44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, we are down to the last week for the government to attempt to ram through legislation through the final session since the last unnecessary election in the fall.
There remain more questions than answers about Bill C-11. Is user-generated content covered under the act or not? Does the wording of the bill allow for platforms to censor or not? With the government bulldozing through fulsome debate on this legislation, it appears that these questions will remain unanswered.
The irony of stifling the freedom to speak in the House on the very bill that has the greatest consequences of freedom of speech in our country's history cannot be understated. Whether it is of the heritage minister, the public safety minister, the emergency preparedness minister or the Prime Minister, this bill is another example of the government's disdain for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is a fundamental right in Canada. It is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in fact. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
These rights are what makes Canada a modern democracy. They are not trivial principles. They should not be up for debate. Interfering with fundamental rights is the sign of a dying democracy, yet the Liberals have shown, time and time again, that they are dead set on desecrating this right by regulating and censoring the social media content that Canadians are able to see online.
I just want to go back a little with the history. This bill was first introduced back in November 2020, as Bill C-10, and by February 2021, the Liberals had removed a clause from the bill exempting user-generated content, which extended the legislation to encompass everyday social media content created by Canadians. Before the bill could pass in the last parliamentary session through both Houses of Parliament, I raised a point of order and exposed the Liberals' reckless approach to implementing this bill. I submitted in my point of order that several of the amendments to Bill C-10 that were made in committee needed to be struck down because the government's committee government members had grossly exceeded their authority in more ways than one.
This point of order, which was upheld in its ruling, effectively defeated the chances of the bill being able to proceed before the Liberals called their early election back in 2021. Then, of course, to no one's surprise, when Parliament reconvened after that election, the bill was re-introduced as Bill C-11, which we have before us.
In order to ensure its passage, the Liberals decided to pass Motion No. 11 in the House, which has allowed them to push through the passage of this legislation by bypassing standard procedure. When that was not enough, the Liberals decided to pass several motions to shorten the committee's study and to limit witnesses, and then accused Conservatives of filibustering every time we opposed one of those anti-democratic motions.
Last week, the Liberals finally moved closure through Motion No. 16 to force the bill through committee clause-by-clause consideration with limited or, in many cases, no debate. On June 14, just last week, the Canadian heritage committee was forced to sit from 11 in the morning until 12:15 at night to complete clause-by-clause of 172 pages of amendments, over 100 of which were passed without allowing for so much as one second of debate.
I would say that bypassing debate and rushing through an unprecedented bill is an insult to Canadians, and it only allows the government to avoid accountability. Parliament has a democratic responsibility to thoroughly examine the implications of Internet regulation, and Canadians deserve to know the truth about this deeply flawed bill. The Liberals are stifling freedom of speech by curtailing parliamentary process.
Ironically, by limiting MPs' ability to speak, the Liberals are symbolizing the censorship contained within this bill. The government does not just want to regulate the Internet and hinder freedom of speech, it is also determined to interfere with parliamentarians' right to speak and debate the same legislation that is looking to interfere with people's rights and freedoms.
Back to the bill itself, under the auspices of amending the Broadcasting Act, the legislation contained in Bill C-11 infringes on the rights and freedoms of every single Canadian who uses social media. This bill would give bureaucrats at the CRTC sweeping powers to regulate online social media content based on famously irrational criteria. It would allow the CRTC to decide what content it considers to be Canadian enough, and then force social media companies to promote that content and bury the so-called un-Canadian content, so it would be nearly impossible to find. This would effectively result in censorship.
Moreover, analysts are saying that the bill could allow the CRTC to automatically subscribe Canadians to a certain list of Canadian YouTube channels, such as the CBC, without even asking their permission. It already mandates that cable providers do this in the subscriptions they offer to Canadians, so for the CRTC officials, I am sure doing so online would only be the next logical step in their mind.
Essentially, the government has decided that Canadians are not responsible enough to choose for themselves what they want to see on social media, so it is turning on the parental controls. This notion that Canadians need to be made to watch certain content that has been deemed as socially and culturally appropriate by the government and discouraged from watching other content is the result of an out-of-touch, paternalistic approach to governing what seems to stem from Liberal elitism.
As it stands now, Bill C-11 would determine what content is Canadian enough based on a famously flawed and outdated points system, which was developed in the 1980s, decades before the advent of social media. This black and white points system designed for legacy media, has resulted in a series of truly embarrassing rulings from the CRTC in recent years. For example, an Amazon Prime series focused entirely on the Toronto Maple Leafs was ruled to be not Canadian enough under this points system. The film adaptation of the famed Canadian novel The Handmaid's Tale was also deemed to be not Canadian enough, and Deadpool, the award-winning Marvel movie based on a Canadian character, filmed in Vancouver and co-written by a Canadian, was also deemed to be not Canadian enough under this system.
