Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Me, too. I'm having a quiet conversation with my colleague over here. That's totally allowable.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm sure you heard—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

May I call for some order here, please? I think we have been carrying on this committee with a great deal of respect, and, in fact, collegiality and some jocularity. I would like to have the committee continue that way and not be having to yell at each other as if we're in high school.

Ms. Thomas, please don't yell at your colleague. Let's be respectful.

I'm going to ask you to cede the floor to Mr. Nater. I think Mr. Bittle is suggesting he'd like to move on as well. The points were made very clearly.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a very passionate topic. I think that's what we're seeing right now.

This is a very passionate topic and a very important topic because it affects so many Canadians, so many digital-first creators and so many people who are out there making a go of it through new technologies, new means and user-generated content.

I want to be very clear. The one aspect of this bill that I have received the most correspondence on has been this aspect: proposed section 4.2. I will be supporting the amendment brought forward by Mr. Morrice of the Green Party. It's similar to the amendment that will come after it and is sponsored by the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately, given the time, we likely won't get to debate that one, so I'm using this opportunity—and I appreciate Mr. Morrice's bringing this forward and allowing me to speak to it—because this is it. This is, in my view, one of the most important aspects of this bill.

We've heard from people like Oorbee Roy and those who have been able to find success, such as, for example, J.J. McCullough, who my colleague just mentioned, with his exceptional and frankly enjoyable testimony. His video, which was posted afterwards, was a great effort at explaining much of this to us.

When it comes to this aspect, if the minister can be taken at his word—and I want to take the minister at his word—removing proposed section 4.2, removing this aspect of the piece of legislation, will very clearly show to Canadians that users are out and that user-generated content will not be captured by this bill.

Because I'm not going to be able to debate or explain future amendments for Canadians watching at home, and I know that there are tens of people tuning in to ParlVU as we speak and paying attention to clause-by-clause, you'll notice as we go on that we'll be voting on a number of amendments without debate. Some of them will be labelled “CPC”, some “LIB” and some “NDP”, accounting for the different parties.

The Conservative Party was putting forward, I think, meaningful and constructive amendments that would allow this piece of legislation to be approved and would clarify once and for all to Canadians that users are in fact out. That's what the minister committed to, and that's what this amendment and the next Conservative amendment would achieve, a hundred per cent. I know there's controversy around this. I know there are people who will disagree with that aspect, but if we take the minister at his word and if we take the government at its word, this achieves what they've been saying from day one. This achieves what we've set out to achieve.

I don't want to take up too much time, other than putting on the record that we will be making more amendments that would protect users and the content that Canadians post online. It's just unfortunate that in a few minutes we turn into pumpkins and can no longer debate this piece of legislation in the way I think Canadians expect us to.

I've put my comments on the floor. I've put my comments on the record. I just wish I could say more as we go through the amendments.

I will yield my time, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Is there anyone else, Clerk, on the floor who wishes to speak?

[The Clerk, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

Mr. Bittle and Mr. Julian.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Speaking to this amendment—and I'll leave some time so Mr. Julian can have a say—specifically, it would exclude social media platforms like YouTube, which is what more than two-thirds of Canadians use to stream music. It would perpetuate an unfair playing field, and ultimately that's what this bill is about. It's about making these platforms pay.

From the beginning, it's almost seemed like we were looking at the International Olympic Committee, and I'm sure many of us in the room would say, “That's not a great organization. Look at the athletes. The athletes are great. They're doing great things. They're doing wonderful things, but don't look at the IOC. Let's not discuss that as an important part of sport and the actions they take.” The Conservatives are discussing and bringing forth these amendments for the benefit of some of the largest companies in the world, Google and TikTok, and we're here to ensure that individual platforms will have obligations under this bill, not users.

We need to ensure that there is a level playing field, and we need to ensure that platforms contribute to Canadian culture. It's been the Canadian model, something we've been doing for decades successfully—having that discussion, having that talk. We all pick our favourite stories that we've heard from Canadians and favourite artists.

We had Gord Sinclair from the Tragically Hip here to talk about how the system benefited him and how it benefited a band from a small town in eastern Ontario to make it big on the scene. I know that Mr. Gerretsen will probably be upset that I called it a small town in eastern Ontario, but that's what Mr. Sinclair said. He talked about needing to have this legislation to ensure that we have the next Tragically Hip, so we can continue to tell those Canadian stories and have those benefits.

I'd like to ensure that Mr. Julian has a chance to speak, because I see we're getting close to nine o'clock, but those are the government's objectives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Peter.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I really am disappointed with yet another Conservative filibuster. We've had, over the last few weeks, so many delays. Conservatives are blocking witnesses who should have come forward. We all recall, Madam Chair, when the CRTC chair was being blocked by Ms. Thomas's filibuster and was unable to testify and answer questions for an hour, an hour and a half or two hours. I don't recall the length of time, but it just seemed so inappropriate when these questions needed to be asked that there was that inability—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I think that getting into the realm of personal attacks is not appropriate. Mr. Julian very clearly said that it was a filibuster from a particular member, and I think that was absolutely inappropriate.

The committee was discussing very important matters. I believe it was in relation to the alleged sexual assault at Hockey Canada, and it is absolutely inappropriate to characterize—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Goodridge—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

—it as a filibuster of one particular member. It was appropriate committee business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That was not really a point of order to this meeting, Mrs. Goodridge.

Continue, Mr. Julian, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much.

To the Conservatives, that is a very valid point. The Conservatives filibustered even the Hockey Canada motion that I brought forward last Wednesday, so we weren't able to vote on that. We were only able to vote yesterday to finally have Hockey Canada come forward, so this has been ongoing over weeks and weeks.

I'm glad, though, because the overwhelming number of witnesses who came forward supported improvements to the bill, and—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I have a point of order.

There is no relevance to the amendment that is before us when he is talking about the history of the committee and the fact that they voted against allowing the minister to appear and adjourned the discussion of the day when that play was on. He seems to be debating other things unrelated to the amendment before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Julian, could you wrap up? We are one minute before 9 p.m., when all debate ceases.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'd be delighted, Madam Chair.

We now actually get to the point where we can push aside the Conservative filibuster and actually start voting to improve the bill. I look forward to the opportunity tonight to do that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

That's what we're paid for, and that's why we are here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We are going to stop debate at 9 p.m. on the dot, so regardless of points of order.

Now, what were you trying to say, Ms. Thomas?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Right now, Mr. Julian is being given the floor and an opportunity to attack members of this committee for what he is calling filibustering. To speak to the amendments and to bring forward witness testimony is being referred to as filibustering. That is incredibly inappropriate. It's actually derogatory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas, but it is now one minute after 9 p.m., and we will move to—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. It's on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, it's not.

We are now moving from debate. We have orders from the House at a particular time.

We are following the orders from the House.

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

Madam Chair, I'm raising the point of order on the orders of the House.