The liberals did not do their homework
In response to Pierre Nantel's controversy, it is high time to set the record straight for C-10. It is also time to reject the demagoguery of those who claim that being against a bad bill and its passage under gag order is an affront to Quebec culture as a whole. Quebec culture has been able to develop and shine for centuries before the arrival of Steven Guilbeault and it remains the property of all Quebeckers, not just those who vote from one side.
Let us first take the notion of financial emergency. Mr. Nantel claims the culture industry loses $ 70 million for every month C-10 is not passed, a baseless claim. Minister Guilbeault suggested that C-10 would result in $ 830 million per year in additional investments in Canadian content by online broadcasters in 2023. Even that figure is suspect. Members of the Heritage Committee have frequently asked the Minister to produce calculations explaining how he arrived there. He never provided them despite a unanimous motion to that effect last December. The 830 million therefore seem to have come out of nowhere and do not represent any guarantee of immediate aid to the cultural sector.
Let us also be clear: Conservative MPs have always supported what was supposed to be the basic principle of C-10, which is to modernize the Broadcasting Act , in particular by forcing web giants like Netflix and Amazon to invest. a greater proportion of their revenues in Canadian content. They also proposed several amendments to strengthen the requirements of C-10 in terms of French-language content.
Their opposition to the bill stemmed from the improvisation of the government, the excessive discretion granted to the CRTC and above all the real threat to the freedom of expression of Canadians.
The Conservative opposition to C-10 identified two major flaws in their bill that the government could easily have corrected on its own accord or by accepting the constructive amendments we put forward. First, rather than targeting the big web giants, C-10 proposed to regulate a category of “online businesses” defined so broadly that it could include any individual with a website and producing capsules. video. The European Union had adopted a much more precise definition of what a digital broadcaster is in its legislation while Australia set a minimum threshold of income necessary to be subject to regulation, all in order to protect individuals and small businesses. Steven Guilbeault,
Second, the Liberals could have listened to the many experts like Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa who called on them to protect free speech by not regulating the content that Canadians upload to network sites. social like YouTube and Facebook. The first version of C-10 included two separate exemptions to protect freedom of expression on social media, exemptions that even Heritage Department officials recognized as necessary in a memo sent to their minister in December 2020. L Article 2.1 ensures that an individual who uploads a video to a site such as YouTube is not, by that very fact, considered as a broadcaster and subject, for example, to requirements of Canadian content or contribution to the Fund Canadian media. Section 4.1, repealed by the Liberals, protected content that an individual could upload. To put it simply, 2.1 protects the person speaking while 4.1 protects what they say. So it is needless to say that she is not a broadcaster when uploading a video to YouTube if the CRTC can intervene in the site's algorithms to ensure that hardly anyone can see the video, or that a other video is preferred to him. This is the real risk to the freedom of expression protected by the Charter of Rights. So it is needless to say that she is not a broadcaster when uploading a video to YouTube if the CRTC can intervene in the site's algorithms to ensure that hardly anyone can see the video, or that a other video is preferred to him. This is the real risk to the freedom of expression protected by the Charter of Rights. So it is needless to say that she is not a broadcaster when uploading a video to YouTube if the CRTC can intervene in the site's algorithms to ensure that hardly anyone can see the video, or that a other video is preferred to him. This is the real risk to the freedom of expression protected by the Charter of Rights.
It's worth pointing out that no other democratic country regulates the discoverability of social media user content as proposed by C-10, a move that could even lead to reciprocal cultural protectionism from other jurisdictions.
Preferential access to the Canadian market on social networks could therefore limit the access of our creators to a market of 60 million French-speaking Europeans if France were to introduce its own discoverability regime in reaction to C-10.
The truth is, the Liberals waited four years to take action on the web giants. Faced with a poorly designed bill by a minister who had clearly not done his homework, the deputies tabled more than 127 hyper complex and technical amendments, 28 of which came from the Liberals themselves. They were collectively longer than the original bill and, with the removal of section 4.1, changed its nature. It is the volume of amendments and the need to study and debate them properly that were the main causes of delays in committee.
