House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was content.

Topics

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, as we know what even led us to this point was proposed section 4.1 being taken out originally, which started all of the concern. Of course, we had the heritage minister give this whole pretzel of information that was more confusing every time he spoke. I know there has been a number of amendments and recommendations, but as I said earlier in my speech, all of the recommendations did not even get discussed or fully debated at the committee. There were a number of other potentially very good recommendations. Sometimes it is not what is in there, it is what is missing. That is a big part of what has brought us here to our discussion today.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's interventions here in the chamber. They are always well said and well researched. She mentioned the process in response to the last question, about the committee work about what has been done or, as a matter of fact, what has not been done in terms of accountability.

Michael Geist is one of the experts. I know many of us have quoted him in this House. Thankfully, he has been following and live tweeting, and raising awareness to Canadians about this. I want to read a quote and have the member comment about the committee process. If the government and the opposition parties, the NDP and the Bloc, are so supportive of this, why is this the case? He wrote, “The committee just passed a Liberal amendment to Bill C-10 that has never been made public. Committee is just reading amendment numbers with no information [being] provided. Chair says he cannot given any details. Literally secret law making.”

If the government is so proud of the legislation and the amendments, can the member comment about why this is happening in committee then?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely part of the concern. All parliamentarians were not privy to all of that information, and the general public is not. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, a lot of the people who have been reaching out to me from the public have been doing their own research and following this. We have to know that people are well versed and well researched. They are not people who are what some of the other members might say are part of our base. These are everyday people from all walks of life who are as concerned about this as we are and part of it is because of this code of silence and non-transparency.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the free-speaking riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

When I spoke on Bill C-10 last December, I called this bill a fraud, an attack on freedom of expression, and a particular danger to the rights of Canadians speaking minority language. Since debate at second reading, this bill has become so much worse. The bill was already an assault on freedom of expression, but the process to ram this bill through Parliament is an assault on the foundation of parliamentary democracy. Undemocratic means have undemocratic ends. In the end, what we have is a bill so flawed, so regressive, so illiberal, the government must cut off all debate.

When I spoke against the Internet censorship bill at second reading, I highlighted how this bill is an offence against Canadian values. It is an attack on freedom. It is an attack on truth. It is an attack on multicultural heritage. Even before this bill was made worse in committee, it was an affront to freedom of expression. By removing the clause protecting social media, the Liberal government has made the violation so clear that every Canadian is now aware of the threat to their freedom.

This bill offends Canadians' sense of honesty by perpetuating a fraud and claiming video delivered over the Internet is the same as a video delivered by broadcast. Internet video streaming has more in common with video rental stores, movie theatres or book stores than they do with broadcasters. Internet video streaming, movie theatres and book stores sell a product to Canadians. Broadcasters turn Canadians into the product and sell them to advertisers.

One business model sells the work of cultural expression to Canadians. The other business model uses works of cultural expression to sell Canadians to big business. Broadcasters sell Canadians to advertisers using publicly owned airwaves and regulated cable monopolies. The federal government has the authority under the Constitution to regulate broadcasters. Movie theatres, video rental stores and book stores fall under provincial jurisdiction, even if they are foreign owned.

The bill is unconstitutional even before it attacks the charter. Canadians are already fed up with Super Bowl commercials being substituted. How do Liberals think they are going to like the idea of their favourite YouTube streaming video being substituted by some CRTC-approved Canadian video? They would never try this with books or movies.

Canadians are not forced to buy a Canadian book to read A Game of Thrones. Canadians are not forced to watch a Marvel movie filmed in Vancouver to attend a foreign film festival. If the Liberals tried this with books or theatres, it would be clear that this wrong. However, the problem with this bill is the violation to freedom is more subtle, at least it was until the government removed section 4.1. That is when it stopped being a subtle attack on a freedom of expression and became a full on assault.

The government will claim it has no interest in censoring Canadians' cat videos, but that is not the concern. The concern being expressed, since the removal of section 4.1, is not that the CRTC will take down YouTube posts, it is that YouTube would take down or de-prioritize videos in order to comply with regulations. A counter argument that we should not worry about cabinet putting its thumbs on the CRTC scales because of the regulatory system takes a hit when one considers that Bill C-10 streamlines the process of cabinet giving directives to the CRTC.

That is not to say the Prime Minister would go around ordering YouTube posts to be taken down. It is just the limitations on what any future cabinet could do is reduced. Deleting parliamentary committee oversight of cabinet directives to CRTC may not be Orwellian, but it is what an Orwellian-minded government would also do.