Maybe we should take some comfort in the fact that the minister responsible has promised to review and update these criteria for determining what is Canadian enough, but, then again, maybe not. Strangely enough, the minister boasted about a meeting with the German minister of culture to consult with her about how to update these criteria for determining what should be considered Canadian content. He decided it would be a good idea to get on a plane, fly across the Atlantic on the taxpayer dime, and talk with Europeans about the best way to approach Canadian legislation on what is Canadian content. Maybe the minister could have consulted with Canadians instead. They are the people he has actually been elected to serve. This is just an idea.
Of course, the minister has said that he will not reveal how he is planning to change the rules until after the bill passes through Parliament. By doing this, he is leaving both Canadians and parliamentarians completely in the dark about what his legislation is going to look like in practice. It begs this question: What content will the Liberal government deem to be Canadian enough on people's social media? Will it have to be made by Canadian citizens? In that event, what about permanent residents or people here on study or work permits? Will it have to be produced in Canada? What would that mean for Canadians living abroad who make social media content? Will it have to be only in an official Canadian language? What would that mean, then, for cultural groups in Canada who speak another language?
Perhaps, and I suspect this is the actual plan, the Liberal government will require that content producers subscribe to a certain set of values to be truly considered Canadian content. The Liberals already demand faith-based groups to adhere to the Liberal Party's stance on certain issues to meet the eligibility criteria for the Canada summer jobs program. Therefore, it would be fair to assume that they will likely do the same in determining what content would be considered Canadian on the Internet or on social media.
The most alarming power given in this legislation is slipped into an unassuming clause buried in the text of the legislation that quietly allows the CRTC to create regulations “respecting such other matters as it deems necessary for the furtherance of its objects”. These 14 little words give the CRTC a blank cheque to act however it likes and arbitrarily create regulations whenever it feels it is necessary. CRTC bureaucrats are not elected officials, and they do not answer to Canadians. They should not be able to unilaterally create new regulations. It would be undoubtedly undemocratic to give them such broad, sweeping powers.
Under Bill C-11, the minister responsible assured Canadians that amateur content such as cooking videos or cat videos that people upload online would not be regulated under this proposed regulation, but officials at YouTube Canada were quick to respond to this comment by asserting that they had studied the legislation and the bill certainly would give the government the power to regulate amateur content.
I certainly know who I would believe with respect to that. That means that any content posted on any social media service could be subject to these arbitrary standards. One thing is clear. The Liberals are determined to censor our social media content, and that, by itself, is wrong.
On top of that, with the legislation being this broad, it is impossible to discern why something could be censored or the motivations behind it even. The Liberals are essentially saying to Canadians that they are going to censor what social media content we can access. They will not even tell us how they are going to censor it, but that it is okay and to just trust them on this one. I do not think so. I do not think most Canadians think so. We have seen far too many examples of the government trampling on charter rights to trust it.
We have seen how, under the Prime Minister, the government tested facial recognition technology on millions of travellers at Toronto Pearson International Airport without their knowledge or their consent. What happened to freedom?
We have seen how the government has been collecting cellphone data since the beginning of the pandemic without the consent of Canadians. What happened to freedom?
We have seen how, during a largely peaceful protest in downtown Ottawa, the government invoked the Emergencies Act to use unjustified and extraordinary powers against its own citizens. What happened to freedom?
We have seen how the government has discriminated against people based on their personal medical choices to bar them from air travel, despite a complete lack of scientific evidence. What happened to freedom?
In a recently revealed submission to the Department of Canadian Heritage, Twitter protested the recent proposals that would allow the government to block website access on the Canadian Internet saying that the measure would be similar to the kind of censorship found in places like China, North Korea and Iran. The submission goes on to say that the proposed measure “sacrifices freedom of expression to the creation of a government run system of surveillance of anyone who uses Twitter”. What happened to freedom?
The government is obviously not interested in respecting the rights or freedoms of people. The alternative to Bill C-11 is freedom. The only solution is to keep the government out of the equation.
Canada has long been home to many renowned actors, film makers, artists, performers and social media icons. It is belittling of the government to think that the only way Canadian art and culture can survive is through punitive legislation that forces people to watch it. The quality of Canadian content speaks for itself. The last thing it needs is to be propped up by a Liberal censorship regime.
Without government intervention, social media can continue to be a free market of ideas, content and information. Under this system, individual Canadians are left to decide for themselves what they want to see on social media. They will watch what they want to watch and ignore what they do not. Only under this self-regulating system can freedom truly exist.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”
2108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member raises her concern about the different pay she claims for actors from Canada or from the States or whatever it might be.
