House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:25 a.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what amazing progress my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga has made in learning French, and I would like to take a moment to applaud his hard work. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and every time we do a sound check, which is mandatory before committee meetings, he does his in French, which is his way of sharing what he has been learning. Bloc Québécois members really appreciate that kind of thing, and I really appreciate the fact that he asked his whole question in French. I congratulate my esteemed colleague.

The answer to his question is very simple. Bill C‑10 is necessary because new players, digital players, which are colossal multinationals with massive resources, have to be subject to the Broadcasting Act, they have to contribute to Canada's broadcasting system, and they have to enable our artists, who are helping them get rich, to succeed on their platforms. That is why this bill is extremely important to our artists.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:25 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his speech, but also for all the work he has done in committee. I know his passion for defending Quebec artists and culture.

In his view, why is it that the Liberals have managed this file so badly? Why is it that we have reached June 21, after an unprecedented time allocation was imposed on a committee, and we have to debate this tonight? Does he not think the Liberals treated the issue of culture rather lightly?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:25 a.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and I want to return the compliment because I know how committed he is to culture. I think we have worked collaboratively and effectively together over the past few months.

I think we are past the point of throwing rocks and tomatoes and pointing fingers at one another. In the case of Bill C‑10, the government probably had some difficulty in managing communications and perhaps also made some questionable decisions around managing priorities. There were several things along the way that we would have liked to see done very quickly, and many times we would have chosen different priorities. At this point, however, I think we should cross our fingers and hope that the bill goes through and sees the light of day. If not, we will have to roll up our sleeves, spit in our hands, as someone else has said, and start over.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:30 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this evening on such an important issue.

I just complimented my colleague from Drummond, and I also have some kind words for my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. She did a masterful job on Bill C‑10 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Her assistant, Laveza Khan, also worked very hard on it, and my assistant Samuel Fortin-Pouliot worked very hard too. I commend everyone. They truly put in the work, as they say.

I agree that we absolutely needed to amend the Broadcasting Act. It has been 30 years since that act was passed. It had become completely archaic and obsolete, and it still is. It does not fit with today's reality and the current context with the new digital broadcasters. I think we need to keep that in mind when we debate this bill.

That is why the NDP has always worked and remained in touch with various actors and stakeholders in Quebec's cultural sector, in particular the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and also ACTRA, Unifor and Music Canada. They have always counted on us. We worked with them to try to improve this very important bill.

Since the Yale report was released a few years ago, we have come to understand how necessary it is to update the Broadcasting Act and bring it into the 21st century. As progressives and New Democrats, we agreed with the broad strokes of the Yale report. It is so important, because it is a matter of cultural sovereignty. What we need to do is ensure that major new digital broadcasters participate, invest and contribute to the production of original Canadian and Quebec content. That is not what is happening.

It is vital to understand the ecosystem that we have been dealing with and continue to deal with, in the hope that it can change, and why the principle of this bill is so important in the first place. We have a system based on conventional broadcasters and cable companies that contribute to a fund to ensure we can invest in telling our stories on television, in film and other media.

However, big players, new players who are no longer quite so new today, had not contributed at all. It is great to be able to bring them to the table and force them to contribute to the growth and development of Quebec, Canadian and indigenous culture in general, just like conventional broadcasters.

Unfortunately, the bill that was presented to us was botched from the beginning. The NDP was prepared to collaborate. We have always been prepared to collaborate, to make amendments and improvements, to resolve the problems with the bill so that it best meets the needs of the cultural industry and our artists, artisans and technicians. We also want to make sure it best meets the needs of the public, because we need cultural content that brings us together and that we have some control over so that we can tell our stories, which our fellow citizens in Quebec and Canada love to hear. Think of all of the big television, movie and music success stories that we know of.

Unfortunately, we had to deal with very bad communication from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who on numerous occasions could not for the life of him explain his own bill.

He was attacked under various pretexts by the Conservative Party and was unable to reassure the public and to continue in a constructive and positive direction for this bill.

Obviously, there has been a lot of talk about freedom of expression. It is an important issue, and we are not going to sweep it under the rug and say we do not care about it. As members of the NDP, as New Democrats and progressives, if there were a bill on the table that called into question the freedom of expression of people, of Canadians, we would obviously be very concerned.

The NDP has a strong track record when it comes to protecting freedom of expression and the rights of Canadians. This is not something we take lightly. We did our work in committee, as well as in the media, in the public sphere and in the House, to raise these issues and to take the time needed to get legal opinions, to hear from experts and to get the notices of compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the Department of Justice. Those notices actually came twice, before and after the removal of clause 4.1.

