SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 176

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, you stole my thunder. I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which, as we know, amends the Broadcasting Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts. I want to start by recognizing my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, who has done incredible work to bring to light the facts about the impacts this bill would have not only on the rights of Canadians but also on content creators here in Canada. I will be splitting my time with member for Calgary Nose Hill. This is an immense bill, as it would affect not only online streaming but also user-generated content online, including on social media. Let us review. The first iteration of this bill, Bill C-10, was introduced in 2020. The government claimed that the purpose of it was to modernize the Broadcasting Act and to make large online streaming services meet Canadian content requirements and to bring them in line with TV and radio stations. We have heard that again here. In its original version, the former bill, Bill C-10, included an exemption for programs that users uploaded onto their social media or “user-generated content”. During the committee’s study, the Liberals voted to remove this exemption from their own bill and refused to allow the Conservatives to reintroduce it. The bill died on the Order Paper when the 2021 election was called, but was reintroduced by the government in this Parliament. Here is what it did. Bill C-11 would create a new category of web media called “online undertakings” and would give the CRTC the same power to regulate them and would require them to invest in Canadian content, even though they would not be required to apply for licences. While the government put the exemption back in this new version, it went on to also include an exemption to the exemption, which made it effectively meaningless. Unfortunately, this is another bill that the government seeks to pass that would dictate to industries what is best for them, rather than listening to the experts and stakeholders. Numerous experts such as law professors and former CRTC commissioners believe that this bill would threaten the right to free speech. As we know, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to free speech, which can only be exercised effectively if one has the ability to be heard. Law Professor Michael Geist explains this: 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. The government wants to give bureaucrats living in Ottawa the sole discretion of determining what content should be considered Canadian and what should be shown to Canadians at large. Setting aside concerns regarding free speech for a moment, this bill would also threaten the livelihood of individual content creators, artists and influencers who earn their living through the videos they post on social media and the advertising revenues that they generate. By their testimony, many fear they will not qualify under the CRTC’s rules promoting certified content. They are also afraid of the effects of regulation on their international audiences. Canadian creators do not need the Canadian media industry to intercede for them to succeed. Canadians are already punching above their weight, and there are many success stories. The reason we have so many Canadian success stories is that we allow the creativity of Canadian creators to flourish. We do not throttle it with excessive bureaucracy or red tape. In the current landscape, content creators rise to the top through the merit of their content. The Internet offers infinite opportunity for new creators to reach audiences worldwide, allowing small creators to build up audiences through their own creativity and determination. The bill would seek to stifle that freedom, only allowing those creators that the government deems worthy to be seen. Instead of one’s search bar directing one to the content one is looking for, it would direct one to the content that the government has approved and wants one to see. This would be yet another case of government gatekeepers picking winners and losers based on their own arbitrary criteria. It is important to note that the Senate made approximately 29, mostly minor, amendments to Bill C-11. This is why it is back before the House of Commons. The most significant amendment proposed would attempt to narrow the scope for social media regulation by adding discretionary criteria that appear to encourage the CRTC to focus on regulating professional audiovisual content rather than amateur user uploads. While this makes the bill less bad, given that the criteria are discretionary, they do not change the powers of the CRTC to regulate social media or its discoverability powers. Besides that, the heritage minister has already indicated that the Liberal government will reject this amendment. We should make no mistake: Homegrown talent and creative content here in Canada will no longer succeed based on merit. Content will be subject to a set of criteria that bureaucrats in Ottawa will use to determine its level of Canadianness, resulting in traditional art forms being favoured over new creative content. Over 40,000 content creators affiliated with Digital First Canada signed letters calling for the discoverability rules in Bill C-11 to be removed. Since the bill was introduced in its first iteration as Bill C-10, I have heard from many constituents who do not want the government dictating the content that they are allowed to see. They have written to me and expressed their shock and dismay at the government's attempt to control speech and online content. They want the ability to find their favourite creators and enjoy the content that appeals to them. They do not want to see the favourite content of an Ottawa bureaucrat. For all the Liberals’ claims, Canadians understand that if this bill passes—
1114 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:21:35 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:21:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the point of order that I raised with you about an hour ago. Since then, the Leader of the Opposition has gone, once again, and retweeted the same video. In it, he says that the Liberals are speaking out in the House of Commons, right now, trying to censor this video and get it banned from the Internet. I think the Leader of the Opposition is treating the procedure and the common practices that we have in the House callously. I think that, in your consideration and forthcoming judgment, you should consider this new information as well.
105 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:22:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Thank you for the input. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is rising on a point of order.
19 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:22:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are going to put forward a bill that would censor the Internet, they are going to wear it and get called out on it. We are not going to sit quietly back, as the opposition, and allow them to pass a bill like this that would censor what Canadians see. If they are doing this, Liberals should be prepared to wear it.
67 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:22:45 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Windsor West is rising on, I believe, the same point of order.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:22:48 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious, though, that one cannot use one's technology here in the chamber while it is sitting. It is a well-established practice that we have had, and any disrespect for that has always been corrected. Unfortunately, we are in real time right now, and it is obviously more complicated. I am hoping that perhaps this will be expedited, at least as to whether the allegation is accurate. I do not know. I have not seen the video just yet, but I understand that it is pretty serious. If it is in real time, happening right now, it is just going to create more egregious debate in the House of Commons. That is unfortunate. If it is true, then that should also be reflected because there is an attempt on the outside to do what one cannot do on the inside.
147 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:23:31 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on the same point of order.