I do appreciate the attention being drawn to regulations because that is where the original threat to freedom of expression lies. Compliance with these regulations comes with a relatively fixed costs. For Netflix that cost can be spread out over seven million Canadian households, but for a smaller streaming service, that cost may be spread over 700,000, 70,000 or 7,000 households.

As the popularity of the type of expression decreases, the cost to receive it increases. The only cost to receive any broadcast expression is the cost of a receiving device, but streamers charge end users. The whole point of having that freedom is not to protect the majority or popular expression, but the minority or unpopular expressions. This is not to say that web giants cannot be regulated, but fundamentally they are not broadcasters and cannot be regulated as such without impacting freedom of expression.

As I said earlier, Internet streaming services are more akin to movie theatres and bookstores, both of which are currently restricted under provincial registration. Is that closure a limitation of freedom of expression? It sure is. Is that reasonable in a free and democratic society during a pandemic? Ultimately that will be for the courts to decide, but at least there is a public purpose other than to grab some cash for the well-connected.

The point is that movies, bookstores and Internet streamers can be regulated, but it has to be in the public interest and by the appropriate level of government. Just as we have regulations that say someone cannot build a bookstore made out of dry kindling, someone cannot build a digital service that threatens to burn down democracy and not expect some public interest.

Any opposition to Bill C-10 is being framed as opposition to Canadian culture or logically extending to opposition of the Canadian content system. It only furthers the attempt to force a new digital world into an old analog paradigm, which also cuts off discussion on how to update the Canadian content system to the digital world. The whole idea of needing a system to feature Canadian artists to Canadians comes from a time when we were culturally insecure, but we are not that country any more.

We are the most diverse country in the world. We import culture and we brag about it. We are a proud, confident country. We do not live next door to the United States on the Internet. We live next door to everyone online. Canadians are amazing and our artists are awe-inspiring.

At the end of the day, cutting through the government rhetoric about Bill C-10, it is not about protecting culture or online harms. It is about money and rent-seeking. The government needs money and needs industry interest groups with euphemistic names to say nice things about them in French.

Until now the cost of this rent-seeking was largely borne by advertisers or CRTC-inflated cable bills. The government likes to claim that it will go on to fund artists, but it really ends at the money going to producers and their lobbyists.

The difference now is that the costs will not be paid by web giants, but by consumers. The methods to collect the money are media fund levies, regulatory compliance costs, a new digital service tax and HST on top of all of it. Together this adds up to a massive regressive excise tax. There is an HST credit to offset the regressive nature of that tax, but there is no rebate for the GST or the Canadian content media levy.

The government is not forcing web giants to pay. It is forcing low-income Canadians to pay and to pay the most. It does not have to be this way. We can regulate online businesses in the interest of public safety, and we can do it without threatening freedom of expression.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not know where to begin. I am trying to find something relevant, interesting and enlightening in my colleague's speech, but honestly, I cannot find any such thing.

For months, I have had the so-called “pleasure” of working on Bill C‑10 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Now I wonder, because I am hearing falsehoods. It is said that if a lie is repeated often enough, people will start to believe it. An argument can even be built on a false foundation.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks we can do to protect Quebec and Canadian culture and all its diversity. I am talking about protecting indigenous content, francophone content in Quebec, but also outside Quebec, in francophone communities across Canada. How does my colleague plan to protect this identity in a bill that is essential and that is recognized as such by every industry player? How does she think we can get there, when what I am hearing does not make much sense?

I would like her response and her idea of what exactly should be done to protect the Canadian broadcasting system, which needs protecting and should have been protected long, long ago.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadian broadcasting needs to be protected. It is great on its own.

Let us take culture. There is not just culture in one part of the country or another part of the country. For example, Letterkenny Road on the edges of our riding inspired what started off as a YouTube show and then eventually went on to TV, but that may never have passed the sniff test with the CRTC or the censorship czar. It is the freedom of every pocket of culture to put forth what they want.

As I discussed earlier, when there is a small group of people speaking a certain language, which may not have the ability to spread the costs, it is going to be pounded on it from government across many hundreds of thousands, those few people who have the language to listen to are going to have to pay a whole lot more for it.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, tonight we have listened, and we have seen and heard that we need a good bill, not that we have a good bill, but that we need a good bill. We are here to hold the government to account, and I wonder if my hon. colleague could tell us how the government has prorogued and has filibustered committees. Again, we are here to hold the government to account and get a good bill for Canadians. I wonder if she could comment on that.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is not about how fast we can get a bill through, and if the Liberals had not prorogued and stalled and shut down Parliament to begin with a year ago and then slowly, and bit by bit, allowed us to talk, and then mismanaged the whole order and business of the government and the bills, we would not be under the gun to rush through a bill that is no good. Just because it has been before Canadians for a long time, does not mean it has been perfected. If anything, the more it is out there, the more we learn that it is flawed.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Hochelaga Québec

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my colleague, which will give her the opportunity to explain herself, as she just gave an answer that took me completely aback.

