44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right. If we think about the Senate that has 107 senators, there are only 18 Conservative senators there. Essentially, the Liberal Senate, that the Liberals kicked out and formed different groups, has said there are issues with this bill. There are issues especially on individual content and that is the major concern that we are talking about here.
We have the testimony that was heard at committee from people who are online digital creators who want the ability to grow globally. They do not want the government interfering in that and possibly down voting content if it does not like their content because it is not the ideology of the day.
That is the difficulty. I have already talked about the President of the United States. That should give serious pause to the Liberals. If they are serious about their relationship with the U.S., they need to be serious about addressing those concerns.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to advise that I will be sharing my time with my little buddy from Bow River.
It is, again, an honour to rise and speak today in the House. Unfortunately, I am speaking about another oppressive piece of legislation, and with the current Liberal government that could be almost anything, to be honest. In this case, it is the Liberal online censorship bill, Bill C-11. It is known as an act that would impose restrictions on free speech and open the door to government censorship on the Internet in Canada, which is the long title of the bill, or whatever name the Liberals want to give it.
From the beginning, the Liberals have sought to force the bill through Parliament without proper deliberation or consultation. Though Canadian content creators, experts and Canadians in general have spoken out on the bill and the increased power it would give the government, they have been largely ignored. The Liberals rammed Bill C-11 through committee without leaving time for amendments, and they continue to conceal their true intentions and the very real consequences the legislation would have on the Canadian Internet, on social media and on the personal freedoms of Canadians.
If the Liberal government were to commit to getting Bill C-11 correct, as it claims it has, instead of steamrolling democracy, the Senate would not have had to do the government's work for it. It is rare that the Senate does not pass legislation that has already passed through the House. The Senate sending Bill C-11 back to the House with significant amendments, not only in quantity but also in content, shows that there is something seriously wrong with the Liberal piece of legislation before us.
Bill C-11 seeks to regulate audiovisual content on the Internet through an arm of the government called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, commonly known as the CRTC, which has traditionally been responsible for regulating radio and television. The bill would put the CRTC in charge of creating and implementing regulations for the Internet for the very first time. Bill C-11 has been controversial since it was introduced in 2020. Disguised as an incompetent and misguided attempt to modernize Canadian content regulation, the bill is nothing more than censorship by a dictatorship.
The Liberals introduced Bill C-11 to take something old, the Broadcasting Act, and use it to try to bridle something relatively new: the Internet. In trying to doing so, the bill is the very opposite of modernization. By placing greater control in the hands of the government and granting less autonomy to individuals, Bill C-11 would create the very opposite of a free and equal society. It would be something closer to the Prime Minister's country of admiration: the basic dictatorship of China's Communist government.
Canadians who have been shut out by Canada's traditional media gatekeepers are finding their voices on places like Facebook, Instagram, Spotify and YouTube. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would stifle the voices of digital-first creators and hinder the ability of Canadians to find the content they may like. In effect, Bill C-11 would place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which would pick what content gets moved to the top of one's search menu and what content gets pushed to the background where it ought never to be discovered.
In this way, Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital-first creators, on our choice as viewers and on the advancement of the arts and culture in Canada in this century.
After listening to testimony from digital experts, Canadian YouTubers, indigenous creators and others, the Senate introduced an amendment, one of many, that would encourage the CRTC to exclude some user-generated content from regulation. However, not only is this amendment not guaranteed to pass in the House, but it also does not go far enough. With or without this amendment, under Bill C-11, the CRTC would still be able to compel platforms to promote CRTC-approved Canadian content.
The Liberals claim that bringing in more government intervention will boost Canadian culture. I believe this is absolutely false. As countries ruled by oppressive leaders have shown us, more government control does not lead to creativity and innovation, nor does allowing more power ever cause governments to further respect its citizens' rights and freedoms.
Under this bill, the CRTC would have the power to regulate user-generated content, in other words, anything created, posted and produced on the Internet. As such, although the government claims that this bill is geared toward supporting Canadian culture and levelling the playing field, Bill C-11 would actually remove freedom and choice away from Canadians while unfortunately, and not surprisingly, it would put more power and control in the hands of the government through the CRTC.
According to a report done by Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa expert on broadcasting and online regulations, “No other democratic nation regulates user-generated content through broadcasting rules in this manner...Canada would be unique among its allies in doing so, and not in a good way.”
