44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, there are two comments that stood out in that speech.
At one point, the member referenced that the bill would not control what people would say, but would only open the door for more Canadian content. In other words, that is the government, through this bill, controlling what people would see on the Internet, even if it is more Canadian content. The member might agree that seeing more Canadian content online is good, but again that is the algorithms taking away choice and determining what Canadians will actually see and be pointed to in their viewing activities on the Internet.
Second, I believe that during the committee hearings, Mr. Scott, the head of the CRTC, stated in reference to section 4.2 that this bill “allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.” How does the member square what the CRTC is already saying about this bill with his words today here in the House?
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I am going to give him a break from questions about censorship and the CRTC's control over the Internet, if Bill C-11—
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, talk about seeing something that is just not there. I think conspiracy theory 101 is the lesson from the other side here. What Bill C-11 is all about is fairly straightforward. It is the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. It is as simple as that. Maybe the Conservatives get a gold star nowadays if they mention the word “freedom” in their speeches. I do not know where the member is getting the information from.
If the member wants to be consistent with what he said, does that mean the Conservative Party of Canada's new approach to the CRTC is to get rid of it? Are they saying the CRTC regulations should not be applied to other media streams? Is that what the Conservative Party's position is today?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Banff—Airdrie for his opinion of the direction the government has given to the CRTC to implement Bill C-11. What does he think of the direction? I have not seen it.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member says freedoms are potentially always there. My concern is the fact that there are algorithms now that the CRTC is going to be using for whether or not the freedom of presentation of user content or generated content could potentially be censored. Other countries have tried something like this, and there is 80% to 85% censorship. That should never have been censored, because there is an algorithm that is determining whether or not something is censored.
Is the member concerned at all that by using an algorithm, there will be censorship?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the source of all the disinformation. There is absolutely no interference in the coding of algorithms. There is even a clause that states that the CRTC cannot require the use of algorithms.
In short, the purpose is to create performance objectives. How will that be accomplished? It will be up to the businesses to explain that to the CRTC. The CRTC will then give them the green light, provided that it is shown the results. No one will tell these businesses to change their algorithms to include Canadian content or other content, or that such content will be prohibited based on algorithms. That is simply not true. That concept simply does not exist.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when it comes to Bill C‑11, it feels like Halloween. Some members tried to scare people. They disguised themselves and it was just awful.
My colleague is absolutely right. The concept of discoverability is very important. We see that with the new digital broadcasters. There are algorithms that more or less decide what we see on the page when we open the app or the site. YouTube is perhaps the best example of that.
If the song, video or show is not available or easily found by the person who uses Netflix or Disney+, this Quebec or francophone culture will not be consumed. Rules are needed, and it will be important for the CRTC to be clear in its directives to ensure that Quebec and Canadian works are visible and relatively easy to find when the person goes to the digital broadcaster's site. If not, if those works end up 158th on the list, no one will ever see them and that will not advance Quebec or Canadian culture.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to be interrupted with a quorum call. Many people working throughout the day often go to the MP lobby to get something to eat. I suspect we will find that on all sides of the House. It does not mean there is a lack of interest in what is taking place. The lobby is just through the door.
I want to pick up on the point that things have changed. Back in the nineties, the Internet started to speed up in a very significant way. There was nothing called Netflix when I was first elected. When we look at the speed that is required to have the type of streaming we have today, it was not even being imagined by most people back then. That was the time we last saw the modernization of Canada's Broadcasting Act.
