44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the Liberals' Internet regulation bill. This is an important bill, because it could have everlasting impacts on how every Canadian experiences the Internet.
Before we fully examine the details, it is critical to state why we are debating this legislation today. The reality is that I would not be standing here today to debate Bill C-11 if it were not for Bill C-10 in the 43rd Parliament. Canadians may recall that it was just last year when Parliament witnessed one of the most alarming pieces of legislation the Liberals had ever introduced since their election in 2015. Many Canadians viewed Bill C-10 as an attack on our freedom of speech, a measure of government overreach and a new means of censorship. I shared these valid concerns and strongly opposed Bill C-10 until the final hour on the final day.
Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor and expert in Internet policy, was one of the most outspoken opponents of Bill C-10. Parliament needs to remember his criticism of the previous legislation. He stated, in referring to Bill C-10, “No one – literally no other country – uses broadcast regulation to regulate user generated content in this way.”
Many members of this House voted against Bill C-10 at one o'clock in the morning, as the Liberals tried to ram it through Parliament with as little debate as possible. This is déjà vu. I was one of them. Thankfully, because of the hard work of Conservatives and Canadians, we defeated Bill C-10, so that it never had a chance to become law.
Bill C-10 died, but it has re-emerged as Bill C-11. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-11, the minister responsible for the legislation stated, “This is about making the Internet a better place for all Canadians.” It sounds grand. That statement should have been a red flag for every Canadian. We have heard this kind of language from the Liberal government before. The Liberals say, “Trust us. Everything will be okay.”
It was former president Ronald Reagan who famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'” It would be unwise for any member of this House to trust that the government has the best interests of Canadians top of mind, particularly on the issue of Internet regulation.
Bill C-11 is legislation that proposes to regulate the Internet. The government wants to influence what you see while browsing the web. It wants to push specific content to the top of our screens so we see it first. Consequently, this would move content down our screens, so we would see less of it. This is what the government really means when it says it wants to make content more discoverable.
The details of what content and how much the government will promote are unknown. This is because Bill C-11 would hand over this decision-making power to the government-appointed body called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or as most Canadians know it, the CRTC. The government claims that this is a way of promoting Canadian content, but I believe that if Canadians want to watch Canadian content, nothing is stopping them from doing so.
Why does the government need to reach into the Internet to pick and choose what Canadians discover? Canadians do not need assistance from the government in discovering what they see on the Internet. They are totally capable and free to discover the content they want to see.
The Internet is exceptionally vast in content. An immense amount of content is uploaded on the Internet daily. YouTubers alone upload over 700,000 hours of content every single day. I cannot stress how much content and how many content providers exist in Canada. How can a government body like the CRTC monitor all this content to determine if it meets the Liberal government's standards? It is impossible.
I want to discuss some of the technicalities of the legislation. Although clause 2 of the bill mentions who is not subject to the regulation, it does not address what content is subject to the regulation.
The government claims that user-generated content is exempted from this bill through proposed subsection 4.1(1). However, proposed subsection 4.1(2) creates an exemption for the previous exemption in proposed subsection 4.1(1) and allows the CRTC to determine who is subject to these exemptions. The bill is confusing, to say the least, and I sincerely question whether it was intentionally done this way.
OpenMedia, an organization that works to keep the Internet open and free, and an organization that I had the pleasure to work with on my private member's bill in the previous Parliament, has also raised many valid concerns. The bottom line is, as Michael Geist said, “The CRTC is empowered to create regulations applicable to user content uploaded to social media services as programs.”
Canadians will not fully know who or what is exempted from this bill because the Liberals have yet to announce their policy directive for the CRTC. The Liberals have told Canadians that this policy directive will be given to the CRTC after the bill becomes law, not before, which is suspicious. I think that parliamentarians and all Canadians deserve to know what the government is planning to direct the CRTC to regulate before Bill C-11 can become law.
