44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 20, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, our government has moved on many fronts to ensure that those who have more can help others, and I look at the increase of taxes to the 1% of Canadians as an example. This bill would be moving us toward there. We have not made all the steps we need to make, but I am 100% in agreement with him. I think we have to make sure those groups that are benefiting from our programming pay their fair share. This is the first step, and we will make the steps that are necessary to achieve the goal I believe he is asking for.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to ask my colleague a simple question, because we had another point raised by the Conservatives that was not accurate, when it comes to the LGBTQ2S community.
We heard testimony at the Canadian heritage committee that OutTV was basically removed from, or not allowed to be on, a number of online streaming distributors. OutTV came to committee and said that with the way it works currently, it does not have access and is excluded. In Bill C-11, as the member has pointed out, there are no exclusions.
Does the member not feel this is appropriate? Given how these big web giants act and how they can exclude with impunity, does it not make sense to have a level playing field, so that there is access for all Canadians of all communities to these online streaming platforms and streaming distributors?
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that these different groups have been excluded in the past, and in Bill C-11 we are going to see the CRTC would be mandated to include them and to focus on those minorities. That is exactly what we shall do with this bill.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of Bill C-11.
For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. This is no accident. We choose to be different from the cultural juggernaut of the United States. We care about our cultural sovereignty. We believe our diversity should be celebrated. Our culture is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, our present and our future. It is how we tell our stories to each other.
As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists, and that is why we have all the Canadian content we love. We can see Schitt's Creek, Kim's Convenience and Corner Gas, or hear Charlotte Cardin, Joni Mitchell, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Great Big Sea, and the list goes on, including the Arkells from my home town of Hamilton. If members are in Hamilton this Friday, they could catch the Arkells at Woodlands Park. I invite everyone in the House and anyone who is watching this evening to join us for that concert.
Here is the problem: Canadians are not using cable anymore. Now online streaming is everywhere. People can stream content through their phone, their car or their TV. We all enjoy this, but streaming platforms like Amazon Prime and YouTube broadcast to Canadians without the same requirements that helped build Canada's culture. They invest in our economy in other ways, but they do not have to produce content that reflects our Canadian stories and shared identity, until now.
That is why the government introduced Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This bill ensures that online streamers contribute in an equitable but flexible way to the creation of Canadian content. It ensures that Canadians could easily find that content on their platforms.
Based on the quality of debate we have heard from the official opposition today and over the past week, I think all members of this House could benefit from a refresher of what this bill does not do. This bill does not impose regulations on content everyday Canadians post on social media. This bill does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. This bill does not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. This bill does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.
Bill C-11 also takes into account the reality that music is largely broadcast online, most notably on platforms like YouTube. In fact, a study conducted by Media Technology Monitor in 2020 found that about two-thirds of Canadian adults use YouTube to listen to music, which outpaces dedicated music services, such as Apple Music and Spotify. That is why this bill includes very important updates that would focus only on commercial content, such as music videos uploaded by labels on YouTube or livestreams of professional sports matches.
This bill explicitly excludes all user-generated content on social media platforms and streaming services. Proposed subsection 2(2.1) of Bill C-11 states:
A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service—and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act.
In plain language, this means that users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters. They will never face any obligations under the bill. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue.
With this approach, the experience for users creating, posting and interacting with other user-generated content will not be impacted whatsoever, while still standardizing the treatment of commercial content such as TV shows and songs across all platforms.
Just to be clear, clause 12 of the online streaming act explicitly states that any regulations the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. It states specifically:
For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings.
In conclusion, now that we have been able to resolve these unfounded claims, and we have heard many of them today and many of them at committee, and I tuned in a couple of times to listen to them, let us go back to why we are here in the first place.
Just as they did with Bill C-10, the Conservatives have used every tactic in the tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. At committee, all members agreed to study the bill for 20 hours of witness testimony. However, the Conservatives did not allow the committee to get to clause-by-clause by filibustering for seven hours. They went as far as to filibuster their own study motion at one point. It is deeply disappointing we cannot move forward on our study of this important bill, especially since our arts and cultural community has been telling us how vital and urgent this legislation would be for them.
