Julie Vignola

[Broadcasting Act, June 15th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of the bill, where it says, “A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet...does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act.” Therefore, users can upload content without being subject to this legislation.

From what my colleagues are saying, one might think that eliminating a clause from the bill invalidates it. There have been almost 120 amendments.

Did the Conservatives believe that this clause carried so much weight that 120 amendments to improve the bill still do not make it an adequate bill? What would it take to satisfy the Conservative Party?

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I have read and reread the bill, which repeatedly states that users will not be subject to the same rules as broadcasters. They will be able to upload whatever they want, so I am trying to understand the line. If there is really something dangerous here, I will be the first to fight it, but I have read and reread that all these threats the Conservatives are talking about will not apply to users. Would the member please tell me which clause he is talking about, and would he please specify the page and the line?

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

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.

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

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?

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

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?

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I listen, I read and I try to take the time to put myself in others' shoes to understand what scares them and why they feel that way.

When reading the bill, I noticed that the programming promotes indigenous languages, French and even English as a minority language in Quebec. It makes more room for those who should have it and supports jobs for francophones and members of first nations. It does not infringe on the freedom of expression of anyone who wants to upload content who is not employed by a broadcaster.

After all is said and done, I am asking myself the following question: Could the problem with freedom of expression simply be related to the fact that the majority would, according to them, have less time because the minority would have more? Are they afraid of change because we are making more room for indigenous people and francophones?

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I read all 53 pages of Bill C-10, and when I listen to my colleagues in the official opposition, I have to wonder exactly which clauses indicate that our independent producers will be overtaxed or have the same obligations as the major broadcasters.

Even the preamble says that the CRTC will have to take into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings and avoid imposing any obligations that could be harmful.

Which clauses are so frightening and need to be changed?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague. At one point he said that they would help seniors, in particular those who are 75. “In particular those who are 75” implies that there will be help for those aged between 65 years and 74 years, 11 months and 30 days.

What type of help will it be?

I must say, $63 a month is not even enough to buy groceries for a person living alone.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, no one is happy about time allocation, especially since these measures are so important and it is important to discuss them. Of course there have been discussions, but limiting debate again is a bit counterproductive because it stops other changes and insights from being proposed.

That being said, would the government have needed to limit debate if it had managed its legislative agenda properly and not prorogued Parliament for six weeks? If Parliament had not been prorogued, the budget could have been tabled sooner and this bill could have been fully debated. Does the government plan to make sure its legislative agenda is sensible and well managed from now on?

[Canada Labour Code, June 10th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.