44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-11, a bill that the citizens of Oshawa have been very clear about. Oshawa wants us to kill this bill.
Canadians are not ignorant or dumb but the Prime Minister and the Liberal government clearly believe that Canadians are simply not smart enough to decide for ourselves what we want to see and hear.
There is a quote I have on my front door. It is from John F. Kennedy, a man that I admire. It states, “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
This quote helps frame the debate about the bill. Does this bill expand the rights of every Canadian or does it diminish their rights and freedoms? Does this bill threaten Canadians' ability to communicate, make a living or be heard?
Some very prominent Canadians have weighed in on this unprecedented bill and how it threatens freedom of speech.
Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to free speech, which can only be effectively exercised if one has the ability to be heard.
As Professor Michael Geist explains, “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. 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 (including algorithmic outcomes). 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.“
Canadian author Margaret Atwood has a gift of boiling down rhetoric to a very specific phrase. She sees this bill as “creeping totalitarianism“ and I agree with her. Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, thought and belief. Traditionally and historically, these rights and freedoms were not considered a left- or right-wing thing. They were based on a fundamental understanding that in free societies, we have fundamental rights.
Let us review the fundamental question that this bill is forcing us to ask. This legislation is about one thing: trust. Do Canadians trust this government to respect our rights and freedoms if Liberals are given these new, unprecedented powers?
Trust is unfortunately a challenging concept for the government. Trust is a characteristic, a quality that needs to be earned. It is a belief in reliability, truth or ability of someone or something. Trust can be predicted from past behaviour and past actions. Given this government's past, we see a record of distrust and concern. Let us examine that statement. Let us take a look at the Prime Minister and his government's history and what has been said about their approach to governing and what premises and ideologies drive their behaviour, in regard to Canadians' rights and freedoms.
We could talk about Bill C-18. We could talk about the Emergencies Act, the freezing of bank accounts of Canadians who disagree with the government, or Canadians who should not be tolerated and instead punished due to their unacceptable views or we could talk about David Pugliese's exposé in the Ottawa Citizen about the Canadian military who “saw the pandemic as [a] unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians” or Swikar Oli, who wrote in the National Post. We could talk about privacy advocates raising concerns, about the Public Health Agency tracking Canadians without their permission or Susan Delacourt writing about “nudging” techniques to manipulate Canadians' behaviour. Were these government behaviours warranted? Maybe, maybe not, but it begs to the question: what else is going on that we do not know about? What direction is the government racing toward? More freedom and choice or more government control?
Our democracy is fragile and “creeping totalitarianism” can be insidious and appear to be harmless or based on noble lies or intentions.
There are so many examples but let us focus on the bill in front of us and what it means and could mean. Let us review.
Bill C-11 is an online censorship bill designed to control search engines and algorithms so that the government can control what Canadians see and hear.
What is censorship? Censorship is defined as “the suppression of speech, public communication or other information”.
As Canadians know, whoever controls the narrative controls the world.
Canadians are storytelling creatures. We tell each other what is going on by talking, singing, dancing, creating and showing others about ourselves, our ideas and our feelings. Historically, we have been able to do this freely.
With the advent of the Internet, Canadians embraced a new way of telling these stories. We could now send birthday videos around the world, sing a new song and post it for all to see. If people liked it, they shared it. New innovations allow Canadian creators and storytellers to earn a living online, communicate, educate, debate, explore. We could choose what we wanted to see and enjoy where it sent us, but this ability is being challenged.
Bill C-11 would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching the content that they choose for themselves. The Liberals and their big government, big corporate friends would decide who is heard and who is silent.
Have colleagues ever heard the term “inverted totalitarianism”? It is a term coined by Dr. Sheldon Wolin to describe a system where big corporations corrupt or subvert democracy. Elitist politicians with their ability to control and regulate are influenced by the big players, the big corporations that have the money to lobby government officials and regulators such as the CRTC to get the rules that benefit their monopolies and their bottom lines.
Is this where the Liberal government has taken Canada? Such arrogance. Perhaps Canadians should not really be surprised. The New York Times reported that our Prime Minister once said that Canadians have no core identity and that he wanted us to become the first post-national state.
Does that sound like someone who wants to protect our unique Canadian culture, our unique Canadian values? After all, we did elect the Prime Minister who said he admires the basic dictatorship of China so much because it gets things done. Perhaps this explains why the Liberal-NDP coalition has been so focused and intent on ramming this bill through the House.
