have loved for the Conservatives to help us, but I guess they will not.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the Conservatives are very creative, because they invent a lot of stuff.

Bill C-11 is only about online streamers, those companies, so that they contribute to the Canadian culture. It is very simple. Platforms are in and users are out. That is it.

Could the Conservatives please, for once, support our artists and our cultural sector? That would be really nice.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can support the cultural sector by taking user-generated content out of this bill and letting Canadian creators thrive here at home and internationally.

The Liberals claim that user-generated content will not be included in Bill C-11, yet the chair of the CRTC contradicted the government and said that it would and that it could regulate user-generated content.

We still have not seen the government's policy directive on Bill C-11. The government could do that right now. It could release the policy directive and confirm and make it clear that user-generated content would be excluded from the bill.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing at the committee is that our cultural sector needs Bill C-11. It is fundamental. This is what we are hearing day after day. Our musicians, producers and creators all need it. This is what we put forward. It has the support of a lot of people across the country.

I would like, for once, the Conservatives to support our industries and for once to support the cultural sector.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Morghan Fortier, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, appeared before the heritage committee, and had this to say about Bill C-11:

It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate....worst of all, section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet use of everyday Canadians and small businesses.

This is the creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel. It is someone we should be celebrating and not holding back. Will the minister make the very simple commitment to remove section 4.2 from Bill C-11?