Debates of June 14th, 2021

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure about the Conservatives, but I think that everyone else here is in agreement. This is a 30-year-old bill that we are trying to bring up to date. It was brought in originally before the Internet and social media, yet the Liberal government has been in power now for almost six years.

Why did it leave this so late? Why did it do such a terrible job of explaining all of this to Canadians? Now we are trying to rush this through because it is an important bill. This is leading to all of these questions and has given the Conservatives an opportunity to say that it would inhibit freedom of speech, when it clearly does not.

After reading the bill and seeing the amendments put in by the Conservatives themselves, can the member say why they blew this so badly?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the issue of rushing this through. Members can look at the number of days that we have actually sat and the agenda we have had to deal with. Many pieces of legislation have dealt specifically with the coronavirus and the pandemic. Initially, there was a great deal of support from all sides of the House as we tried to pass legislation that was critically important to dealing with the pandemic. Today there is still critically important legislation to pass, such as Bill C-30.

Not a day went by that the government, while responsible for the agenda of the House of Commons, did not attempt to bring forward good, solid legislation to debate. We have attempted on several occasions to be able to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will allow another question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North touched on what is going on in the House and the delay tactics. As a result of watching the interactions between parties over the last several months, I can honestly say that while I do not see eye to eye with the Bloc and the NDP all the time, I cannot think of a time when I have seen the Conservatives turn to tactics like this. The Conservatives are trying to exploit and hijack an issue for political gain, and every single party in the House has called them out for it.

Can the member comment on why he thinks it is that they are doing that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I must compliment the member for the fantastic job he has been doing on behalf of our caucus colleagues, and I appreciate the question.

I believe that the Conservative Party as a whole is playing a very destructive role as the official opposition. It is more interested in partisan politics and its electoral future than it is in things such as the pandemic and working together.

I have come to the conclusion that the Conservatives want to prevent legislation from passing, and I suspect that when they see other progressive parties looking to support some of this legislation to pass, it can be very frustrating to them because they are not getting their way. It should not be about their way. It should be about getting important legislation passed through the House so that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have time to allow for one brief question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the government legislation the Liberals have tabled here, quite often they leave it very broad. It is very vague, and it is very unclear what they are trying to accomplish with it. We are seeing that yet again with this bill. The original piece of legislation was very clear in some of its provisions, but the Liberals took those out.

How is the member so certain that this would do what we are hearing from many experts that it would do?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, looking at what the Conservatives are doing with regard to Bill C-6, the conversion therapy legislation, we see a lot of similarities. They take an issue and try to make that issue justify their pathetic behaviour inside the House and in committee, in terms of not allowing progressive parties in the House to see these important pieces of legislation advance. To them I say, “Shame.”

At the end of the day, the Conservatives have determined that they just do not want the legislation to pass, so they will come up with excuses to justify their behaviour, and that is unfortunate.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation.

I want to start off by thanking you and the Chair occupants, who have been doing a phenomenal job during these virtual and hybrid sessions of Parliament we have been having. It has been remarkable to see the way you have been able to handle the technical difficulties of the members who are participating and give advice on where to hold the microphone when they are speaking. I think congratulations are in order to the Chair occupants and indeed all the staff who have really made this work.

I want to welcome new members to the Liberal Party. Last week the member for Fredericton decided to come and join the Liberal Party, and it looks as though tonight we may have some other members who are eying up the idea. I can assure them that we have a very strict vetting process. I encourage them to apply and go through that process. No promises can be made in advance, but we will certainly review those applications to see if they qualify to sit with the Liberal Party. We certainly do appreciate their interest in doing that.

When we talk about this bill, one of the first things that come to mind, which I have been hearing the Conservatives say time and again when they get up, is that there has not been enough time, that they have not debated it long enough and need more time. They are nodding in agreement right now. It is the same line that we have been hearing over and over.

Canadians should know that this bill occupied 28 meetings of the committee. To put that into context for members and the public, there have only been 44 meetings of the committee, so this bill has occupied more than half of the meetings of the committee. As well, 130 witnesses have come forward to speak to this bill. In total, 47 briefs have come forward for the committee to consider. Therefore, despite the fact that the Conservatives might not be happy with the way things came about, I certainly have a very difficult time believing them when they say there has not been enough time. On the contrary, indeed there have been tons of opportunities for this bill to be debated.

