44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
- 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
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague from across the way truly think the Internet is some wild, open place where people can post and see whatever they want, or does he actually think that the companies with dominance on the Internet are making decisions for us about what we should watch and what we have access to?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague from across the way truly think the Internet is some wild, open place where people can post and see whatever they want, or does he actually think that the companies with dominance on the Internet are making decisions for us about what we should watch and what we have access to?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to history again. During the Vietnam War, I was in university, and I read different papers from all over the world. They would write about battles that occurred in Vietnam, and one would say each was a different battle; however, they were all the same. I know that because my family and cousins were there, and they told me what actually happened. Are we to say they should not be able to write their version of that story? Are we to say that one cannot write one's version of the story, and it needs to be one story? No, the person who wants to write should be allowed to.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to history again. During the Vietnam War, I was in university, and I read different papers from all over the world. They would write about battles that occurred in Vietnam, and one would say each was a different battle; however, they were all the same. I know that because my family and cousins were there, and they told me what actually happened. Are we to say they should not be able to write their version of that story? Are we to say that one cannot write one's version of the story, and it needs to be one story? No, the person who wants to write should be allowed to.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye so I can speak to this piece of legislation. I know I started speaking on it, but I guess the government made a mistake in its original motion. I was so keen to make sure I was here to add my voice and the voices of my constituents on this.
Years ago, when this bill was known as Bill C-10, which then got converted to Bill C-11, I remember standing at a Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast in my riding in the community of Auburn Bay. The hosts served two to three thousand people that day. I stood at the front of the line, and before people got their pancakes, they had to interact with me.
I had a great many constituents tell me the number one issue they wanted to talk to me about was Bill C-11. I was floored that some of them knew the number for a piece of legislation. A lot of young people wanted to talk about it. What they knew was that Bill C-11 was coming through and would have an impact on free speech, and they did not like it. I asked them what they knew, and we had an exchange about it.
The majority of emails I get are in opposition to Bill C-11 and also in opposition to Bill C-21. I have had a handful, which I could literally count on one hand, of people who have had positive things to say about Bill C-11.
People are extremely upset with the government over the Senate amendments and which of the amendments it has chosen to proceed with and which it has not. One of the Senate amendments it rejected would have protected user-uploaded content.
As we know, with most user-uploaded content, there is a possibility for someone to make revenue from it when they have a channel. All of it is captured by these amendments that the government would be accepting in Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is still a deeply flawed piece of legislation.
Before I continue, I want to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Lakeland, who I am sure will do a terrific job speaking on behalf of her constituents as well.
I want to go through the legislation, specifically section 7, which I have the most concerns with.
In my home, my kids go on YouTube and streaming services exclusively. We do not have cable. There is no over-the-air TV like back in my day. When I say “back in my day”, I still remember when there were black and white channels.
In Communist Poland, there were only two channels we could get. They were both in black and white. The joke always was that the regime had set up a second channel to prove to people the first one was not that bad. I do not remember it, but the first time I got to watch TV in colour was when I came to Canada in 1985. It was a nice thing to see that colour TV was something we could get.
My kids do not have that experience at all. They go onto YouTube and I go onto YouTube as well. I am going to mention two particular channels I love, because they are by Canadian content creators who would be impacted by Bill C-11.
The first one is an Ontario channel called TheStraightPipes. It is two guys from Ontario who review cars. They just get vehicles and review them. They would have to go to the CRTC to get a licence that says the videos they post are Canadian content.
They are from Canada. They are Canadian content creators. Even when they travel to America, I still think of their videos as Canadian content. Would they be eligible for a licence for their Canadian and international audience to be able to look at their videos if they go to America and do them?
The second one I want to mention is my favourite, and I mentioned it earlier in the previous stage of debate on Bill C-11 It is Leroy and Leroy. If people are not on Instagram checking out these guys from Saskatchewan, they are missing out.
Leroy and Leroy is the funniest comedy channel about funny street signs all over Canada. I will always remember the one video they uploaded of a “no parking” sign on a straight road somewhere in Saskatchewan. I know it is really difficult to figure out one straight road from another in Saskatchewan. It is a rural road, there is a “no parking” sign and there is just nothing there that someone would be concerned about vehicles blocking.
I wonder whether they would have to keep reapplying to the CRTC as Canadian content creators. Are they Canadian enough? When they travel outside of Canada to do their comedy routine, would they be Canadian enough?
