- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Lethbridge
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,565.29
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, with Bill C-11, those who enjoy online streaming platforms such as Netflix or Disney+, or videos on a platform such as YouTube, or maybe even just scrolling through Facebook looking at people's pages, these individuals would be impacted in the kind of content they could access and watch. Bill C-11 would determine the type of information that is put in front of them. Bill C-11 would determine the content that is put in front of our eyeballs.
When I say by Bill C-11, what I mean is that, according to clause 7 of the bill, it would be cabinet who could determine, through the CRTC, what Canadians can see, post or hear online. Again, it would be cabinet, based on clause 7, who would be given that authority. That is scary. It is scary for any government in power because it would mean that cabinet, which is partisan, would be directing what we can see, say or post online. Instead of giving a viewer more of what they want, YouTube would be instructed to give more of what the government wants. Again, this is very scary for most Canadians.
The government will claim, as the hon. member just before me did, that this bill is about supporting Canadian culture or levelling the playing field, but that is not true. Bill C-11 would amend the Broadcasting Act by bringing the Internet under its provisions.
In order to understand the effect of this, we need to understand why the Broadcasting Act was put in place in the first place. In the early 20th century, the Broadcasting Act was put in place to regulate TV and radio because those are finite commodities. There are only a certain number of radio stations or TV stations, so in order to make sure both official languages were represented within these platforms, the government determined they should be regulated so French language and culture would be protected and would be given space within these spheres.
Further to that, there was a definition given to Canadian content. We call it CanCon. There was this determination that a certain percentage of the content would be Canadian, or CanCon. The goal was to protect our culture, to make sure not only that it was American content making its way to Canada but also that Canadian content, things produced here, and there is a whole host of other criteria used, would be given space.
That is within the realm of TV and radio, which is limited, but now we are dealing with a space that is infinite, that is unlimited, which is the Internet. Anybody who wants a website can have a website, no matter their language of choice. Anybody who wants to have a YouTube channel can have a YouTube channel. Anybody who wants to have a space within TikTok, Instagram, etc. can have a space. We are no longer dealing with a finite resource.
The government does not need to regulate what content should be prioritized and what content should not be because we are no longer dealing with limitations. There is space for everyone.
I would plead with the government to perhaps look back on the record of what former prime minister Jean Chrétien had to say to this. In 1999, he faced a similar question about the Internet and whether it should be regulated. After undergoing a thorough investigation and a public inquiry, the determination was made that it should not be. He determined the Internet was so different than TV and radio that to treat it the same would actually stifle progress. After numerous public consultations, because there have been many done since Chrétien, here we are willing to function in a regressive way rather than maintaining the progressive stance that was taken by Jean Chrétien.
I will read what the directive stated in 1999. It said, “The commission [the CRTC] expects that the exemption of these services [Internet] will enable continued growth and development of the new media industries in Canada, thereby contributing to the achievement of the broadcasting policy objectives, including access to these services by Canadians.”
In other words, the determination was made that the Internet would not within the scope of the Broadcasting Act and that it would not be regulated. The reason for that was because there was a belief that innovation, advancement and growth would take place if it were left alone. There was a belief that that opportunity would be seized by all sorts of people from all sorts of regions with all sorts of backgrounds and different linguistic ways.
I would invite the government to consider its regressive stance and pull this legislation. On the Internet, everyone has a spot to showcase their talent. On the Internet, every single individual in this country has an opportunity to thrive, should they wish to.
Most people in this country have a smart device. One needs nothing more than that to showcase talent and make a name for oneself. The gatekeepers have been removed. In fact, it has never been easier for Canadians to succeed. It has never been easier for creators from a variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds to reach not just a Canadian audience but a global audience as well.
For this legislation to build walls around these individuals and keep them hemmed in within Canada is so egregious that it is hard for one to even fathom the reason for such legislation. Why would we punish our young creators? Why would we punish the next media content creators? Why would we insist that a regressive form must be kept and that progress should not be celebrated? It baffles me, but I am not the only one. It baffles Canadians from coast to coast, whether it is legal experts speaking out on this topic, digital-first creators speaking out or Canadian consumers who simply want a choice.
The fact is that the gatekeepers have been removed. A creator used to have to put together a pitch or a package and bring it to a gatekeeper, such as CBC, Corus Entertainment, Bell Media or Rogers, and they would have to plead with them to accept their package, to accept their idea and to accept their creativity. That used to be the way it was done.