One has to wonder why the Conservatives are playing this game. I think they are starting to find themselves in a corner, especially tonight. I do not think the debate that has been going on tonight has been particularly helpful for the Conservative members, because time and again they have had members from all different parties ask them to tell them more about the legislation and where they find it to be offensive, to read the parts of the legislation that they have a problem with. Time and again they do not answer the question. They keep going back to how the minister did a horrible job on an interview here or there, or something like that, but they will not tell us which parts they are. To that point, earlier when I asked that of the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, and I will give him credit for trying to answer it, he threw out some random numbers and my staff went back and looked at exactly which clauses he referenced.

The first one was subclause 9(1). That subclause does not even exist. However, there is a subclause 9(9), which states, “Fees payable under this section and any interest in respect of them constitute a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be recovered as such in any court of competent jurisdiction.” If that is what he finds offensive in this, it certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech, so the member might want to go back and check that section. Again, the section that he actually referenced does not exist.

He went on to another clause, clause 10. He mentioned a subclause, but all clause 10 talks about is regulations. It talks about “developing, financing, producing or promoting Canadian audio or audio-visual programs, including independent productions”. It goes on to talk about “supporting, promoting or training Canadian creators”. It talks about “supporting participation by persons, groups of persons or organizations representing the public interest in proceedings”. It talks about minimum expenditures, application of regulations, recipients.

It does not say anything about content, which is what the Conservatives have been harping on about being the offensive parts of this. Although I respect and admire the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for trying to answer that question, whereas the previous people who were asked that question completely diverted away from trying to answer it, what he read out either does not exist or has absolutely nothing to do with the Conservatives' stated concerns about this particular bill.

One of the other things that I find very troubling is the borderline conspiracy theories that seem to be developed by Conservatives over this bill. We heard the member for Saskatoon—University say that, in his opinion, the only reason the Bloc was supporting this bill was that, at the end of the day, Bloc members want Canada to separate and they see this as an opportunity to push Canada toward failure. A Conservative actually said that tonight. I am being generous by saying it is a borderline conspiracy theory, quite frankly.

The member then went on to talk about what the Prime Minister was going to censor from people and how this was going to become a quasi-communist state as a result of the Prime Minister interfering with what individual people can share on social media. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor can Conservatives point to anywhere in the legislation that talks about this. What has happened is that the Conservatives have seen an opportunity for political gain, to solidify their base, to fundraise, to rally the troops, and that is what they have jumped on.

One has to ask, is that the proper role of an opposition? Members of Her Majesty's opposition are coming into the House of Commons and suggesting that an issue exists when it really does not, and then when they float the idea and gain some momentum, they keep repeating it. I bet some of them are actually starting to even believe it at this point because of how much time and energy they have spent telling people that it is the truth, but it certainly is not. Nothing should be more telling for Canadians than the fact that the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens are all asking the Conservatives what part they are worried about, and nobody has an answer.

I said earlier that I quite often disagree with the Bloc, with the NDP and even with the Green Party from time to time, but 99% of the time when I disagree with them, it is based on policy. My fight is a policy issue, whether a certain objective should be advanced or not. The Conservatives come into the House and everything is about political opportunity, and they spend months and months on it. They do not worry about the Prime Minister's policies, just trash-talk him, call him a trust fund baby and everything else because that is what is going to get them votes. That might help their base, but it is certainly not doing their job.

Their job is to be the official opposition. They are supposed to come in here and from time to time say, “This is good legislation, and this is bad legislation, and it is bad because of this, this reason here”, but not some trumped-up conspiracy, like the member for Saskatoon—University saying that Bloc members only support this bill because they see it as an opportunity for Canada to fail. It is some of the most ridiculous stuff I have heard, but then they fundraise off it and clearly mislead Canadians for political gain.

As much as I disagree with the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens from time to time, I do not see that kind of rhetoric coming from them. They fight with us on policy. They ask why we are not doing more on pharmacare. That is a good question. Let us work together to do that. They ask why we are not doing more for Canadian culture. That is a good question. Maybe we should look at doing that. That is what our job here is. Our job is not to come in here and look for opportunity for political gain.