Quebec Conservative MPs and senators will continue to defend the interests of these artists and, if we form the next government, we will quickly replace the C-10 quagmire with modern legislation that requires web giants to invest more in the production of original Canadian content, which strengthens their obligations in terms of French and protects everyone's freedom of expression.
Let us also be clear: Conservative MPs have always supported what was supposed to be the basic principle of C-10, which is to modernize the Broadcasting Act , in particular by forcing web giants like Netflix and Amazon to invest. a greater proportion of their revenues in Canadian content. They also proposed several amendments to strengthen the requirements of C-10 in terms of French-language content.
Their opposition to the bill stemmed from the improvisation of the government, the excessive discretion granted to the CRTC and above all the real threat to the freedom of expression of Canadians.
The Conservative opposition to C-10 identified two major flaws in their bill that the government could easily have corrected on its own accord or by accepting the constructive amendments we put forward. First, rather than targeting the big web giants, C-10 proposed to regulate a category of “online businesses” defined so broadly that it could include any individual with a website and producing capsules. video. The European Union had adopted a much more precise definition of what a digital broadcaster is in its legislation while Australia set a minimum threshold of income necessary to be subject to regulation, all in order to protect individuals and small businesses. Steven Guilbeault,
Second, the Liberals could have listened to the many experts like Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa who called on them to protect free speech by not regulating the content that Canadians upload to network sites. social like YouTube and Facebook. The first version of C-10 included two separate exemptions to protect freedom of expression on social media, exemptions that even Heritage Department officials recognized as necessary in a memo sent to their minister in December 2020. L Article 2.1 ensures that an individual who uploads a video to a site such as YouTube is not, by that very fact, considered as a broadcaster and subject, for example, to requirements of Canadian content or contribution to the Fund Canadian media. Section 4.1, repealed by the Liberals, protected content that an individual could upload. To put it simply, 2.1 protects the person speaking while 4.1 protects what they say. So it is needless to say that she is not a broadcaster when uploading a video to YouTube if the CRTC can intervene in the site's algorithms to ensure that hardly anyone can see the video, or that a other video is preferred to him. This is the real risk to the freedom of expression protected by the Charter of Rights. So it is needless to say that she is not a broadcaster when uploading a video to YouTube if the CRTC can intervene in the site's algorithms to ensure that hardly anyone can see the video, or that a other video is preferred to him. This is the real risk to the freedom of expression protected by the Charter of Rights. So it is needless to say that she is not a broadcaster when uploading a video to YouTube if the CRTC can intervene in the site's algorithms to ensure that hardly anyone can see the video, or that a other video is preferred to him. This is the real risk to the freedom of expression protected by the Charter of Rights.
It's worth pointing out that no other democratic country regulates the discoverability of social media user content as proposed by C-10, a move that could even lead to reciprocal cultural protectionism from other jurisdictions.
Preferential access to the Canadian market on social networks could therefore limit the access of our creators to a market of 60 million French-speaking Europeans if France were to introduce its own discoverability regime in reaction to C-10.
The truth is, the Liberals waited four years to take action on the web giants. Faced with a poorly designed bill by a minister who had clearly not done his homework, the deputies tabled more than 127 hyper complex and technical amendments, 28 of which came from the Liberals themselves. They were collectively longer than the original bill and, with the removal of section 4.1, changed its nature. It is the volume of amendments and the need to study and debate them properly that were the main causes of delays in committee.
Quebec Conservative MPs and senators will continue to defend the interests of these artists and, if we form the next government, we will quickly replace the C-10 quagmire with modern legislation that requires web giants to invest more in the production of original Canadian content, which strengthens their obligations in terms of French and protects everyone's freedom of expression.
LEO HOUSAKOSCONSERVATIVE SENATOR
PRESS
https://www.lapresse.ca/debats/opinions/2021-07-21/projet-de-loi-c-10/les-liberaux-n-ont-pas-fait-leurs-devoirs.php
PRESS
https://www.lapresse.ca/debats/opinions/2021-07-21/projet-de-loi-c-10/les-liberaux-n-ont-pas-fait-leurs-devoirs.php