She said that the broadcasting system does not need to be protected. I would like to give her the opportunity to correct what she said.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the broadcasters need to be protected. Broadcasters that are truly at the top of their game do not need protection, and I believe that we will go forward and onward with that.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise for the second time in the chamber to debate Bill C-10. I had the opportunity to debate it back in December at second reading.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Carleton.

Bill C-10 will be remembered as an iconic piece of legislation if it is passed, but not for the reasons the government would want. We have seen over the course of the last seven months a terrible rollout, terrible communication and a terrible committee process. As a result, we are in the House of Commons in person and virtually across the country going until midnight or later because of the desperation of the government trying to ram this legislation through.

I will state tonight that on all the issues we have dealt with on Parliament Hill, in the House of Commons, I have heard from constituents the most on this issue and a lack of trust for the government's actions on Bill C-10. The actions that we have seen take place at committee over the course of the last couple of weeks has only exacerbated those concerns even more.

Comments were made earlier about how the Minister of Canadian Heritage had handled this portfolio. I listened with interest earlier tonight when he spoke about how proud he was of this bill, how proud he was of the consultations that were held not only by himself, but by his predecessor to bring forward this legislation. We should ask why we find ourselves in this situation. There will be university professors teaching political science students in years to come, using Bill C-10 as an example of what not to do to build public confidence on an issue and have a bill successfully pass through Parliament.

If the consultations by the previous minister and the current minister were so well done, why did the government introduce a bill that, when it got to committee, and at one point I lost track, over 100 amendments were proposed, many from the industry and stakeholders. If they consulted and listened so well, why were they not included in the first place? The minister was on CTV's Question Period, as a prime example, and CBC's Power & Politics. His interviews were absolutely disastrous.

People ask why that matters in terms of legislation and policy. If the minister responsible for the bill cannot even give a decent performance in defending the merits of the bill, certain sections and concerns, that should tell us something. Not only were those media appearances terrible in explaining and trying to justify Bill C-10, on Monday morning the Prime Minister's Office had to issue retractions, saying that he did not mean that and it needed to be clarified. When that happens, it shows us what is happening with Bill C-10.

We are here tonight, and it is an absolute embarrassment for the government. I listened with interest to my other opposition colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. They said that the government had done a terrible job with the legislation, that it did not consult properly, that it should have done it sooner, but they would back the government up to ensure the bill was passed. It does not matter how bad the bill is or what is not in it, they want to pass the bill to say they checked off a box.

Many of my colleagues spoke tonight about problems and concerns with the legislation. I want to elaborate and be specific. I want to take part of my time tonight to focus on an organization that is not very popular in the country these days, and for good reason: the CRTC.

In this updated legislation, the government and opposition parties have ganged up to take out the part that regulates individual content. The CRTC would have the power to take down content by individuals, and we would have no way of knowing if there were other amendments.

I want to thank a Canadian who I did not know of, but we have heard a lot about him in the debate on Bill C-10, and that is Michael Geist. I am kind of jealous of him. He has about 87,000 followers on Twitter now and has been an eminent voice, talking about the concerns with Bill C-10. If the government is so proud of its work and the bill before us, I want to read two tweets from Mr. Geist. He is a law professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. I would suggest he is an expert who is probably pretty well versed on this subject.

He has been following committees for weeks and weeks on end, many of those committee meetings being filibustered by the government. He has said two things.

He said, “The committee just passed a Liberal amendment to Bill C-10 that has never been made public. Committee is just reading amendment numbers with no information provided. Chair says he cannot given any details. Literally secret law making.”

He followed that up in frustration right afterward, “Having spent hours watching Bill C-10 committee hearings, I’m out. MPs are voting on amendments that have never been made public, no experts to ask, no discussion, no debate. This is what Liberals, NDP and Bloc voted for. This is not how laws are supposed to be made in Canada.”