They said it themselves. They keep going back to the minister having this—

[Eric Duncan]

Terrible interview.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

There they go again: a “terrible interview” with Evan Solomon. They are yelling it from across the way. What does that have to do with the legislation? He had a terrible interview, if we take them at their word, but what does that have to do with the legislation? They should be able to objectively look at the legislation themselves, come to conclusions and then, when I ask them what the offensive part is or to read off the offensive part to me, they should be able to do that, and none of them are able to do that. That is the problem with their approach.

I do want to take the opportunity to talk about the importance of this, because, as much as I would love to stand here and tell members about all the games Conservatives are up to, there is an underlying, more important issue here. That is the issue of Canadian content, keeping that Canadian content intact and keeping the federal responsibility to make sure that Canadian content and culture stay alive.

I would argue to the member for Saskatoon—University, who is on this wild conspiracy idea that the Bloc is using this as an opportunity to push separation in Canada, that perhaps the Bloc just sees a good bill here that would help to protect French culture in Quebec. I would argue that, perhaps, this is where they are coming from on this, and it makes sense.

I think back to the Canadian content rules. Yes, I am old enough to remember when we could only hear music on the radio, believe it or not. I can remember sitting there or driving in my car and hoping a song comes on and then maybe thinking I would go for a longer drive and maybe the song would come on. While I was sitting there listening, I was subjected to these great artists like The Tragically Hip, who came from Kingston.

I hate to think what the case would have been in the late eighties and early nineties when The Tragically Hip were trying to make their mark on the music scene and what the competition would have been like had they been drowned out by all this music and entertainment coming from south of the border. What would we be like today, representing our cultural identity, had we not had these rules around Canadian content?

While I was driving around hoping for that top-40 song that I wanted to hear so bad, maybe I was subjected to a Tragically Hip song that got me hooked on them, and maybe many Canadians were in the same situation. I can relate that to TV shows. I can relate that to so many Canadian artists. I think it is critically important at a time like this. When I drive to Ottawa and when I drive home, I usually listen to Apple Music. When I am in Kingston, I tend to listen to some of the radio stations a little more, because I am more interested in hearing what they are talking about and what the pulse of the community is.

The point is that more and more people are being driven away from the radio and TV giants toward the Internet, and when they do that, we need to figure out how we are going to promote that content on the Internet and how we are going to make sure that the next band like The Tragically Hip that is up and coming is still going to get exposure. I have news for members: My 17-year-old is not dialing in to an FM radio station in Kingston, unfortunately. He is getting all of his content off the Internet.

How are we supposed to encourage the future generations, like my 17-year-old, to make sure they are being exposed to Canadian content? We need to have legislation that supports it, and I believe that what is being put forward is exactly that. Was the handling of how messaging was delivered and how things rolled out the best? I do not know. I will let somebody else be the judge of that. I am here to legislate. I am here to look at policy. I am here to assess what is in the best interests, in my opinion, of my constituents, and I can tell members that a bill like this, which advances Canadian content and secures Canadian content for future generations, like my 17-year-old, to be exposed to, is critically important, because without that we run the risk of losing what is so uniquely Canadian about us, that Canadian culture and Canadian content.

There are tons and tons of content creators out there now. I watch them too, primarily through Facebook. I see the content that is created, and a lot of them are Canadian. Some suggest that the bill is going to impact their ability to deliver content, but show me where. Show me where the bill gets to that point. Nobody has been able to do that.

It is very important now more than ever that we look at this 30-year-old piece of legislation, bring it forward to adopt today's mediums and where people are going in their content and information, and then ensure that Canadian content can continue to stay alive. I encourage the Conservatives to really think about not just the political gain from this, but what it actually means to artists and to the people out there who will be the beneficiaries of having a system in place that promotes Canadian culture. Had Canada not done that decades ago, who knows where we would be now?

If we only ever look at issues as an opportunity for political gain, to bump our number by half a point in the polls, to try to edge out the other parties by a bit here and there, we completely lose sight of what our job is here. Our job here is to develop, scrutinize and create good policy that Canadians can be the beneficiaries of.

I do not think the Conservatives should be hijacking these issues, although to their credit, they have done a fairly good job of it. It might solidify their base and it might help them raise a little money, but it is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier in debate, the member opposite raised the relevance of the Liberal Party's vetting process for Canada, calling it rigorous. I will note that in 2019, the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler was green-lit by the party in spite of substantiated harassment allegations. To read from a CBC article, the allegations included “unwanted touching and lewd comments aimed at [a] female staffer."