I have a Yiddish proverb. I always have a Yiddish proverb. I am going to butcher the pronunciation of it.
[Member spoke in Yiddish]
[English]
It means, “Truth has all the finest qualities, but it is shy.” I am glad we are having this debate this evening, because it is an opportunity for the shyness to come out and the truth to come out.
Many members on the opposite side do not like the fact that we call this a censorship bill. We say the CRTC is going to be able to control what people see and hear online, but that is what many of the witnesses have been saying.
Countless witnesses, professors and academics, people who have specialized in writing, including a constitutional lawyer who used to work for our justice department, have expressed concern over the content of the bill and how the bill is written. When there is a disagreement between experts and the common, everyday people who write to my inbox telling me they are upset with the contents of the bill, I am going to trust my constituents, the real experts when it comes to legislation before the House. They are the ones I represent here. They are the ones who are going to have to live with the decisions we are making and the types of legislation we are going to pass.
I am very concerned with section 7. It reads, “For greater certainty, an order may be made under subsection (1) with respect to orders made under subsection 9.1(1) or 11.1(2) or regulations made under subsection 10(1) or 11.1(1).”
We write these laws in this manner. I am not burdened with a legal education, thankfully, but I did go back to the Broadcasting Act to see under which sections the government would be able to direct things. This one would allow cabinet to issue, under the heading “Policy directions”, any of the objectives of the broadcasting policies set out in a different subsection, or any of the objectives of the regulatory policies set out in a different section. It starts by saying, “the Governor in Council may...issue to the Commission directions of general application on broad policy matters with respect to”, and then it goes into detail.
The next section I will talk about is licencing. Everything to do with licencing would be impacted as well, because the government would be able to direct the CRTC through a policy directive and tell it what to do. That is all in section 7. It goes on to talk about regulations generally, and we find that in many pieces of legislation.
For those constituents who are perhaps watching this and will use this as an explanation when I go through this, it goes from literally 10(1) all the way down from (a) to (k), and the government covers everything down to what respects the audit or examination of the records of licencees.
What does that mean? Is it that, if Leroy and Leroy gets a licence with the CRTC to prove its creators create Canadian content, the creators can be audited, such as with respect to how many videos they did in Canada versus not in Canada? If TheStraightPipes brings in an American vehicle, or a vehicle perhaps manufactured elsewhere, are the creators going to be audited on that?
The bill talks about distribution, mediation rules and respecting the carriage of any foreign or other programming services by distribution undertakings. What happens if TheStraightPipes decides to do a joint episode with an American channel? Does it need a special licence, a different licence, and have to pay a fee? Is it Canadian content enough?
All these broadcasting rules are being brought into the age of YouTube, and they do not really apply here where the cost of production is so low and so close to people. However, in the bill, there are things about advertising, Canadian programming and what constitutes Canadian programming, which is where this Canadian content comes in.
Again, there are a schedule of fees, performing of the licence and the undertakings, which are all being covered, and it starts with the policy directives that can be set by the Government of Canada. A lot of different groups have expressed concerns about it. Like I said, it is probably the number one issue emailed to me or in the phone calls I get in the office.
I talked about the Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast outside the Auburn Bay A&W, which was hosting it. The gentleman who runs it, Balwant, is a great community activist. He is always helping different charitable groups and supporting them.
There are a lot of groups and individuals who think this is bad legislation: Digital First Canada; OpenMedia; J.J. McCullough, who is an independent journalist but has his own YouTube channel as well; Justin Tomchuk, who is an independent filmmaker; and the Digital Media Association. The list goes on and on.
This piece of legislation is bad. It is about censorship, or it would give the opportunity for it, and if the government really meant for it not to be not to be known by that, it would have abandoned this piece of legislation. It would have gone back to the drafting process and drafted a better bill.
This entire situation could have been avoided. Motions were tabled that actually did not do what they were supposed to do, and then the government came back and tabled a different motion because it is just trying to ram the bill through the process, and that has not worked out for the government. I think there are way more Canadians who know about Bill C-11 and about the CRTC than ever before, and the vast majority of them in my riding are opposed to Bill C-11.