This designation of the government having the power to determine what qualifies as Canadian content should alarm Canadians and members of the government alike. Bill C-11's stated purpose of promoting Canadian content would essentially give the government, through the CRTC, the power to determine what qualifies as Canadian content. Under this guise of promoting Canadian content, the government would be able to designate certain opinions, certain stances and thoughts in general as un-Canadian and thus deserving of censorship.
We have seen the Prime Minister shut down and silence Canadians who disagree with the government already, determining their opinions to be un-Canadian. We have seen him render Canadians invisible and exclude them from society, deciding that certain medical choices and beliefs are un-Canadian. Now if Bill C-11 passes, the same Prime Minister, through the CRTC, would have the power to extend his pattern of dividing, stigmatizing and silencing Canadians he disagrees with on the Internet.
Ultimately, Bill C-11 would put Canada in step with countries like North Korea, China, Iran and Russia, which is totally unacceptable and altogether dangerous. In reality, Bill C-11 is yet another attempt by the Liberal government to silence any perceived dissent and to forward only a Canada that aligns with the government: in this case, the Prime Minister's vision and ideals.
This bill is simply another in a long list of misguided and out-of-touch policies. It demonstrates that after eight years under the Prime Minister, Canada is broken. Legislation that seeks to regulate and oppress Canadians has been the norm under the Liberal government. While Canadians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, struggling to feed their families and to heat their homes, their government is focusing its resources on extending its already heavy hand into the everyday lives of its citizens.
The bottom line is that the Liberal government has failed to be transparent and continues to show contempt for democracy and parliamentary procedure by consistently using heavy-handed measures to adopt what can only be described as oppressive and unprecedented legislation without proper scrutiny.
Bill C-11 is nothing but another Liberal assault on Canadian citizens and their personal freedoms. That is why it failed in the Senate and why even a modified version ought to be voted down by the House. If it is not, I hope the Senate does the right thing and punts it back to the House with even more amendments.
1277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, again, from Conservative speaker after Conservative speaker, we are getting conspiracy theories and dog whistle politics. Does the hon. member truly believe that three parties in the House would support a piece of legislation and that none of those members would raise concerns about being brought in line with countries like North Korea and Russia? I asked the previous member this. Is it not an insult to the people living in those regimes to even come close to comparing them?
I know the hon. member was not at committee and did not hear this. Could he name just one constitutional expert in this country who has raised concerns about it? No one has, yet they point fingers, yell and scream. They are yelling down the Twitter rabbit hole, hoping it yells back at them with money, over complete misinformation and disinformation about Bill C-11. Can the hon. member name one constitutional expert?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will say that I have heard other speakers answer questions in the House and speak, and a government that is—
Mr. Chris Bittle: Not one.
Mr. Glen Motz: Mr. Speaker, does the member want to answer his own question or does he want me to answer it?
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 8:06:04 p.m.
- Watch
The question has been asked. Let us allow the hon. member to answer it.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague can answer his own questions. That is a first.
If we have a government that introduces legislation and that cannot even provide for Canadians, let alone this House, a charter statement on compliance, I think we, and Canadians, should be asking some serious questions, and they are.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to my colleague's speech. I do not share his concerns or criticisms whatsoever.
It seems as though the Conservative Party has been fearmongering for months. Some words are quite loaded and must be used sparingly, words like dictatorship and oppression or talk of civil liberties being limited. I never saw the CRTC do that while attending hearings in my previous life.
Is the member opposite aware that his criticisms and comments are not based on anything in the bill, and that individual users can continue to express opinions and share their content on social media? I wonder what exactly he is talking about.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. I was not at committee, but I know, from what I have been monitoring in this particular debate and from the content of phone calls and emails to my office from many folks across the country, that they have concerns. It is not because we are raising them but because Canadians who have testified at committee have concerns as well.
Anytime we have a piece of legislation that effectively makes the government a regulator, we as Canadians need to be concerned. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill, by any other word, makes the CRTC responsible to determine what content is Canadian enough and what is un-Canadian. It has trouble keeping up with what it has been mandated to do already. I cannot imagine it trying to do this.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner is this. There are legitimate concerns with this bill. However, when words like “censorship” and “charter rights” get used inappropriately, I think that can take away from the legitimacy of those criticisms. Is he not concerned that some of that language can erode concerns that are legitimate with respect to certain aspects of the bill?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what needs to concern Canadians is that this, again, is another example of the government taking advantage and trying to modernize the Broadcasting Act, trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, and completely failing us and Canadians in that the CRTC would regulate what we see. Is that censorship? Should that concern us as Canadians under the charter? Yes, it should. I should decide what I want to see and what is Canadian that I want to see and not some organization controlled by the government.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a question as to the charter statement on Bill C-11. I was hoping to get unanimous consent to table, in both official languages—
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a question as to the charter statement on Bill C-11. I was hoping to get unanimous consent to table, in both official languages—
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 8:10:05 p.m.
