44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 5, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be speaking on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. We are a diverse group of citizens from many backgrounds and with a variety of different views. They have called me and emailed me over the past year, asking about stopping online censorship. They wanted to be free from government overreach back then, and they feel the same way now.
The people of Saskatoon West also want an end to the unscientific, job-killing NDP-Liberal federal mandates. Many have voiced their concerns on social media platforms. They are concerned that the government is going to block their voices.
Speaking of censorship, the current government has quite a history of shutting down opposing voices, even when it comes to members of its own caucus. We remember, of course, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.
In the last Parliament, the government introduced its first attempt at regulating the Internet with its Bill C-10 and Bill C-36. These bills generated incredible feedback for me via telephone, written letters, emails and social media. It is safe to say that the overall response was extremely negative and many in the media, many consultants and many ordinary folks were very concerned by this legislation. I had hoped that, after seeing all of the opposition to those bills the last time around, the government would smarten up and rethink this flawed legislation. Unfortunately, smartening up is not in the wheelhouse of the current government, and instead it doubled down and reintroduced essentially the same thing.
Let us dive into Bill C-11. The minister stated that the goal of this bill was to target only big online streamers and exclude day-to-day users. It is supposedly about making Canadian content more accessible. The only problem with this argument is that Canadian content has always been accessible. Canadian producers have been able to jump onto various platforms, such as TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and showcase their content without a problem. Why is there the urge to regulate the Internet now?
The current government members think that the content available for users is not Canadian enough for their liking. This is where things start moving toward online censorship. Essentially, any content deemed unworthy by the NDP-Liberals would be bumped out of people's recommended feeds in exchange for government-approved content. Content that is not Canadian enough for the CRTC regulators would be sent to the back of the Internet, which leads to a question: Who reaps the benefits of this? It is the legacy media.
In this new age, where we get most of our information online, broadcasting companies such as the government's beloved taxpayer-funded CBC have been left in the dust. At the end of the day, they want their content promoted over everyone else's. They are the ones scrambling for advertising revenues. This will throw the remaining content, Canadian or not, to the side. Many experts have raised concerns about this bill being very similar to the NDP-Liberal government's original Internet censorship bill, Bill C-10, in the sense that it would still have the power to block Canadian freedom of expression online.
The former vice-chair of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, stated, “The biggest difference is that it is called Bill C-11 instead of Bill C-10.” He added, “It is unfortunate because they are giving the CRTC enormous powers, enormous powers, and it is not in the DNA of any regulatory body to not continue to expand its turf.”
The major criticism of Bill C-10 surrounded the issue of user-generated content: those pictures, audio files and videos that many of us share daily on social media. There was a clause in Bill C-10 that exempted this from regulation, but it was removed at committee, which created a firestorm of concern. At the very least, I had expected the government to address this issue. Instead, it added an exception to allow the CRTC to regulate user content. Michael Geist, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce Law, stated:
...for all the talk that user-generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fits neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a 'program'.
In other words, user-generated content is not subject to regulation unless the CRTC decides it is subject to regulation, in which case it is subject to regulation. Are members confused yet? The truth is that the vague language in this bill opens the door for the government to abuse its power and regulate user-generated content. The Internet is our main go-to for information, and many Canadians are earning a good living by making entertaining or educational content on various platforms. The way this bill is currently written, it would limit this creativity and possibly censor a wide range of the content produced online.
Twitter issued these scathing words: “People around the world have been blocked from accessing Twitter [and other services] in a similar manner as [the one] proposed by Canada by multiple authoritarian governments (e.g. China, North Korea and Iran) under the false guise of ‘online safety’, impeding people's rights to access...information online.” It goes on to say that Bill C-11 “sacrifices freedom of expression to the creation of a government-run system of surveillance of anyone who uses Twitter.”
Members should think about that. Twitter was comparing this government to North Korea, and that was before Elon Musk bought it.
The NDP-Liberal government is doing what we have seen time and again: dividing Canadians and stripping away our rights and freedoms one by one. Now, the government is creating a three-headed dragon to take away freedom of expression online from Canadians. These three heads are the Internet censorship Bill C-11, the news regulation Bill C-18, and the expected return of Bill C-36, which would block online content that the government does not like.