I am wondering if the member supports the decision of the Liberal Party to allow the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler to run as a Liberal after knowing about these substantiated harassments. Does he believes that the party's vetting process is, as he said, rigorous, in light of these findings? What material changes have been made to the party's vetting process since 2019, given that there were substantiated harassment allegations against a member who was allowed to run and the party had full knowledge of them?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the beginning of my speech, in jest I made reference to the fact that a few Conservative members were now sitting next to me on this side of the House. I was bringing that fact to light as we were enjoying each other's company here and were joking around. However, then I spent about 19 minutes talking passionately about the bill before the House right now.

I cannot believe the question I got had to do with a comment I made about a couple of Conservatives who had come over to sit with me and that the member completely lost the 19 minutes that followed.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Kingston and the Islands' opinion. I am on page 16 of Bill C‑10, specifically subclause 8(10), lines 7 to 14 of the English version, which states the following:

(4) Regulations made under this section, other than regulations made under paragraph (1)(i) or (j), do not apply with respect to programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service — if that user is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.

My interpretation of that provision is that, if Videotron uploads content to YouTube, the company is subject to CRTC rules, but ordinary users who do likewise are not. I see no attack on freedom of expression there. Does my colleague interpret that provision the same way?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that it is a rhetorical question, because she answered the question with her question. However, I will highlight that the Bloc member has been able to reference a part of the bill that says what she is claiming and supports why she is voting for this bill. On the contrary, which I mentioned during my speech, the Conservatives are unable to do the same when it comes to what parts of the bill they think are offensive.

The member is absolutely correct. There is specific wording in the legislation to indicate that this is not about looking at user content. It is more about making sure that web giants are promoting Canadian content when and where available.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member when he says that the Conservatives who have spoken in the House tonight do not seem to have read the legislation and basically seem to be trying to fundraise off an issue that should be about helping broadcasters. However, I do have to ask the member a question.

When the Liberals brought forward legislation in November of last year, they knew it was flawed. They knew it was not good legislation and that there would be an enormous amount of work at committee, which I took part in and was very happy to take part in. Why did they bring forward legislation that was so flawed and needed so much work that it opened the door for the Conservative Party to sow disinformation and sow deception about it? Why did they not just fix it in the initial stage?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the question is why did we let the Conservatives do this to us, maybe it is a good question. Maybe we hoped members would operate in good faith and that if there were genuine problems, we would push to advance those problems rather than exploiting them for personal gain.

To go back to the beginning of the question, we need to look no further than the speech given by the member for Lethbridge tonight. On a couple of occasions the member said “you”, and it was as if she was talking to people. Her speech tonight on the floor of the House of Commons will probably serve no other purpose than for her to clip it and use it as a fundraising tool.

This is what the issue has been all about for the Conservatives: hijack the issue, enrage Canadians, bring in some money in the process and solidify their base. That is exactly contrary to their job in the House of Commons, which is to help advance better legislation, not look for opportunities for political gain.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed with this bill. I agree there were lots of flaws in it, and we worked really hard to fix it. However, I put forward 27 amendments, and there were some from the Canadian Media Producers Association that I was not even able to speak to in the committee process.

I agree with the hon. member that there has been a lot of bamboozling in this debate. I heard talk in the House of Commons about the movie Canadian Bacon and whether it is Canadian content because the word “Canadian” is in its title and John Candy acts in it. By the way, another great actor in it, Adrian Hough, is Canadian. That movie was produced by an American company owned by Michael Moore, who wrote and directed the movie. It also has Alan Alda and a whole bunch of other Americans in it.

This discussion about Canadian content and what constitutes Canadian content is something the Conservatives do not even seem to understand. They do not seem to understand that CBC News is not about Canadian content; it is about news. When it uses CNN as a source, that is not about Canadian content; it is about news content.

Would the hon. member not agree that there has been a lot of misinformation and misleading of the Canadian public about what Canadian content really is?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with that. The Conservatives have been banking on the fact that people are going to consume small tidbits of information and consume the idea that Liberals are trying to limit free speech. They are going to try to link it to some other things. They believe their base has preconceived notions about the Liberals, and then they are going to package it all up.