I want to quote Dr. Irene Berkowitz, a senior policy fellow from Ryerson University. She stated:
The idea that the CRTC can – or should – regulate the global internet, in an age when market intervention should be sharply decreasing, is unworkable and counterproductive, falsely pitting the industry against itself.
I agree with her. Canadians do not want their government regulating the Internet. The government regulates and restricts enough as it is, especially the Liberal government.
Bill C-11 is a very concerning piece of legislation that opens the doors to government overreach. It will impact every Canadian who uses the Internet. Canadians expect their elected officials to study it carefully and debate it thoroughly. However, the Liberals are playing the same political games that they did with Bill C-10. They are limiting the time we can spend debating this important bill. Instead of debating this legislation through the standard parliamentary procedure, the Liberals are supporting a procedure called time allocation to stop debate. The fact that the Liberals would move time allocation while dozens of members of Parliament wish to speak on behalf of their constituents is simply unacceptable. How ironic: government overreach on a government overreach bill. It is sad.
Canadians are concerned any time the government wants to create more regulation. Any time the government wants to regulate what Canadians see or hear is even more concerning. The idea that the Liberals want to promote certain content to Canadians who use the Internet is disturbing. My constituents believe in less government, not more.
As I said earlier, Canadians do not need assistance from the government in discovering what they see on the Internet. They are capable and free to do so themselves. I will be opposing Bill C-11, just as I opposed Bill C-10.
1242 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there, but perhaps I will just stick to one point. At the beginning of his speech, the member talked about Bill C-10, and if I heard him correctly, he said, “Thankfully, Conservative MPs defeated the bill.” That is not what happened to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 actually passed this House and went to the Senate.
Is the member trying to take credit for the fact that it did not pass through Parliament? That is what he is trying to say. It just goes to the continued manufactured outrage that comes from Conservatives as though they have somehow saved Canadians from the injustices that the Liberal Party is trying to impose upon them just because of some grandiose thinking. The member is trying to take credit for the fact that the Senate was not able to deal with Bill C-10. It is remarkable.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that was more of a comment than a question. Here is my quote, “Thankfully, because of the hard work of Conservatives and Canadians, we defeated Bill C-10, so that it never had a chance to become law.”
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: That's not what happened.
Mr. Peter Julian: You're making it up. That's not what happened.
Mr. Dan Mazier: What happened? There was an election called, so the bill got done. There we go, by their own Prime Minister. That is what happened. They killed their own bill. That is even better.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think my Conservative friends hate culture.
I think they do not like culture, that they do not like our artists. It is true. At the ADISQ gala two years ago, Pierre Lapointe revealed something that drew a lot of attention. He said that he had been paid $500 for the song Je déteste ma vie, which got a million plays on Spotify. Pierre Lapointe is a huge artist. We have plenty of artists in Quebec, including Ariane Moffatt, les Cowboys fringants, and Coeur de pirate, who make videos, broadcast songs on Spotify and do very well. Our Conservative friends think that this bill is just for losers, but that is not true. It is there to fund Quebec's great artists who cannot get paid in the system the way it is set up right now.
When will our Conservative friends understand that?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think we understand that we look far beyond Quebec. I think we have to remember that this is a bill for all of Canada.
I would ask the member to consider this for a minute. Can he imagine if Quebec artists said they had great songs or great movies and the CRTC said they do not quite meet the Canadian content? How would he feel about that? We do not know. That is the problem. The government has not supplied the directive to the CRTC yet, and that is the biggest problem with this bill.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I was struck by a question the member asked, and here is my question for him: What is stopping Canadians from watching indigenous online streaming services like IsumaTV? The answer is, American streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+. Does the member truly believe that without this bill Isuma will ever achieve the fair Canadian audiences it deserves?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is questions like this that we need to debate more to have a clear understanding of what this bill is going to do to the future of the Internet, and introducing closure does not help that situation.