Most Canadians understand and appreciate why it is important to have the CRTC, for example. Based on some of the arguments put forward by the Conservatives today, I am beginning to think they would get rid of the CRTC if they were put in government. That is just based on some of the comments they have put on the record. However, if we reflect on the important role that the CRTC has played in Canadian society, it is really—
223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the legislation enables the CRTC and the government to ensure that those who are streaming are contributing to the development of the industry here in Canada. It is not necessarily to say that those programs would never have stood a chance, but let us recognize that having things such as the CRTC greatly enhances the opportunity for artists all over our country to have future prospects and encourages more Canadian content to support minorities. Whether it is in our multicultural communities or indigenous communities, it provides for Canadians to tell our stories more than we could without the legislation. That is something that I suspect the member who posed the question could not deny.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, web giants are going to be using every possible loophole to circumvent our tax rolls and circumvent the requirement to fund Canadian cultural content. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to ensure the bill does not contain any loopholes. In the interest of transparency, is the government going to make public the instructions to the CRTC to ensure the web giants fulfill their obligations of making Canadian content discoverable and disclosing their financial information to contribute to the development of our cultural content?
When does the government plan to send and disclose these instructions?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.
As members have heard through our debates over the last few weeks, Bill C-11 will set the stage for the federal government to have unfettered control in regulating what Canadians see on the Internet.
This expansion of the regulatory authority of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, better known as the CRTC, to all audiovisual content on the Internet is a radical and sweeping move that really raises concerns around accountability, government overreach and the protection of individual rights and freedoms in this country.
I want to be clear: Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. It is a fundamental change in the way we do broadcasting in Canada or what is considered broadcasting. The very idea that the government intends to introduce licencing of the Internet in the same way that radio and television are licenced in Canada ultimately means that creators must obtain speech by permission from the government.
From the very beginning, Conservatives have been opposing the ideological agenda of this inflexible and regressive legislation. We have now and always will stand up for our arts and culture sectors, and now especially it is important for us to make sure that we are standing up for our digital-first creators, who are facing a lot of uncertainty about their livelihoods.
Many of these witnesses were not able to heard from in committee because of an arbitrary timeline that was set by the government. This is not just targeting so-called digital giants such as legacy news media, Google or Facebook. In 2022, anyone with a cell phone can be a creator and have an audience on the World Wide Web.
While the heritage minister has misleadingly claimed that Bill C-11 is about creators and about making more Canadian content available, and that it would actually even the playing field, what we have discovered in committee is that this is not true. If Canadians want to watch our world-class Canadian content, there is absolutely nothing stopping them, so there is no need for specific content to be spoon fed to us. If passed, Bill C-11 would not create an even playing field for our Canadian content creators. Instead, it would allow a government body to close off certain creators for the benefit of a select few, essentially hand-picking winners and losers. That is something that, on this side of the House, we disagree with.
In its current form, Bill C-11 does not protect individual online content creators. Instead, it burdens them with an abundance of draconian rules and regulations that they are ill-equipped and underfinanced to engage with. The regulations are through the roof.
While the NDP-Liberal government claims that there is now an exemption for user-generated content, this bill gives the CRTC the power to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That means that non-commercial, user-generated content, like picking up a cell phone and creating a video, could create indirect revenue, which would then fall under the purview of the CRTC.
Artists, independent content creators and experts alike have all been raising alarm bells about the impact of these changes. I think it is really important to read some of the testimony that we heard at the heritage committee, such as what we heard from Oorbee Roy. She said:
Not only does this bill not help me. It also hurts me and actively undermines my needs as an artist. There's no language in the bill to tell me otherwise.
Frankly, I don't qualify. I'm just not the right fit....
I literally have never gotten a seat at the table—except now, as a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters.... Please don't suppress my voice.
I read this into the record because I think it is very important to make sure we understand that this digital space is still fairly new, so trying to over-regulate it, which is exactly what Bill C-11 does, could have long-lasting impacts.
It is important to highlight the fact that it expands the role of the CRTC to allow it to impose new regulations on platforms such as TikTok, Facebook and YouTube, and whatever new platform has not even been created yet. These changes do not have to be passed through Parliament. These regulations will impact all Canadians who use online content, but there is no power for us, as parliamentarians, to make decisions on this. It leaves questions as to what is going on.