We have always been in favour of the principle of the bill. We hope it will pass because our cultural sector will benefit when Internet giants contribute to and help fund the production of original works that tell Canadian and Quebec stories.

We did our work. We were open to arguments because we wanted to be absolutely sure we were protecting freedom of expression. That is what we did, and the NDP is committed to supporting the cultural sector and our artists, artisans and technicians. At the same time, we wanted to be absolutely sure everything was charter compliant and would in no way interfere with individuals' right to keep expressing their opinions and posting whatever videos they wanted on social media. Doing that work was very important, and we did it in a reasonable and responsible way. Unfortunately, there were some closure motions that prevented debate in some cases and violated our rights as parliamentarians.

The way the Liberals have been managing this bill strikes me as rather strange. They imposed closure on a committee, which has only ever happened three times. Despite this gag order, they had to resort to a supermotion. The Liberal government treated this bill as if we had neglected it and taken it lightly, while it was too important for equity in our Canadian programming ecosystem and for the defence of programming and content in French, as well as in indigenous languages.

We want our television, film and musical artists to have the chance to pursue their activities and be properly paid for the work they do, especially musicians on YouTube, and we want them to continue to tell our stories. It is a question of jobs and a very important economic sector. The cultural sector accounts for tens of thousands of jobs across the country.

What is more, culture is what defines us. It says who we are, what our vision of society is, how we approach the issues, social discussions and debates. It also gives us a chance to change our perspective and world view, and a chance to change the world.

I find it sad that on June 21, we still have to talk about this. The Liberals should have managed their agenda better.

However, I think that this bill does ultimately achieve the objectives that matter to our cultural sector, our artists and our artisans. The NDP will always be there to defend them.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:40 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening in the debate, the member for Toronto—Danforth, in response to a question I posed, wanted to make it super clear that this bill “specifically excludes content uploaded by users.” In response to that, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law stated on Twitter that it was false, that she was just wrong.

Who has it right? Does the government have it right? Are content users impacted by this bill, as many critics are saying, or is the government right, that they are not? Which way is it?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:40 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question.

Unfortunately, I believe that we will never have unanimity on this issue. However, I have absolute confidence in the bill before us, in sections 2, 35 and 46 of the Broadcasting Act, the two opinions of the Department of Justice to the effect that the bill is charter compliant, and the fact that the CRTC must also abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am absolutely certain that social media users can sleep soundly tonight, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and next week. These users will not be subject to the regulations adopted together with the new law, but the platforms will be.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:40 a.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have watched my colleague in meetings with stakeholders. I have watched him in the House. I have watched him in the media, and he really is a friend who is fighting hard for the cultural sector in Canada. The work that he has done to stand up for our artists and our writers and folks who are in the creative sector is outstanding. While I am disappointed by the Conservatives' attempts to derail this legislation, I am not surprised. We know that they have never been friends of the cultural sector. That has been very clear all the way along. I am surprised by how badly the Liberals have managed this.

Could the member speak a little more about what he would have done to make sure this legislation was treated with the urgency and the importance that I know he thinks Bill C-10 has?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:40 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona and I want to reiterate my thanks and congratulations for all the extraordinary work she has done at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on this issue that is so important for both Canadians and Quebeckers.

Obviously the Liberals fell into some traps, sometimes even traps they set themselves. An NDP government would not have acted in this way to support the cultural sector. We would have communicated the purpose of the bill and our objectives much more effectively.

I also think that we would not have excluded social media at the start only to then withdraw a clause halfway through committee; this monumental mistake by the Liberals and the Minister of Canadian Heritage created a brouhaha, prompted fearmongering and allowed the Conservatives to enter this debate only to engage in scare tactics. Obviously, we would have anticipated these issues and would not have introduced a half-baked or botched bill, like the minister of heritage did.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:40 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments specifically about the importance of art and how art is not just something that we enjoy, but is something that can shape our view of the world and our understanding of deeper concepts. Does that not underline the importance of this space being democratized and of limiting government control?

Once we accept that art can be a powerful way of conveying senses, messages and experiences, should that not underline the importance of government not being in a position to shape the kinds of content that people can see over others, and of not being able to intervene and prioritize certain content based on criteria that they establish?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:45 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Arts and culture do indeed shape our views of the world and can influence how people see things or perceive their interactions with others.

However, this bill does not give the government the ability to dictate or impose views. It simply requires that the new digital broadcasters, the web giants, contribute financially to our ecosystem. It is simply a matter of fairness that will benefit the production of cultural content in Quebec and Canada.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:45 a.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise again tonight to speak to Bill C-10. It is always an honour to speak from the unceded traditional territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, and to serve the community of Nanaimo—Ladysmith within the traditional territory of the Snaw-naw-as, Snuneymuxw, Stz'uminus and Lyackson First Nations. Hych'ka Siem. It is National Aboriginal Peoples Day today, a day to celebrate the rich cultural heritage, the languages, the governance structure and the traditions of the indigenous people of Canada.