Marla Boltman, from Friends, said:
Requiring contributions from foreign tech giants that extract billions of dollars from our country will help sustain our industry while driving investment and innovation in the creation of Canadian content that continues to reflect our diversity of voices and who we are as Canadians. Foreign contributions will level the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and foreign platforms. Frankly, it sends a message to the world that Canada is open for business, but there are no more free rides. If you benefit from the system, you must contribute to it.
I could not agree more. On this side of the House, we have made our position clear. Bill C-11 is about fairness and good middle-class jobs in the cultural sector. It is about having the power to shape our culture and making sure everyone can see themselves in our culture. It is about being proud of who we are. It is about being proud of being Canadian, so let us keep moving on this important legislation.
1082 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about levelling the playing field. Would he agree that one way to level the playing field would be to eliminate class 2 licence fees?
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we heard consistently in the House and at committee about levelling the playing field. This is about trying to assist cultural organizations and disadvantaged groups, as the member prior to me referenced throughout his entire speech. It is about making investments in cultural organizations, arts organizations, musicians and individual artists who have struggled through the pandemic.
Almost every speech tonight referenced 1991 as where the legislation sits. The member and his former government had an opportunity for almost a decade to make changes to the legislation. It decided not to do that. We are doing that with Bill C-11 here tonight, and I would encourage all members of the House to support it.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I asked this of a number of the member's colleagues, but I have not received a straight answer. This bill is clearly a step in the right direction, but web giants are still not paying their fair share. The Liberal government is delaying legislation on a digital services tax, which is something that would actually make companies such as YouTube, Facebook and Netflix pay their fair share on the profits they make here in Canada.
Will the member commit to pushing his party to implement a digital services tax?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am always supportive of levelling the playing field. I was very specific in my speech to make the point of ensuring the tech giants, as the member referenced, pay their fair share. Bill C-11 goes a long way in establishing that. I think it was just last year some of those tech giants started to pay GST and HST for the subscribers who utilize their services, so we have come a long way over the last couple of years. We are going to continue to make progress on this issue, including introducing taxation, fees and levies over the next couple of years.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.
What would he say to explain why this bill allows for regulations, when the word that is commonly used is “control”? How would he convince people who have reasonable doubts to vote in favour?
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know with all legislation that comes forward at any level of government nothing is perfect. We learn over time how legislation can be improved. The fact this dates back to 1991 illustrates there is lots of room for improvement. While this bill may not be perfect, to the member's point, our government will continue to find and seek out ways to improve the legislation that ensures we continue to level the playing field.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for the tone of his speech. It elevates the quality of the discourse in this place.
He did mention some concerns with respect to user-generated content that I shared previously this evening. My question is specifically on proposed section 4.2. Given the points he made, does he not see it would be simpler to just remove the sections that create various exemptions with respect to indirect or direct revenue? Would that be one way to simplify the bill, or does he feel differently about that?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the member's amendment. It is not something I support. I support the legislation as it has been put. I think we have a very comprehensive bill here that covers almost all the issues that witnesses brought to our attention at committee. We have incorporated those comments and stakeholder input into the bill, and I am satisfied with everything we have in time for a vote.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha.
Over the last two years of the NDP-Liberal government, we have seen a very uniquely ballooning government interfering in virtually all aspects of Canadians' lives. It has truly been a pattern of an expanding, intrusive and increasingly controlling and restrictive federal government, with its ill-advised discriminatory and vindictive vaccine mandates, damaging and traumatizing restrictions, demeaning and exclusionary QR codes, and of course the now infamous vaccine passports, which is probably one of the worst and most divisive public policy measures to ever be introduced in this country. It is why provinces only kept them in place for a few months before realizing the colossal mistake it was to divide, segregate and pit Canadians against one another based on health status. I am not sure how anyone ever thought segregating and discriminating against a group of Canadians would be good public policy.