I think the best way to continue to showcase the amazing contributions of Canadian creators is to safeguard the protection of their freedom of expression. We have to enshrine the right of a Canadian to express their opinions, create content and speak freely so our rich Canadian culture is accessible to all. Frankly, without this in place, I have no trouble finding Canadian content on the World Wide Web, and I think that is something that is really important. We have an amazing set of artists who get out there.
One of the big pieces, after spending many hours in the heritage committee listening to amendments being debated, is that we failed to see any movement from the government on having a real conversation. We were voting on amendment after amendment, not even reading those amendments into the record. There was no idea of what we were debating most of the time, other than for those of us who had our package in front of us. Anyone who was following at home were completely out of luck. They did not even know what we were discussing. That is not the transparency that Canadians request from their parliamentarians. This is not the level of debate we should be having in the House.
I understand that members opposite will say that, “Oh, this is because the Conservatives were filibustering.” We were raising valid concerns that had been brought to our attention. There are tons of witnesses who want to present on this very important topic who have been silenced by the government, the NDP-Liberal coalition. There are people who want to make this the best possible legislation that it can be.
Quite frankly, I do not believe that we are at the best. I think that it is incumbent on each and every one of us parliamentarians to send the bill back to committee because, ultimately, we can do better, and we must do better. Just because something is difficult, just because we have an arbitrary timeline because the government really wants to get it passed by the summer, does not necessarily mean that is what we should do.
The Liberals dragged their feet on the previous iteration of the bill and let it die on the Order Paper when they called an unnecessary election last fall. The fact is that somehow this is now a priority for them, and they are trying to ram it through Parliament, rather than have a serious conversation and inviting digital-first creators to have some dialogue to make sure these changes we are making are actually going to benefit the sector and benefit Canadians. Ultimately, is it going to be something we will be proud of?
I am quite concerned that what we are doing is actually changing what Canadians will see online without any debate, completely behind closed doors, and it has been very clear from the expert testimony that the bill would allow the CRTC to regulate user-generated content. That is why, through a series of vital amendments, the Conservatives tried, we really did try to work with members opposite, to fix the bill.
I get it that the members opposite like to say, “The big bad Conservatives don't support artists, and they don't support creators.” That is not true. As someone who grew up dancing, singing and in a band, I understand that there are a lot of needs of artists. I understand very clearly that this is something that is so important, but we have to do it right. We have to do the right thing for the right reasons, otherwise it is not right, and this is not being done for the right reasons at the right time in the right space.
I would urge all members to simply take the bill back to committee to allow us to have some meaningful conversation and debate on these amendments. At a very minimum, could we read the amendments into the record, so all members and everyone who was listening at home could at least know what we are discussing prior to us doing it? Also, there were errors when it came to translation. They were fixing the fact that the translation in the original bill was incorrect. That is how rushed the bill was. Not even the translation was accurate. That is just another example as to why we need to slow this down and send the bill back to committee to ensure that we have an opportunity to provide Canadians, especially those who create user-generated content, with the best possible bill.
1562 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, does the member not realize that the Conservative Party, for hours and hours, whether in second reading or in committee, went out of its way to try to kill the bill? The Conservatives do not like the legislation, so they brought in a huge number of amendments to the legislation as a way to, again, prevent the legislation from passing. Then this particular member stands up and effectively said, “We just want to make a few amendments to it, and then we'll pass it. We can make it a better piece of legislation.”
It seems to me that the member is maybe not even consistent with some of the remarks from some of her colleagues today. The amendment is to kill the bill. The Conservative Party does not support this bill.
I would ask the member this: Does she support the CRTC?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member about the CRTC. We know that Bill C-11 would give sweeping new powers to the CRTC. We have heard that the government is not willing to disclose the policy directive for the CRTC. Is it not concerning to the member that we would give the CRTC these new powers without actually knowing what its mandate is going to be and what the policy directive will be?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of concerns about the CRTC. I used to appear as an administrative lawyer in front of the CRTC, a gazillion years ago, on things like the Bell Canada review of revenue requirements when we were breaking up Ma Bell. I was a lawyer with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and was before the CRTC quite a lot.