Sadly, this legislation models practices directly from the Communist Government of China. The CCP has created the great fire wall, a heavily censored Internet that directs users to approved content under the guise of protecting the public and keeping people safe. It blocks unacceptable views and connections that the CCP considers harmful to the Chinese public. The goal of its Internet is to reshape online behaviour and use it to disseminate new party theories and promote socialist agendas. It is about shaping the Communist government's values.
Could that happen in Canada? One of my constituents, Rhonda, who lived and taught in China for two years in the early 2000s recounts, “When I lived in China for two years, we always had to verify the news and Internet content with friends and families back home or in free countries, as we knew we were not receiving unaltered information. It was highly regulated by the Communist government in China. I fear we are heading in this direction in Canada and I am having a hard time understanding how this is possible when it's supposed to be a free and democratic society.”
I agree with Rhonda. This idea of creeping totalitarianism seems to be alive and well in Canada. If Canadians give governments these new powers, I believe it is just a matter of time before these powers are abused. Bill C-11 would give the current Liberal government and future governments the authority to pick and choose what individual Canadians are allowed to watch, essentially placing the government as a content regulator.
Homegrown Canadian talent and creators would no longer succeed based on merit. Bureaucrats in Ottawa would determine content based on its level of “Canadian-ness”, but the culture of minorities would be cut out. By the way, how does one define “Canadian-ness”? This bill certainly does not do it. The CRTC would have control, big government would be lobbied by big corporations to wedge the little guys out. Corporate government would grow. Entrepreneurs, creators and artists would be squashed.
Sadly, we saw Canadian content creators come to Ottawa to have their voices heard but, as expected, they were shut down. The government wholly rejected any amendments brought forward that would narrow the bill's scope and fully exempt content that Canadians post on social media. Canadians are asking the questions, asking what the government is afraid of. Is it freedom? We have had different journalists and commentators around saying that this could change the independent Youtubers' way in which they make their money. Their viewership and revenues would take a hit. That is something that I think is quite worrying.
To finish, why does the government want to cause more uncertainty, loss of income and pain to make Canadians depend on the government? Why the attack on Canadian innovators in a way that no other country does, except maybe under the Communist Government of China? Why does the government not trust Canadians to be their own directors of their own destinies? We trust Canadians. A Conservative government would repeal this horrible bill.
1665 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Oshawa was speaking, all I could think is that somewhere there is a Liberal war room clipping all of that to use in ads to make sure no one votes Conservative.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for pointing that out because I specifically used factual representations of what is going on. I am getting letters and emails from across Canada. Canadians are so worried about the direction the Liberals are taking this country in and where it will end.
To start to regulate the Internet, to decide what Canadians can see and what they can say, and, more importantly, as Professor Geist said in committee, to regulate which Canadians will be heard and which ones will not be heard is an incredibly wrong way to be moving. As I said in my final comments, Canadians can trust that a Conservative government would end this horrible bill and put decision-making back into Canadians' hands.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have heard all evening that this bill would not regulate or diminish freedom of speech. What I heard in the member's speech was that freedom of speech includes the right to be heard. I am wondering if he could expand on that. Those two concepts must go together.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I started my speech by quoting John F. Kennedy, who said that when the rights of one person are diminished, the rights of all men are threatened. One of the greatest rights we have in free and democratic societies is the right to speak and be heard. What this piece of legislation would do is regulate the ability for people to be heard on the Internet. It is not me saying this. All kinds of academics went to committee, and I quoted Dr. Michael Geist. The challenge is that the government is not even listening to them. It is not listening to the academics who came forward, and it is not listening to some of our greatest writers. I mentioned Margaret Atwood.
The challenge right now with this piece of legislation is that it is for future governments, and once these powers have been given to any government, ultimately they are going to be abused. We have seen the government's track record, and it is something that Canadians are not proud of.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, it seems obvious that members of the Conservative Party have not read Bill C-11. That is why I keep reading sections of the bill. I am going to read yet another section. It states:
provide opportunities to Black and other racialized persons in Canada by taking into account their specific needs and interests, namely, by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs by and for Black and other racialized communities
The way I interpret that is that it both gives a voice to Black and racialized communities and ensures they have opportunities to be heard. I wonder if the member can explain the dichotomy between what he is saying and what is in Bill C-11.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am actually in agreement with the member. The government should allow content from racialized Canadians to be promoted. However, maybe she missed the point in my debate and argument. This bill would allow the government to stop an individual's ability to be heard. It will decide what goes into the algorithms. It will decide what Canadians are going to be seeing. As videos and content get shared around, if the government does not like where it is going, the government will control where it goes. This is the problem. This bill may have the exact opposite effect of what the member feels it will have, and it needs to be stopped.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to join this debate, mostly to refute some of the claims that have been made by Liberals and the NDP about the Conservative position on this bill.
