44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I am sure that Wilfrid Laurier would be very glad to hear that of all countries in the world, Canada is ranked fifth in terms of freedom, as found by Freedom House, which is an organization that has been around since 1941. They have actually rated our political freedom as 40 out of 40, and they have rated our civil liberties freedoms as 58 out of 60. We are ranked the fifth freest country in the world.
Perhaps the member would like to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of manufactured outrage going on right now with the Conservatives trying to find a wedge issue, trying to find something to try to drum up some fear, and trying to score cheap political points. Maybe that is what is going on here.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, to me what was the most troubling part of the debate which occurred over the predecessor bill to the proposed legislation is what we have now before us. Time and time again we have seen the government's overreach into the lives of Canadians, whether it is through its values test in the Canada summer jobs attestation, its subtle willingness to undermine Canadians' freedoms by failing to adequately protect the conscience rights of medical professionals, or its inexplicable refusal to end the federal mandates.
The government's actions demonstrate to all Canadians that it is out of touch and does not care about our constitutional rights.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I like to start by looking at what we agree on.
I think we can all agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be amended. It dates back to 1991, the wonderful year I met my spouse.
This legislation needs to be amended, adapted and modernized not only to reflect today's realities, but also to ensure that our artists have their window of opportunity and that this window is not slammed shut by the Americans.
I would like to hear any constructive suggestions that my colleague has for amending the Broadcasting Act, and I would also like to know what she would like to see in the legislation.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. I said at the beginning of my remarks that there are parts of this bill that we do agree with. We know that Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules which do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and global successes.
As I pointed out, while the government claims there is now an exemption for user-generated content, this legislation allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly. We need to make sure that we deal with the clauses in this bill that are deeply flawed.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the comments from the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and her effort in wanting to protect freedom of speech for Canadians.
I am finding her position interesting, though, because as an indigenous person, as a person who has experienced intergenerational trauma, I tend to be quite sensitive to assimilation, direct or indirect. I feel like the member's opposition to this bill is more a way of protecting unfettered foreign assimilation by web giants like Netflix, Amazon and Disney+.
Could you comment on whether this is indeed the fact, that what you are trying to do is protect those rights?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 10:32:05 p.m.
- Watch
Just a reminder to the hon. member that I am not the one trying to do something.
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the question from my colleague.
As I said, Conservatives support the idea that large international corporations like Netflix, Disney+ and others must pay their fair share in Canada and invest in Canadian content. I would remind the members in this place that this was in our election platform.
However, where we have concerns and where we differ drastically from the NDP-Liberal government and their Bloc allies is in regard to the application of this bill to creators of online digital content.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the cultural aspect of our lives is extremely important. For years, we have had the means to allow Canadians across the country to hear the voices of other Canadians, to listen to music, to watch movies, to watch television and to experience a Canadian culture that is extremely complex and very diversified.
When I think of Quebec culture, for example, I remember the first time I listened to Robert Charlebois, on a Sunday evening, because we could listen to French radio at home, in New Westminster, British Columbia. He was the first Quebec artist who forged my understanding of the diversity of Quebec's cultural life.
What artists are telling us is that there is currently a real imbalance in the system. Consequently, as talented as they may be, artists cannot fully reap the benefits of all their potential, as artists, to create and to promote our cultural life and to make it so complex and so profound.
That is really the message tonight. Our artists across the country are saying there is something wrong with the system. We have web giants, these massive companies, that are foreign-owned and the Conservatives support them to the detriment of Canadians and Canadian artists. These companies make these enormous profits while paying scraps to Canadian artists.
As we know, the reality is when we are talking about the word “censorship”, we are throwing it around so loosely when it comes to Bill C-11, and I will come back to that in just a moment. The reality is the censorship that takes place now with the web giants is the algorithms that withhold Canadian content from Canadians. Even Canadians trying to access that content cannot do it because of the algorithms that are not shared or not transparent that censors what Canadians can see and what Canadians can hear. That is the reality.
As members well know, other countries are putting forward legislation so that these web giants, these massive foreign-owned corporations, that pay no taxes in Canada and do not show the responsibility they should be showing in Canada, actually have to be transparent on the algorithms that control what people see, what people watch and what people can hear.
The idea that we put in place an update to the Broadcasting Act makes sense, because it establishes a level playing field so we do not see the situation we are seeing now. We see that Canadians musicians have lost 80% of their income as more and more of their product goes online and they get paid less and less by the massive web giants that are supported, for reasons I do not understand, by some members of this House.
As that happens, it is important for Canadian MPs to step up and try to level the playing field. Musicians losing 80% of their income should be something that all members of Parliament should be concerned about. About $3 billion has been taken out of musicians' pockets. That should be something that all Canadians are concerned about.