That policy directive should be public. One of the things the CRTC did in recent years, which I find very concerning, was deciding that Russia Today was appropriate content and available to be packaged on cable channels. That never should have happened.
We need to keep the pressure up to say that we need to see, from the government, the directive to the CRTC, and we need more transparency from the CRTC.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Bill C-11 is yet another attempt by the Liberals to regulate what Canadians can say and see on the Internet by granting unprecedented powers to the CRTC with, importantly, no clear guidelines or limits on how that power would be used.
The minister has made many claims about Bill C-11. He says that it would protect Canadian identity and culture, that it would help promote diversity and marginalized groups in Canada, and that it would tell Canada's story to the world. These objectives are commendable, but the big problem is that Bill C-11 would actually accomplish none of them. Instead, it would threaten the viability of Canadian digital content creators, stifle innovation and grant unprecedented new powers to the CRTC to dictate what Canadians can read, what they can listen to, and what they can say and see on the Internet.
Like its predecessor, Bill C-10, Bill C-11 is not about promoting Canadian content. It is really about censoring views and ideas that the Liberal government does not like, all under the auspices of strengthening Canadian culture. The bill's so-called discoverability provisions would essentially push content in front of Canadians, if that content is considered Canadian enough, whether people want to see it or not. If it fails to pass the government's definition of “Canadian”, it would be pushed down in the queue where it cannot be found. The CRTC would essentially decide which content creators succeed, what content Canadians see and what content Canadians do not see. The minister has recently declared that he alone would develop rules on what content is defined as Canadian. That is a pretty shocking revelation, that he considers himself the single arbiter of national identity.
This is especially disconcerting since the NDP-Liberal government is also currently developing an online harms bill, which has been so shrouded in secrecy that only recently an access to information request uncovered thousands of pages of negative comments by stakeholders. Critics warned that the original Liberal government plan would amount to censorship. I understand that a new proposal is now being put forward, given all the criticism. It would apparently place the onus on digital platforms to deal with harmful content. Based on the Liberals' track record, no one should believe that this proposal would pose less of a threat to individual liberties than their other ideas. I am not sure how they would tackle real online harms, such as non-consensual or child sexual abuse material, which is often not enforced through platforms right now.
On Bill C-11, thousands of Canadian artists, content creators and policy experts have voiced extreme opposition. They point out that pushing content to viewers who are not interested in it would actually harm Canadian creators, because the algorithms will penalize content that viewers do not interact with.
Justin Tomchuk, a Canadian producer who operates two very successful YouTube channels, noted, “Our channels have highlighted Canadian products for the world to see and purchase. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would make that more difficult and potentially destroy our visibility internationally.”
Dr. Irene Berkowitz, a senior policy fellow at the Toronto Metropolitan University’s Audience Lab, also testified at committee, and Matt Hatfield said that it's “very risky for a small country like Canada to encourage this kind of model of prioritizing our own content. The benefits are pretty meagre if we make it work for our local content. The risk, if a larger country like France were to do the same thing, is enormous to us.”
Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, said:
Bill C-11 is...a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad. It mistakes platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Facebook for broadcasters like the CBC, Netflix and Amazon Prime. It doesn't understand how those platforms operate, and it ignores the fundamental importance of global discoverability.
Those same points echo around the Canadian arts scene. Scott Benzie, the managing director of Digital First Canada, which advocates for digital content creators, said, “Most concerning about C-11 is that there is still room in the bill for the government to force platforms to put 'approved' Canadian content ahead of independent Canadian content and artificially manipulate the algorithms. Even in the best-case scenario this bill only has downsides for digital-first creators, while the traditional media industry gets their funding doubled.”