If members do not think that this government wants to shut them down, they have not been paying attention. We have seen this government target law-abiding firearms owners by seizing firearms from normal, hard-working Canadians and at the same time reduce sentences for criminals who smuggle illegal firearms into Canada. We have seen it target energy workers who work day and night in our natural resource sectors that, by the way, allow the leader of the NDP to fill up his $80,000 BMW with gas every morning. We have seen it target western Canada's entire energy sector by threatening to shut it down, calling our oil and natural gas “dirty” and at the same time importing oil from countries with horrible human rights records and next to no environmental standards. The Prime Minister still cannot figure out why there is so much division in our country. He is creating it.
In February, when the minister tabled the bill before us, he said that cat videos and social media influencers would not be covered by it. However, this week, YouTube warned Canadians that this simply was not true. A Canadian Press story reported the following:
Jeanette Patell, head of government affairs at YouTube Canada, said the draft law’s wording gives the broadcast regulator scope to oversee everyday videos posted for other users to watch. She told the National Culture Summit in Ottawa that the bill’s text appears to contradict [the] Heritage Minister’s public assurances that it does not cover amateur content, such as cat videos.
I have heard back from many people across this country since last year about their concerns, from when the bill was called Bill C-10. Since then, the calls and emails have just amplified about Bill C-11.
I have a very hard time believing that the use of the bill would only target big online streamers, especially when I have seen first-hand how far this government will go to end criticism. If we flash back a few months to the Prime Minister's trip to Europe, many politicians in the EU called out the member for Papineau's actions during the convoy, and I tweeted about this. Gerry Butts, the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, tried to dismiss it right away. He said, “If you're getting your news from news outlets—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1432 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/5/22 4:59:49 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I want to remind the hon. minister that there will be a time for questions and comments. Heckling is not acceptable in the House.
The hon. member for Saskatoon West has two minutes to continue.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, sometimes these things are hard to hear, I understand, but what Gerald Butts said is, “If you’re getting your news from outlets whose primary purpose is to divide you from your neighbours, the topic doesn’t matter. It’s long past time we figured this out.”
Is this what we can expect under Bill C-11: big government telling us what news is fact and what is misinformation when it does not match a certain narrative?
It is obvious what voices the government wants to bring to Canadians online and what voices it would like to tune out. The problem with this is that Canada is a free and democratic nation. The foundation behind this trademark of ours is freedom of speech and expression. We all have people we may disagree with, but all voices deserve to be heard, regardless of whether they align with our political views. The moment we push forward with online censorship, divisions rise and Canadian democracy declines.
We need to work on healing these wounds that have developed in our country. Leadership starts at the top. This begins with treating our fellow Canadians and members in the House with the dignity and respect they deserve. Some have lost hope in reuniting our country, but I certainly have not.
Canada is known as one of the friendliest countries in the world. We look out for our allies, neighbours and friends. Back home in Saskatchewan, we always look out for one another no matter how bad our winters are. I am proud to be from a country and a province where we are there for each other. Over the past two years, we seem to have forgotten this trademark that makes us who we are.
Bill C-11 works to divide us rather than bring us together. It would pit certain content providers against other ones. It would force Canadians to watch things they do not really want to see, and make it difficult for them to watch things they do want to see. This is unacceptable. Censoring voices online is wrong and it splits our nation even further. It is time to bring our country back together so that we get back to who we truly are: kind and friendly Canadians who are only known for heated arguments when the Stanley Cup playoffs are on.
397 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, from an economic interest, would the member agree that it is important for us to support our creative industry, which is an important economic sector in our country, to make sure that the intellectual property they create stays here in our country and that we sustain that industry going forward, rather than allowing it to be sold off and only watching creators from other countries?
Is it not important for us as a country to show support for our creative industries and to show the distinct voices, prairie voices such as Heartland, a great TV show from Alberta? Is it not important that we have that at the centre of our policies when we are looking at this?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a good question. Absolutely, we want to support culture in Canada. We want to support our content creators.