What we are talking about here is a very broad and very sweeping bill. If she really feels that there is a need to address that specific concern, I would suggest to her that this is certainly the wrong way to go about approaching it. We could say that maybe using a sledgehammer to kill a fly would probably, in that case, be a good way of putting it. What we are talking about here is something that would limit people's freedom of expression and limit people's freedom to view the content they wish to view, or to not view the content they wish to view. That is a pretty broad, sweeping piece of legislation.
If she is looking to address the concerns she has, I would suggest looking at legislation that would far more narrowly address those concerns and not limit people's freedoms: people's freedom of speech and their ability to choose the content they wish to see. That, to me, we can never accept in any circumstances.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague across the way made, but I take a different approach. He made reference to Bill C-10 and the amendment process. I think it clearly demonstrated the interest of the government, when modernizing the legislation, to get it right. We saw a number of amendments that, in fact, ultimately changed the form of Bill C-11, and I think that is good for the industry as a whole and for future Canadian content.
The member made reference to the word “freedom”, and I think there is a fear factor out there, as some are trying to say that this is a limit on an individual's freedoms. Could he provide his thoughts with regard to the issue of the Conservative Party in essence saying that this is an attack on individual freedoms?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have never bought into those kinds of theories of infringement on individual freedoms and freedom of expression. People have raised concerns, and I think those who have raised them have gotten answers. Done and done. On the other hand, people who have absolutely no interest in this, who are not open to any kind of regulation, will reject any argument that is presented, no matter what it is.
There are several other examples of this throughout history. I am fairly certain that in the western United States in the nineteenth century, a time of complete lawlessness, the people running the show and getting their way certainly did not expect any legislation to be forced on them.
Regulation is required in certain situations. In this case, we are trying to do it right, and we have taken a long time to do it. I do not believe that we will end up with something perfect, but it will be much better than the current lack of legislation.
169 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, I believe I should get a bonus two minutes because of the number of interruptions I have had.
The member made reference to the word “freedom”. At the end of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada does not need any lesson from the Conservatives with regard to individual rights and freedoms. After all, we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We are a party of the charter. We understand what freedoms are all about.
As for the Conservatives, on the other hand, I would again remind them to look at some of the things their colleagues put on the record today with regard to Bill C-11, as if it is some sort of an assault on the freedoms of Canadians. The parliamentary secretary, in introducing it and speaking to it earlier today as the first speaker from the Liberal side, emphasized a couple of points about what the bill is not. It does not regulate the Internet. The bill—
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was emphasizing what the parliamentary secretary for heritage indicated at the beginning of his comments, which is that Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet, nor would it control what Canadians will see. It would not put any limitations on the individual freedoms of Canadians.
On the other hand, shortly after the member made those statements in representing the government, we had one of the freedom fighters within the Conservative Party stand up and talk about the peaceful demonstrations in Ottawa, the heavy arm of the government, other off-topic areas and why people should be concerned about freedom being taken away. I do not know how many times he used the word “freedom”. I could not help but think about the member for Carleton, or the member's statement earlier today when he talked about freedom oil.
The Conservatives are really starting to focus in on that word. I do not know why, because when we talk about Bill C-11, nothing could be further from the truth. They know that, yet they continue to do what they can to prevent this legislation from passing. We saw that at second reading. We saw that at the committee stage. There is no will from the Conservative Party to see this legislation pass, and if not for time allocation and if not for the support of most of the parties in the House, we would not be able to get it passed.
I want members of the Conservative Party to realize what would happen if this bill does not pass. We all have artists, creators and other people in our communities who directly or indirectly work in this industry, which is so critically important. We heard some of the job numbers. We are talking about thousands of people across this country in every region who, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly understand the importance of Canadian content. They understand the importance of levelling the playing field.
How can we say to the mainstream media, for example, whether it is CTV or CBC, that they have to comply with CRTC rules but we should not apply similar rules to streaming services? Only the Conservative Party would argue that the status quo is good enough and we do not need a change, even when it has been clearly demonstrated that our industry in Canada is hurting. The industry itself is asking for the types of changes the Government of Canada is proposing, yet the Conservatives are not listening, I would argue, to what their constituents are saying.
There is a leadership vacuum taking place within the Conservative Party, and there is no doubt about that. Maybe that is one of the reasons they find themselves on the wrong side of Bill C-11. However, I would remind my Conservatives friends that they should reflect on the importance of those jobs and Canadian content.