The reality is that traditional broadcasters like the CBC would receive more funding under Bill C-11, while independent innovators driving Canadian digital leadership will be left behind. Not only will Bill C-11 not promote Canadian digital content or strengthen Canadian culture, but its discoverability provisions will stifle innovation and impose severe restrictions on what content Canadians can access.
During committee hearings, the campaigns director of advocacy group OpenMedia, Matt Hatfield, said, “Manipulating our search results and feeds to feature content that the government prefers instead of other content is gross paternalism that doesn't belong in a democratic society.”
There really is no better definition of “censorship” than what the Liberal government is trying to do in Bill C-11. Censorship is at its very core. The Liberals even used censorship to cut off debate and ram through an unprecedented 150 amendments to the bill with no discussion or explanation. Over the last two weeks, the Liberals have effectively censored their own censorship bill.
Canadians will remember the fiasco of Bill C-10, which the Liberals introduced last year. Under Bill C-10, people's everyday expressions, which could include pictures, audio and video, would have been magically turned into broadcasting programs when transmitted by third parties like social media firms over the Internet, unless the CRTC or a cabinet policy directive said otherwise. Almost any individual-generated content would become subject to regulation. That is why Internet law expert Michael Geist called Bill C-10 an unconscionable attack on the online free expression of Canadians. As the Liberals stifled debate and used tactics like closure on Bill C-10, Conservatives did propose amendments to protect individual users and smaller players in the market by exempting streaming services and social media users with lower revenues, but the Liberals rejected that common-sense compromise.
Now the minister claims that this new bill, Bill C-11, addresses the concerns about Bill C-10 and that Canadians can be assured that regulating user-generated content on the Internet is now off the table, but that is just not true. In fact, when asked at committee hearings about whether Bill C-11 includes the potential for regulating user content, the CRTC chair, Ian Scott, acknowledged, “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required”.
The Liberals have tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with Bill C-11 by apparently reintroducing some original safeguards, while at the same time introducing a new provision that effectively negates the safeguards. I think we all agree with the goal of updating Canada's Broadcasting Act and bringing it in line with the realities of the 21st century. Conservatives have said repeatedly that we support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, but Conservatives believe we can achieve that reform while also protecting individual rights and without turning the CRTC into an all-powerful censure board with almost no limits to its regulatory authority.
Should Canadians entrust the Prime Minister and the government with the power to regulate what Canadians say and see? Let us look at their track record. There have been many examples of this particular Prime Minister cracking down on those with whom he disagrees, from former senior ministers who defended the principle of judicial independence, like the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, to denigrating and demeaning fellow Canadians who want their freedom back and to end federal mandates, and helping perpetuate misinformation and fake news about them, their motives and their actions. The Prime Minister has actually called Canadians who disagree with him un-Canadian. Therefore, is it any wonder that Canadians would be skeptical about his plans for the cabinet appointments who will define Canadian content for regulation?
This penchant for using the unbridled power of the state against the individual Canadians is embodied in Bill C-11 and in coming legislation the Liberals will claim is necessary. However, stakeholder groups that have been involved in consultations so far have called the Liberals' proposals dangerous, with the possibility of expanding the powers of regulators over time and significantly impacting the free expression and privacy rights of Canadians.
My constituents are clear about their views on the Liberal government's heavy-handed attempts to regulate and control what Canadians are allowed to say and see on the Internet. They have told me they do not agree with the Liberal government's censorship measures. No government agency responsible for broadcasting in a free and democratic society should have the kinds of powers and unchecked discretion as are proposed in Bill C-11. Canadians have fought and died to defend rights to freedom of thought and expression. In a society that cherishes these values, Bill C-11 would leave the door open for real abuses of power against the free expression rights of Canadians.