I will agree with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. The government has had six years to get this right. There is not an MP in the House who believes the Broadcasting Act of 1991 is still relevant in today's day and age. Back in the day when that law was passed, I was four years old. I was not watching it too attentively when it was passed under a previous government. To show members how outdated it is, I will do this again. Bryan Adams was topping the charts. Whitney Houston, Madonna, Boyz II Men and Vanilla Ice were some of the other names and, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands says, we could only listen to them by radio back in 1991.

There is no denying that we need to update the Broadcasting Act, but I go back to the arguments that are technical and important. If this bill is so well-organized and if this bill is so wonderful, why has the government resorted to shutting down committee, ramming the legislation through and putting in amendments when we do not even know what they are. The government was mocking us earlier when we were raising our concerns and frustrations about the bill and the process. I have specified the role of the CRTC and I will get into that in a moment. However, it is hard to know what is in the final bill, because there is a gag order by the minister. I do not even know what the status of some of those parts and pieces are. That speaks volumes to this.

I want to take some time to speak about the CRTC. I have seen this before, and there is a perfect example. My colleague from Carleton is in the chamber and will speak to this after me. He asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry a couple of weeks ago about the recent CRTC decision by the chair, Ian Scott, on wholesale internet rates in the country. The CRTC reversed its commitment to lower ISP rates around the country. It was a huge controversy with huge frustration.

I have heard it from small Internet service providers in my riding. I want to give credit to Birket Foster of Storm Internet in Chesterville who has spoken about this. The CRTC is singlehandedly spiking the cost of Internet affordability in the country. I asked the minister about it. He said that was the CRTC and that he was working hard and trying, but it was the CRTC. The same thing is going to happen with this legislation.

We see vague definitions like Internet regulation, what it means for users and all this chaos and confusion. The government is handing over, it is kicking the can down the road to the arm's-length CRTC to make decisions based on vague wording and poor legislation. Then what happens is that the Liberals will say that it is not them, that it is the independent CRTC. I have said this before in the chamber and I will say it again. It is our job to get the details right. We all support Canadian content. With the Internet and the tools available to us, we do not need to protect Canadian content as much as we need to let it flourish.

I believe in our Canadian artists. We have seen examples through YouTube. We have seen numerous creators across the country use those platforms, make a living and elevate Canadian content. My constituents do not want to search something on YouTube based on what the government thinks they should see. They want to do it based on algorithms that show what other Canadians and other people who are interested in like-minded subjects see. We have seen the success that this can happen.

The government's approach is wrong. The Liberals know it is wrong. That is why they are going through a secretive committee process and trying to ram this through before the summer. Canadians are getting more and more concerned by the day on this.

I appreciate the opportunity to, once again, put on the record my strong opposition to the bill and to this process.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, to give a quick recap, about four minutes ago the member said that everything would happen at arm's length from the government, that the CRTC would be regulating stuff. Then as he was wrapping up his speech, he said that he did not want the government to control what people were seeing.

That is the problem with the Conservative messaging on this. It is all over the place. I have a lot of respect for the member and the work he does in the House, but the reality is that we have a bill before us that is geared toward protecting and helping Canadian content flourish, just as it did when he and I were much younger in the early nineties. The Conservatives' approach to this is much like their approach to just about everything else they talk about, which is to leave it alone and let it sort itself out. That is what they are suggesting through this.

They are saying that we should let Canadian content be found by people, but what we know and what has been proven by the current legislation, which really has helped Canadian content and Canadian culture after its birth, is that it did wonders with respect to promoting Canadian culture, ensuring Canadian content got into the public so we could enjoy it. Otherwise it could have been drowned out by some of the influences from south of the border, for example.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and fellow eastern Ontarian is a former mayor and we have worked together doing previous work.

The people who will probably be the most happy with this legislation are the lawyers, who will get rich off this in the coming years through CRTC decisions.

I have spoken in the House on numerous pieces of legislation. In this case, the government does not properly define and give definition and angling. It kicks the can down the road to the CRTC to interpret. It is going to end up in numerous court cases, costing millions of dollars for lawyers from all over the country, contesting this back and forth for years to come. Lawyers will be better off with this legislation and process than Canadians artists are.

There is not one member in the House who does not support Canadian content, but it is how we do it. The Internet is different than TV and radio. It is an opportunity unlike we have ever seen before. Artists need to flourish in the country, not be held back by an arm's length, through the direction of whatever means, six men and women on the CRTC board. We need that freedom. That freedom has worked in the past and it can again.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleagues seem to be forgetting something.

To refresh their memory, I would like to go back to an extensive study that I happened to read in the early 2000s. This study attempted to show the difference between Canadian and American culture.