There is always a fear by certain members of this House to actually let our people free in the world. Our content creators, our talent in Canada, are second to none. We have great producers, actors, everybody. We have a lot of talent. We should not be ashamed of that. We can work hard. We do not need to give them special rules and special controls. They are big people. They know how to compete on the world stage.
The world is their stage. That is the beauty of the system we have today with the wide open Internet. We just need to let our Canadians shine. We need to help them where we can, but this is not the way to do it.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am of the view that we really need to get this to committee. We have so many questions. We have issues we need refining.
To the extent that the online streaming bill does not take into account how some online streaming and online services promote disinformation and misinformation, we see it more now than we did last year when we were looking at Bill C-10. I am wondering if the member would agree that it is time to get the bill to committee so we could hear the witnesses, and refine and improve the legislation.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is up to the House to put this committee.
Last time this bill went to committee, there was a very important provision that was removed, which caused a lot of stress. It caused a lot of reactions in my office, for sure. The committee will do its work when the time comes, and would add or strengthen or do whatever needs to be done to the bill. At the end of the day, we have to be very careful that we are not limiting and constricting the ability of our content producers to actually compete in the Internet world of today.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member had some thoughtful reflections on this bill. I am wondering if my hon. colleague would agree with me that the government is moving on a slippery slope in this bill towards determining what is truth and what is not, and who gets to ultimately determine that as it relates to disinformation.
I think Canadians are rightfully very concerned that this is an overreach by a government, which seems to continually be trampling on their individual rights and freedoms of speech, conscience and belief. You have raised some very appropriate concerns. I would appreciate any further comments you would have on that.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/5/22 5:05:34 p.m.
- Watch
I do not think that I have raised any concerns. I would ask the member to address his questions through the Chair and not directly to the member.
The hon. member for Saskatoon West.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.
This is kind of the heart of what we are talking about here today. Conceptually, it is easy to say this person can speak and this one cannot, but in reality it is very difficult to do that. Who is the person who is going to decide that?
We all know there is content on the Internet that is wrong and that is incorrect. We know there is content that is true. It is sometimes hard to tell. That is where we need to do some work. When we start saying that we can listen to this group and not listen to that group, this news organization is valid and this one is not, that is a very slippery slope, as the member stated. We have to be very careful as we go down this road.
We do need to have some controls over things, but the way this is written, it gives way too much power to the CRTC to be the gatekeepers in saying who is good and who is bad. That is not a good place for us to go. We need to be very concerned about that.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House once again on behalf of the great people of Cypress Hills—Grasslands. I will begin my speech in this debate by considering the background of the bill. There is a disturbing trend happening under this NDP-Liberal coalition. They do not seem to respect the democratic process, and they do not seem to be interested in protecting it.
Among many other examples, the most recent is the passing of Motion No. 11 to give themselves the power to prematurely shut down Parliament. They do not even pretend to use COVID as an excuse anymore, but they also do not like it when the Conservatives mention that it is long overdue for them to remove restrictions on members, their staff and regular citizens from entering this place or from travelling within our own country, insinuating that they are supposedly undesirable Canadians.
Leaving those things aside though, we are here to debate yet another attempt by the government to extend its overly controlling approach to online content that people can access or publish. That is the problem with Bill C-11. The vast majority of it is a near carbon copy of its predecessor, Bill C-10, with the exception of some minor changes surrounding user generated content. To debate this legislation properly, we need to fully understand how we got from Bill C-10 to Bill C-11.
Let us refresh a few memories here. Originally, Bill C-10 had a section which excluded user-generated content from its scope. At heritage committee, that was suddenly removed. This threw the door open for the CRTC to regulate nearly anything on the Internet. The government faced severe opposition to this and rightly so. At first, it might appear that the Liberals learned something from all the embarrassment, but sadly, if we dig a little deeper, it is clear that they have not.
What is even more sad is that the NDP has sold out and is going along with it. Section 4.1 is back in Bill C-11, but it is now accompanied by section 4.1(2), which allows for an exemption on the previous exception. This creates a loophole for the CRTC to regulate any content that either directly or indirectly generates revenue. In other words, the CRTC can regulate nearly anything on the Internet.