However, in reality, this is simple. The Liberal government, with its NDP collaborators, has exploited the pandemic to drive its big, intrusive and overreaching government agenda. This also includes other areas of the lives of Canadians, with perhaps the upcoming digital ID, which has already been emphatically rejected by civil liberty groups, the Province of Saskatchewan and the former Ontario privacy commissioner.
The NDP-Liberal government is not just happy with the COVID intrusion. It is now expanding its surveillance of Canadians to the digital realm with respect to Canadians' Internet activities, including YouTube and social media accounts. No matter how the Liberals attempt to spin it, that is exactly what they are doing and they know it. It is similar to their political games and mistruths on the carbon tax, a tax that was supposed to be revenue-neutral but clearly is not, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They are now trying to convince Canadians that Bill C-11 is not a censorship and surveillance bill, but nobody is buying it.
Just like Canadians and stakeholders rejected the precursor to Bill C-11, which was Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, the same thing is happening again. Let us remind Canadians that true to form, the Liberals passed Bill C-10 in the last Parliament without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee. Many outstanding concerns from experts and parliamentarians over how this legislation would affect the rights and freedoms of Canadians when they are on the Internet went unaddressed because of the government's unwillingness to allow a full debate. In the new Parliament it is much the same. It does not seem like anyone supports Bill C-11, except the NDP-Liberal government, a government that seems relentlessly bent on restricting and controlling many aspects of Canadians' lives.
To be frank, I do not understand the government's obsession with wanting so much control over Canadians. Leave Canadians alone. They know what they are doing and they just want their lives back. They want their lives free of constant government discipline, surveillance and control.
Let me remind Canadians of what the Liberals did during COVID. They tracked Canadian movements, including trips to the liquor store and the pharmacy. Canadians were closely tracked by this NDP-Liberal government via cellphones without people's knowledge during the COVID‑19 pandemic. This information was made public by a report sent to the parliamentary ethics committee. The report revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada was able to view detailed snapshots of people's behaviour, including visits to the grocery store, gatherings with family and friends, time spent at home and trips to other towns and provinces.
It is encouraging that my colleagues on the ethics committee expressed surprise at how much detail the report contained, even as all identifying information was stripped out. The phone locations allowed the Public Health Agency to get a picture of gatherings occurring in people's houses, such as over Labour Day weekend. The report included a graph recording hours spent away from home in each province between Christmas Day 2020 and the week of September 19, 2021. Government officials had access to detailed information about people's movements after scooping up data from 33 million mobile devices across Canada.
This is government surveillance of Canadians, plain and simple. There is no other way to put it, regardless of the what the NDP-Liberals attempt to spin it as. It is definitely unacceptable, but it is unsurprising that the NDP-Liberal government would engage in something like this. I am certain that Canadians do not want Ottawa tracking their movements. Experts like Ontario's former privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian have questioned the government's claim. She said, per True North, “there has yet to be enough assurances that the data could not be reidentified to track individual Canadians.”
In addition to not wanting to be surveilled and tracked, Canadians do not want Ottawa telling them what they should or should not be thinking or posting to their social media accounts or their YouTube channels. At this point, it is important to note that on this side of the House, we support a level playing field between foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Let us not forget that Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules that do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and a global success.
While the government claims that there is now an exemption for user-generated content, Bill C-11 allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That means that virtually all content would be regulated, including independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. As such, critics are publicly accusing the government of state-sponsored censorship. It is simple. This bill is an affront to freedom of expression. It allows the government to regulate what Canadian users can post online or how the said content will be promoted.
Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Internet and e-commerce law research chair, has been especially vocal on Bill C-11. He has said that the government has misled Canadians on the scope of the bill. The professor's concerns with Bill C-11 include its “virtually limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope, and harmful discoverability provisions.” He added, “Bill C-11 treats all audio-visual content as programs subject to potential regulation. With exceptions that could easily capture TikTok or YouTube videos, the bill is about far more than just large companies.”