When an English-speaking Canadian was asked what the difference is between them and an American, they responded that Canada has a public health care system and prefers multiculturalism to the melting pot.

When a francophone is asked the same question, they will talk about language and culture. It is true that there is not a big difference between the cultural products consumed by an English-speaking Canadian and an American, but, for a Quebecker, there is a fundamental difference. Bill C‑10 makes it possible to protect Quebec's distinct culture, among other things, because that is what people in the cultural sector are asking for.

I am astounded that no Conservative realizes that.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, to assure the member, when we talk about Canadian content, that includes anglophone and francophone content in every part and every region of the country.

I have to give the members of the Bloc Québécois a bit of a shot. At different times today, and over the course of the last few weeks, they have criticized the process and said that the government really bungled this, that it did not consult properly and that there were a lot of things they would do differently. However, we are going through a process at committee where there are secret amendments, we do not know the details of them and we cannot discuss them. It is absolute chaos, there is total uncertainty, and they are trying to ram this bill through. Again, I would go back for the sake of a checkmark.

This legislation is not the way things should be done. I believe artists are embarrassed about the way that it has rolled out over the course of the last few months. With all due respect, the Bloc Québécois members have aided this process, not helped to make this bill any better.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, 2(b) or not 2(b): That is the question. Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is at stake. It reads:

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression...freedom of the press and other media of communication.

Section 2(b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us all the liberty to express ourselves without reserve and without coercion from the state. That is a core principle of our constitutional heritage. Although it was embedded in the charter in '82, it goes back hundreds of years through the English liberty this parliamentary system transmitted from one generation to the next.

A great English author, Orwell, said, “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

This bill seeks to take away that right and those freedoms. Do not take my word for it. I can quote directly from one of at least two former commissioners of the regulatory body that would be empowered under this bill to control Internet content. Peter Menzies described the bill as an assault on freedom of expression. Another former CRTC member explained that it would allow political appointees to determine what we see and say on the Internet.

There is a lot we do not know about this bill, first because numerous of its amendments were voted before they were even made public at committee. In my 17 years here, I have never seen that happen before. Second, we do not know things about this bill because the minister cannot answer basic questions. For example, the bill supposedly protects Canadian content, but the minister cannot tell us what Canadian content is. He was questioned by our terrific critic about numerous things. She asked whether he understood whether they were Canadian content or not, and he could not answer.

We do not know what will be promoted or demoted online under the rubric of Canadian content because no one in Parliament seems able to define it. I have a very simple definition. If it is made by a Canadian and it is posted online, it is Canadian content. Unfortunately, that definition does not work for the Liberal government. If it did, we would not need the bill. We would just let people continue to post the things they want and watch the things they want in freedom and peace.

The Liberals want a series of bureaucrats, unnamed, unelected and unknown, to decide what Canadian content is heard and what is not. For example, when the CBC runs an effectively plagiarized news story one can get on CNN from Washington with a Washington-based reporter, that is exclusively about American politics and does not even say the word Canada, it will be considered Canadian content. Why is this? It is because it was paid for, tragically, by Canadian tax dollars. Other than that, there is literally nothing Canadian about it.

Another example is a community association in a Canadian neighbourhood telling us about a local food drive. It is in a Canadian neighbourhood. It has a Canadian author of a Canadian story, is a Canadian initiative in a Canadian city and is read almost exclusively by Canadian readers, yet it would not be considered, presumably, Canadian content and therefore would be demoted.

That is just the daily pedestrian content we get online. What about the more contentious stuff? The government is going to decide what kinds of political views are Canadian. Of course, endorsing the Prime Minister's leftist ideology will be a prerequisite of Canadiana. We can be sure of that. Liberal Party members have effectively been saying for generations that they and only they represent Canadian values, therefore only the values they espouse would be considered Canadian for the purpose of this act.

Furthermore, not only can the Liberals not tell us what content would be acceptable and what would not, but they cannot tell us who would be subjected to the bill. Originally, they had an explicit exemption for users: the everyday Joe and Jane who post stuff online. It is called user-generated content. The justice department said, “Don't worry, the bill won't affect any of them, because there's a very specific exemption that excludes them.” However, the Liberals showed up at committee and, all of a sudden and just like that, the exemption was removed. Now everyday Joe and Jane who are posting online are regulated.

