44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the amount of correspondence he got from constituents and people from all across his riding who were concerned about Bill C-11. I have heard a lot of concerns from people in my area around this.
I am wondering if the member could perhaps go into a little more detail on some of the specific concerns he heard from regular, everyday, hard-working Albertans.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think that it is completely disingenuous of the member opposite to be making false allegations that we perhaps have not read the bill, and I—
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to have the opportunity to raise concerns and share my displeasure with what is going on right now with Bill C-11. It is being rammed through Parliament after having pretty substantive debates. I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville.
I want to start out by indicating that I believe Bill C-11 is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I am not the only person who thinks so, and Conservatives are not even the only people who think so. The Prime Minister's own independent senators had so many concerns when the bill went to the Senate that they provided a series of amendments that would help make this bad bill less bad.
I applaud them for the diligent effort they put forward in calling additional witnesses and exploring other pieces of the bill. They made a number of amendments to the bill that were rejected by the government. It really showed the hand of the government that the ultimate goal of this bill is actually to allow the government to decide what does and does not count as Canadian content and what people would and would not see. It became explicit in the rejection of some of the substantive amendments that came from the Senate that this was, in fact, its modus operandi.
I share this because, until this point, the government was claiming that its intent was not to have the power to be the content regulator. However, in the rejection of one of the amendments, it actually said that it wanted the Governor in Council to regulate this content. This means that the government is giving itself the power to decide what it wants people to see online and to pick what does and does not count as Canadian content. I think it is a really scary thing for any government of any stripe.
This means that one will no longer get to pick what one wants to see online. Instead, the government gets to pick what one has a chance to see online to begin with. I do not want that power being given to any government of any political stripe. I do not think that is how things should go.
I know I am not alone in those fears and concerns. I have had countless people reach out to me. I have had average, everyday normal people who do not normally pay attention to politics reach out because they are really concerned about the contents of this bill. They are concerned that this is going too far and that this is a step towards absolute censorship.
While members opposite have made all kinds of jokes and seem to talk down the fact that we have these concerns, the concerns are real. They are legitimate, and they deserve to be addressed. Instead, we just get a whole bunch of nonsense and belittling, and that is not how this should be going. There is nothing progressive about censorship. The progressive parties are claiming that this is a progressive bill, but I am not sure how censoring anyone is progressive.
One of the pieces I really want to get into is how flawed the very definition of Canadian content is. I have a list of some things that are not considered to be Canadian content. I was kind of shocked at how vast the list was. I did not capture everything, but here is a small list of things I found in doing some research for this.
The Handmaid's Tale series that is on Hulu, and in Canada it is on Crave, is not considered to be Canadian content despite being written and based on Margaret Atwood's very famous book. It was filmed here in Canada. A part of the series was set here in Canada. It is not considered to be CanCon because the ownership is not Canadian; therefore, that is not Canadian content.
Turning Red, a Pixar film on Disney+, is set in Toronto. The main character is a 13-year-old Chinese Canadian girl. It is a really cool movie. I really liked it. It even has real superstar Canadians on the cast, like Sandra Oh. Can members guess what? It is not Canadian content. Again, it is the ownership piece.
Deadpool 2 was filmed in Vancouver. It stars Canada's number one cheerleader, Ryan Reynolds. It was even co-written by Ryan Reynolds, a Canadian who was born in Vancouver, and as I said, one of Canada's biggest cheerleaders. However, it did not have enough Canadian production, so sorry, it is not Canadian content. That is just on the film side.
Now, let us go into the music side because this is kind of fun. A good chunk of Justin Bieber's music is not Canadian content because it was recorded outside of Canada and he collaborated with artists from around the world. It is the same thing with most of Bryan Adams' music. Bryan Adams is an iconic Canadian rock star. Most of his music actually does not fit the qualifications to be CanCon because he partnered with Mutt Lange on a large part of his music. Celine Dion is an absolutely celebrated Canadian artist. Most of her newest music is not considered to be CanCon. My Heart Will Go On is not CanCon. It is crazy.