That is great form of campaigning, whether or not one agrees with it, but it is certainly not what we are supposed to be doing in the House. It is certainly not what we are supposed to be doing at committee. We are supposed to be trying to improve the legislation.

This goes back to my point from earlier. I admire this member. Let us look at the questions I was asked tonight on this. I was asked a real question from the NDP, a real question from the Bloc and a real question from the Green member. What did I get from the Conservatives? That right there should show us that we are passionate about the issue, whereas the Conservatives are only passionate about political gain.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member and the hon. member for Winnipeg North have taken up full half-hour speaking slots this evening, shutting out other members from being able to speak.

We have not heard from other members of the Liberal Party. Is that because their side does not want other members to speak to this, to defend this attack on freedom, or is it because their freedom of expression has already been taken away by their House leader and the Prime Minister?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have now had the opportunity to ask me two questions and neither of them has had anything to do with the bill, whereas members from the other three parties asked me questions this evening about the substance of the bill.

To the member's question, it is a clear indication of how things are run on the other side of the House when the member assumes that is the situation. We have also given up a number of spots tonight. If members noticed, about four Conservative members spoke back to back tonight. That is because nobody else on our side got up to speak. They have had the same amount of time or more to speak to this piece of legislation tonight.

It is really telling, when we go back and consider the questions that were asked of me tonight by the Conservatives, what their angle is on the bill.

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

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

What could be more fitting for a bill that could limit the free speech of Canadians across the country and what they can see online, than a government trying to use tactics to limit debate in Parliament? I have heard, loud and clear, from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country, and we have heard, loud and clear, from experts from coast to coast to coast how poor Bill C-10 is.

Canadians do not want this deeply flawed, speech-limiting, online-viewing-limiting legislation. It is truly shocking that the government would attempt on more than one occasion to limit debate on a bill that has been so divisive. The government keeps raising the bar on what divides us. If the Liberals cannot even tolerate dissenting views in committee and in this House, how are Canadians supposed to expect them to act differently and respect their views online should this legislation come into force?

Back in May, I addressed this chamber through Statements by Members, outlining the overwhelming opposition to this troubling bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. I outlined how hundreds, and by now hundreds more, have written me with their valid and real concerns. Residents in Kelowna—Lake Country have strong reservations about the government's attempted overreach to regulate individual Canadian Internet users and what they can hear and see online, concerns shared by University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. Dr. Geist is not just some newcomer to the field. He is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. Not only could he be considered an expert, he is a vocal and non-partisan critic who has been fighting for the rights of Canadians by speaking out against this dangerous legislation.

Dr. Geist has outlined how, despite the empty words on the part of government claiming otherwise, this legislation, “represent[s] an exceptionally heavy-handed regulatory approach where a government-appointed regulator decides what individual user generated content is prioritized”. Dr. Geist has also called the recent manoeuvring by the Liberals at the heritage committee to effectively cover this legislation in a dark cloud of secrecy “disturbing”, when the committee began to vote on undisclosed amendments without any debate or discussion.

All of this came on the heels of the Liberals' teaming up with the Bloc earlier this month to severely limit debate by using an archaic parliamentary process, manoeuvres that have not been seen in over 20 years in this House. The Liberals may claim that this legislation is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, but that has not stopped them from using procedures to ram Bill C-10 through Parliament without proper debate or discussion. We heard in debate today, from my colleague the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, how 40% of Bill C-10 was not even discussed or debated at the heritage committee with respect to other recommendations.

The voices of my constituents will not be silenced. Residents of my riding in Kelowna—Lake Country from all walks of life have written to me ever since the introduction of this draconian bill, stating, “Censoring free speech or shutting down debate is not acceptable.”

Another wrote that, “People should be able to speak freely on all platforms”.

One wrote that, “It is shocking that the current government has the audacity to even propose something as limiting to free speech as Bill C-10”.

Further comments were also expressed: “We must not tolerate this kind of censorship of free speech in a free country”; and, “Bill C-10 is the most appalling assault on free speech we have seen from any democratic government”.

I agree with my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country, and that is why I am here today.

This legislation is an unacceptable attempt by the Liberals to target the freedoms of individual Internet users in Canada. It raises significant concerns about the ability to preserve net neutrality, which is an important principle that ensures free flow of content and that no content on the Internet is favoured over another. Net neutrality is basically the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications, regardless of their source and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.

