44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, the member forgot to mention Michael Geist. They say “Michael Geist” a lot.
17 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:39:38 p.m.
- Watch
This is a serious discussion and a serious matter.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first off, let us deal with the “something, something, North Korea”. There is nothing in Bill C-11 that transforms Canada into North Korea. The comments are saddening and horrific when we think of what North Korean citizens are living through. The reality is we are seeing forced starvation in North Korea, massive prison camps and a population that is under very clear tyranny.
For Conservatives to invoke North Korea in talking about Bill C-11 does a profound disservice to North Koreans who are living through an absolutely horrendous totalitarian regime that oppresses them, tortures them and kills them. Any Conservative who mentions North Korea, immediately, in my mind, has zero credibility on the issue of Bill C-11, which is a bill that basically obliges big tech to provide some support to the Canadian cultural sector that has suffered profoundly, particularly over the last few years. We have seen, in some parts of our cultural sector, the loss of three-quarters of the jobs that existed. What Bill C-11 would do is provide a boost to our cultural sector. It would not provide prison camps, forced starvation, torture or systemic human rights abuses.
Second is the issue of tyranny, the “something, something, tyranny” that has been raised by Conservatives. The reality is that big tech, as we know now, and I will come back to this shortly, already forces content on Canadians. We have seen this with the references to the “Stop hate for profit” campaign, which includes endorsements from the Southern Poverty Law Centre and the Anti-Defamation League. The reality is big tech, with their secret algorithms, forces content that is often profoundly harmful to Canadians.
Let us look at the third part, the “something, something, freedom”. Conservative MPs supported the so-called Freedom Convoy that denied the freedoms of thousands of members of this community of downtown Ottawa the right to actually go to work as 600 to 700 businesses were forcibly closed by the so-called Freedom Convoy extremists. Seniors and people with disabilities were denied the right to medication and the freedom to get groceries through that period as the roads were blocked. These extremists ran their trucks, blasting their air horns 24 hours a day, denying freedom to thousands of residents of Ottawa Centre to actually get a good night's sleep, work, get groceries and get medications.
Conservatives supported all of that oppression of the people of Ottawa Centre. When Conservatives use the word “freedom”, I find it disingenuous, beyond belief, given the kind of oppression that they have recently supported in this area.
When Conservatives stand up, obviously not having read the bill, obviously having no reference to the bill, and do not even talk about the arts and culture sector and the loss of jobs, do not talk about big tech and how they are imposing their content on people, I say to myself that we have three parties in the House that are supportive of Bill C-11 and one party that prefers to choose big tech over the rights of Canadians to actually see Canadian content. That, indeed, is the essence of Bill C-11.
It forces big tech, which contributes virtually nothing to Canada, to actually start supporting Canadian content and Canadian artists. We saw this decades ago when big American music companies basically decided to impose American artists on Canada. Canadian parliamentarians at that time had the foresight to tell them to hold on, that they had to reserve a spot for Canadian content, because our Canadian musicians have talent and ability, that they were not going to simply impose foreign artists in the Canadian market, and that they were going to have to create a space for Canadians as well.
We saw the results of that, a renaissance beyond belief with Canadian artists and musicians, television programs and producers, Canadian movies not only being extraordinarily popular in Canada but right around the world.
Now, we have big tech pushing back with the support of its acolytes in the Conservative Party. Big tech is saying it wants to impose content on Canada and that it does not want Canadians to have a space. It does not want discoverability of Canadian artists and Canadian talent. Four out of the five parties, if we include the non-recognized parties in the House of Commons, are in the process of saying they are going to stand up for Canadian artists, for Canadian jobs and for the right of Canadians to see Canadian content, to hear Canadian content and to hear those stories about each other. Whether from British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador or Nunavut, we are going to hear from each other, despite what big tech says.
That is the reality. That is the essence of the debate tonight. It is not about North Korea or repression. It is about allowing Canadians to hear each other's voices. That is what is so essential to this debate. It was missed by every single Conservative speaker, and I can only surmise that they have all missed the point of the debate because they have not read the bill. What they have read is the latest fundraising pitch from Conservative Party HQ, and that seems to be the only reason they are dragging this debate through this evening with such ridiculous, wacky and over-the-top exaggerations and making up of things that simply are not in the bill. We heard one Conservative member say that, because of Bill C-11, the government is going to be able to track Canadians on their cellphones.