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I had a few questions for my colleague, and I even had the lyrics of the Pierre Lapointe song, Je déteste ma vie, running through my head, although I do not hate my life today, since we are talking about this bill. It is an honour to talk about it.
Having been a musician, creator and singer myself, I would like to inform my colleague opposite that I have had the opportunity to perform on the Internet without having to pay anything, since anyone can post a video on YouTube, for example. This is not included in the bill, and it allows everyone these days to be creative and share our amateur talents without being mortgaged to the hilt, without having to pay anything.
It is important for me to discuss Bill C-11 and how best to support original French-language content and production.
I respectfully acknowledge the Anishinabe people as I join my colleagues in the national capital region, which is located on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. I realize that we all work in different places and that some people, including those who are watching at home, might therefore be joining us today from the traditional territory of another nation.
As we all know, this bill responds to the urgent need for legislation that updates the Canadian broadcasting system for the era of online streaming. The last major reform of the Broadcasting Act was over three decades ago, which is more than one generation. Simply put, our legislative framework needs to be reviewed because it does not reflect new technologies and the realities of today's digital world.
For decades, only traditional broadcasting services such as radio, television and cable had requirements to meet under our system. We are a far cry from the days of the old CDs and cassettes we listened to in the car. We bought CDs and recorded off them at home, but we paid royalties every time we went to the record store, which meant we were supporting our artists.
In those days, our artists were paid every time we purchased content. Nowadays, they alone are funding Canadian content, even though the world has changed and the industry has evolved a great deal in terms of its product offering and capabilities. We can no longer ignore the reality, and the government cannot sit idly by in this situation.
Our bill will ensure that all broadcasting services, including both the traditional ones and the online ones like Netflix, Crave and Spotify, contribute appropriately to Canada's creative industries. We believe and recognize that the contributions made by these online services will be important for supporting a large number of Canadian creators and artists. Francophones, Canadians from francophone communities and anglophone minority communities will benefit.
This bill is proof of our government's commitment to and support for francophone communities, and this bill's impact will be felt in the arts, culture and innovation sectors. The government plans to continue bolstering French-language productions. The CRTC already has a very strong regulatory framework in place for traditional broadcasters, requiring them to contribute to and promote francophone creators and French-language content.
The government expects online broadcasters to abide by these same requirements, which is what this bill would do. The online streaming act would give the CRTC new powers to more effectively oversee French-language content production and to protect the promotion and availability of this content on these platforms.
In spite of existing safeguards, there is not enough access to content in French through dubbing and subtitles. The content that does exist does not fully meet the needs of francophones who want to see their history, their culture and their identities on the screen. We have francophone talent in Canada and it must be showcased. Producing original French-language content that reflects the realities and needs of francophones should be a priority for all broadcasters, and that applies to online broadcasters as well.
These days, we listen to music using very different platforms from those that existed back when the Broadcasting Act was passed, and then updated in 1991, which is when I got my first car. It had a tape deck.
With the emergence of online streaming services such as Apple Music and Amazon Prime, French-language content is now in a worrisome situation considering the competition from foreign offerings, which are mostly in English. The car I just bought has an interactive display, but nowhere to insert a CD or a cassette. The music I play in my car is provided by network programming. However, francophone Canadian artists are not well represented among the most popular artists in Canada on digital music platforms.
Another reality that should not be ignored is the fact that investments in and budgets for English-language film and video productions have continued to rise in recent years. It is estimated that this year, streaming giants will invest $125 billion in films, series, and dramas worldwide. We must ensure that an appropriate proportion of this spending is allocated to original French-language productions. We must act quickly.
To resolve the problem, we added significant objectives for producing and broadcasting original French-language programming, not just translated content. They must work in French, produce in French and broadcast in French. We also strengthened the mandate of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to recognize all the needs of Canada's francophone community.