I talked earlier about listening, for the first time, late one evening in New Westminster, British Columbia, to a Quebec artist, Robert Charlebois, and understanding the incredible depth of Québécois culture. When I was growing up, I was able to listen to Rush, Gordon Lightfoot and Bachman-Turner Overdrive and so many other Canadian artists that would not have been able to get into the market if the American record companies and the American broadcasters had told Canadians what they could or could not listen to. That is the reality here.
When we have foreign companies deciding what Canadians can watch and listen to, we need to establish a level playing field so our Canadian artists can shine through.
The Conservatives, who are opposed to this legislation moving forward, even to get answers on it, should understand that not one of them has quoted a Canadian artist or musician tonight. They cannot, because artist associations, everyone from the Canadian Independent Music Association to ACTRA, are all very supportive of the legislation. What, then, should we be doing tonight in this debate?
My Conservative colleagues, and I have respect for them, have said that they simply do not want this legislation to move forward, just as they have been saying for months that they do not want any other legislation to move forward. We have seen it with Bill C-8. Teachers were asking for their tax credit and the Conservatives said they would not pass it. We have seen it with Bill C-19 and dental care, which the NDP pushed forward. For the first time, there was an affordable housing platform, and the Conservatives said they did not want that to move forward either.
On Bill C-11, as we have heard in the debate tonight, the Conservatives have talked about three concerns. First off, they reference a bill that no longer exists and say they did not like it. That is fair enough, but that is not the bill we are debating. Then they talk about a bill that may be coming in a year or so that deals with online harms, and they say they do not like that bill either. Well, that debate will be in a year.
Then they say, about this bill, that they believe in a level playing field, but they have some questions. At the same time, however, they do not want this bill to go to committee, where we can get answers to the questions they have asked. Some of the questions they have asked around the CRTC are legitimate. How it defines its powers is a legitimate question, and I have that question too.
We would love to have the bill come to committee, because the committee, as part of our legislative process, is the place where we get answers to questions. We could sit here to midnight every single night, but we are not going to get the ministry and the CRTC to answer our questions until the bill gets to committee.
This is where it becomes passing strange. We have had debate now for a number of days. We should be referring the bill to committee. If Conservative members do not want to vote for the bill they do not have to vote for it. However, for them to say they are going to stop any member of Parliament from getting the answers they are asking around the bill by refusing to have it go to committee does not make any sense at all.
It is also not respectful to the artists from coast to coast to coast who have been asking for years to have a level playing field. They have been asking for years for us, as members of Parliament, to play our role and establish a level playing field to allow them, finally, to have some presence in the online world so that Canadian content can shine and the web giants will not decide what Canadians get to see and hear.
This is really the challenge this evening. We will be sitting until midnight, but the Conservatives will say they want to keep sitting and sitting and will say the same things. As I mentioned earlier, they have debated a past bill that no longer exists and a future bill that may or may not exist, and on this bill, they say they have questions.
We should all agree that the way to get answers to those questions is to refer the bill to committee and allow the heritage committee to sit down and get answers from the minister and the CRTC. In that way, we could respond to our legislative role, which is to make sure that as we pass this legislation, it is done in the most effective way possible and actually does what it purports to do: level the playing field for Canadian artists so that our musicians, actors and all of the Canadian cultural and artistic sphere can shine.
We know that when there is a level playing field, it is not the web giants deciding what Canadians can see and hear. When there is a level playing field, Canadian artists will shine. My message to the Conservatives is to let Canadian artists shine. Let us get answers to the bill. Let us get this bill to committee.
1410 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives seem to be having a hard time understanding that those who control the distribution network have the opportunity to promote their own product. They do not understand this concept when we talk about culture, but when we talk about oil and pipelines, they understand the distribution system. That speaks volumes.
Does the member not agree that the only thing Bill C‑11 does, in reality, is require online distribution networks to offer a wider range of viewpoints and products and that ultimately, this will improve democracy here in Canada?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think this allows for greater balance in the distribution network and more opportunities for Canadians to hear and see Canadian artists. That is why the entire artistic community in Canada says that we must move forward with this bill.
So far, I have received roughly 8,000 letters in favour of this bill and two dozen against. The letters of opposition came from people who were still talking about a future bill, a bit like the Conservatives, who are saying this evening that in a year or two there may be another bill. That will be the time for another debate.
For now, Canadian artists want us to bring in a system that stops disadvantaging them for once. I think we need to listen to them and move forward with this bill by sending it to committee.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the NDP always used to be a party of principle, standing up for Canadians' rights, freedoms and civil liberties. However, since its new common-law relationship with the Liberals, it seems as though it has abandoned some of those principles and is willfully choosing to overlook the aspects of this bill that would provide undue censorship and give the CRTC power that we are not used to experiencing.