With the Internet, we have now entered this magical space where creators, innovators and thought leaders get to put their content out there and allow the Canadian people themselves to determine whether they like it or not, whether they want to watch it or not. We have removed the gatekeepers. It is incredible.
Instead of celebrating how amazing that is, the government is hell-bent on putting legislation in place to make sure that we maintain these old, antiquated ways. Why is that? Is the very nature of the arts not something that should propel us into the future? It it not something that should have forward momentum? Is it not something that should be creative and innovative in nature? Is that not the whole point of the arts? Why would we hem these individuals in?
For the minister to say that this bill somehow modernizes the Broadcasting Act is incredibly disingenuous, as I have laid out. The minister is failing to account for the tremendous progress that has been made and the creativity that has been allowed to flow.
For example, let us take Justin Bieber. He went big in approximately 2013. The way he went big was because he put out a few songs on YouTube and he got discovered. He did not have to put together a big media package, though he could have. He did not have to depend on gatekeepers to either accept him or reject him. instead, he could put his talent out there. His talent was discovered, and we know that he went big. He is a Canadian artist we are proud of.
There are many more like him who are aspiring. By putting a bill like this in place, by putting Bill C-11 in place, we are saying to the new generation not to bother. We want to subject that next generation to the same rules that we subjected artists to in the 1970s. Forget progress. If one wants to engage in progress, perhaps one should consider moving to the United States of America, South Korea or the U.K., but in Canada Bill C-11 puts this massive banner up that says we are opposed to innovation, progress and celebrating artists.
Bill C-11 ultimately will do two things. First, it will censor what we can see online because the government will dictate the content that is there. Second, Bill C-11 would determine the extent to which creators are allowed to thrive. In other words, the government will go through and pick winners and losers. Some content creators will be deemed Canadian enough and other content creators will not make the cut. If they make the cut, they will be promoted. If they do not make cut, they will not be promoted.
There is nothing progressive about censorship. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is about censoring Canadians and what they can see, what they can hear and what they can post online. It is about censoring artists, whether they have access to an audience and to what extent that access is granted.
When speaking about this bill, Margaret Atwood, who is an extremely well-known Canadian author, did not mince her words. She was pretty direct about it. She called it “creeping totalitarianism”, which is pretty damning. Those are not my words, but Margaret Atwood's.
To understand this a little bit more, we have to go back to the origin. We have to go back to the origin of this bill. We have to talk about the motive because I think that is very important for Canadians to understand.
This bill, we know, started out as Bill C-10 in 2020. It has gone through a number of iterations since then, but the worst parts of this bill remain intact. In fact, one could argue that it is actually worse than ever, in part because it has had opportunity to change. The government had an opportunity to hear from witnesses. The government had an opportunity to hear from experts, and the government made a decision to ignore those voices. The government has had an opportunity to respond to the Senate amendments, which were very thoughtful and reasonable, and the government is making the decision to disregard most of those amendments. One could argue then that the government is actually wanting this bill to be as egregious as possible.
What brought us here anyway? Why is the government so hell-bent on Bill C-11 going through the way that it is? The evidence would say it is because of broadcasters wanting to maintain power and wanting to hold money. There are these large broadcasters, CBC, Bell, Corus Entertainment, etc., and they are limited by CanCon rules. A certain percentage of the content shown on their traditional streaming platforms has to be Canadian content.
Of course, this acts as a limitation to them. Those are their words. That is what they have said. They do not view that as an opportunity to show more Canadian content. They testified at committee that they view it as a limitation because they are limited. They have to show a certain percentage of Canadian content, CanCon. They say these other streaming companies should have to do the same because they want it to be the same. Further to that, these broadcasters have to pay a certain percentage into an art fund. This art fund can then be drawn from by Canadian artists who are producing CanCon and used for that material production.
Because these traditional broadcasters have to pay into this fund and the larger streamers do not, the broadcasters went knocking on the Liberals' door and said they wanted legislation to be brought into place to “level the playing field”. They wanted the Liberals to go after the streaming platforms, make sure they are showing a certain percentage of Canadian content and make sure the government is taking a certain percentage of their revenue and putting it into the art fund.
At first glance, that might seem reasonable, except that when we dig into it further, we realize the broadcasters and the big art unions are simply gatekeeping. They do not want to celebrate progress. They do not want to look forward to the future. They do not want new artists to succeed. They simply want to gatekeep. They want control or power, and they want money.