Bill C‑11 expressly states that our broadcasting system must support the production and broadcasting of original programs in French. It also requires the CRTC to facilitate the provision of programs created and produced in French. That will make it clear to all broadcasters operating in Canada that the needs and interests of francophones are of paramount importance in this bill.
To make it even clearer, the bill gives the CRTC the power to impose conditions of service, including conditions respecting the proportion of original French-language programs, especially first-run programs. In addition, the CRTC will have the power to make regulations on expenditures to be made by broadcasters, including online services. In the specific case of broadcasters that offer programs in both French and English, such as Netflix or Crave, the CRTC will be able to prescribe the minimum share of expenditures that are to be allocated to Canadian original French-language programming.
By including these flexible mechanisms in the act, we are ensuring that programming and spending proportions can adjust to a changing society and the needs of francophones now and in the future. This way, we avoid forcing lawmakers to amend a number in the act as well as the possibility that the proportion could soon become a ceiling. In short, the government is taking the initiative to protect original French-language content and production for years to come. With input from public consultations, the CRTC has the resources and expertise to examine and be informed by the research and diverse stakeholder perspectives as it strives to ensure the regulations remain effective and relevant.
In conclusion, hon. colleagues, we all know it is time to restore balance to the broadcasting sector and implement the regulatory mechanisms that will ensure a flexible, diverse and inclusive broadcasting system.
Let us go ahead with Bill C‑11.
1228 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that we are engaged in time allocation on what is a very important bill on censorship, the irony is not lost on me that the government is censoring members of Parliament from speaking to this bill.
I look forward to this going to committee, because the witnesses we are going to get, I suspect, will speak mainly against this bill, including Dr. Michael Geist, who is the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. He said:
Indeed, for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”.
I know the member for Perth—Wellington spoke about what guidelines the CRTC is going to receive. Why is the government not tabling those guidelines to Parliament so that we can understand and, in fact, Canadians can understand better what the direction of the CRTC will be from the government after this bill is passed, which is ridiculous?
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
The Conservatives are using this bill as a bit of an opportunity to spread misinformation. What they are saying is false. People will still be able to post their content on social media.
They will be able to do what I did during the pandemic. I created a YouTube channel to sing to isolated seniors. On Monday and Wednesday evenings, I sang to entertain them. Seniors could choose songs from my repertoire, which I would then practice and sing to them. Nothing can stop me from continuing this. I was free to do that, and everyone will continue to be free to do that kind of thing. What the Conservatives are saying is misinformation.
We want to take on the web giants to give back to artists. The Conservatives do not agree with that, because they want to support the web giants and give them free rein on the Internet.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation on his speech.
It was a great pleasure to listen to him talk about improvements that have been made to Bill C‑10, including on the discoverability of content and on developing francophone content. I heard him talk more about francophone, Quebec and Canadian content also. Of course, it was the Bloc Québécois that really pushed for these improvements.
He also talked about another very interesting fact: the specific requirement to create original French‑language content, in other words content produced in French, not translated content.
I was listening to my colleague's speech and I wanted to know whether he realizes that he could almost be a Bloc member. He would just have to change his repertoire on Wednesday afternoons and I think we could get him to cross the floor.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for his question.
I can assure him that there is no one more Liberal than I am, but there is no one more Québécois than I am either. I am an ardent defender of French. I have many friends in my riding who are Bloc supporters. I am very comfortable in this seat.
When I read this bill and I saw that a francophone could create francophone content, deliver francophone content and be paid for francophone content, I thought to myself that we could not ask for better for a Quebecker.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to wish the House leader of the official opposition a very happy birthday. We are glad he is with us today in this debate right until midnight. That is quite a way to celebrate a birthday.
I wanted to ask my colleague a question.
The web giants are making record profits, crazy profits even. Musicians, however, lost $3 billion during the pandemic. In general, Canadian musicians lost almost 80% of their income. On the one hand, we have web giants making huge profits, and, on the other, we have musicians and other Canadian artists who create content getting peanuts.