During debate on Bill C-11, the Liberals and the NDP have falsely claimed the Conservatives do not care about Canadian artists and that we do not care about Canadian culture. They have accused us of spreading misinformation and are insisting, falsely, that this bill is somehow necessary to protect Canadian culture.
I want to clear the air on the first part. I love Canadian culture. I am fascinated by all things Canadian, and I love travelling to new places in Canada. I love its land and people, and I am always fascinated by how Canada's history shapes its culture. I have always read Canadian authors. I have always listened to Canadian music. In my formative years, the eighties, most of my favourite bands were Canadian. In my university days in the early nineties, I went to countless live shows with emerging Canadian artists.
I have been buying Canadian books, Canadian albums and Canadian concert tickets for decades, but this bill is not about ensuring the health of Canadian culture. This bill is about giving extraordinary powers to a federal institution to influence what Canadians find, see, hear and post on the Internet.
This bill would give the CRTC powers that do not belong in a free and democratic society. This bill gives the CRTC the power to compel web platforms to favour some content over other content depending on the CRTC's preference, not the consumer's preference. This government interference with consumer preference naturally conjures up all kinds of thoughts of governmental control over the arts and access to information from both real history and literary dystopias.
When the Conservatives, or anybody, suggest that this bill is on a spectrum of governmental control that might include Goebbels' ministry of public enlightenment, the Soviet censorship system or Orwell's fictitious ministry of truth, Canadians and Conservatives who have engaged in this debate are merely raising the same concerns raised by experts, eminent Canadians and Liberal-appointed senators. These points have been made by academic experts like Michael Geist. They have been made by eminent Canadians like Margaret Atwood and David Richards. The latter happens to be a Liberal-appointed senator. They have been made by the former CRTC chair Peter Menzies.
We are raising the points made by contemporary professional digital content creators who have come to committee to say they are desperately worried that this bill is going to destroy their livelihoods. We are not making this up. This bill gives power to the CRTC to create winners and losers. It directs the CRTC to separate content the CRTC thinks Canadians should find, see, hear and post from content the CRTC thinks Canadians should not be able to find, see, hear or post. The Liberals and the NDP are welcome to make the argument that it is a good thing for the CRTC to differentiate between what Canadians should find and what they should not find on the Internet. They can make that argument, but they cannot argue that this bill does not do exactly that. That is the point of this bill.
What about Canada's 50-year history of mandatory Canadian content for broadcasters? We have heard lots about this in points when members are refuting Conservative speeches. The Liberals say that this bill is just evening the playing field by treating the Internet like old-fashioned TV and radio. Are we seriously talking about evening the playing field?
The infinity of the Internet is the ultimate level playing field. Nothing has been done to break down barriers between artists and their audience like the Internet. When the Liberals say this bill is levelling the playing field, what they really mean is they want to make the Internet every bit as uneven as the playing field the CRTC already regulates.
Once, the Soviet Union took a very dim view of western music. It banned not only American and British artists but even Canadian artists, like Rush, which was banned in the Soviet Union. It also banned the entire genres these artists popularized. There was no rock and roll, no jazz, no blues and nothing that could be associated with decadent capitalist western culture in the Soviet Union. If someone was living in the Soviet Union, all they could get was Russian classical music performed by trusty state-sanctioned and state-funded orchestras. Imagine being denied the Beatles because they did not fit in with the government's bureaucrats' ideas of what a model citizen should enjoy.
Although Bill C-11 is certainly not promising to ban foreign content from Canadians, it is proposing to gently suppress foreign or unregistered Canadian content in favour of content approved by bureaucrats at the CRTC. Let no one doubt who leads these bureaucrats. The Liberals always appoint their own when it comes to boards and commissions, including at least one defeated Liberal candidate sitting as the current CRTC commissioner.