My Conservative colleagues and I will remain steadfast in working to stop the NDP-Liberal government from taking away the free expression and individual rights of Canadians. In its present form, we oppose Bill C-11, given the potential for it to establish a regime of censorship, control and regulation while not achieving the outcomes its proponents purport.
1669 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia. His riding is magnificent.
I would really like to hear his thoughts on something. I picked up on some major distrust of the CRTC. In my opinion, the CRTC is a relic of the 20th century, but I would like my colleague to expand on why he does not trust it.
Why is he so suspicious of the CRTC?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not distrust the institution so much as I distrust the government. Let us go through it here. The budget will balance itself. We will have modest deficits, I believe $10 billion. The budget will be balanced, set in stone, by 2020. Law enforcement asked for the Emergencies Act. There is also going to eat caviar with Russians when they have recently invaded Ukraine, and blaming people for travelling as to the reason why we have lineups at the borders and long lines and long waits for passports. There is hybrid Parliament, for instance, another one meant to address COVID. The list goes on and on.
I actually had a paragraph about trust built right in, so I thank my colleague for asking that question because really that is what it comes down to. The government is saying, “Just trust us to get this right”, but we do not have all the details. It is not a matter of trust in the CRTC. It is a matter of lack of trust in the government.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 and outline my significant concerns with what the Liberal government is proposing.
I will be sharing my time tonight with my fantastic colleague, the member representing South Shore—St. Margarets.
Let us make no mistake that what is contained within the legislation is extraordinary new powers for the government, through the auspices of the CRTC, to regulate wide swaths of what Canadians can create and watch on the Internet. Moreover, I have never received a letter, email or phone call from a constituent or a content creator in Canada asking the CRTC to regulate the Internet.
A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation on this bill, and one commentator said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I was taken aback for a moment. I had to fully understand why he made that reference, but it got to the crux of the matter, which is that no matter how noble the government’s intended goals may be, this legislation will be an absolute quagmire. It gives the CRTC immense powers. It will give it the power to regulate what Canadians listen to and watch on the Internet, which has never been done before. This bill would also leave the door wide open for the CRTC to even regulate content creators sometime down the road.
Millions of Canadians are rightly alarmed about the Liberal government’s intentions. Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to regulate the Internet, and we know the government will introduce a bill in the future to determine what people can say on the Internet. A representative from YouTube who appeared at committee said, “Our concern is that Bill C-11 gives the government control over every aspect of Canadians' experience on YouTube. It does not include effective guardrails on either the powers given to the CRTC or the content to which those powers apply.”
Before I go any further, let us just step back and contemplate the size of the CRTC bureaucracy that will need to be established to undertake what Bill C-11 is trying to achieve. The sheer magnitude of the daily content being created for audiovisual services is hard to wrap one's head around. Across online platforms such as YouTube, podcast apps, websites and everything in between, thousands of hours of content are created in Canada every day. Unlike traditional broadcasters the CRTC regulates, new apps and websites are constantly being created and released to the public. Online platforms have cut out the middleman and dramatically reduced overhead costs, which in previous generations made it difficult for content creators to find an audience. As content creators have discovered, they now have the entire world with which to share their product.
Not only have we seen an extraordinary rise in content creators, but we have also seen several new online companies and platforms emerge. I, for one, welcome this innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, all done without needing tax dollars or regulations. With this in mind, for the CRTC to keep up with all the new platforms in order to regulate them would be impossible. I can imagine it now: hundreds of new CRTC employees scouring the Internet for hours and hours as they look for new platforms they intend to regulate.
Not only is it foolhardy to think the CRTC could ever figure out a way to manage this workload, but it would also be an incredible waste of taxpayers’ dollars, and for what? What are the Liberals trying to accomplish other than to create a mountain of red tape? That question gets to the core of why this legislation is short-sighted and could have disastrous consequences. What happens if the CRTC says it cannot do the job? Does it then come back to the government and ask for legislative powers to demand online platforms apply for authorization before Canadians can access their content? Not only would that be a colossal headache for companies, but many would just walk away from the Canadian market.