I spoke to many organizations about this bill. As an independent party called the Greens, we do not have the same ability to question witnesses in committee, so I held my own meetings and asked my own questions. One of the meetings I had was with APTN and indigenous producers. I want to talk tonight about the importance of indigenous voices in our broadcasting system. If we left this content up to the United States, our views of indigenous people would continue to be the Disneyfied view seen in Pocahontas and spaghetti westerns. It is really important that indigenous voices are heard.

In the early 1990s, my father found a letter written by a woman in 1898 named Elizabeth Shaw. She wrote a scathing 18-page letter about the residential school system and the abuses that were happening at the Port Simpson school. We made a documentary film about her and a number of indigenous people were involved with it.

Afterward, indigenous people told me about some of the other experiences they had and they wanted to make films as well. I said that it was not really for me to tell their story. That is what they should be doing and I helped facilitate it. I worked with a lot of indigenous producers, young people and older people. These people were interested in getting into media production, and I facilitated training and mentorship so they could tell their stories.

What came out of that? I worked with a young guy, Don Claxton. I worked with his sister Dana Claxton as well, who is an indigenous artist, and played music with their sister, Kim Soo Goodtrack. They had an idea for a show. That was in the late 1990s and, lo and behold, APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, was born. We produced a pilot for the first preschool show on APTN. I worked with them, a whole bunch of first nations and an indigenous technical crew, who we trained, to create 64 episodes of a show called Wakanheja.

The idea behind CanCon is to hear these important indigenous voices. We need to make sure that the independent producers creating Canadian content have access to the Canada Media Fund when they are producing for social media streamers like Netflix and others, rather than just for the Canadian broadcasters, because that is where a lot of this production is going.

I heard a lot of discussion about freedom of expression and that some YouTubers have to go down because Canadian content goes up, that somebody has to go down because somebody is going up. I do not know how many times I heard that at committee during filibusters. A Conservative member gave a great example of somebody they know who does coupon clipping and gives how-tos, and that is great. I looked at the top 100 Canadian YouTube producers and there were people doing nails, gaming commentators and spoof videos. There was lots of content that could be produced anywhere. People knew it was Canadian because they would drop an “eh”, say “get 'er done” or say “about” wrong, but that is not what the idea behind CanCon is all about.

This commercial content drives advertising dollars, and that is what the commercial Internet giants are all about: selling advertising. That is what the algorithms are designed to do. What is important in CanCon is indigenous voices, stories from Canada's north, Canadian documentaries, stories of new Canadians and emerging Canadian musicians. These are the programs that need to be discoverable, and that is what discoverability is about. It is about learning about each other and about Canadian stories, not being inundated by American culture or the dominant culture.

I missed my late show tonight. I want to talk about a Canadian story that needs to be shared and understood. In recent decades, Canadians have learned more and more about our former government's attempt to commit cultural genocide, to commit genocide, to wipe out indigenous cultures through the residential school system. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has reported extensively and provided a path forward with 94 calls to action.

What most Canadians are unaware of is a parallel set of institutions, the racially segregated Indian hospital system operated by the federal government between the 1940s and 1970s, and those hospitals have their own horror stories. I first heard about the Nanaimo Indian Hospital about 15 years ago, and many people in my community have no idea it ever existed.

In 2013, I was commissioned to produce a film for the Hul'qumi'num Health Hub about cultural safety in the health care system within the Hul'qumi'num speaking areas. Part of that film was to give health professionals an understanding of the history of institutional racism in health care and why indigenous people did not seek help when they needed medical attention.

I interviewed elders who spoke about the trauma they experienced in the Nanaimo Indian Hospital. I heard about painful treatments and I heard about people going into the hospital who were never heard from again. As part of the research for the film, I spoke with researcher Laurie Meijer Drees, who is the co-chair of the First Nations Studies Department at Vancouver Island University. She has documented the oral stories of people who have been in these hospitals, and wrote a book entitled Healing Histories: Stories from Canada's Indian Hospitals.

Of course, not all these stories were bad. Some people went to the hospital sick, were given antibiotics and returned home feeling better, but the horrific legacy of the Indian hospitals was based on treating all indigenous people as wards of the state. Consent for medical treatment only came into being for the general public in the 1960s. However, as wards of the state, indigenous people were not asked to consent for their hospitalization or treatment. The system patronizingly viewed them as lacking the capacity to give consent.