That leads us right to the heart of why it is wrong to treat the Internet like 1970s radio and television: There is simply no way that a bunch of bureaucrats hand-picked by the Liberals can be arbiters of who and what is Canadian content. Despite what the Liberals and the NDP, and particularly its House leader, have been saying all night, there has never been a golden age of Canadian content regulation. Back in the eighties, people knew that when a song or TV show came on that nobody actually liked, it was on just because it ticked the boxes and was Canadian content. In the seventies, a checklist system was made whereby if something ticked enough boxes, it was in and was Canadian content. However, this system was always fraught with problems, like system gaming. We have heard about this tonight. Do members remember when Bryan Adams was not Canadian enough to be considered Canadian content? He was a Canadian who lived in Canada, in Vancouver, but other songs recorded by American bands in Vancouver could qualify as Canadian, maybe if the record producer slipped in a writing credit.
Bureaucrats with the power to censor, subsidize or otherwise make choices on behalf of consumers are the worst arbiters of good taste. That is why the Soviet Union could never make a decent pair of blue jeans. It is true. If we put bureaucrats in charge of something like this, they are not going to come up with what the people really want. That is why my favourite Canadian novelist, Mordecai Richler, once called the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council and the Toronto Arts Council “mediocrity's holy trinity”. That is what he called them.
With all due respect for the Canadian artists who have testified at committee that the old rules helped their careers decades ago, I think some of them are being too modest. The Tragically Hip owe their success to their incredible talent as songwriters and performers and how hard they worked in their formative years. The Canadian content system may well have helped them, but their connection with Canadians and Canadian audiences seemed inevitable to me, just like a generation earlier when Rush produced their own album. They found an audience in Cleveland on the radio and then made their way back into Canada and throughout the world.
Bill C-11 would treat the entire Internet like it is 1971 again. The government wants to treat Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, paid streaming services and every other thing we can find, see, hear or post on the Internet like the system it is comfortable with, the one that has been around for 50 years before any of these things were invented.
The Liberals and the NDP say that opponents of the bill, from Conservative politicians to academic experts to eminent Canadian artists, are all wrong and that none of us understand. The Liberals and the NDP say that this is not about freedom of expression, censorship or regulating cat videos, but about making the web giants support Canadian artists. If that was true, why did they not say so in the bill and accept the amendment that would have truly created the exemption for user-uploaded content? They could have done that, but they chose not to because they want a bill that expands the powers of the CRTC.
The bill would not modernize the Broadcasting Act. It is Canada's first Internet regulation bill. It is wrong, and it should be defeated.
1445 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was so glad that the member chose to explain to Canadians why The Tragically Hip is so successful. What the member probably does not know in that case, otherwise he would not have written it, is that Gord Sinclair of The Tragically Hip came before the committee. He gave the credit for The Tragically Hip's success to the fundamental rules around Canadian content and checking those boxes he talked about.
In fact, Gord Sinclair said:
Our potential as a creative nation is as vast as the country itself. Songwriters are our best cultural ambassadors. We are compelled to create, to express what we know and what we feel. We need partners in government and industry, including streaming.
That is what Gord Sinclair from The Tragically Hip said. Therefore, before the member goes and puts words in the mouth of the best rock band in Canada that we have ever produced, he should understand how its members feel about it.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was actually because of interventions by this member earlier in debate that I chose to mention his city's great band. There is a real Canadian value on display, which is a modest understatement. I really believe that band was so talented and connected so well with Canadians that it could have succeeded under any set of rules. That is why I mentioned them. Other Canadian artists will find their way as artists. Their talent is irrepressible and it cannot be denied.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a very specific question.
We must modify and modernize the Broadcasting Act because the system is broken. This system was created in the 1970s and 1980s, so it is ill adapted for digital broadcasters.
I will give an example. Pierre Lapointe, a well-known Quebec singer, told us a few years ago at a ADISQ gala that one of his songs had been streamed more than one million times on Spotify, yet he had only received $500.
The system is broken. It puts web giants at an advantage and our artists at a disadvantage. Why do the Conservatives not want to help our homegrown artists?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I guess this member is sort of a part of the government, or his party is governing with the Liberals. Why did the government not exempt user-generated content and the uploading of user-generated content? This is a big bill, and I am not going to oppose everything that is contained within it. I am not going to suggest that every motivation behind the tabling of this bill was wrong, but the bill is unsupportable to the extent that it would grant new and extraordinary powers to the CRTC that do not belong in a free and democratic society. I, frankly, do not see how this bill, if passed, would necessarily solve the problems that the member suggested. It would take away all kinds of opportunities for other Canadian content creators to find an audience through an unfettered Internet.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a number of things about this legislation that I wish were different. I do not think I have ever seen a bill in this place, even the ones I would be persuaded to vote for, that I thought was perfect. However, the difficulty I have in this debate are the exaggerations, and I am pleading with colleagues on the Conservative side. Comparing Canada with the People's Republic of China is just not supportable. It is just not, and it makes it impossible to engage in a thoughtful debate when there are such really damaging claims that hurt our democracy being made in this place.