At the heart of the bill is the lurking threat of expanding censorship. It is only a matter of time, as this new opening moves through the process of bureaucracy. We must carefully consider more than the bill in front of us as it exists on paper, otherwise we will move too close to Big Brother for comfort, and it will turn out to be just as toxic as a reality show, but without any of the entertainment value. I hope bad jokes will remain safe from censorship as well.
Liberal members, along with their neighbours in the NDP, may say that this is not the intention behind the bill. If it is not, I will remind them that good intentions can still pave the road to a very bad place, and that is why Conservatives keep on saying and trying to remind them of. We are doing our job as the official opposition because it is our duty to point out any harmful risks in legislation so Parliament can make better decisions on behalf of Canadians.
This is what every MP should keep in mind. When I took my oath of office as an MP, I swore to defend the Constitution and the fundamental rights of every Canadian. Every single MP did the same thing. We are all under that same obligation. It is entirely possible to fix the problems with the bill while achieving what the NDP-Liberals say it is supposed to do. There should absolutely be a level playing field between smaller Canadian broadcasters and larger streaming services. Canadian content creators have something unique to bring to the table, and we all want to see them in the spotlight. No issues there. We are happy to pass this part of the legislation that supports Canadian producers.
However, where it goes too far is that it is unnecessarily wrong for government to control what people can or cannot access online, and ironically, what type of content Canadians should or should not produce. It is extremely irresponsible to ignore the warnings we have received. Before we know it, it could completely get out of hand. If the NDP-Liberals want to deny it, they should explain to Canadians how they are leaving room for it to happen without closing the obvious loophole.
It is a failure of due diligence and there is no excuse for it. Canada stands in a long tradition of free expression. We are admired and envied around the world for a heritage of free speech among many other freedoms. For centuries and over the years in our lifetime, we have seen it practised in newspapers, letters to the editor, and people just simply writing letters to their elected officials.
Today, we all express ourselves on the Internet as a free space. We can post our opinions. We can access information and engage with other people around the whole world. We have done it as citizens, and we do it as members of Parliament communicating with our fellow Canadians. Right now, it is easy to make posts and videos with our thoughts on all kinds of issues, and it all could be subject to regulations. Bill C-11 fails to provide safeguards for our freedom as we know it.
The government could eventually control what everyday citizens post online. This is what Peter Menzies, the former CRTC vice-chair, had to say about Bill C-10 in the last Parliament: “[It] doesn't just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” That should catch all of our attention. The former CRTC vice-chair warned that this legislation is toying with a fundamental right. He is in a position to understand better than some how necessary freedom of speech is for a democratic process to remain intact.
Citizens must always be able to disagree with their governments openly and strongly. We are eroding this right so the government, through the CRTC, could have the ability to regulate what it does or does not like to hear. Quite frankly, it does not like to hear the dissent from the opposition. That said, Bill C-11 would not only give us a paternalistic government, but it might also create practical problems in the area it claims it would help.
Currently, anyone could pull out their device and head over to YouTube, where they can access any content they would like, whether it is kitchen renos, how to fix car problems or content posted by friends, family or people around the world. It works well enough for now, but with the government involved, the CRTC might decide to dictate what content people should see when they search for something specific. While government mandated algorithms analyze how Canadian the content is, what someone is looking for might get pushed to the back of the queue of their search results, if it simply does not pass the test.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Madam Speaker, someone could be trying to renovate their back deck, and the helpful video from a YouTuber they saw a little while ago is not so easy to find anymore, because maybe the best creator did not happen to be Canadian. Instead, they are flooded with—
1285 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/5/22 5:13:47 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
I see there are some parliamentarians who are either eager to ask questions or are trying to have conversations across the way. I would say that, if they want to have a conversation, to please take it out of the chamber. If they are wanting to ask questions or make comments, it is not quite time yet.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, they are trying to censor me already. It has already begun.
Instead, when looking up that video, they are flooded with videos about beavers and maple syrup, while where they really need to be is on page 27 of the search results to find the video of the guy giving the advice they need to build a deck, who is maybe not Canadian. This would all be because the government thinks it knows better.