That is unbelievable and unbecoming of this place. It is unbecoming of a member of Parliament to say that, but not a single Conservative corrects the other Conservatives. They just sit together stewing in their misinformation nexus, rather than address the bill itself. Of course, as I mentioned, the NDP succeeded in getting more amendments passed than any other party, because we were focused on improving the bill and making it even better. To my regret, and I think to the chagrin of most Canadians, Conservatives were just there to monkeywrench and vandalize, rather than to actually try to improve the legislation so it would be in the best interests of all Canadians.
When it comes to the Senate amendments, because we had, as New Democrats, the opportunity to build a better bill we are proud of, particularly when it comes to indigenous peoples, we have clearly improved the bill. It is for those reasons we believe it should be passed, sent back to the Senate and adopted, so we can get Canadian actors and musicians working again and building more Canadian jobs.
1131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed hearing that. I will say that I do not think the member should be too surprised with the way Conservatives are acting. Let us not forget it was just three days ago that the President of the United States heckled them for not standing up for gender parity. Pretty much everything is on the table now, in terms of what Conservatives are capable of.
To the member's point about the Conservatives not reading the bill, if someone has been, like me, sitting here for quite a while now, they have heard speech after speech, and the Conservatives keep referencing 29 amendments that have come from the Senate. There have only been 26 that have come from the Senate, which means not only have they not read the bill, but the same person who has written every speech for them keeps talking about 29 amendments, and there are only 26, so I just want to say to the member that he is absolutely right. The Conservatives are not paying attention, they have not read the bill and they are just reading canned speeches that have been written for them.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the natter of this Parliament for the Conservatives was started after the member for Carleton, on Monday afternoon, said that the Conservative motion they were bringing forward was the most important ever in the history of Canada, and on Tuesday afternoon he forgot to vote. He did not show up to vote. He did not show up to work. Members will recall our former leader, Jack Layton, saying that you don't get a promotion if you don't show up to work. The member for Carleton did not show to work; he should not get a promotion.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about the bill in particular, let us get to what we are supposed to be debating tonight.
On Bill C-10, there was a portion in there that had an exemption for programs and that users could upload on social media. In other words, there was an exemption for user-generated content. I do not know if the member is actually familiar with that term.
In Bill C-11, they put the exemption back in. What clause was that? Moreover, in what clause did they actually put an exemption on the exemption?
If the member knows the bill that well, why did they put that exemption on an exemption and what clause was it?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is very interesting. Conservatives are now switching from North Korea and tyranny and freedom to trying to disingenuously take the bill and pretend that there is something hidden in it that Canadians should be concerned about. He knows very well that user-generated content is exempt.
As the member would know, if he had followed the debate at committee, the NDP ensured in the bill that, first, user-generated content is not impacted, and second, of course, freedom of expression is preserved. It would be great to have just one Conservative member stand up and honestly acknowledge what the NDP did, the fact that the bill has been improved and that what we wanted to preserve has been preserved in the bill.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate on Bill C-11. I quite seriously think there is a deeply held belief that this bill is going to hurt freedom of expression that is entirely on the part of members and the Conservative caucus.
I am so grateful, and I am not going to claim that law school makes a person understand everything, but statutory interpretation is one of those things that one gets a good skill for, being able to read a piece of legislation. Where one finds freedom of expression is protected in this bill is in the Broadcasting Act, and then we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defends freedom of expression.
Nothing in this bill could possibly reduce Canadians' freedom of expression, nor has it ever been the case that anyone, before this debate, has ever conflated protecting Canadian content with censorship.
They are completely different concepts. I am very frustrated at this hour of night that we are still debating Bill C-11 without really debating it, because there were places I wish it had been improved. There are questions of whether there is a two-tiered approach to our cultural industries. However, there is no doubt that creators in this country have been losing the opportunity to make a living because of the competition from online streaming services that are big-time—
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:52:52 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby some seconds to answer.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is absolutely right. Freedom of expression is absolutely not impacted by this bill. I wish just one Conservative would honestly stand up and admit that.
She also raised another key point. The—
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:53:15 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
14 words
- 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, first of all, there is nothing in the legislation that lays out what CanCon is. What the legislation does is ask platforms to make Canadian content more findable for Canadians.