What is most concerning is that the CRTC's chairman, Ian Scott, who was appointed by the Prime Minister to the position in 2021, said that Bill C-11 needs to be open-ended so that the CRTC could have room to manoeuvre. That is a very worrying statement by the chairman of the CRTC. Let us remind the government that two former CRTC officials spoke out against the precursor of Bill C-11. They signed a petition labelling the bill an “authoritarian” move.
In addition, Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, warned that the incoming Bill C-11, meant to censor the Internet, could drastically change how Canadians interact online. Walker said that while Google is open to new regulations, current proposals border on the extreme. He added, “The closer you get to that extreme, the more concern. Whether that's on bespoke content regulation, or local content requirements, or government mandates for link taxes and other sorts of things—any flavour of one of those could actually really be bad.”
YouTube officials have also warned that if the Prime Minister's Internet censorship bill goes through, it could give the government unprecedented power over everyday content posted online. According to YouTube Canada's head of government affairs, Jeanette Patell, Bill C-11's wording is so broad that it places home videos within the purview of the CRTC. Patell also said that Bill C-11 “provides the CRTC the discretion to regulate user-generated content like a fan doing a cover song or someone making cooking videos in their kitchen or doing how-to-fix-a-bike videos.” That simply means that any video could be subject to CRTC's surveillance, control and regulation.
Twitter has also joined the opposition to the NDP-Liberal government's online censorship efforts. A submission from Twitter compared the Liberals' online hate legislation to censorship regimes in authoritarian countries such as North Korea. This bears repeating. Twitter's opinion of the government's effort to censor the Internet is that it can be compared to the censorship regime in North Korea. That is an incredible statement and the government should take heed. I doubt that Twitter officials were being facetious when they made this statement.
Twitter's manager for public policy had this to say:
The proposal by the government of Canada to allow the Digital Safety Commissioner to block websites is drastic. People around the world have been blocked from accessing Twitter and other services in a similar manner as the one proposed by Canada by multiple authoritarian governments (China, North Korea, and Iran for example) under the false guise of “online safety,” impeding peoples’ rights to access information online.
That is a powerful statement. Once again, the government needs to really understand the damage it would be doing with this bill, perhaps unprecedented and permanent damage.
To add to the long list of critics of Bill C-11, we also have Timothy Denton. Mr. Denton is a former CRTC commissioner. Mr. Denton also likened the proposed Internet regulations by this government to authoritarian regimes. He said:
It is creepily totalitarian, something you might expect out of China or Russia.... They are going to be unworkable and they are going to be, I think, unconstitutional in the old-fashioned sense of outside the powers of the federal government. I think they are almost certain to be taken down on Charter issues of freedom of speech. But they are really very unpleasant pieces of legislation.
To conclude my speech today, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-11 is another unacceptable attempt by the NDP-Liberal government to censor the Internet and, once again, restrict free speech. The restrictive, divisive and controlling NDP-Liberal government needs to finally realize that Canadians just want to be left alone.
It is time that the NDP-Liberals began paying attention to what Canadians want rather than pushing their partisan agenda of dividing, wedging and stigmatizing Canadians based on anything and everything they can conjure up.
1800 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a number of the Conservative speakers on this piece of legislation make me wonder whether or not they have actually purchased tinfoil hats. At the end of the day, I am not sure what part of the legislation the member opposite feels so offended by. Members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, and at least one member of the Green Party, support the legislation. It is not just the government or two political parties, and only the Conservative Party has these wild, crazy thoughts that it is an infringement on freedoms.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts as to why the Conservative Party of Canada feels it is a fight against Canadian freedoms. In fact, we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. We understand the importance of freedom.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the great example is everything the Liberals have done in the past couple of years. They said they based things on science, but really it was based on political science. There was massive government overreach at every step. They would say one thing and do something different.