The bill before us would give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, absolute control with no clear parameters. Furthermore, this legislation would give sweeping powers to the CRTC to regulate the Internet, including individual users with no clear guidelines for how that power would be used.

What are Canadian creators saying about this proposed legislation?

Well, J.J. McCullough, a well-known Canadian YouTuber, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post. Mr. McCullough has nearly 300,000 followers on YouTube and, by his own research, he says that this makes him the “1,483rd most popular Canadian YouTuber”. I would say that provides a pretty clear picture of the success that Canadian content creators have online. He goes on to note that there are “...well over 100 Canadian YouTubers with subscriber counts surpassing 3 million — a combined audience larger than the population of Indonesia”. He mentions how well Canadian YouTubers have done without this legislation. Mr. McCullough also notes with real concern that “If Bill C-10 passes, satisfying the needs of audiences — the formula that has produced countless Canadian YouTube success stories...may soon take a back seat to satisfying government regulators”.

His trepidation is justified, as the Liberals rejected an exemption to individual users who upload videos to social media and even took it a step further by promising to introduce a new amendment to regulate apps. We have also heard that digital first creators have not been consulted. It is smoke and mirrors to say that Bill C-10 is about charging big Internet companies to get tax dollars.

On Bill C-10, Conservatives propose to protect individual users and small players in the market by exempting streaming services and social media users with lower revenues. The Liberals rejected this common-sense compromise. The minister ignores these concerns despite the stated purpose of the bill being to promote Canadian content and support, not burden, Canadian creators. However, if history is any indication, the minister does not care about factual and thoughtful points such as these. His party only cares about shutting down debate so its members do not have to listen to the mounting evidence against this proposed legislation.

It is not just the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country, Canadian content creators or Dr. Geist who are speaking out against Bill C-10. A former commissioner of the CRTC has said in an interview that Bill C-10 “...doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy”. This was from a former CRTC commissioner, and if anyone can speak on how the CRTC could interpret its new powers, he would be the one to ask.

The government claims that Bill C-10 is a priority and that is why it is using the tactics that it has chosen to employ. My Conservative colleagues and I will not apologize for doing whatever is necessary to defend the right to free speech and free viewing of the content of Canadians.

I think it is important that we examine exactly what has taken place in this Parliament leading up to this moment. We must not forget that it was the Liberals who prorogued Parliament to escape scrutiny for their ethical scandals. When it is something they want, they will ram it through in any way they can using procedures like the one we recently saw around Bill C-10, which we have not seen used in the House for over 20 years. There were amendments at committee that were never even read and debated. The Liberals had four years as a majority government and have been in power in this Parliament for almost two more.

We will be back here in September as, after all, the Liberals definitely do not want an election, right? So, I will not apologize for standing up for Kelowna—Lake Country and I will not apologize for standing for free speech and for net neutrality. This is deeply flawed legislation that should be deeply troubling, and it is troubling to the core to each and every one of us to consider here today.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a teacher in a previous life. One of the classes I taught was called “Methodology of Intellectual Work”. In that class, I taught my students how to avoid misinformation.

There are three ways to avoid misinformation: First, we must go straight to the source. Second, we must cross-reference information. Third, we must be careful not to consistently seek out information that will reinforce the way we view a situation.

The examples we were given do not meet any of these three criteria. People are quoting other people, but these quotes are inaccurate and do not come directly from a reliable source. Some fear that users will have to pay a tax, but subclause 2(2.1) very clearly indicates that this is not the case.

What reliable sources are the Conservatives using?

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

Mr. Speaker, I quoted several people who are experts in their field and, as I mentioned, a former head of the CRTC. I do not know how much more relevant we can get than that, considering that this bill gives a lot of authority to the CRTC without laying out what all those parameters are and that is part of the big concern with this bill. It has not laid out specifically what all of those parameters will be, so that is one of the biggest concerns with this bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parent act, the Broadcasting Act, has three sections that specifically articulate freedom of expression. The version of Bill C-10 that was passed by the House at second reading specifically had a section that protected anyone who is uploading programs for transmission over the Internet. Then when the bill was at committee, there were four specific amendments adopted to ensure freedom of expression; one from the Liberals, two from the Green Party and one from the Conservatives.

With all of those sections that are specifically articulating freedom of expression, why are they all together not enough for the member to be satisfied that it is, in fact, protected?