There are flaws in Bill C-11, for sure, but it is not totalitarian, it is not the People's Republic of China and it is not North Korea. It is Canadian content. If the hon. member wants to call Canadian content mediocre, that is his right, but do not claim that Bill C-11 puts Canadians in a situation anywhere comparable to that of people who live in totalitarian states.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would invite the member to listen more carefully then, because I did not say many of the words that she put in my mouth, and she did not notice or note any of the words other than a couple that she picked here and there. I said quite the opposite of what I think of Canadian content. I talked about the regulation of Canadian content, and I oppose it in this bill.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, irrespective of the hour, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Before I go on, I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.
The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom. Members will hear me say that several times more.
The bill returns to us from the Senate, where more than two dozen amendments were unanimously agreed to, and I will not get into the 26 versus 29. That should give us all a sense of the state of this piece of legislation. We want to thank our counterparts in the upper chamber for their efforts to improve this heavily flawed bill.
Let us all go back for a moment to the beginning of Bill C-11. Its purpose was to update the 1991 Broadcasting Act, to bring equity and fairness into a new age of communication tools, and hopefully have a structure and adopt principles for new communication platforms that we have not even dreamed of yet. That was a goal we could all support.
However, as is too often the wont of the government, it is the overreach of this bill that we must now focus on so that a problem that needed solving does not become a bigger problem than the one we started with. That brings us here today.
The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
One of the most important amendments involves the protection of user-generated content from regulation by the CRTC and focuses the scope of the bill toward professional, copyrighted music, music with a unique signifier number or videos that have been broadcast on mainstream media and then uploaded.
Importantly, this amendment removes the clause that would add the criteria of direct or indirect revenue. Unfortunately, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already indicated that the government would not support any amendments that “impact the bill”. Here, my analysis would cause me to read “impact” as “improve”. It is disheartening to hear the minister reject impactful amendments that could be greatly beneficial to our Canadian content creators.
These creators rightfully expect the government to implement responsible legislation that creates a safe and competitive environment for them to continue growing their brand and sharing their Canadian reality.
What no Canadian creator, indeed no Canadian, expects is for their government to begin telling them what it means to be Canadian. Yet, by giving the CRTC the power to regulate Canadian Internet users and define what can be categorized as Canadian content, or CanCon, the government is instead restricting those Canadians who are on the forefront of Canadian digital content creation.
Artists and creators who excel in their fields deserve nothing less than an equal playing field and the tools they need to succeed. It is the users of the content, not the government, who should determine how often it is viewed or the ease in which new viewers could find new material. In addition to fair compensation, they should also be able to share their stories through the medium of their choice, be it television, film, music, prose or, what we are talking about now tonight, online.
The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
The government is sending the message to people that says they should not be trusted with the freedom to create and view the content of their choice online. It is continuing its “Ottawa knows best” approach of limiting individual freedoms by creating problems with user-generated content that do not exist.
The government has had an opportunity here to adapt how it treats the arts, culture and media to suit modern realities and platforms. Instead, the Prime Minister has rejected every attempt to include safeguards in the bill that would protect the freedoms of Canadian Internet users to ensure that they have access to the content of their choice and not what the government decides to promote or de-promote.
Again, the government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
Another important amendment proposed by the Senate is the definition of CanCon itself. This amendment would make sure that the CRTC considers all factors like the producer of the content, the key creators of the content, furthering Canadian expression, whatever that means because it is defined, the amount of collaboration among Canadian industry professionals and anything else brought into regulation before disqualifying content as CanCon. Again, as in the previously mentioned amendment, this amendment would certainly impact the bill, so the government rejected it.
We must not lose sight of the fact that culture naturally grows and evolves over time. Canada has long-prided itself on being welcoming to the cultures of many different peoples. In fact, if one turns on television today, one may hear a CBC ad that says, “It's not how Canadian you are. It's who you are in Canada.” Yes, I watched the CBC Saturday night because the hockey game was on.
Why then is the government putting forward legislation aiming to do just the opposite by determining how Canadian one's content is?