The member has completely mis-characterized the Conservatives. We believe that there should be a level playing field, especially for Canadian artists, and we believe that big web giants should be paying their fair share, absolutely.
We have seen how the Liberals have abused Canadians' civil liberties and violated their constitutional rights and charter rights through the Public Health Agency of Canada by allowing it to track all Canadians and Quebeckers on their cellphones. Is the member not concerned that the Liberals will also do that with this bill?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have respect for the member for Provencher, but he has just proven my point. The Conservatives are not debating Bill C-11. In fact, many of the Conservatives who have intervened tonight patently have not read the bill. They do not know what is in the bill, so they are debating everything else. They are debating cellphone technology. Are they kidding me? This is exactly the problem. The Conservatives want to sit until midnight, but they want to talk about cellphones. They want to talk about anything but the bill.
On behalf of Canadian artists from coast to coast to coast, I say this to the member for Provencher and all other Conservative MPs: Let us get the bill to committee. Let us get the legitimate questions answered. Let us stop talking about cellphones and all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with Bill C-11.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 10:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that you are doing an excellent job. Respectfully, our colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby just gave a speech and we would have liked to have asked him some questions.
Just two questions were asked. Perhaps the questions and the answers were a bit long, but I would have liked for a third party to at least have the opportunity to ask a question. I wanted to mention this for future consideration.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think if you sought it, there would be unanimous consent to give the member for Drummond a question. I really want to hear what he has to say.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 10:48:20 p.m.
- Watch
Apparently, we cannot, even through unanimous consent.
I understand the hon. member's point. I was keeping a close eye on the clock to leave time for a third question, but there just was not enough time. I am very sorry.
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in my home to speak tonight to this bill. It pains me to have to do this, as it is another attempt by the Liberals to restrict Canadians’ speech.
I would like to reiterate what so many content creators and their stakeholders have expressed in opposition to Bill C-11 and its predecessor, Bill C-10. No matter what the Liberals claim, this bill is a near carbon copy of Bill C-10 and represents a direct assault on the free speech of every Canadian. That simple fact outweighs any supposed benefit of the legislation, which is why I feel it needs to be stopped.
I had previously spoken on Bill C-10 in the last Parliament. That was before the Liberals decided to vote against aspects of their own legislation in order to target the free expression of average Canadian content creators. At the time, I spoke about the shortcomings of the bill and how it does not succeed in making the changes to our broadcasting system that are needed to ensure that who we are, what we say and how we say it within Canada and to the world are available going forward.
The pandemic amplified that need. We have all spent more time indoors during the pandemic, and without a doubt, more time with family in front of a TV and computer screens cemented the fact that our media landscape has changed forever. Canadians have changed how they gather information and find entertainment. They have also come to realize that there are no limits on the opportunities to choose where they go for their content. Looking at this bill in its present form, I think the Liberals fully understand this new reality. That is why they felt the need to take it in the concerning direction that we see today.
As background, Bill C-11 would give sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet, with no clear guidelines for how that power will be used. That is significant. Despite claims that this bill exempts user-generated content, the Liberals still plan to allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue “directly or indirectly”. That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. In fact, YouTube has been critical of attempts to force-feed Canadian content that Canadians might choose not to watch. Ninety per cent of Canadian YouTubers' revenue comes from beyond Canada. A video’s poor performance within our borders will translate into reduced distribution around the world, threatening an industry that contributes $923 million to Canada's GDP.
This is not a surprising element of the bill. In the last Parliament, the Liberals voted against the section of Bill C-10 that would have at least partially exempted individual users who upload videos to social media sites like YouTube and Facebook from CRTC regulation. They have given the CRTC the power to regulate the content Canadians upload on social media and the social media sites that allow them to publish that content, just like the programming on a licensed television station like CTV or Global.
At the time, the minister also mentioned that the CRTC could impose discoverability regulations on individuals who have a large enough following online. This would put Canadian content at even greater risk, especially the content that the minister or the Prime Minister does not like. The government does not like the fact that Canadians have the freedom to create, criticize and comment online free of government censorship.
The government’s fear of the average content creator is evident through its past actions to curtail debate in the committee. Our Conservative opposition does not oppose elements of legislation without putting forward common-sense amendments. At the heritage committee, members proposed an amendment to Bill C-10 that would have limited regulation to online undertakings with more than $50 million a year in revenue and 250,000 subscribers in Canada. In effect, this amendment would have only applied to large streaming services. This approach was rejected outright, so there is a disconnect here.
Then the Liberals went to the unprecedented length to gag our work in committee. In a move not seen in over 20 years, the Prime Minister and his minister placed time allocation on the work of the committee to properly vet each clause of the bill and hear expert testimony on its effect. This is what they are saying they want in committee now.