14 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:23:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear: It is a violation of a rule if the mace is on the table and one is taking a picture or a video. Traditionally, in the past, when the issue has been raised, we have often seen the Speaker call for an immediate deletion. It has nothing to do with censorship. It is 100% about rules inside the House. The leader of the official opposition is blatantly disobeying a rule. He should be deleting it, not because of censorship but because he should be respecting the procedures of the House of Commons. I would ask, and suggest, that he be called upon to delete the video that is in direct conflict with our rules.
121 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:24:28 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just think this is such a classic example of an attempt by the government to censor what a member is saying on this very debate. It is very ironic that we have a government talking about it not being about censorship while attempting to censor a member of this House.
53 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:24:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the rules and procedures of this House are not up for debate. It is not about trying to censor anything; it is about respecting the rules. If Conservatives want to change the rules so the Leader of the Opposition can film a video in here while the mace is on the table, they should bring forward a motion to change the rules. We have rules in this House; they need to be respected. We are blatantly seeing support for that coming from the other side. Like the parliamentary secretary said before me, the Speaker needs to review this matter, report back to the House immediately and take the necessary actions against the Leader of the Opposition regarding this matter.
121 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:25:33 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just think it is interesting that the government, which has been in breach of ethics laws, is raising this point of order. How many ethics laws has the party been in breach of over the last number of years—
43 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:25:44 p.m.
  • Watch
I believe we are now delving into debate. The only thing I can say at this point is that we are not supposed to take pictures or videos while we are in the chamber. However, I am in the chair right now and cannot review that. I know the Chair is looking at it, and maybe the Speaker is looking at it. We will hopefully come back with a response as soon as we possibly can. Continuing debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
87 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:26:12 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Mr. Speaker, for all the Liberals' claims, Canadians understand that if this bill passes, the government will regulate what can be seen or posted online and control which videos they will see more or less often on their feeds. After eight years, the government has lost the trust of Canadians. Transparency and accountability are not its strong suit. It avoids both at every opportunity, whether it is by providing inaccurate testimony in committees, refusing to allow witnesses to appear before a committee to shed light on very serious issues or refusing to answer questions in this place like who stayed in a $6,000-per-night hotel room during the trip to the U.K. for the Queen's funeral. We can all understand why Canadians are dubious about the Liberals' intentions in introducing this bill. They see it for what it is, which is an unacceptable attempt by the government to target the freedoms of individual Internet users in Canada. This is clearly not a government that will be accountable to Canadians, and it cannot be trusted with the power of regulating user-generated content. Lastly, Conservatives understand that government censorship of the Internet is something that happens in totalitarian societies, not free ones. That is why we have fought so hard, both in this place and in the other place, to amend Bill C-11 in order to narrow its scope and fully exempt the content Canadians post on social media. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition rejected those amendments. After eight years, it is time for a government that protects free speech, protects consumer choice and encourages Canadian creators instead of getting in their way. A Conservative government would repeal Bill C-11 and pass legislation requiring large streaming services to invest more of their revenue into producing Canadian content, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.
311 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:28:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, listening to the member opposite, I wonder if she sees any value in Canadians having maybe a button on one of their streaming services or a special carousel dedicated to Canadian shows like Heartland or Corner Gas, which employ many Canadians and tell our great Canadian stories. Is there no value in making sure that when Canadians use these streaming services, we can find them easily?
68 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:29:09 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Mr. Speaker, I can already find the things I want to watch quite easily. That is not what this bill is about. Bill C-11 would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching the content they choose. It would instead mean, as I said in my statements, that Ottawa bureaucrats would control what Canadians could see and watch online and through streaming services.
62 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:29:43 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, what we have to take away from this debate is that our culture needs a boost, that it needs more discoverability. If we do not help our culture, we will only see the culture of others on our networks, the culture of our bigger neighbour, which has tons more money to invest in its industry. I would like the Conservatives to understand that and also that the bill has nothing to do with censorship but seeks to present more local content. The Bloc Québécois has done its homework. We spoke with the cultural sector before studying this bill. Members of this chamber have a responsibility to consult people affected by the bills that we must vote on. My question is very simple. Did the Conservative members consult Canada's English-speaking cultural sector? The Conservative Party does have 10 members from Quebec. Someone must have spoken to people in the cultural sector in Quebec, who are asking us to pass this bill as quickly as possible.
172 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:30:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I will take the word of law professors, former CRTC presidents and Canadian content creators themselves when it comes to the impacts this bill will have not only on what Canadians are allowed to see but also what they are allowed to post online. There is a huge difference between giving supports through tax breaks or funding and directly deciding who should be featured as Canadian content and who should be suppressed. On this side of the House, we believe that Canadian creators have proven they are capable of building large international audiences.
99 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:31:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the former CRTC chair is well known for supporting large Internet providers and being against consumers. This is one reason that we have some of the highest prices in the world for our system. Where I come from, we are a peninsula surrounded by the United States. Therefore, Windsor-Essex and Chatham-Kent counties basically get inundated with U.S. content on a regular basis. If we do not do anything with respect to this right now, it will be Alphabet that controls what we see and do not see. I wonder if the Conservatives have reached out to the artists in the border communities about their concerns with respect to being shut out by some of the structural positions the United States has taken. These not only limit them from even going into the country but also from sharing their information. Have they reached out to those artists and dealt with the fact that, with so many Canadians living on the border like us, we are being inundated? If we look at the hearings taking place in the U.S. Senate and Congress, there have been admissions that this is not a red or blue issue. Instead, it is being called the green issue with respect to what Fox and others are showing. This is because it is all about money and not about truth. Have the Conservatives talked to the artists in the regions who are affected by the border?
244 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/30/23 1:32:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this piece of legislation, the bottom line is that the government is about to give itself the authority to control what Canadians watch. Instead of giving Canadians more of what they want, as the member is proposing, YouTube will be instructed to give viewers more of what the government wants for them.
58 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border