- Watch
We are getting into debate.
Continuing debate, the hon. member for Bow River.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting debate today, and I rise to speak on Bill C-11.
I was here for Bill C-10, which went on until the Liberals finally realized it was problematic, shipped it off to the Senate and called an election because they knew they had a bad piece of legislation.
The Internet is an interesting place, but the expression of opinions has been going on for a long time.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I do not know if anybody in this House has been to Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, London. People can stand there and express any opinion they want. There are libel laws in the Criminal Code; we understand that. However, people can stand on that corner and express their viewpoints. There is no censorship and no control. If they attract an audience, the audience might like to listen. If they do not attract an audience, so be it, but they still have the opportunity to do that.
In 1989, the World Wide Web was introduced as a tool for communication and connection, for the free flow of information no matter where one was located. One did not have to be on Speakers' Corner but could be anywhere in the world. According to Tim Berners-Lee, who is credited with founding the Internet, the web was a universal linked information system that “evolved into a powerful ubiquitous tool because it was built on...principles and because thousands...have worked...to expand its capabilities based on those principles.” That is how the modern-day inventor of this particular tool stated it.
Since then, it has exploded. At least five billion people in the world are using it. I remember being on a corner in Beijing, China, and the street vendor selling a watermelon was using the Internet. It has exploded around the world. It can be used to shop, browse and communicate freely. It can be used for anything one wants at just about the click of a button. This is the power of the Internet.
The government wants Bill C-11 to level the playing field, but I do not think this is the leveller. Despite what the government says, Bill C-11 would change the way Canadians interact with the Internet, and I do not agree with the how. Bill C-11 flies directly in the face of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition Charter. The charter talks about the right to network equality, “universal and open access to the Internet’s content, free from discriminatory prioritisation, filtering or traffic control on commercial, political or other grounds.” It talks about the right to accessibility and expression, “the right to seek, receive, and impart information freely on the Internet without censorship or other interference.”
However, the heritage minister has continued to stonewall against some of our concerns. As Conservatives brought forward amendments that people were sharing with us, the government did not accept them and then went to the Senate after ignoring the amendments we wanted to make. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 stands in the way of Canadian innovation and tells Canadian creators that their aspirations can only be achieved with the help of the government. There is a phrase: “I'm here to help you. I'm from the government.” In my world, I tell people to run now and run like hell. When somebody from the government says they are here to help, people should run.
For decades, the Canadian arts and cultural sectors have reached global audiences without government choosing the next success story. In my riding, as in many rural ridings, over 40% of the people do not have access to broadband. The Auditor General stated that less than 60% of rural Canadians have broadband access. Maybe that is what the Liberals should be working on, not controlling the Internet.
When there are people in Canada who do not even have reliable Internet, we should be looking at that. However, the crux of Bill C-11 culminates in what the government has been doing since it took office. It wants to spend, regulate and control more. Enter Bill C-10 and then Bill C-11 to mandate the CRTC to regulate the Internet.
I have been on the heritage committee for a long time. There was a report with a recommendation that people should only be board members on the CRTC if they lived in the 613 area code. That was the Yale report recommendation. I am not sure about the CRTC when people have to live in Ottawa to be on the board.
Often during committee we heard that the CRTC was the only organization capable of achieving such a wide regulatory order. This bill would lead to the addition of even more government employees and costs, which would be significant whether done in-house or contracted out. It would be a huge cost. Not only would the scope of the CRTC reach Canadian radio waves and TV screens, but now it would also reach the Internet.
In 1997, a former Liberal MP, the Hon. Roger Gallaway, said:
[T]he Internet is the system linking computers all over the world, allowing the free flow of information. Now the new chair of the CRTC...has stated that her commission intends to regulate the Internet to ensure adequate levels of Canadian content. If information is flowing freely how and why is [the commissioner} going to measure its Canadiana?