What we absolutely do not support is online legislation that would affect what people can access on the Internet. Having freedom of speech and the ability to express oneself freely within the confines of the law is crucial—
An hon. member: And be heard.
Mr. Dave Epp: Madam Speaker, and be heard, as the member aptly interjected.
This includes those who upload content to social media platforms and other digital platforms. They expect to be just as visible as their neighbours, regardless of how Canadian the CRTC thinks their content is.
Even with the amendments put forward by the senate, Bill C-11 remains a misguided and deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is one that ironically does not reflect Canadian values and the realities of digital content creation. Canadians are rightly concerned about the infringement on their freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach that this bill, like Bill C-10 before it, could have on them, on the freedom of speech and on the freedom to be heard.
The government does not trust Canadians with freedom.
If ensuring citizens were accessing local content online was truly a pressing issue, would we not see other governments around the world enacting similar legislation? We have heard the criticism of comparing the bill to other authoritarian states, but when it comes to online censorship or the possibility of it, that is exactly where this potential legislation can go. These are not countries that we want to emulate.
Initially, the government put forward, in clause 7, unprecedented power of the government over the CRTC. The Senate rejected this amendment and, fortunately, in the light of day, the government accepted that rejection. Many stakeholders were concerned about the amount of regulatory authority this would give the government over communications in Canada.
It is difficult to imagine how the government could put forward legislation with so many unintended side effects and areas of ambiguity. It has led many to speculate that the so-called side effects were actually the true intention of the bill. I must admit, I do not blame them for entertaining such thoughts. The alternative seems to be that so little thought was put into a bill of such consequence that they did not realize the impact it would have on Canadian creators and Canadian internet users.
We are seeing a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns about the way their government is handling their livelihoods and entertainment. Under Bill C-10, the attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and limit Canadians' free speech and free hearing was unacceptable, and it is still unacceptable in its current form under Bill C-11.
The number of jobs created by content creators who have enough audience to monetize their channels, like YouTube, in Canada is estimated at about 28,000 full-time jobs. Instead of hindering this type of digital-first Canadian content creation, we should be supporting it. The best way to ensure Canadian content is allowed to thrive is by empowering our creators and not limiting them.
We must not only support our Canadian artists but also pave the way for the next generations' success. We have an obligation to ensure that new bills do not hinder the creativity and the individuality of our creators so that innovation can be fostered. This country has a wealth of venues where inventive ideas emerge daily, and it is in our best interests to help our creators export their talent around the world.
As Conservatives, we will always support Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by protecting their rights and freedoms. Bill C-11 remains an unacceptable attack on those freedoms, as it provides both the CRTC and the government with unprecedented control over online content.
This is a misguided piece of legislation that will see the potential end of free speech and free hearing for Canadians online. Why does this government not trust Canadians with freedom?
1541 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would put the member's last question back to him and ask whether he trusts platforms to decide for Canadians what they watch, rather than the government.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the platforms, it is my understanding that it is the level of use by the users that determines the prioritization and not the platforms. The algorithms are driven by those who are using and viewing. It is by the users. It is the freedom to choose what one sees. That is what is driving the algorithms behind it, and that is exactly what we want to see. We want to see that freedom of the users of the content: the hearers. That is what this legislation would be impacting. It is not the freedom of speech as much as the users.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as a woman standing in the House, who knows it took over 100 years to get anything close to representation of women's voices in the House, I am having a really difficult time with this debate tonight, and certainly with those last comments.
Users do not choose, when there are algorithms involved. I am a programmer analyst, and I can tell you that there have been marginalized voices for over 100 years in this country. If we do not do something to level the playing field, we are not going to see what people want to see. We are going to see what people have been told is the most important. Women's voices have been missing, indigenous voices have been missing, indigenous languages have been missing and we have not given space for those voices because too many white men have been taking advantage of the news, journalism and the arts. There are not even enough women in the arts, so I guess my question—
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 11:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington has the floor.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my maiden speech to the House in 2019 or 2020, I referenced my four daughters and said I hoped they would have no glass ceiling above them. The Internet provides the opportunity, if that is their chosen field, not to put any ceiling above them. They have the full freedom.
I am surrounded by very capable female colleagues who did not require the quota to bring them here. The freedom the Internet provides gives the expression of those opportunities. It does not hinder racialized Canadians, Inuit and first nations. It provides the platform that is accessible to all. A quota does not help that. It will not help my daughters; they will make it on their own.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