What does this bill do to balance out the situation?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat some of what I said in my speech.
Back when I was a saxophone player and we were recording music, the money went to the orchestras, creators and musicians. Whether the music was recorded on an eight-track tape, a four-track tape or vinyl, we had a basic income.
What we want to do is revise this act, which has not been updated since 1991, by adapting to the new formula. This means taking the money that web giants earn through social media, without touching the content of ordinary Canadians, and using it to give artists their due and to ensure that Canadian francophone and anglophone artists are treated equitably. We want to give the music, arts and cultural community what it is owed.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, obviously Bill C-11, the online streaming act, is a very important issue to talk about today, and I look forward to outlining my thoughts about the bill, and more specifically, some of the concerns I personally have with this particular piece of legislation.
However, if the Speaker will permit me, I want to first begin my remarks by addressing a very urgent and rapidly evolving situation in the Kenora riding. There are many floods across the Kenora riding right now. In fact, Highway 105 and Highway 599 are completely closed off, meaning residents of multiple communities have no way of leaving the community for perhaps urgent medical appointments or other essential trips.
There have been multiple states of emergency called by municipalities across my riding, and the Trans-Canada Highway itself, the only corridor east to west through the country, is actually now at risk of being completely blocked. It is “passable” right now, according to the Ministry of Transportation. However, the actual current detour is going over a Bailey bridge, which cannot support the weight of a transport truck. There is certainly a very urgent situation evolving there.
I am pleased to say I did speak with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness today. He is well briefed on the situation and standing by to provide assistance should it be called upon. I want to assure all members of the House and all my constituents back home in the Kenora riding that this is a top priority, and I will continue to stay in touch with the minister on this to ensure the proper supports are in place. I want to thank the Minister of Emergency Preparedness for his work so far. I appreciate the opportunity to make note of that here this evening.
I will get back to the debate we are having on Bill C-11. In general, I certainly would support creating a more even playing field for Canadian content creators, especially up against many large foreign streaming services. However, this bill, as I am sure has been alluded to by many of my colleagues tonight, is almost an exact replica of the previous parliament's Bill C-10.
I am sure the Speaker will remember Bill C-10, and I can see she does remember it quite well. Obviously there has been a lot of criticism, and not only from members of the opposition here in the chamber but also from folks outside of the chamber, such as experts and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They raised concerns about that bill and are now raising those same concerns about this bill.
I am hearing that at home in the Kenora riding. Given the current situation, it is not necessarily a top-of-mind issue at this very moment, but it is something many people had been raising to me over the last year, particularly since Bill C-11 was brought back in this new Parliament. I share a lot of the concerns my constituents have brought forward, and that is what I would like to outline in my comments today.
As my esteemed colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, who is here on his birthday, noted not too long ago, through the bill, the government would be giving the CRTC more power without telling Canadians exactly what it plans to do with that power. The minister noted he plans to issue a policy directive after the bill becomes law. That is problematic because in the chamber, we need to know what we are voting on. Canadians need to know what this bill is going to be ahead of time. The lack of transparency is certainly a cause for concern for many of us, myself included.
The bill would also give the CRTC the power to regulate any content that generates revenue “directly or indirectly”, which means virtually any content on the Internet could be regulated, despite the government members claiming that the bill would exempt user-generated content.
If we look back to Bill C-10 and the new iteration, Bill C-11, something that is a major cause for concern for a lot of people is that government overreach and the potential censorship that would come into play when the government would potentially be regulating all of that content. We need some transparency from the government on that.
Through this bill, the government would also get the power, if it becomes law, to boost the content it wants Canadians to see. Again, this is a very dangerous precedent to set in government overreach over what Canadians see privately on their social media and on other sites.
Unfortunately, I have a long list of concerns with this bill, but I would like to take a step back and talk about the scope of this bill. The government is talking about supporting Canadian content creators and promoting Canadian culture and heritage, and that is great, but what we are seeing in the bill is a number of measures that seem to be targeted at specific Canadians, and the regulation of what Canadians see and post on social media.
