44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, we have heard all evening that this bill would not regulate or diminish freedom of speech. What I heard in the member's speech was that freedom of speech includes the right to be heard. I am wondering if he could expand on that. Those two concepts must go together.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, irrespective of the hour, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Before I go on, I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.
The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom. Members will hear me say that several times more.
The bill returns to us from the Senate, where more than two dozen amendments were unanimously agreed to, and I will not get into the 26 versus 29. That should give us all a sense of the state of this piece of legislation. We want to thank our counterparts in the upper chamber for their efforts to improve this heavily flawed bill.
Let us all go back for a moment to the beginning of Bill C-11. Its purpose was to update the 1991 Broadcasting Act, to bring equity and fairness into a new age of communication tools, and hopefully have a structure and adopt principles for new communication platforms that we have not even dreamed of yet. That was a goal we could all support.
However, as is too often the wont of the government, it is the overreach of this bill that we must now focus on so that a problem that needed solving does not become a bigger problem than the one we started with. That brings us here today.
The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
One of the most important amendments involves the protection of user-generated content from regulation by the CRTC and focuses the scope of the bill toward professional, copyrighted music, music with a unique signifier number or videos that have been broadcast on mainstream media and then uploaded.
Importantly, this amendment removes the clause that would add the criteria of direct or indirect revenue. Unfortunately, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already indicated that the government would not support any amendments that “impact the bill”. Here, my analysis would cause me to read “impact” as “improve”. It is disheartening to hear the minister reject impactful amendments that could be greatly beneficial to our Canadian content creators.
These creators rightfully expect the government to implement responsible legislation that creates a safe and competitive environment for them to continue growing their brand and sharing their Canadian reality.
What no Canadian creator, indeed no Canadian, expects is for their government to begin telling them what it means to be Canadian. Yet, by giving the CRTC the power to regulate Canadian Internet users and define what can be categorized as Canadian content, or CanCon, the government is instead restricting those Canadians who are on the forefront of Canadian digital content creation.
Artists and creators who excel in their fields deserve nothing less than an equal playing field and the tools they need to succeed. It is the users of the content, not the government, who should determine how often it is viewed or the ease in which new viewers could find new material. In addition to fair compensation, they should also be able to share their stories through the medium of their choice, be it television, film, music, prose or, what we are talking about now tonight, online.
The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
The government is sending the message to people that says they should not be trusted with the freedom to create and view the content of their choice online. It is continuing its “Ottawa knows best” approach of limiting individual freedoms by creating problems with user-generated content that do not exist.
The government has had an opportunity here to adapt how it treats the arts, culture and media to suit modern realities and platforms. Instead, the Prime Minister has rejected every attempt to include safeguards in the bill that would protect the freedoms of Canadian Internet users to ensure that they have access to the content of their choice and not what the government decides to promote or de-promote.
Again, the government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
Another important amendment proposed by the Senate is the definition of CanCon itself. This amendment would make sure that the CRTC considers all factors like the producer of the content, the key creators of the content, furthering Canadian expression, whatever that means because it is defined, the amount of collaboration among Canadian industry professionals and anything else brought into regulation before disqualifying content as CanCon. Again, as in the previously mentioned amendment, this amendment would certainly impact the bill, so the government rejected it.
We must not lose sight of the fact that culture naturally grows and evolves over time. Canada has long-prided itself on being welcoming to the cultures of many different peoples. In fact, if one turns on television today, one may hear a CBC ad that says, “It's not how Canadian you are. It's who you are in Canada.” Yes, I watched the CBC Saturday night because the hockey game was on.
Why then is the government putting forward legislation aiming to do just the opposite by determining how Canadian one's content is?
What we absolutely do not support is online legislation that would affect what people can access on the Internet. Having freedom of speech and the ability to express oneself freely within the confines of the law is crucial—
An hon. member: And be heard.
Mr. Dave Epp: Madam Speaker, and be heard, as the member aptly interjected.
This includes those who upload content to social media platforms and other digital platforms. They expect to be just as visible as their neighbours, regardless of how Canadian the CRTC thinks their content is.
Even with the amendments put forward by the senate, Bill C-11 remains a misguided and deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is one that ironically does not reflect Canadian values and the realities of digital content creation. Canadians are rightly concerned about the infringement on their freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach that this bill, like Bill C-10 before it, could have on them, on the freedom of speech and on the freedom to be heard.
The government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
If ensuring citizens were accessing local content online was truly a pressing issue, would we not see other governments around the world enacting similar legislation? We have heard the criticism of comparing the bill to other authoritarian states, but when it comes to online censorship or the possibility of it, that is exactly where this potential legislation can go. These are not countries that we want to emulate.
Initially, the government put forward, in clause 7, unprecedented power of the government over the CRTC. The Senate rejected this amendment and, fortunately, in the light of day, the government accepted that rejection. Many stakeholders were concerned about the amount of regulatory authority this would give the government over communications in Canada.
It is difficult to imagine how the government could put forward legislation with so many unintended side effects and areas of ambiguity. It has led many to speculate that the so-called side effects were actually the true intention of the bill. I must admit, I do not blame them for entertaining such thoughts. The alternative seems to be that so little thought was put into a bill of such consequence that they did not realize the impact it would have on Canadian creators and Canadian internet users.
We are seeing a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns about the way their government is handling their livelihoods and entertainment. Under Bill C-10, the attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and limit Canadians' free speech and free hearing was unacceptable, and it is still unacceptable in its current form under Bill C-11.
The number of jobs created by content creators who have enough audience to monetize their channels, like YouTube, in Canada is estimated at about 28,000 full-time jobs. Instead of hindering this type of digital-first Canadian content creation, we should be supporting it. The best way to ensure Canadian content is allowed to thrive is by empowering our creators and not limiting them.
We must not only support our Canadian artists but also pave the way for the next generations' success. We have an obligation to ensure that new bills do not hinder the creativity and the individuality of our creators so that innovation can be fostered. This country has a wealth of venues where inventive ideas emerge daily, and it is in our best interests to help our creators export their talent around the world.
As Conservatives, we will always support Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by protecting their rights and freedoms. Bill C-11 remains an unacceptable attack on those freedoms, as it provides both the CRTC and the government with unprecedented control over online content.
This is a misguided piece of legislation that will see the potential end of free speech and free hearing for Canadians online. Why does this government not trust Canadians with freedom?
1541 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the platforms, it is my understanding that it is the level of use by the users that determines the prioritization and not the platforms. The algorithms are driven by those who are using and viewing. It is by the users. It is the freedom to choose what one sees. That is what is driving the algorithms behind it, and that is exactly what we want to see. We want to see that freedom of the users of the content: the hearers. That is what this legislation would be impacting. It is not the freedom of speech as much as the users.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my maiden speech to the House in 2019 or 2020, I referenced my four daughters and said I hoped they would have no glass ceiling above them. The Internet provides the opportunity, if that is their chosen field, not to put any ceiling above them. They have the full freedom.
I am surrounded by very capable female colleagues who did not require the quota to bring them here. The freedom the Internet provides gives the expression of those opportunities. It does not hinder racialized Canadians, Inuit and first nations. It provides the platform that is accessible to all. A quota does not help that. It will not help my daughters; they will make it on their own.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for possibly leading me not astray but down the right path. This bill would create the possibilities, the potential and the temptation for governments to overreach. That is the danger. It is a danger where we do not want to see governments of any stripe go. No one can call Margaret Atwood a Conservative. When she describes creeping totalitarianism, what is she referring to as a content creator?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