In effect, the minister said, “No, we won't bother them. We'll only bother people who have large social media followings.” I think he said on television that it was something like 100,000 followers. Well, I have 100,000 subscribers on my YouTube page, so presumably I would be subject to this regulation. We would have some sort of bureaucrat over at the CRTC judging whether my political views were Canadian enough to be seen by Canadian eyes. Those things not considered Canadian enough would presumably be filtered, demoted or eliminated altogether from the Internet. The platforms on which we make our political statements would obviously be concerned about the penalties they could face if they end up on the wrong side of a bureaucrat or a politician; therefore, they would begin self-censorship and proactively and organically censor things they thought the government might not want people to see.

Is it not interesting that the Liberals are in such a rush to get the bill passed before the election? Is there content they do not want Canadians to see before voting? That is the only explanation for the sudden rush. The Liberals have been in power for half a decade now, and this was never a priority before. All of a sudden, they need to ram it through by changing rules, voting on things we have not seen and curtailing committee hearings in a way that has never been done in parliamentary history, because it has to be a law and these bureaucrats must have these powers before the fall when the Prime Minister wants to call a snap election.

What is most amazing of all is that at least 95% of artists are against the bill. If we look online at the artists I have referred to, the actual producers of artistic material and the ones who are competing in the open and free market, they are not in need of a subsidy, because people actually want to watch and consume what they produce. The lobbyists, on the other hand, who are often quoted by the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberals, are all in favour of the bill. They want to shut out the competition because they have had oligopolistic powers for years. The broadcasting corporation loves the bill because it would allow the restoration of its oligopolistic power. It is a great corporatist power grab, with big government and big corporations working together as they always do.

This reminds of Frédéric Bastiat talking about the French economy. There were all these controls to protect every interest group from competition. He effectively said, “I think we should take this to the logical end and I want to ban windows, because that will double the business for the candlemakers. Without windows, there would be no light indoors during the day and one would need more candles to keep the place illuminated. Let us shut out the sun to ban competition with candles and create more jobs for the candlemakers.” Of course, he meant it in jest, but he was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of trying to bring about prosperity by banning competition. In fact, we have better prosperity and greater light of day when the windows are open so the light can come in and everybody can see and choose for themselves.

What is the government so afraid of? Is it that people might say and see things online that the government does not want to be said and seen? Why not allow the free exchange of ideas to determine which ones rise to the top? Sure, there is a clash. Democracy is always messy. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”, as Churchill said. It is through that clash of ideas that the best ones emerge and we as a people move forward; however, only if we stand true to our constitutional heritage, 2(b), and uphold that freedom will we achieve that great success.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mused about what Canadian values are. He was concerned that only leftist values would count, supposedly because the Liberal Party has been saying for years that it is the only party that properly represents Canadians and so on. I would refer him to clause 2 of the bill, where it states on page 6 that programming would have to be “varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of all ages, interests and tastes”.

Subclause 2(4) of the bill goes on to set out the new provisions of subparagraph 3(1)‍(i)‍(ii) of the act as follows: “...are in the unique position of being able to provide varied programming to meet the needs of specific audiences”.

Specific audiences include the left, the centre, the right; it is all about freedom of expression, the freedom that is valued by all Quebeckers and all Canadians.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, who decides? That is the question. She says that the act will ensure there is a balance. All right, but who will decide what that balance is? There will be an official who says that a balance means 50% of one opinion and 50% of another, and that there is not enough room for a third opinion.

Who will decide what is a different opinion?

There are millions of opinions. It is not possible for a government agency to decide on an appropriate proportion of diverse opinions. It is the people who watch with their eyes, speak with their mouths and decide for themselves. I find it astounding that the Bloc wants to give a federal government in Ottawa the power to decide instead of giving that power to Quebeckers.

We support the freedom of every Quebecker.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, if one is to believe what the member is saying and that this bill is only intended for the Prime Minister to be able to sit there, pull some levers and control who gets to see what, how can the member explain the fact that the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party all support it?

If what he is saying is actually correct, why is virtually every MP here supporting this except the Conservatives? Have they suddenly decided to go along with this grand plan that the member is suggesting through his borderline conspiracy theories?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, why do the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals all support the bill? It is simple: They are all the same. They all believe in putting the state above the citizen. That is the core of their ideology. They believe in worshipping at the altar of the state, that big government should decide and the people should just follow. All of them bought into that notion.

They have always believed it but they heard, in the words of the finance minister a “political opportunity” in COVID. It was a political opportunity that saw the Prime Minister attempt to give himself the power to raise any tax to any level without parliamentary approval for two years after the beginning of the COVID pandemic. The Liberals attempted to grab unprecedented spending powers and yes, they have now tried to grab people's freedom of expression. All the leftist authoritarian parties believe in that ideology and that is exactly why they support this bill.

