44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 28, 2022 11:00AM
- Feb/28/22 3:16:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to two of those reports.
The first is the fisheries committee report on moderate livelihood. After extensive work at committee, Conservatives issued a dissenting report in response to the majority report. The majority report fails to adequately address the time-tested necessity of seasons for a reason.
Years of science and research have made it clear that conservation of our Atlantic lobster stock is dependent on the fishing seasons, which optimize the ability for stocks to reproduce. This leads to a greater abundance and stronger ecosystem. We continue to see a lack of enforcement when it comes to out-of-season fishing. As the official opposition, we continue to call on the minister to fulfill her duties and responsibilities as laid out in Marshall decision and take immediate action to resolve the current situation.
The second is the fisheries committee report “Pacific Salmon: Ensuring the Long-Term Health of Wild Populations and Associated Fisheries”. While the crisis facing the Pacific salmon may not be new, the state of Pacific salmon stocks has never been so dire. Over the past six years, five different fisheries ministers have asserted that the legislative changes, resources and direction that DFO has provided were sufficient to restore and protect Pacific salmon.
However, the current state and continued declines of Pacific salmon clearly show the government's assertions and actions have failed. In our complementary report, Conservatives call on the federal government to connect federal resources with plans and actions that are already mandated, known and proven to support the recovery and conservation of Pacific salmon stocks.
270 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of South Shore—St. Margarets to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.
I was executive assistant to Canada's foreign minister when the Broadcasting Act was last amended in 1991. Email was a new thing. Foreign Affairs communicated with embassies through telex. There was no social media, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter or TikTok. Therefore, the revision to the Broadcasting Act under Bill C-11 is long overdue.
I will try to summarize what I believe to be the good, the bad and the ugly of this proposed legislation, and I will start with the good.
There are several important provisions in this legislation that I support, including the requirements to support the increased production of Canadian content by online service providers such as Netflix. The greater support of indigenous programming is also a good start. Coming from Nova Scotia, I also appreciate the increased support and focus on independent production of broadcasting material. It is a step forward that this bill protects the intellectual property of Internet service provider algorithms.
Now let me turn to the bad. We are hopeful that, when this bill reaches committee, the government will be open to amending it to deal with our primary area of concern, the regulation of speech on the Internet. It is true that in proposed subsection 2(2.1) and proposed subsection 4.1(1) the government has excluded individual users of social media from CRTC regulation. A similar commitment was made in Bill C-10 in the last Parliament but removed by the government at committee stage.
However, we were asked in Bill C-10 in the last Parliament, now Bill C-11, to trust the government in its commitment not to regulate individual freedom of speech. This is asking too much of Canadians who no longer trust the government. We should all be concerned when governments flaunt the law with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, abuse the public purse for family benefit in the WE scandal, ignore the views of those it disagrees with and legislate against free speech with the Emergencies Act.
Where are the “just trust me” elements of this bill? They come in proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2. This is the ugly part of the bill. Proposed section 4.1 exempts individual users of social media from the content control of the CRTC. While this is true to some extent, the government presents a legal pretzel in proposed section 4.2. Let me explain this confusing Liberal legal pretzel. The addition to this bill of proposed section 4.1, which says that censorship by the CRTC will not apply to individuals uploading content to an Internet service provider, sounds good, but what the government giveth, the government takes away in proposed section 4.2, where the government can regulate an individual’s Internet content if it generates any sort of revenue. Without knowing or seeing these regulations, this is a broad power to censor the individual.
The government is telling Canadians not to worry and to just trust it. Canadians do not trust the government. We should be especially concerned when the government, under this bill, seeks to legislate on what Canadians can and cannot say if it generates any revenue at all. Individual content creators with fledgling businesses are now being asked to trust the government that, through policy and regulation, they will not be censored. There are no legislated guarantees in the bill to prevent them from being censored.
In his last public address on April 11, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln said that “important principles may, and must, be inflexible.” Freedom of thought and speech are principles with which the Government of Canada must be inflexible in defending, so much so that Pierre Trudeau placed these inflexible freedoms in section 2 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, the very freedoms that are core to our democracy. Our defence of them must remain inflexible, as Lincoln said.