However, here is where the CanCon definition gets really fun. There are some real quirks in this. Snowbird, which was a hit by Elvis Presley, in fact does count as Canadian content because the music and lyrics were created by Canadians. Another unique one that fits into this bill is Hit Me With Your Best Shot by Pat Benatar. That is a great song. Growing up, we heard it a lot on the radio. We had a classic rock station in Fort McMurray, KYX 98, and it played Hit Me With Your Best Shot a lot. I am now understanding why: It met the Canadian content requirements.
I talked about the things that do not make sense in how CanCon is currently described and put out. We are now saying that the CRTC has done such a great job with film and music and defining what is and is not Canadian content that we are going to give it the whole Internet and hope that it does not screw it up. That is scary. This is a space where Internet is limitless. It is not something that can easily be kept in a little box like radio or television broadcasting because it is not technically and typically broadcasting. Anyone with a phone can produce a hit video. Anybody who has a unique idea can do this.
I grew up in Fort McMurray, which is a melting pot of everything from around Canada and the world. So here I am standing with my Nova Scotia tartan. I am not from Nova Scotia. My grandfather lived in Nova Scotia at one point. However, I am sitting here, giving a speech and wearing a Nova Scotia tartan as someone who is not from Nova Scotia, because growing up, I got to experience Atlantic Canadian culture, Cape Breton culture and culture from B.C. and Vancouver Island, and I saw a whole bunch of variety in what Canadian culture was. The scary part is that we are now going to be letting bureaucrats in Ottawa, the “Ottawa knows best”, the ones who have probably never experienced some of what Canadian culture actually is decide what counts and what does not count and what Canadians get to see on the Internet and what they do not get to see. That is a scary spot to be in.
In my area, if someone says they are from Ottawa and they are here to fix their problem, people are typically a little concerned, probably a bit more than a little concerned. I say this because it is serious. Some of the colleagues from the other side have been really concerned that they have only been hearing the same things over and over again from Conservatives, and part of it is that some of the experts they have been quoting up to this point are experts in their field.
I am going to quote one person from the University of Calgary. She is the Canadian research chair in cybersecurity law and associate professor, Dr. Emily Laidlaw. She said:
The indirect knock-on effect of this legislation on internet users and what they seek, receive and share online is important to the analysis. If the adverse effects of the provisions on social media users are too great, then the interference with free expression is disproportionate and unconstitutional.
She said this in her transcript when she was speaking to the Senate. The government has rejected some of the Senate's amendments. The Senate amendment that made this bad piece of legislation less bad did not take into account the fact that there are serious concerns when it comes to the constitutionality of this.
I really would hope that everyone can agree that we need a bit of a pause. We need to go back to the drawing board on this and revisit so that we have the best possible legislation.
1555 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the scary part about the bill is that it does leave a lot to be determined at some other point. It leaves a lot to be determined in regulation. It leaves a lot to be determined by other levels that are away from this piece of legislation, which is part of the concern that we brought up. It also means that large media streaming giants like Crave or Disney+ might decide that the regulations in Canada are too much and so they are just going to leave. Canadians would then lose all of that content that is and is not Canadian, which limits their choice.
Currently, Canadians do not have a choice about a lot of pieces of online media that other places around the world do, specifically because of our regulatory framework and the fact that some of these businesses and companies just choose not to play here. That means we have fewer options and less choice. We hear the same song on the radio over and over again, because it meets that qualification standard, and it is the same kind of thing.
The bill would actually serve to disadvantage Canadian content, Canadian artists and Canadians ultimately.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is the interesting part about the bill. It is quite a comprehensive bill that covers a lot of different subjects. One of the challenges is that it takes the Internet, something that is very large and very vague, and tries to put it into a box. Frankly, it is not something one can easily put into a box. Therefore, digital creators, whether they be indigenous or from different cultural communities, could be disadvantaged by this very legislation. The up-and-coming artists who have not quite gotten there yet, who are still using their telephone to try to put themselves out on YouTube, will be disadvantaged perhaps by this legislation unless the government decides to step in and decides that they actually do fit the qualifications of Canadian content.
This is part of the challenge here, that there are poison pills strung all throughout this legislation, which perhaps has a good intent but does it poorly.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will keep this really short and sweet. Margaret Atwood touched on Bill C-11, saying it was “creeping totalitarianism”, period.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