That is the easiest question I will ever answer in this place.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Conservative

Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB

Mr. Speaker, one of the main things for my colleagues has been the issue of trust and how much it has been broken by this bill. We have heard from members of the House from all parties that many of their constituents are concerned about this bill. Many of my ethnic, new Canadian and immigrant populations are most concerned. They come from countries where they do not have the liberty of freedom of expression or freedom of speech. This bill concerns them because they ask why they left countries like that to come here when it is the same thing.

Can the hon. member please elaborate on what he is hearing from his constituents?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is the same as what he has been hearing. The member has been championing the rights of all Canadians.

The Toronto Star went looking for support for this bill and talked to a group of Canadians of African origin who said that under the old CRTC rules they could not get their voices heard. Only with the freedom of the Internet have they been able to speak up.

We want to preserve that freedom for people of all backgrounds, of all races, from all places. That is what freedom means.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the debate on Bill C-10 went completely off the rails tonight. The Conservative Party is giving us a demonstration, and a fine one, unfortunately, that it has become the party of conspiracy theories.

To hear the Conservatives tell it, Bill C‑10 will take away every liberty we enjoy in Canada. The CRTC, one regulator among many in Canada, will be above all the laws and will be able to decide all sorts of things. The House will please forgive me for saying so, but it really feels like we are in a bad B movie. In a country like Canada, we might show a bad B movie on the big screen or on Netflix, but it would still remain a bad B movie.

Several members from various parties of the House have shown numerous times how many sections of the bill exclude individuals and protect freedom of expression, freedom of creation and journalistic freedom. Despite that, when the Conservative Party decides it has stumbled upon a fundraising gold mine, misleading people is no big deal.

The previous member talked about something absurd. What I personally find absurd is that we are allowing there to be two regimes: one that imposes rules on broadcasters, on independent Canadian producers and on all the companies that already exist, and another regime that imposes no rules on the web giants, on the world's biggest and wealthiest companies.

The Conservatives do not see that as a big deal; so be it. The Conservatives do not want those companies to invest in Canadian artists and talent. They want those companies to make money here but without paying their fair share. For a party that claims to be there for the people, for the middle class, for small and medium-sized businesses, I find this to be a complete aberration.

We have heard all kinds of arguments, including that emerging artists, those who are prominent on platforms like YouTube, were not consulted and no one spoke with them.

The Conservative Party claims to stand up for the French language, so I would refer it to the French-language article that appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir two weeks ago, on May 26, for which several vloggers were interviewed. Fred Bastien, a vlogger with 34,000 subscribers, talked about something that really bothers him. If nothing is done to make French content discoverable, he believes it will get lost in a North American ocean of people who essentially speak English. In his opinion, Bill C‑10 absolutely must get passed.

I could quote the great Canadian artist, Damhnait Doyle.

She was recently interviewed as well, and I think what she said is important. She said:

We are forgetting what happened 50 years ago. Fifty years ago, Canadians could not get played on the radio. It was all American music, it was all British music until the government stepped in and made sure that Canadians were played on Canadian radio. If it wasn’t for that, we wouldn’t have the Tragically Hip, we would not have Sarah McLachlan.

This is exactly what we are trying to do. Unless we modernize the Broadcasting Act, it is all going to be about American artists. Some Canadian artists will manage to emerge, but the vast majority of them will be forgotten. It is the same for French artists. It is the same for indigenous artists, who are just starting to emerge. We are going to quash their ability to do that. For those who are already successful on platforms like YouTube, Bill C-10 would not change anything.

I would like to quote Jean Yoon, Umma of the amazing Kim's Convenience series on CBC. She says, “My impetus as an artist has always been the creation of original Canadian work, from a culturally diverse perspective. That is always my preference as an actor in terms of film and television, to work on Canadian shows.” What she says next is really important. “A nation that doesn’t tell its own story doesn’t know who it is.”

That is really what is at stake. It is our cultural sovereignty, our capacity to continue telling Canadian stories. I watch American shows.

I really enjoy Scandinavian and South Korean series, but I think that as a country we have an interest from a cultural, artistic and certainly an economic perspective to continue to have the capacity to tell our own stories, to ensure that our creators are suitably compensated for the content that they broadcast on these platforms. That is what Bill C‑10 does.