I am going to vote against Bill C-11. I will continue to advocate against it, because that is what my constituents want me to do. Hopefully, through this intervention here in the House of Commons, I have been able to demonstrate that the legislation, particularly section 7, and its amendments to the Broadcasting Act are completely on the wrong track. The government needs to kill Bill C-11.
1896 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 8:34:05 p.m.
- Watch
I love the comment “I'm Leroy. He's Leroy behind the camera.”
It is time for questions and comments.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I do not watch YouTube very much, so I do not know what that reference to Leroy is. I am sure he would have the same response if he watched Isuma TV, which shows great Inuit content, and which is quite disadvantaged at this point because it cannot compete against web giants like Netflix and Disney+.
To get to my point, for many years, broadcasters and cultural workers have been losing a lot of revenue and have been suffering from unfair competition from the web giants. Does the member agree there needs to be an end to this kind of injustice and we need to ensure indigenous content providers can get the supports they need by taxing web giants like Netflix and Disney+?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I do not watch YouTube very much, so I do not know what that reference to Leroy is. I am sure he would have the same response if he watched Isuma TV, which shows great Inuit content, and which is quite disadvantaged at this point because it cannot compete against web giants like Netflix and Disney+.
To get to my point, for many years, broadcasters and cultural workers have been losing a lot of revenue and have been suffering from unfair competition from the web giants. Does the member agree there needs to be an end to this kind of injustice and we need to ensure indigenous content providers can get the supports they need by taxing web giants like Netflix and Disney+?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see is an opportunity for indigenous Canadians to participate freely, just like everybody else on YouTube, and upload their content free of the requirement to obtain government licences or of the requirement to keep updating their licences with the CRTC. That is not what they need in their lives. They do not need more government; I am certain of that. Just like my constituents do not need more government, Canadians in Nunavut and the territories also do not need more government in their lives.
The nice thing about platforms such as YouTube and many other online streaming services is that they equalize the production costs and the opportunity costs of joining, so that more and more eyeballs are being presented and there is the opportunity to be found and discovered by Canadians and by people internationally. That is the great opportunity.
We do not need to insert the government to generate those revenues. If one has a really interesting idea, a really fun and comedic routine or some very traditional cultural demonstration of one's personal culture, there is an opportunity to present it to others. If they find it interesting, want to look at it and want to share it with others, they are going to do so.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see is an opportunity for indigenous Canadians to participate freely, just like everybody else on YouTube, and upload their content free of the requirement to obtain government licences or of the requirement to keep updating their licences with the CRTC. That is not what they need in their lives. They do not need more government; I am certain of that. Just like my constituents do not need more government, Canadians in Nunavut and the territories also do not need more government in their lives.
The nice thing about platforms such as YouTube and many other online streaming services is that they equalize the production costs and the opportunity costs of joining, so that more and more eyeballs are being presented and there is the opportunity to be found and discovered by Canadians and by people internationally. That is the great opportunity.
We do not need to insert the government to generate those revenues. If one has a really interesting idea, a really fun and comedic routine or some very traditional cultural demonstration of one's personal culture, there is an opportunity to present it to others. If they find it interesting, want to look at it and want to share it with others, they are going to do so.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to get up and ask my colleague from Calgary Shepard a question, because “there's always something to do.”
The government of the day has subsidized media outlets across this country to the tune of over $600 million because these media outlets that are highly regulated by organizations like the CRTC and forced to follow these rules cannot generate the advertising revenue or the interest they need because the government is dictating to them what they can and cannot do. Does my colleague see Bill C-11 doing the same thing to digital content creators on the Internet?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the media bailout fund, which I think is what the member is referring to, was a $595-million fund. I remember it distinctly because I was on the Standing Committee on Finance at the time and held it up for about three to four hours asking basic questions. A government official was there from Finance Canada, and I asked whom it would cover and how one would actually obtain the funding. I said that it sounded like it was $595 million to cover politicians, and asked if that was correct. After about 15 minutes, the official said that, yes, that was basically it.
I started reading off the titles of different publications and asking if they would be eligible, and none of them were. Basically, if someone were going to cover the government and what the government was doing in current events, and obviously in flattering coverage because someone would never bite the hand that feeds them, then they would obtain the money. That has been one of the greatest problems with this. Again, this is old thinking. It is thinking from 40 years or 50 years ago to take the Broadcasting Act and impose it on online streaming services, on YouTube and online platforms. It just does not fit, and the government should abandon this.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