What in making Canadian content more findable takes away choices from Canadians to watch whatever they want to watch? Just because people can find Schitt's Creek more easily online, that does not mean they cannot watch something else if that is what they prefer.
77 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
Uqaqtittiji , I am going to read a section from Bill C-11. It reads:
programming that reflects the Indigenous cultures of Canada and programming that is in Indigenous languages should be provided—including through broadcasting undertakings that are carried on by Indigenous persons—within community elements, which are positioned to serve smaller and remote communities, and other elements of the Canadian broadcasting system;
Can the member please tell me what is so scary and so concerning about this section?
81 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, The Handmaid's Tale has come up a great deal in this debate, and there is time to actually dig into why. The Handmaid's Tale, written by Margaret Atwood, once adapted to the screen, did not count as Canadian. It is fairly easy to look it up. It is described on Wikipedia as “an American dystopian television series created by Bruce Miller”, an American. For the film, the screenwriter was Harold Pinter, who is British; the director, Volker Schlöndorff, is German; and the score was by a Japanese artist.
They are all very talented people, but Canadian artistic enterprises are trying to find work for Canadians. The wonderful and chilling dystopian novel by the brilliant Margaret Atwood had many other hands bringing it to the screen, and those hands were not Canadian. If we tried to enter it into any kind of Canadian artistic prize category, we would not get it in as a Canadian piece of work, because it is American or international with American producers and Americans own it. That is why it is not Canadian content.
We need to protect Canadian content or our writers and our screenwriters—
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 10:08:45 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake a few seconds to answer.
18 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
Madam Speaker, during the lockdowns, and for me the lockouts, I still found myself with very little free time on my hands, but when I did have those precious few moments, I could turn to the Internet as a source of information, entertainment and comfort during uncertain times.
The Internet is an endless frontier for creativity, discovery and free thought. While the reach of radio and TV is confined largely to within our own borders, Canadian creators throughout the past few decades have been charting new pathways online. Canada’s media landscape of the 21st century has been and will continue to be defined by their artistic endeavours. Regardless of people’s background or prerequisite knowledge of their craft, Canadians have been reaching global audiences through the power of their voices, performances and words. It is our duty as legislators to celebrate and ease their efforts in reaching the world. In no instance should we be working to limit their expression at home or abroad.
We should afford the same consideration to Canadians who consume this content. The first 30 years of commercial Internet have changed the manner in which we enjoy our entertainment. While the evolution of radio, print and TV over the last century has taken place within the vacuum of Canada’s telecommunications industry, there is no such restraint on online content. Canadians are more empowered than ever to pick and choose the content they want to watch, listen to and read. The government should be working to encourage, not suppress, variety and choice within a new broadcasting reality.
Regrettably, in Canada, and in the year 2023, this bill gives us cause to rise to the defence of free expression and free choice. This debate should have all Canadians concerned, and it does. In a complicated world in which the free flow of information is more important than ever, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-11 from the perspective of the majority of Canadians.
When a government has been given every opportunity over the course of a year to do the right thing, is presented with Senate amendments that attempt to repair mistakes that were made and then rejects some of those amendments, Canadians are given cause to reflect and draw conclusions on the intentions of the current government.
It is clear that the Prime Minister made up his mind from the very beginning of this process. He is not interested in the appeals of civil society, industry professionals, independent content creators, and the 92% of Canadians who access an uncensored Internet for their news, opinions and entertainment. From the beginning of the debate, they have been calling on the government to stop its attempts to censor their search results.
We must not embark down the road of censorship and algorithmic control. Canada is one of the most connected countries in the world. We are the model for what a free and open Internet can achieve. In normal times, this would be seen as a net positive for civil discourse and the cultural mosaic, and any responsible government would embrace this potential. However, that is not the case with the Liberal government. It has seen fit to impose top-down regulations of the worst kind on the one true international entity that reaches beyond borders and makes Canadian culture freely available to the world.
Bill C-11 applies CRTC regulatory powers to the Internet. It effectively empowers the Prime Minister, his cabinet and bureaucrats in Ottawa to decide what Canadians see and say online. They would determine which material is given preference and would effectively have control over Internet algorithms.