Let me be clear that our freedoms have limits. For example, in a country like Canada, people cannot incite hate speech or other violent forms of language. Both our common law and Criminal Code have placed limits on that freedom. The distinctions in our Criminal Code are just and ensure the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. If the government wishes to seek further protections for those impacted by racism and other discrimination, I know my Conservative caucus is willing to co-operate, and the Criminal Code is the appropriate legislative vehicle for such restrictions.
Bill C-11 contains more disturbing open-ended online censorship regulatory power for the government. This legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a). That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Spotify.
What does “indirectly” mean? The government asks for us to just trust it. Last Parliament, Conservatives were quick to point out the flaws in the nearly identical bill, Bill C-10. It was not just Conservatives sounding the alarm. Experts, lawyers, academics and many more people testified at committee and spoke publicly about the problems with the bill.
A former CRTC commissioner said that the bill would be like a hammer to intimidate freedom of expression. Today, given the continued development of technology and the conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic, much of that dialogue takes place on places like Facebook, Twitter and other websites. This bill would infringe upon the ability Canadians have to post online and to express themselves freely, even if their post “indirectly generates revenues”. Furthermore, the bill would infringe on the rights Canadians have to access content online, which means that the right to view freely would be infringed upon if the bill passes.
To all my colleagues, I ask if they trust the government to decide what they can say, read and watch online. Bill C-11 would give new, undefined power over the Internet to the CRTC, which was built to balance the needs of competing broadcasters, not those of citizens.
The only regulator of thought a Canadian should deal with is themselves. I can assure members that constituents in my riding do not want the censorship elements of this bill rushed through the House of Commons without thoughtful debate and hearings. They want clause 4 amended, and I trust the government will listen to Canadians in this respect at committee and amend this bill.
I ask members to be guided by the words of Lincoln that important principles must be “inflexible”. Be inflexible in defending free speech and amend the section of this bill that would give the government the ability to censor individuals on the Internet.
It is my hope that courage will manifest in all MPs and we can all work toward a Broadcasting Act that upholds the freedoms of Canadians, improves Canadian and indigenous content, supports independent production and does not stifle speech online.
1211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had actually heard the beginning of my speech, he would have heard that I outlined and said I supported the additional Canadian content this bill would engender in its process. I did say that.
The confusion seems on to be on the other side, which thinks just because it is not them that we do not support culture. I sat on community theatre boards. I have participated and helped my community in that regard.
Perhaps the hon. member should read subclause 11(10), which says that Canadian artistic and cultural expression must be dealt with and that the proportion of programs broadcast and devoted for specific genres would be regulated. I would like to understand from the government if it is going to tell us how many comedies, dramas or documentaries we can watch, when the CRTC is being given the ability to actually pick what genres we watch?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is another issue I addressed in my speech. There are reasonable limits placed on freedom of speech through both common law and court cases, as well as through the Criminal Code, on things we can and cannot do. I think those are the appropriate vehicles to moderate and protect. We do not have unlimited rights under the charter. All rights, including freedom of speech, have some restriction on things like hate speech.
If there are additional areas or issues that need to be regulated in terms of criminal behaviour, that is the limit on which we should be focused in terms of limiting free speech. I do not think we should be using the CRTC, an independent and unaccountable government agency, to regulate free speech.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. As I did touch on a bit, and I get a little chance to expand on it here, the levelling of the playing field with online web giants in creating Canadian content is a very good aspect of the bill and one that I appreciate. With regard to the requirement for them to either produce Canadian content at certain levels or contribute to the Canadian content fund, my only challenge is to figure out where in the bill it balances and says what that level of support would be and what the money would be. That would be in regulation, I suppose, so we will have to see that, but it is a positive part of the bill.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sure that the member, had he been listening to my speech, would have known that at the beginning I said that I appreciated that the bill actually does say that the algorithms are protected. I did say that in my speech.
Specifically, since the member spent a bit of his speech discussing my speech, which was very flattering, I will read what the bill actually says:
In making regulations under subsection (1), the Commission shall consider the following matters:
(a) the extent to which a program, uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service, directly or indirectly generates revenues.
In (b) and (c), the bill does not say “and/or”. It does not say any of that. It lists three different things. Any one of those things, individually, can be regulated according to the act.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