We have a lot to be very proud of. I remember that many years ago, we had The Beachcombers. It was set in an area of B.C. that I learned about when I was relatively young because of that particular program. However, I do not believe that program would have existed if not for the Government of Canada having programs in place to ensure Canadian content.
We have seen some incredible productions with Canadian content. We have heard reference to Schitt's Creek. It is an interesting program. I did not even hear about it until I heard about the Emmy Awards it won. Then I started talking about it and all of my colleagues seemed to have heard about the program. It can be streamed online from Netflix. It is an excellent program. Another is Corner Gas, a show set on the Prairies. My colleagues from across the way should have an appreciation for the importance of that particular program.
We have seen some amazing talent over the years. Some of my favourites would be individuals like Anne Murray and Celine Dion. There are some incredible talents. If we take a look at the important role that CRTC has played in ensuring and fostering Canadian content, we should all have a better appreciation of the important role that government, whether it is through the CRTC or in other ways, could play to support that critical industry.
I have talked a great deal about a program called Folklorama in the province of Manitoba. For me, Folklorama embodies a great deal of what one would classify as amateur talent that will ultimately travel the world and get onto screens and radio programs. It is a great feeder. When I think of Folklorama, and it is coming up in the month of August, it is a significant production. It is roughly 50 pavilions of all different ethnic groups. It is often said people can travel the world by coming to Winnipeg in the first couple of weeks of August and visiting the different pavilions.
What people would find is some incredible talent, whether it is singing, acting or dancing. As I have pointed out, it is not only about those who are on the stage. There are also the production teams. We have made mention of the creators. We have talked about those who provide the lighting, the sound and the transportation, the bringing to and from. We have talked about the rentals as a direct result and even the sense of just feeling good knowing that a particular production is taking place in the community. These are all direct benefits. This is one of the reasons why the government needs to be involved.
When we think of Bill C-11, it is not just what we might see on Netflix or CBC, or hear on a radio program. It filters its way down. Many of the people I talk about when I think of things such as Folklorama will graduate to become professional actors or actresses and be engaged in our artistic world.
The member for Edmonton Strathcona made reference to the numerous musical and theatrical activities in the city of Edmonton in the province of Alberta. I could talk about the very same things in the province of Manitoba. I suspect we could go from coast to coast to coast, and we would find some amazing organizations, the vast majority of which are non-profit, that are a part of their communities in very real and tangible ways.
Many of those organizations will ultimately be provided opportunities because of regulations and because of organizations like the CRTC, because we recognize just how important it is to have Canadian content. It is about levelling the field. When I talk about the Internet, from yesterday to today, we need to recognize, very clearly, that through the Internet there are large worldwide organizations. The most obvious one that people make reference to is Netflix, but there are others that are out there, whether it is Crave, Pure Flix or other organizations, that are looking and sourcing revenue and opportunities in Canada but are not contributing their fair share.
That is what Bill C-11 is really about. Not only does it continue to recognize the importance of the industry to Canada and how critically important it is that we continue as we have over the last number of years in certain areas, but also how important it is that we level that playing field so that those who are streaming online will also contribute in an equal and more fair fashion.
By doing this, we will be able to reverse the trend. We have heard that the trend has not necessarily been positive. That is in good part because of online streaming. There are things we can do to reverse it, and by doing that we are creating opportunities, in particular, I would emphasize, for young people, for people who want to get into our arts community in a very real and tangible way.
I would hope that members of the Conservative Party would recognize the true value in supporting our young people and supporting the industry as a whole, reverse their position and agree to support and vote in favour of Bill C-11.
1372 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of freedom. The Conservative Party seems to want to paint a picture of Bill C-11 as an offence or an attack on people's freedoms. When we take a look at the legislation, we will find that it does not in any way regulate the Internet, control what Canadians can see or try to tell Canadians what they have to watch.
Can my colleague provide his thoughts on the Conservatives arguing that Bill C-11 is an attack on freedom?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a number of the Conservative speakers on this piece of legislation make me wonder whether or not they have actually purchased tinfoil hats. At the end of the day, I am not sure what part of the legislation the member opposite feels so offended by. Members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, and at least one member of the Green Party, support the legislation. It is not just the government or two political parties, and only the Conservative Party has these wild, crazy thoughts that it is an infringement on freedoms.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts as to why the Conservative Party of Canada feels it is a fight against Canadian freedoms. In fact, we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We understand the importance of freedom.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the great example is everything the Liberals have done in the past couple of years. They said they based things on science, but really it was based on political science. There was massive government overreach at every step. They would say one thing and do something different.
They would have experts, chambers of commerce and international organizations saying that what they were doing makes no sense, but they still kept misleading Canadians by saying they were just following the science. They have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted when it comes to our freedoms in this country.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
