SoVote

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

May/11/22 6:46:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I would like to note that I really appreciate my hon. colleague's wonderful radio voice. I have to pick up on the comment by the previous speaker, my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party. I appreciate much of what was said, but I think the analogy between a radio station in the 1980s is not a completely apt metaphor for the Internet today. The average radio station listener could not add to the content or participate in generating content on the radio station. It was a one-way platform, whereas the Internet is something the public meaningfully participates in. I am interested in my hon. colleague's comments on that. More particularly, I have constituents who are concerned that there would be an attempt by the government to regulate and cause broadcasters, in this case online providers, to remove content that is deemed hateful: in other words, that requires a subjective determination. They are worried that this may lead to censorship of the Internet. I am curious about my hon. colleague's thoughts on that. Is he concerned that Bill C-11 may lead to that consequence?

190 words

Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

May/11/22 7:02:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I want to quote a few key sections of this bill for my hon. colleague. In the bill, proposed subsection 2(2.1) says: A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service — and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act. Proposed subsection 2(2.2) reads, “An online undertaking that provides a social media service does not, for the purposes of this Act, exercise programming control over programs uploaded by a user of the service”. Finally, proposed subsection 2(3) of the act reads: This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with (a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings; I just wonder what my hon. colleague's take on those is. Does she not feel that they make it clear that users of the Internet are not covered as broadcasters and that the changes to the act would be consistent with the concept of freedom of expression?

219 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

May/11/22 7:28:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, in the House, we all share the idea that we want to make sure Canadian content is protected in this country. We want to make sure that Canada's linguistic duality is supported. We want to make sure that the big Internet companies pay their fair share and that they are regulated properly. The member must have heard from constituents who are concerned that the attempt to regulate the Internet may negatively impact people's ability to freely access the Internet and post what they want. I am curious about what the feeling in Quebec is and whether or not her constituents are expressing that concern.

108 words

Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

May/11/22 8:59:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have repeatedly said that the bill regulates the platform, not content or users. However, proposed section 4.2 says that the CRTC can create regulations that treat content uploaded to social media services as programs to be regulated by considering three factors: one, whether the program that is uploaded might cause direct or indirect revenue generation; two, if the program has been broadcast by an undertaking that is either licensed or registered with the CRTC; and three, if the program has been assigned a unique identifier under a standard system. The law does not tell the CRTC how to weigh those factors, but the bottom line is that this might apply. Michael Geist has said, “TikTok videos that are uploaded to the service may generate indirect revenue. That content is available on licensed services and the music has a unique identifier. The same is true for many YouTube or Instagram videos.” What is my hon. colleague's response to that concern that proposed section 4.2 does permit in at least certain circumstances the regulation of content?

183 words

All Topics