44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the amount of correspondence he got from constituents and people from all across his riding who were concerned about Bill C-11. I have heard a lot of concerns from people in my area around this.
I am wondering if the member could perhaps go into a little more detail on some of the specific concerns he heard from regular, everyday, hard-working Albertans.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will reassure my friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake that one of my favourite places to visit in our beautiful province is Cold Lake. I have already booked camping and fishing at Cold Lake, so I am happy to go there and reacquaint myself with not only the good people in her constituency but also the great fishing opportunities there.
Aside from that, Albertans are sometimes a little culturally different from the rest of Canada, and I accept that, but we want responsible government. What I have heard from my constituents by and large is that they do not want to be told what they can and cannot watch, and they do not want the government regulating them.
Here is Canadian content. For digital content creators, “CanCon is defined using criteria applied by three bodies: the CRTC for regulation; Canadian Heritage to access tax credits; and the Canada Media Fund (CMF) to access its public financing.” That trifecta of bureaucracy is going to be governing what Canadian content providers can do. They know impossible odds when they see them. Dealing with one government department on an issue is bad enough. When they have to deal with three for the same issue to try to get something done, good luck.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, in 2020, one in four people working in the cultural sector lost their job, but Netflix's revenues increased by over 22% in that same year. Does the member agree that we need this legislation to equalize the playing field in online streaming?
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member has cherry-picked a year when Canadians were basically told to stop going to work, go home and get paid $2,000 a month. What were they going to do? What did I do until we had what was not even a hybrid Parliament but a virtual sort of Parliament where we did not do anything other than talk?
An hon. member: We interviewed.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, yes, we interviewed each other online.
In all fairness to the member's question, I have the privilege of representing the find people of Maskwacis in central Alberta. The thousands of people in the four bands of Samson, Ermineskin, Louis Bull and Montana are amazing representatives of their culture: the dancing, the music, the drums and all of those things. I have complete confidence and faith that if the government gets out of the way of first nations people in this country, first nations people, who are intelligent enough and hard-working enough to do everything they need to do to take care of themselves, will not only be successful but thrive in Canada. I do not know anybody in a first nation who says that another solution from Ottawa is probably going to help them out.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the entire debate from the Conservative Party is so divorced from the reality of what Bill C-11 would do that I do not even know where to start. On the last point, we had indigenous groups coming forward, proposing amendments and seeking to move forward on Bill C-11.
I do not know where the hon. members get their idea that this bill would engage in some sort of censorship, that the three parties in support of this bill are in favour of censorship and that members on this side of the House, who stand up for charter rights, are in favour of censorship. Where does this come from?
I know the member and all Conservative members mentioned one particular academic. Can they name another one, perhaps even a constitutional expert, who is opposed to the bill and has raised concerns about charter rights in this country?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the member across the way is asking me whether or not Bill C-11 is charter-compliant, I will note that the charter compliance review would have been done by his colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who is the same person responsible for bail reform. Members will have to forgive me if I have my doubts.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11. Nearly one year ago, I spoke to Bill C-11 in the House of Commons, and I expressed my opposition to the bill, a bill that would regulate the Internet. I have said it before and I will say it again: The Internet is supposed to be open and free. It is supposed to be open and free to create one's content and choose what one reads, free from government overreach.
However, here we are, once again, debating Bill C-11, a bill that would give the government the power to regulate what people see and hear on the Internet. If Bill C-11 passes, the government will give itself power to control what people watch. Instead of giving Canadians more of what they want to see, YouTube would be instructed to give viewers more of what the government wants them to see.
This could be our last chance to stop this bill from becoming law, which is why so many Canadians have reached out to their MPs to oppose Bill C-11. As I have said before, Bill C-11 is legislation to regulate the Internet. The Liberal government wants to influence what people see while they are browsing the web. It wants to push specific content to the top of their screens so they see it first. Consequently, other content will move down their screens so they see less of it. This is what the Liberals really mean when they say they want to make content more discoverable.
Back in the day, as my other colleague mentioned, the content we saw and heard was controlled by a small group of large players. Whether that was a small group of radio tycoons or a small group of television moguls, there were a limited number of people who decided what content we consumed. We were limited to what we could read, listen to or watch through traditional media channels. One of the reasons Canadians were limited in the content they could consume was that the government regulated television and radio through the Broadcasting Act.
The Broadcasting Act meant that TV and radio stations had to have broadcast licences to operate. TV and radio stations needed to meet specific government-imposed rules concerning what they could air and what proportion of their content had to be Canadian. My colleague mentioned this earlier today when she explained how television and radio had been managed as a finite resource. However, the Internet is not a finite resource. Its content can be infinite. People no longer have to tune in to the soap opera at a specific time in order to consume content. The Internet allows consumers to access what they want, when they want it.
Now the government wants to regulate the Internet like it regulated traditional television and radio stations. The Liberals claim that Bill C-11 is needed to modernize the Broadcasting Act. Instead, they are taking an outdated government approach to traditional broadcasting and applying it to a free and open Internet. The Liberals want to place regulations on content that goes beyond large companies such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. They want to apply the same regulations to user-generated content, whether it be a local podcaster, the independent content creator or even the individual uploading videos to social media. The Liberals claim they have included an exemption for user-generated content, but they also added an exemption to the exemption, making such effort effectively meaningless.