Here is another big question: How can the CRTC even impose its jurisdiction on companies that operate outside Canada? Unlike TV channels or radio waves, there is no limit to the number of websites or online platforms. A company might have its headquarters in Europe, its servers in Asia and its IT developers in the United States. While the CRTC might carry a big stick at home, there is no reasonable way for it to enforce its regulations on companies that do not have a single employee in Canada. These are the questions we must be asking.
It is simply impossible to regulate the Internet, as Bill C-11 would inevitably do. As I see this legislation, there will be very limited benefit for the vast majority of Canadians who create content, the Canadians who watch that content and the companies that publish that content. The real issue is, what problem is the government trying to solve? No one, particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has ever provided a solid reason for this Goliath of a bill. The ingenuity and creativity of content creators such as musicians, artists, pundits, bloggers, gamers and everyone in between have been thriving, all without needing the CRTC to regulate the platforms on which they publish.
Never before in the history of our country has there been more Canadian content being created and watched than there is today. For those who want to learn about cooking, follow their favourite folk band, watch a tutorial on how to plant a vegetable garden or listen to people debate politics, all one must do is search for it. Many of those Canadians are generating content or deriving income from their own hard work. Many of them now generate revenue and have even made a full-time job out of it.
According to a 2019 university report, there are an estimated 160,000 Canadian content creators on YouTube alone, including 40,000 who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels. I can only surmise that number has grown since then, and more Canadians have unplugged their cable boxes and now turn to the Internet and online content for their entertainment and news. The reason I am bringing this up is the fact that, through Bill C-11, the Liberals are giving the CRTC the power to regulate the platforms their content is uploaded on.
Internet expert Michael Geist, who has been following this legislation, said, “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'.”
This is important because Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to write its own regulations. It would be able to determine what is considered the program, which will then fall under its purview. Due to the vague nature of the bill, no one knows what could possibly be deemed a program.
Mr. Geist also wrote about how this bill is created, stating:
[It] is a legislative pretzel, where the government twists itself around trying to regulate certain content. In particular, it says the CRTC can create regulations that treat content uploaded to social media services as programs by considering three factors:
[First,] whether the program that is uploaded to a social media service directly or indirectly generates revenue;
[Second,] if the program has been broadcast by a broadcast undertaking that is either licensed or registered with the CRTC;
[Third,] if the program has been assigned a unique identifier under an international standards system.
The Liberals can get up to say that user-generated content is exempt, but they cannot say that with any great confidence. As a parliamentarian, I am not comfortable with giving so much power to a body that is not directly accountable to Canadians. If Bill C-11 simply wanted to regulate Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime and the other large streaming services, we would be having a completely different conversation. I implore my Liberal colleagues to shelve this bill and go back to the drawing board. There are too many questions and too many concerns for it to proceed.
In closing, I want to stress how unrealistic and impractical it is to regulate the Internet. The consequences of this poorly drafted legislation would likely be to weaken consumer choice and hurt the potential of Canadian creators. I, for one, cannot and will not vote in favour of a bill that would grant the CRTC so much power. Canadians are rightfully very concerned that this is overreach by the current Liberal government.
1470 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, obviously it was in my speech. With the greatest number of creators we have ever had in Canadian history today, there is no way the CRTC is going to be able to manage trying to keep track of everyone through the mechanisms that it will have to put in place to monitor every one of those thousands that are coming into blogs and Internet services every day in Canada.
Our job as the opposition is to try to bring forward good ideas. The government was exempt of that, so we have tried to hold their feet to the fire as a good opposition would. We have heard from thousands, more like millions, of Canadians who have said that the bill is inadequate.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that these different groups have been excluded in the past, and in Bill C-11 we are going to see the CRTC would be mandated to include them and to focus on those minorities. That is exactly what we shall do with this bill.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