The government continually claims that this legislation would have no effect on the performance of user-generated content, such as a typical cat video, but its actions tell us a different story, and Canadians are picking up on it. Despite overwhelming public pressure to back away from independent creators and to leave “the little guy” alone, the government has rejected a Senate amendment that would have protected content created by ordinary individuals. This amendment would have ensured that regulations target only commercial material. Canadians are rightly offended by this decision. To reject hard-fought-for protections for free expression in the eleventh hour reeks of a hidden agenda.
These fears are entirely justified. The Prime Minister has decided to impose his own personal brand onto the Internet, and we have to wonder why. I would argue it is because, even with his desperate attempt to control the narrative via the legacy media, which he has to do before 2024, he no longer has control over the message.
As the relevance and appeal of traditional media fades, the Internet has done more than fill the void. It has changed the media landscape forever.
To consider just a few of these statistics, every day 100,000 songs are uploaded to streaming platforms, 1.7 million books were self-published in the last year, there are now three million podcasts that put out about 30 million episodes this last year and 2,500 videos are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
While decades-old media empires have been implementing strategies to downsize, alternative culture is flourishing. There are nearly 40 YouTube channels with more than 50 million subscribers, which is far above the reach of any newspaper or record label in Canada. We have also seen a shift among our young people, with 86% who have expressed a desire to become online influencers.
In fact, it is our young people who are driving these numbers in large part. The Prime Minister has now ostracized 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are very motivated to vote in their first election, and a number of them are my grandkids. This is excellent news for them for the future of independent Canadian arts and culture, but the problem, in the Prime Minister’s view, is that not every ounce of this material will align with his government’s opinions.
We have seen this type of behaviour before. Liberals attempted to restrict Canada summer jobs funding through a draconian values test. Employers were permitted to offer life-changing experiences to our youth only after attesting to uphold values the Liberal Party deemed appropriate.
Their 2021 platform promises to revoke the charitable status of crisis pregnancy centres because their life-saving work flies in the face of the Liberal Party’s belief in abortion at any time and for any reason. The majority of Canadians, over 80%, actually want to see more pregnancy counselling centres, not less. The Liberals are so out of touch.
Now they are attempting to control cyberspace through Bill C-11. Once again, Liberals are attempting to pick winners and losers. In effect, this bill works to extinguish this ambition for the next generation of Canadian creators. It would destroy the creative drive that makes film, music and print material so alluring.
Instead of relying on a tried-and-true business model to promote their content to the world, creators would be forced to manicure their output to fit within the Prime Minister’s CanCon ideal. We heard a bit about that from my colleague. This is not what arts and culture in a free society looks like.
The Liberals argue this legislation is required to ensure more Canadian content reaches our screens, but at the same time, they are killing the inventive spirit that has inspired a new generation of Canadians to express themselves.
In a piece in The Free Press, Ted Gioia writes, “...what we really need is a robust indie environment—in which many arts and culture businesses flourish and present their diverse offerings.” He also says, “...we deserve a culture in which there are hundreds or thousands of organizations doing audience development and outreach.”
“Let a thousand flowers blossom,” he says.
As colleagues on both sides of this House often say, the world needs more Canada. I wholeheartedly agree. Canadian culture is being expressed, not lost, in current and expounding methods, but this can only be maintained through an open and free Internet. Let us not limit our potential. Let us not turn back in time.
Canadians analyze this bill, and they cannot help but conclude it is an attempt to impose state censorship through the back door. Giving any government the power to manipulate online algorithms will not benefit Canadian culture. What is also clear is the threat it poses to freedom of expression in this country.
The Liberals’ time in office will end, along with that of all other future governments. Do we honestly want the government of the day, whoever it is, to impose its world view over top of what we say and do online? As a proud Canadian, I certainly do not want that.
I will end with this. If it should pass, I want Canadians to know the following. A Conservative government would appeal Bill C-11. Recognizing the richness and breadth of Canadian content in the Internet age, we would require large streaming services to invest more into producing Canadian content, and we would explain that to Canadians when we brought it forward while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Through a Conservative approach to CanCon, homegrown talent would be able to compete on an equal footing with the rest of the world. When removed from the seat of power, I predict the Liberals will applaud a Conservative government’s effort to repeal this legislation. Instead of entrusting the future of Canadian culture to faceless bureaucrats in Ottawa, we will trust Canadians’ ability to promote Canada to the world and make their own decisions on what content they consume. We will allow a thousand flowers to bloom.
1643 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