The CRTC, contrary to what we have heard several times this evening, has never moderated content. It has never told a radio or television station that it can broadcast one program but not another. The CRTC will not acquire that power through Bill C‑10. We are told that experts say that if Bill C‑10 is adopted it will be the end of the world as we know it. Some Conservative MPs have even compared what Canada is doing to China and various dictatorships.

I would honestly and sincerely invite those members to go and see how things work in a dictatorship. To say that Canada is a dictatorship is ridiculous. It is pathetic and it misleads Canadians. It is completely false. The CRTC is not above our laws. The CRTC needs to follow the laws of Canada. Some parts of Bill C‑10 specify that the CRTC must respect freedom of expression and freedom of creation.

The law governing the CRTC specifies what the CRTC needs to do. As a regulator, the CRTC has some wiggle room, as do all regulators, but the CRTC must act within the limits of Canada's laws and regulations. The CRTC is not a state within a state. It is not a state that is above the state. That is absolutely ridiculous. I think that what we are seeing tonight is all the contempt that the Conservative Party has for our artists and Canada's arts.

The member spoke earlier about the excellent heritage critic, the member for Lethbridge, who had to publicly apologize for saying that artists, particularly those from Quebec, are outdated, stuck in the 1990s and out of touch with today's reality.

I think it is great that young entrepreneurs are able to succeed on YouTube. That is wonderful. Are the member and the Conservative Party telling us that that is what art is in Canada, succeeding on YouTube or nothing? That is not diversity. So much the better if some people are doing it.

I have had discussions with my counterparts in France, Germany, Ukraine and Scandinavian countries, and their governments are doing the same thing. They look at Bill C‑10 and say that is an excellent idea. They want to do that too. These are not Anglo-Saxon countries, except for Canada where obviously there is French and English, as well as indigenous languages. If we do not protect our linguistic and cultural minorities, Canada will become nothing less than a branch of the United States and Hollywood. I think it is great that major American productions are filmed here. It is great, but it is not Canadian artistic creation. It boosts the economy and puts people to work. It is great. However, the arts in Canada, support for the arts, the development of the arts and Canadian artistic creation represent much more than foreign productions that come here because we have skilled labour and it costs less.

Bill C‑10 is a bill for our artists. Our artists asked for it. Thousands of people were consulted on this bill. I have talked to more than 4,000 people over the past few months about Bill C‑10 and the Yale commission received 2,000 briefs.

The idea that the Liberal Party let the cat out of the bag with respect to Bill C-10 is false. The Conservatives have always opposed the bill. Even when the Yale report was released, they said that they opposed it. The report was over 200 pages long. Barely one hour after it was released, the then leader of the opposition said he would throw it in the garbage.

As soon as Bill C‑10 was introduced, the Conservative Party demanded that it be withdrawn immediately. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Conservative Party's contempt for the arts sector is long-standing. We saw it under the Harper government. Members will recall when he said that everyone knows that artists and all those people go to cocktail parties.

I have news for the Conservative Party. Canadian artists earn $24,000 on average. They are far from being ultrarich jet-setters. Some are wealthy, and I congratulate them, but that is not the reality of most artists. That is why government support is important.

Rather than talking about these grand conspiracy theories that we have heard about tonight, the Conservatives should be honest with Canadians and with the cultural and arts sectors. They should admit that they do not believe in those sectors.

As I mentioned earlier, I spoke with more than 4,000 people. If there was one thing I did not hear once, it was the idea that the Conservative Party was there for them. I heard that about all the other parties. Out of over 4,000 people, no one told me that the Conservative Party was there to support them. I will not repeat in the House what I heard, but it was at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, just to reassure the minister, the Conservatives enthusiastically support Canadian creators. We want them to succeed, and they are succeeding spectacularly. As the lead policy adviser of Ryerson University's audience lab reminded us, about 160,000 Canadian creators of varied ethnicities, genders and abilities lead the YouTube genre and generate millions and even billions of views.

Why would the minister give literally a blank legislative cheque to the unelected CRTC to meddle in these creators' success?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, there we have it again: It is all about YouTube. If people perform on YouTube, we consider them to be artists. If they are not performing on YouTube, we think what they are doing is simply no good and does not deserve our time of day, nor support from the state. For those who are already successful on YouTube, Bill C-10 would not change anything. Hopefully for them, they will continue to be successful.

What we want with Bill C-10 is for the web giants to pay their fair share. That is all we are asking. I thought if there was one thing the Conservative Party would be in favour of, it would be for everybody to pay their fair share, but it seems that no, they have decided to side with some of the wealthiest and most powerful companies in the world instead of supporting our artists.