They would have experts, chambers of commerce and international organizations saying that what they were doing makes no sense, but they still kept misleading Canadians by saying they were just following the science. They have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted when it comes to our freedoms in this country.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the member's speech. I have had conversations with him in the past and always found him to be very level-headed. It is obvious that he has not read the bill. He does not understand the bill at all, which is fine, as members can stand in the House and speak even if they have not read the material.
However, what he does talk about is disturbing because it does apply, but it applies to the web giants. We have seen with the Facebook papers the indiscriminate collection and use of people's private data, and it is indiscriminate by the web giants. There is not a single Conservative who has risen in the House to say that is wrong, so I want to ask the member about that.
What he says about Bill C-11 is simply not true. It has no relationship to the bill, as I am sure he is aware. He is a very intelligent man. However, the indiscriminate collection of data is taking place, and it is taking place by private companies. As the Facebook papers have revealed, it is something we should be concerned about. Why is he not concerned about private corporations collecting that data and tracking Canadians? Why is he not concerned about that?
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it has been great working with the hon. member over the years. We spent some time on the trade committee together.
I would point to the fact that I have not heard one speech on this side of the House that has not said we should level the playing field. We believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that big corporations should not just get away with whatever they feel like. We have not said that they should not have to pay their fair share. We firmly support that. That is an issue. We need to make sure we level the playing field. We have said that. We have said that before, and we will continue to say that as we move along.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to build a bit on the CRTC. We have heard a lot about the frustrations tonight. We have seen this time and time again with the Liberal government. Of course, the NDP is supporting them, and then a couple of years down the road when, for example, the CRTC has been given very vague definitions and broad powers to interpret a lot of these things as it sees fit, the government will say that it is not the government, it is the CRTC. The NDP and the Bloc will say they cannot believe that happened, as that is not what they intended.
Could the member speak to the vague definitions in this bill, as we can see this Trojan horse coming, and the CRTC intervening in a wide way? This is apparently not the intention of the bill, but Liberals have had more than enough opportunities to intervene and clarify, and it has refused to do so.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the challenges we have with a lot of the legislation we see in the House: the vagueness. It is so open-ended that definitions are not nailed down. This has happened with many pieces of legislation before, when we did not get definitions to define what something is. It created a lot of ambiguity.
At a point later in time, the Liberals could do exactly that. They could say it was not their fault and that it was not what they meant. This creates a lot of vagueness. We would like to see those things nailed down.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to represent the constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha.
Today, I am speaking to one of the most important bills that will come before this Parliament: Bill C-11, also known as the online streaming act. Bill C-11 would impact anyone who uses the Internet. Bill C-11, or the online streaming act, is a significant piece of legislation. It is long and convoluted in how it is written, but in a nutshell it would mean that the CRTC would have significant governing powers over content creators and what is uploaded to the Internet.
For those who do not know, the CRTC is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. According to its website, it is an administrative tribunal that operates at arm's length from the federal government. This bill appears to make it even closer to the government, meaning more government overreach. As we have all experienced, more bureaucracy never equals more efficiency or equity.
In this speech, I am going to outline three key reasons why Canadians should be deeply disappointed and concerned with this bill. Number one is the lack of transparency. Number two is logistics and the fallout from not foreseeing the consequences of this poorly written bill. Number three is unnecessary urgency.
If someone Google searches Bill C-11, they will read the following: “The online streaming act does not apply to individual Canadians, whether they are users, creators, digital influencers or workers.” Just for the record, in case people at home do not know, an online content creator could perhaps be a child who has uploaded their performance at their talent show, Justin Bieber, perhaps one's favourite cook, an athlete or a musician. All of these people are considered to be online content creators. This is the biggest area of mistrust and lack of transparency when we go back and read that “the online streaming act does not apply to individual Canadians, whether they are users, creators, digital influencers or workers.”
We have heard multiple times from the heritage minister that this bill would not target content creators, but rather the platforms, which means Facebook, TikTok, Netflix, etc. However, Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, the entity that would be responsible for doing the regulation on the government's behalf, says that user-generated content would be fair game. Who are we to believe?