Rather than spend our money in such a fashion perhaps a suggestion of redirecting her cash to libraries, book publishing or literary programs would be infinitely more meaningful. Regulating the flow of information is in a historical sense an extraordinarily dangerous step. I would suggest that regulating the flow of information is in fact censorship.
As parliamentarians I suggest that we stop the CRTC's flight of fancy before it takes one further step.
Does it sound familiar? History repeats itself, this time at the behest of the government. In 1997, when the Internet was but a fraction of what it is today, the concerns of regulatory censorship in what is Canadian content was being raised by the Liberals.
More recently, Canadian writer-director Sarah Polley adapted a screenplay from a novel by Canadian author Miriam Toews. She won an Oscar for her film Women Talking. Will the CRTC acknowledge that this production qualifies as Canadian content? Whether productions have significant involvement by Canadians is not considered by the CRTC to qualify as Canadian content.
Turning Red is a Pixar film written and directed by a Canadian, set in Canada and with Canadian characters. Does it count? No, it does not; it is not Canadian. Under Bill C-11, that decision would fall to cabinet, its order in council, the governor. Yes, that is the one that says they are going to give the directions to the CRTC. I do not think any party should be making those decisions and directing the CRTC.
At least the previous Bill C-10, a bill that died in the last Parliament, included an explicit exemption for user-generated content. However, then the Liberals removed it from their own bill. Members of the government realized they would not be able to tighten the grip on Canadians' viewing habits should that exemption remain. Therefore, they tried again with Bill C-11 and told Canadians not to worry but to trust them. That is another phrase. It gets scary when somebody says, “Trust me”.
A careful examination revealed complicated ways in which they can still be regulated. The Senate introduced an amendment intended to explicitly rule out user-generated non-commercial content, but the government rejected that too. The Liberals rejected the Senate, Canadians and the exemption. That must say it all.
As Canadians' foremost expert on Internet and copyright law, Dr. Michael Geist said, “For months, [the Minister of Heritage] has said ‘platforms in, users out’.... We now know this was false. By rejecting the Senate amendment, the government’s real intent is clear: retain the power to regulate user content. Platforms in, user content in.”
If the CRTC is given this mandate, it may direct social media platforms and streaming services to develop the algorithms to favour and disfavour based on a certain criterion, but one we do not know. No one but the government knows. The screening occurs through discoverability. When one opens a browser on a platform, such as YouTube or Facebook, such results would be screened artificially based on a CRTC directive. This needs to stop.
1361 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I want to ask the member about some celebrities because one of his colleagues was kind enough to mention some mainstream celebrities. These ones are indigenous. Some, he might know: Tantoo Cardinal, Tom Jackson and Tina Keeper. They are well-known celebrities.
There are also other independent producers: Nataq Ungalaq, Lucy Tulugarjuk, Sylvia Ivalu, Tanya Tagaq Gillis and Elisapi. Would the member have known or heard of any of these names if it were not for my mentioning them now? Does he agree that this act is necessary so that we can continue supporting indigenous independent producers like this bill intends to do?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the time my colleague and I spent on indigenous committees. The member brought a great voice to that committee when I was on it, and I appreciate it.
No, those are not familiar names to me, but I have watched the indigenous channel a number of times and watched the stories that are on it. They are not on CBC, CTV or Global, but I chose to watch them. I have turned to that channel and there have been excellent Canadian stories, indigenous stories, produced by Canadian indigenous people and put on that channel. I have chosen to watch them. It has been my choice to do that, and there is excellent quality on that particular channel.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the talk we heard in the debate about level playing fields. Could he comment on whether an unfettered Internet is the most level playing field that could ever possibly exist?
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to history to answer that one. I am going to go back to 1960. At that time, most political debates happened via radio. There was a candidate who was Irish and Catholic, and the United States had never elected an Irish Catholic president. However, he looked to a new medium: He looked to television. He studied it and looked at how he could perform on television. His opponent, Nixon, thought that was no problem. Somebody took a new medium, which he did not get government support to do. He won that debate and JFK became president.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to history to answer that one. I am going to go back to 1960. At that time, most political debates happened via radio. There was a candidate who was Irish and Catholic, and the United States had never elected an Irish Catholic president. However, he looked to a new medium: He looked to television. He studied it and looked at how he could perform on television. His opponent, Nixon, thought that was no problem. Somebody took a new medium, which he did not get government support to do. He won that debate and JFK became president.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