An indigenous person could be arrested by the RCMP for not going to the hospital if instructed to do so by a doctor. That twisted, racist mentality facilitated and led to women being sterilized without giving consent and patients being subject to experiments with medication without their prior knowledge.

These hospitals were underfunded and understaffed. Family members and communities were not updated on loved ones in the hospital. People died, children were shipped off to residential school or adopted out and family members were never informed. Some children were taken to hospital and years later no longer knew who they were, what their real names were or where they came from.

Most of what is known about this dark history comes from oral accounts told to researchers and shared through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but the medical files are locked and researchers have not been granted permission to access them. Apparently the reason given is that those records contain personal information. It is important to protect personal information, however, we do not need to expose personal information to get to the bottom of what happened.

To heal from those past traumas, we need to know the truth. The truth is sealed in those medical records, and it is incumbent upon the government to give researchers and independent adjudicators appropriate clearance, access and analysis of this data to conduct a full independent inquiry. I am looking forward to a first nations producer, an indigenous producer, creating a documentary about this and having members of this place finding this through discoverability on YouTube. These are stories we need to hear. These are the truths we need to hear. We also need to hear about the rich cultural heritage of indigenous people.

Let us talk about censorship. We are worried about censorship. The real concern about censorship is these large corporations. On May 5, red dress day, the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, family, friends and loved ones were posting about their missing loved ones. Thousands of those posts disappeared.

Right here in my community, I know Lisa Marie Young went missing years ago. What happened to all these posts? They were all pulled by Instagram. This is happening with other things like Black Lives Matter, Israel and Palestine, Sheikh Jarrah and SOS Colombia. I heard one of the Conservatives say that their posts were missing, right-wing posts, but this is clearly not Conservative posts.

Freedom of speech is important to me and we need to uphold it, and this bill would do that.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:55 a.m.

Liberal

Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, the arts are such an important part of our woven tapestry here in Canada, including indigenous arts and arts from across the cultures. What is it about this bill that the member actually supports, and why should this bill be passed?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:55 a.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am a huge supporter of the arts, and I have worked in the cultural industries in this country for a long time. I have worked as a professional musician, but I have also worked in artist management, so I know how the MAPL system works: music, artist, performance and lyrics. Two out of four of those, and they have CanCon and they can get that on for radio play.

I understand how the certification works for CRTC. It is a very easy check box: Who is the director? Who is the producer? Who is the writer? Who are the creative key talents on that? They need six out of 10 and they have Canadian content.

It is important that we bring those voices forward and that we support Canadian content, because we have unique stories to tell in this country.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:55 a.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to both this speech and the previous speech, and specifically the member's impassioned explanation of indigenous history that needs to be told.

My concern is about allowing the state, in this case the CRTC as an agent of the state, to determine what content meets a certain satisfactory requirement to be prioritized in the next-to-play or the algorithm that shows up in someone's feed. If the state, for example, were to try to diminish some of its history, then it would put the very content that the member is so passionately defending at risk of being silenced.

I am just curious as to how the member would reconcile some of the concerns that have been outlined with this bill about the possibility of state intervention, and specifically with the Liberals being able to determine what that may or may not be. How does he reconcile that with the need to ensure that there is actual freedom of expression so that these voices can be heard and, in the example that he shared, that this Canadian history can be told and accessed—

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 12:55 a.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC has not silenced speech in the past. All we need to do is look at Rick Mercer's show. He made fun of politicians and governments freely and had no problem. He was never censored. I find it hilarious to hear the previous Conservative speaker say that he has never read the bill or the act, but he does not trust it because the Liberals put it forward. What they need to know, as Conservatives, is that the 1991 act was created by the Mulroney Conservative government, and it quite clearly states in the act, and this remains in the act:

This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.

That is the language of the Conservative bill that was established in 1991. It remains in this act, and we still have freedom of speech under the Broadcasting Act.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 1 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I found that last response from my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith quite satisfying.

What does my colleague think of the fact that cable companies, which are fewer and fewer in number and have fewer and fewer customers, are the only ones contributing to the production of original Canadian content, when giants like Netflix, Crave, Disney+ and YouTube are currently excluded and are not contributing to the production of artistic and cultural content in Canada?

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 1 a.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is high time that those other Internet giants all contributed to Canadian content and put money into the Canada Media Fund, and that the Canada Media Fund was opened up. One of my amendments was to have the Canada Media Fund available to independent producers who are producing for those streaming services, so that somebody making a documentary that is just going to go out on YouTube could actually get Canada Media Fund money to help tell good, Canadian stories.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 1 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 1 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

In the usual way, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 1 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 1 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly, call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #174

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 1:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

June 22nd, 1:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 1:30 a.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 21, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:30 a.m.)