I want to talk about the foundation on which the bill is built, because it is a false foundation and it has to do with those who came knocking on the Liberals' door for the legislation. The bill is based on the deceptive notion that Canadian content creators or artists cannot make it on their own merit and that somehow they need this special fund in order to make a go of it. YouTubers, TikTokers and other online creators are proving this notion wrong each and every day. They are succeeding without drawing from the art fund. They are succeeding without the government mandating that Canadian content must be watched. They are succeeding because they have incredible talent to watch and incredible talent to offer, and Canadians find themselves drawn to it.
There is the idea, though, that, in order to succeed as artists in Canada, people need monetary support and that it is the government that should provide this monetary support. Furthermore, there is other misinformation being spread by the government, which is that people will not choose Canadian content unless it is forced in front of their eyeballs, and that a certain percentage of what is offered on television, radio or the Internet must be Canadian, or people will not watch it. How degrading is that? It is as if our artists do not have the ability on their own to produce content that people might want to consume. It is as if the government must rush in and rescue these poor Canadian artists because, without government intervention, they will not succeed. That is a lie and a crux. It is not the case.
Canadian artists are incredibly talented individuals who can make a go of it all on their own.
2435 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when the hon. member brings up web giants and the need to make sure they pay their fair share, that is incredibly misleading. That was actually already addressed last summer. They now have to pay GST. Make no mistake: that is not a part of this legislation. What is a part of this legislation is actually going after those digital-first creators, those new innovative artists, and asking to take 30% of their revenue to give to traditional, antiquated, outdated artists who cannot make a go of it otherwise.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
History seems to be repeating itself. Canadians will recall, but here we are again. Having debated Bill C-10 last spring, we are now debating its replacement, Bill C-11. The new heritage minister will try to tell Canadians that he has fixed the problems that existed in the former legislation. However, this is an extremely misleading statement.
My time is short, so I am going to cut to the chase. The government claims that the bill is about support for Canadian culture and levelling the playing field. I would like to see Canadian culture promoted and celebrated, so let us explore that for a moment.
I have two questions. First, is the bill about meeting Canadians where they are at in the 21st century and celebrating the amazing work being done by digital first creators to produce Canadian content and enhance culture in their very own unique way, or is the bill about the government imposing its definition of Canadian content in order to fulfill a government-driven agenda? Second, will the bill truly level the playing field, or will it be used as a cash grab in which those who have worked hard to expand their viewership and generate revenue are forced to subsidize the traditional media industry, which is producing content for which there is little to no demand? I realize that these questions make the government uncomfortable, but they must be asked in order to understand this legislation.
My grandparents were not required to subsidize horse and buggies when cars became an alternative. Society moved forward in an innovative way, because it just made sense.
In effect, Bill C-11 would put in place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which will govern how easily creators, those who post, are able to make their content accessible online to those of us who view it. In other words, it would impact what Canadians can and cannot access. It would be an act of censorship.
The Internet is a vast, infinite and magical space where all Canadians, no matter their background, are able to post and engage. In the new public square where we engage with one another, we do it through writing, audio and visual arts. For many Canadians, socializing online is the new norm. If passed, Bill C-11 will thwart our freedom in this new space.
Again, the minister will try to tell us that all the problems have been fixed. He will point to convoluted parts of the bill in order to try to prove his point, but here is the thing: If the minister is telling the truth and has nothing to hide, why is the bill not crystal clear? Why is the Liberal government choosing to use muddy language by placing exceptions within exceptions in order to confuse people?
There are many flaws in Bill C-11, but I will focus on three of them today: the first is the overabundance of power that it would place in the hands of the CRTC, otherwise known as the “Internet czar”; the second is its negative impact on creators; and the third is how it negatively impacts viewers.
If passed, the bill will give the Internet czar, the CRTC, almost unlimited power in order to regulate the Internet. Talk about an attack on freedom. The CRTC could have been given very specific, very narrow guidelines, but the government chose to give it free rein to amend, to exempt, to include. The Liberals claim that bringing more government intervention, and this is an interesting one, will boost Canadian culture, but that is not true. I mean, tell me a time in history where more red tape and regulation has increased innovation, incentivized artistic creation and brought about prosperity? Members cannot, because it does not, ever.