That is fairly inconsistent information and, as such, Canadians are very skeptical of the “just trust us” approach. I do not know of any contract with any reputable organization where the customer is asked to sign now and learn the details later. This approach lacks transparency and, in the absence of information, we can expect people to fill it in with misinformation. The Liberal government continues to leave out information, which leads to mistrust. Why is the government asking Canadians to just trust it? What premise has it set to deserve such blind faith?
I want to move on to my second major concern: the logistics of this bill. As I have mentioned, there are very few clear details on how this bill would impact content creators and users. What I do know is that there are thousands of videos uploaded every day, and probably even millions. How will the government plan to manage this? What is the plan? I have seen time and again the government fail to plan and constantly react instead of prepare. We have the highest wait times at passport offices that we have ever seen, because the government was not prepared. How is it going to manage the volume of content creators fairly? I would like to know these details before we pass this bill.
Rules and guidelines are extremely important when generating content. I worked in both mainstream media and as an online content creator, and it is extremely important to have guidelines that equal the playing field, but this bill would not do that. Here is a quote from Dr. Irene Berkowitz. Irene said:
Bill C-11's wrong turn starts with the notion that CRTC has jurisdiction over the whole Internet for two reasons. The first is scale. Consider the math. On YouTube alone, 500 hours of content is uploaded per minute....
Second, new media is a feature, not a bug.... Bill C-11 gets it backwards. Instead of positioning new media as a model to engage audiences, it ensnares new media in the epic fail part of our old media: disregard for audiences.
Here is another quote. It is from Darcy Michael, a comedian and digital content creator:
Bill C-11 will directly affect my ability to earn an income.
He went on:
The sheer logistics of the CRTC trying to approve Canadian content for every video uploaded to social media is impossible. Across the country, there are thousands of videos uploaded every day. There is simply no way to approve this. You are creating a logistical nightmare, with all due respect to the members, without properly understanding the industry that we're in.
He continued:
I don't want to be paying 30% to do something I don't benefit from as a digital creator. I think it's a second tax. I think that by the end of the day I'll be paying 80% tax on my income. That isn't fair.
To my third point, why the rush? This is a significant piece of legislation that needs a lot of attention and detail, so why would anyone who truly cares about democracy want this rushed? Bill C-11 would be the first major update to the Broadcasting Act in 31 years, and this government is ramming it through. Why?
Dozens of interested witnesses have yet to be heard by the heritage committee. The government has an obligation to listen to those who are directly impacted by the bill. By imposing an arbitrary deadline to return the bill to the House, the government is not allowing members to carefully consider each clause or amendment, and this will inevitably result in a flawed and incoherent Broadcasting Act, which comes back to the second point I made earlier: There is no way to work out the logistics in such a rushed approach.
I am somebody who likes things done quickly. I am always about speed and efficiency, but this is being rushed. I would ask Canadians if they would want someone regulating every book they read and every song they hear. Do they want censorship at that level? Bill C-11 would create winners and losers based on the CRTC's rule book, which is unknown at this time and will be decided on with zero transparency to Canadians.
Here are some powerful words from Oorbee Roy, a digital content creator, who said:
Not only does the bill not help me. It also hurts me and actively undermines my needs as an artist. There is no language in the bill to tell me otherwise.
Frankly, I don't qualify. I'm just not the right fit. That I'm not the right fit is a story I've been told my whole life. ... I'm too round. I'm a nerd. I'm too old. I'm female. I'm not feminine enough. I'm not the right demographic, but I've never been the right demographic. My voice has been suppressed far too many times.
That is a powerful quote from Oorbee Roy, a digital content creator.
I will wrap up my speech by saying that George Orwell warned us of the dangers of having the thought police, and I think that Bill C-11 is a potentially dangerous bill that needs a lot more attention before we can get it right. I urge everyone in this House to vote against it and take the time it needs to make sure we get it done right.
1331 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