Sadly, the Liberals have also shown disrespect for the House and for the fundamental rights and freedoms we have all been elected to defend. The latest motion, Motion No. 11, gives the NDP-Liberal government the power to extend debate daily, without notice, until midnight, while giving it a pass on having to participate and giving the Prime Minister the ability to arbitrarily shut down the House until the fall if he feels that his power is being threatened by the truth revealed in this place.
Over and over again, they have come dangerously close to being exposed for using disinformation to convince Canadians that they have their backs and are motivated by concern for the safety of Canadians, so why would Canadians trust them with this latest version of their anti-speech bill?
On this side of the House, we will not permit them to run roughshod over Canadians’ rights and freedoms without a challenge. I would like to reiterate the concerns of some of Canada’s leading experts on the digital economy and our media landscape, because we want to hear from the people who are the experts, right?
Well, Michael Geist serves as the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. He has said that, despite the government’s claim, it simply is not the case that Internet regulation is off the table with C-11. According to Geist, “everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a ‘program.’”
He has warned that Bill C-11 actually goes beyond Bill C-10 in empowering the CRTC to control user-generated content.
He says, “As Bill C-10 made its way through the legislative process, new provisions were added to limit the scope of CRTC orders and regulations over online undertakings and user generated content.... Those limits have been removed from Bill C-11, which once again opens the door to a far more aggressive CRTC regulatory approach.”
I would also like to reiterate what Mr. Geist said last year. He said, “We would never dream of saying the CRTC would or should regulate things like our own letters or our blog posts, but this is a core expression for millions of Canadians, and we are saying that it is treated as a program like any other, and subject to regulation.”
To Geist, it is clear that Bill C-11 aims to pick winners and losers in the competitive digital marketplace of ideas. No other country in the world regulates content in the way that this bill is proposing. The government missed a golden opportunity to listen to what Canadians had to say. While they could have fully excluded user-generated content and put strict limits on the CRTC’s power, they chose not to, and that is a concern.
Peter Menzies is another expert well known to the government as the former vice-chair of the CRTC. According to Mr. Menzies, the biggest difference between Bill C-11 and last year’s Bill C-10 is the bill number. He says that the Liberals “continue to believe that the internet is broadcasting, and I don’t think they really understand what it is”.
Well, either they do not understand, or maybe they are so concerned that they are trying to limit that. His input on the debate has justified many of the fears that my colleagues and I have with regard to the practical effect of Bill C-11.
As with so many other bills, and this is important, the Liberals are choosing to throw up their hands and empower the unelected CRTC with defining social media and deciding whether uploaded content passes its smell test. That should not be its job.
Canadians could attempt to hold the CRTC accountable for its decisions if there were public records of its meetings, but according to Menzies, no minutes of their meetings are kept. As a former commissioner, Mr. Menzies knows the mandate of the CRTC better than most anyone. The CRTC does manage speech. In his words:
From the moment the Royal Commission on Broadcasting was established...the regulation and licensing of Canada’s publicly-owned radio waves...has been about who owns it and what speech it will approve to be used upon it....
The CRTC governs what type of music is made, and by who, and when it is played, along with how many hours a week must be designated for “spoken word,” news, “deejay banter” and advertising. It decides what is and isn’t a montage, and it makes sure that if you are a religious broadcaster, you have to give 20 hours per week to people who don’t share your faith.
The CRTC is not a transparent body, whose natural instinct is to regulate and shape speech to align with its definition. The CRTC and the Liberals should not be defining what the public wants in this new digital age.
Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters and championing Canadian arts and culture. We have made that clear. However, we do so without compromising Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms. There is a poison pill here.
This bill is flawed in many ways. It is clear that the Liberals are caught between their own hunger to control thought and speech, and their inability to grasp the sheer scope of the media landscape that grows by the day.
Bill C-11 is clearly an effort to stifle inconvenient speech in a digital world that the Liberals do not control. They do not want Canadians to make informed choices for themselves, and they do not want to protect their freedom to create content that showcases the best our amazing country has to offer—
1773 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 10:58:46 p.m.
- Watch
We have to go to questions and comments.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to government House leader.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is almost no part of that speech that is true. It is completely fabricated.
The member spent a lot of time talking about user-generated content, like many members from the Conservative Party have, but there are several sections of the bill that seek to make sure that user-generated content is protected, including proposed subsections 2(2.1), 2(2.2) and 2(2.3); proposed section 3(a); proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2; and proposed subsection 4.3(3).
To the point of the member for Yorkton—Melville, has the member actually read the bill, and is she aware of those sections that attempt to make sure we protect user-generated content?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the reality is that the government has had to backtrack and then come forward again, and it puts little poison pills into its bills that are not acceptable to Canadians.
Canadians are very aware that the government is afraid of average people expressing their views and sharing their creative work. Controlling speech in the new world of communication is a means to protect the platforms the government currently rewards and communicates its ideology through.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