What happens if someone decides to violate the Bill C-11 regulations? Well, the fines could be as high as $25,000 for a first event by an individual and $10 million for an offence by a corporation. The government thinks that Canadians are incapable of choosing what they want to read or watch on the Internet. The government believes that Canadians need help navigating through their social media streams. It believes Canadians would be better off if the government were deciding what they see and hear on the Internet.
The other day, the Prime Minister was hosting a town hall and spoke about the importance of the government keeping Canadians safe from the Internet. He could not hide his belief that it is the government's job to protect Canadians from the Internet. The Prime Minister's mentality is that the more government the better. He said that the Internet means there is a lot of people spending a huge amount of time in places that the governments have no ability to keep people directly safe from Internet companies, specifically the web giants like Facebook and Google.
The Prime Minister believes that only the government can keep us safe. No wonder he wants to regulate what we see and hear online. If his government can regulate the Internet, it can decide what is best for us to see.
I know the Prime Minister likes to call the opposition “despicable”. Do members know what is despicable? It is despicable for the Liberals to target the freedom of individual Internet users in Canada. It is despicable for the government to push certain content to the top of our screens and therefore move other content down our screens. It is despicable for the government to overwhelmingly reject the advice of experts and digital content creators across this country. That is right, it is not just Conservatives who are opposing Bill C-11. Experts across the country are alarmed.
This following is a statement by University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist on Bill C-11.
An hon. member: You can name another one.
Mr. Dan Mazier: You can listen to this if you want to.
954 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:14:34 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. members should be speaking through the Chair and not directly to other members.
The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has the floor.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the people across the way want to listen, here is the quote from Michael Geist.
He said, “To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard.” That is the fundamental problem with this. He then continues:
In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content.... The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.
Bill C-11 was so bad that, when the NDP-Liberal coalition sent it to the Senate, even the Liberal-appointed senators sounded the alarm. It was written so terribly that the Senate returned the legislation back to the House of Commons with 29 amendments.
I found it interesting that the Liberal-appointed senators, after hearing from experts, proposed an amendment that would reduce the amount of regulation that Bill C-11 would have on social media, but guess what? The minister has already indicated that the Liberals will reject the amendment, which came from their own senators. If the government is unwilling to listen to its own senators, how can Canadians believe they will be heard?
There is a reason I am here with my Conservative colleagues at nine o'clock at night to oppose Bill C-11. Canadians want the Liberal government to keep its hands off the Internet. Although this may be our last chance to stop this bill in this Parliament, Canadians can be hopeful knowing that it will be killed once Conservatives are elected to clean up the Liberal government's mess. Until then, I will, once again, be voting against Bill C-11.
358 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are hearing from speaker after speaker that we are regulating the Internet. Ultimately, this piece of legislation will regulate 10 of some of the largest companies in the world. We have not heard one member stand up to express concern about the monopolistic tendencies of tech giants.
I know the National Post has called Conservatives the PR mouthpiece for Facebook and Google, but I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on the fact that the Internet is not what we saw in the 1990s. It is controlled by a few monopolies and duopolies over various elements. Why does he stand in support of that?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is the fundamental flaw with this whole legislation and the attitude of the government to the Internet and its approach to the Internet. It has a complete disregard for what Canadians are telling it. Experts, industry people and content developers are all telling it to at least look at the amendments and fix the legislation. Will it? No, it will not, and that is why we are here.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are obviously concerned about monopolistic practices that the government continues to enable, but one thing Canadians hate more than that is big government, and that is what this bill would do. It is only going to further blow out the powers that be, who are going to regulate the Internet. That is going to make bigger governments. There is going to be more bureaucracy and more headaches for Canadians. Does the member have anything he would like to add to that?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, can one imagine any more government, especially when the Liberals are in power? As was commented earlier tonight, we have a passport system that is backed up and not working. We have an immigration system that has two million people waiting to get approved. This is just a mess. They have basically broken everything, so why not break the Internet as well?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am going to read a section of Bill C-11, which reads:
(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with
(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings;
I wonder if the member agrees with me that indigenous groups like the Maskwacis, who were mentioned earlier, will not be negatively impacted by this bill.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically about that group, but I know rural Canadians, especially in places that are sparsely populated and have a lack of connectivity services, will be severely impacted by this. They have very little opportunity to speak, and they should be able to speak as freely and as often as they want to. These regulations will complicate that whole process, so I would encourage the member to have a second look at this. What kind of impact would this mean to rural Canada? It is not good for us living in rural Canada.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there were 80 witnesses who came before committee to testify in regard to this piece of legislation. That is 80 witnesses, yet the only one Conservatives will quote is Michael Geist. Could this member quote one of the other 79 witnesses, please, just to entertain us?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, again, this is the problem, which is that they are not listening to those witnesses. How many of those—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:21:17 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to let the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa respond.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 9:21:17 p.m.
- Watch
Can I answer the question, Mr. Speaker?
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is the frustrating thing about this bill: No one is listening to the witnesses who gave testimony. If there were 80 of them, how many said that this is a rock-solid bill and we should approve it? Why would the government not then bring it forward for unanimous consent? This bill doing is dividing Canada, not bringing us together.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