Let us talk about creators. One of the biggest complaints that we heard from digital first creators last time was that the bill would regulate their content online. Members can think of TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, podcasts, YouTube and, yes, even cat videos. Now, the minister will claim once again that he fixed it by adding section 4.1(1) back into the bill, but the problem is that section 4.1(1) is immediately followed by subsection 4.1(2), which creates exceptions that nullify 4.1(1). It is pretzel logic. It is confusing and purposefully muddy.
Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He seems qualified. He has pointed out that, under the act, digital first creators can be described as broadcasters and therefore forced to comply with the CRTC regulations.
In other words, essentially any audiovisual material could be brought under the scope of this bill, not just large streaming platforms, but even individuals who use music. The member opposite actually even clarified this earlier in her own speech.
This means that TikTok videos, which essentially always use music, and YouTube videos, which mostly use music, will in fact be captured under this legislation. This means creators, right off the top of their revenue, will have to pay 30% into an art fund. They have to pay in, but they do not get to pull out.
It also means that the content of digital first creators will be assessed based on how Canadian it is. The CRTC, the Internet czar, will of course make the conclusion. That material will then be promoted or demoted accordingly. The minister will try to tell Canadians that what I am saying is not true, that only big companies, such as Netflix and Disney, will be caught by this legislation, but if that is the case, I would again ask the government to clarify that and to say it outright. It does not. The bill does not. It is purposefully muddy.
Let me talk about the negative impact that the bill will have on viewers, members, me and Canadians. Imagine going on YouTube to look for videos on Black voices but being shown instead a bunch of videos on hockey in Canada, having never searched for hockey before, and all of a sudden those are the videos that are being fed to you. That would be extremely frustrating.
What we are talking about here is discoverability. It is the use of algorithms to make some content accessible and other content not. It bumps it up or down. Sometimes it can be found on page 1. Sometimes it is found on page 53. Currently YouTube carries material based on a person's individual preference. It bumps it to the top of the page if a person likes it, if maybe they have watched similar videos in the past.
This legislation would force content, so-called Canadian content, in front of the eyeballs of Canadians at the expense of showing them the content they actually really want. It totally disrespects and disregards Canadians' freedom, choice and desire to watch certain things over others, all because the government has an agenda.
Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch. That desire, that free will, should be respected. I have not even addressed the problem with the definition of CanCon, which is absolutely ludicrous. Let us talk about that for a moment. CanCon, or Canadian content, is that content that the government would actually be putting at the top of the page.
A bilingual Canadian sitting in his Montreal condo producing YouTube videos about maple syrup and hockey, all while using the Canadian national anthem in the background of his video, would still not get counted as Canadian content. Can members imagine that? In fact, based on the definition of CanCon, the only ones who will receive the government's stamp of approval are members of the traditional media.
The CRTC will define who is in and who is out, who gets noticed and who does not, who gets to be on page one and who has to get bumped to page 53. An individual's preferences are inconsequential, and the government would now decide.
In Canada, we are punching above our weight in what creators are able to produce. It is absolutely jaw-dropping. They literally share their talent with the world. It is incredible. Lilly Singh, a famous YouTuber, has pointed out, “creators who have built their careers on the Internet need to be consulted on these decisions.” She went on to say, “In trying to do what seems like a good thing - highlighting great Canadian-made content - you can unintentionally destroy a thriving creative ecosystem.”
Morghan Fortier of Skyship Entertainment is so eloquent when he put it this way, “In Canada, digital content creators have built a successful thriving industry on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export a huge amount of Canadian content to the rest of the world.... They've done this through their entrepreneurial spirit, their hard work and largely without government interference or assistance.
“This achievement should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.”
Bill C-11 is presented as a means to support the future of the broadcast industry, but it completely ignores the global reach of Canada's digital success stories in favour of an antiquated regionalized broadcast model.
Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital first creators. It is a direct attack on our choice as viewers. It is actually a direct attack on the advancement of arts and culture in Canada in the 21st century. The bill needs to die 1,000 deaths.
1616 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the individual across the way made mention in her speech that through Bill C-11, money will be taken from broadcasters and put into an art fund, and artists will then be able to pull from that art fund in order to generate more “Canadian content”.
She said this is an investment in broadcasting of Canadian material. When I look at YouTube, TikTok, Twitch or Snapchat, I see some incredible up-and-coming Canadian artists. We call them digital-first creators, and they will be captured under this piece of legislation. There is good potential that 30% of their revenue will have to be contributed to this art fund.
Can the hon. member help me and those digital creators understand whether they would have the opportunity to also pull from that fund by applying for grants from it, in the same way that they are paying into it?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