I can assure members that, if it were a Conservative government proposing a bill such as this, the Liberals would have a very different take on this legislation. Frankly, I am sure we would hear some very strong language coming from Liberal members. However, when they are doing it themselves, of course they do not see a problem.
Another question raised to me by many in my riding is, “What is Canadian content?” There is certainly a very important discussion around that, but not a lot of clarity. There are questions of whether it is Canadian content if something is made in Canada, if a Canadian contributed to it, or if a Canadian wrote something but was not actually a part of it after that. There are a lot of questions as to what Canadian content is. The government is planning to put a commission in place to determine that, but without proper debate and discussion around that beforehand, it does remain a major question mark.
Experts have said that this bill has “limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope, and harmful discoverability provisions.” When we are hearing this type of language, and not from parliamentarians but from experts in the field, it is really important that we pause and take a step back to reflect on that. Above all else, when we are talking about Bill C-11, it is important that we have a wholesome debate on that.
I know we are doing our due diligence as the official opposition to review the bill. Obviously we have some concerns with it. We want to review the bill, and hopefully bring forward some reasonable amendments to improve it. However, my concern is that we saw the government move closure on this legislation, which is quite detrimental to the debate. There are a lot of members who want to be able to speak on this and share their concerns and ideas. Having a limit on debate, moving closure and not allowing members to speak to this does a disservice to all Canadians because their views are not being properly represented in this place.
The member for Barrie—Innisfil, and once again he is being featured in my speech today, noted that this is a bill that has many concerns around the potential censorship of Canadians on social media. Now we have a Liberal government that is actually moving closure and limiting debate on this censorship bill. It cannot get more hypocritical than that.
The last thought I want to leave the House with today is that there are certainly some important measures or goals set out in this bill. There is no doubt that promoting Canadian content and ensuring Canadian communities are represented in our content is important, but Bill C-11, just like the previous Parliament's Bill C-10 does not appear to be much more than the Liberal government single-handedly deciding which content Canadians should or should not see. That is a cause of concern for me and for many in the Kenora riding, and I believe for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
1381 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague said that what scares him about this bill is the CRTC's new powers.
The Conservatives quoted experts who think there might actually be no need for legislation to accomplish the goal of boosting the discoverability of francophone and Canadian content.
I would like my colleague to help me understand exactly which of the CRTC's new powers are a problem for the Conservatives.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the question gives me the opportunity to reiterate what I said in my comments. Giving sweeping new powers to the CRTC without any indication of what those powers will be and how they will be used is a cause for concern. The hon. member mentioned the experts. The experts have said that this bill has “limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope”. I cannot say it any better than that.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I know that the member for Kenora has a huge indigenous population in his riding.
I would like to ask about the sections of this bill regarding indigenous people. One says, for example, “provide opportunities to Indigenous persons to produce programming in Indigenous languages, English or French, or in any combination of them, and to carry on broadcasting undertakings”. Does the member consider sections such as these censorship?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I certainly would not consider that censorship. As I mentioned off the top, there are some very important goals set out in Bill C-11 and some important aspects of it in terms of promoting Canadian content. I know from my constituents, particularly those in the remote northern first nations of my riding, which I know are still further south than the member's, but northern as far as Ontario goes, that culture is so important, especially in the remote, isolated communities, and anything we can do to promote that and to ensure that traditional languages and practices are preserved is definitely very important.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his measured tone. I may not have agreed with everything he shared, but I do appreciate the tone he shared it in.
My question is with respect to making sense of the user-generated content provisions of the bill. My understanding of proposed subsection 4.2(2) is that it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, which would ideally cut out concerns with respect to a parent who might be posting videos on Facebook, for example.
I am looking to better understand the member's concern with respect to user-generated content. He used the term “censorship”. If it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, does that not address the concern?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