Again, we do need to support the creators and the content that is made in Canada. Nobody has any issue with them. We do not need a band-aid solution to do it. What is most needed from the government is for it to take advantage of every opportunity to build and support our entertainment industry so it will be competitive and successful in the marketplace. We need more and more talented Canadians who can make it here, and that is what happens when our entertainment industry has a good foundation from a strong economy, but I wish us good luck with that, underneath the current Liberal government.
With Bill C-11, we are talking about government overreach, censorship, higher entertainment costs and half-baked solutions. Most concerning of all, we see the NDP-Liberals would be giving the CRTC power to regulate not only what Canadians can see online, but also what they can say. They could also try to decide what it means to be Canadian in our video searches or elsewhere.
Bill C-11 is dangerous, it is ridiculous and it just does not make any sense. On behalf of my fellow Canadians, I will continue to stand up and I will continue to defend their rights alongside my fellow Conservatives. It is the right thing to do, and we can only hope the NDP and the Liberals on the backbench will stand with us and make sure this bill gets due process and accomplishes what it should actually be trying to accomplish.
Before I finish, I have a subamendment. I would like to move, seconded by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following:
“and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.”
382 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My understanding is that when a member sits they are ceding the floor.
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The member had some time left, so he caught himself in time.
The subamendment is in order.
We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can assure this member and all Conservatives that nobody is more interested in preserving the content they create in this House than I am: the content that they give me to put out on social media. If I thought for one second that user-generated content would be impacted by this bill, I certainly would not be in favour of it.
I would like to point out to the member that there are several sections in this piece of legislation that explicitly preserve user-generated content: sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3(a), 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3(3).
I am curious. This is a simple question. Has the member read the bill, and he has read those sections in particular?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if the member actually listened to my speech, I referenced section 4.1 and section 2, because part of this bill is the same as the previous bill. It adds onto it, which does not actually help the issue. One of the primary issues that we had in the last Parliament with the bill was section 4.1. I alluded in my speech that there are sections of the bill that we would support, because there are good things in this bill.
Again, the member opposite wants to be the czar of the future ministry of truth, so it is not surprising that he would ask some questions without actually paying attention.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a great deal about the importance of dealing with disinformation. One of the ways to do that is through our local media, which is interested in what is happening in the community and reports on local events in a factual way. Local media is essential.
Back home in Quebec, these local, independent and community media outlets are calling for this bill. Obviously we must ensure that this bill can evolve because technology evolves quickly. We must ensure that this bill does enough to encourage our local, community and independent media.
I am proud to say that where I am from, there is a fine co‑operative, La Voix de l'Est, that has turned itself around. In addition, the radio station M105 is an example of co‑operative radio.
All these media outlets are calling on us to modernize this act. It is high time, since 1991 is starting to be a long time ago, as others mentioned.
Does my colleague recognize the important role that the local media plays in fighting disinformation?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, disinformation is going to be one of the biggest issues presently and going forward. We have all been bombarded with it a lot over the last number of years.
The member also touched on another very important piece. That was about the small papers, our local community papers and local groups that actually do real journalism. I think that is what we need to get back to. The problem I see with a lot of government legislation going forward is that the supports do not actually line up with supporting the small-town papers and small community papers. As we go forward, we are going to start to see more and more of those little papers be wiped off of the planet. It is going to be the big digital platforms, the CBC and others, that are going to be dominating the space and getting rid of all these other little pieces and maybe even a company like TikTok. She is absolutely right.
I think, though, that we have to find ways to better support those small papers and do better for them going forward.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has been very entertaining this afternoon. The Conservatives are saying that Canada is going to be turned into North Korea, and now my friend is saying that the Liberals are going to stop people from watching deck renovation videos.
I did agree with the hon. member about the need to fight for the fundamental rights of every Canadian and how governments control what people can do. I noticed that the cover of Le Journal de Montréal today had a picture of 39 Conservatives who are against the rights of women to make choices, and the member's picture is in there. I would like to ask him if that is disinformation, or if his—
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
