44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/30/23 4:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague enormously and I understand why he feels he will vote against the bill.
I am very much informed by constituents, particularly in Saanich—Gulf Islands but across the country. I am very much in touch with the artist community, with writers and actors. They are begging for this to be passed because they need protection against these digital giants, the streaming enterprises of Netflix and Amazon and Disney.
That said, I agree that there is no reason that I can see, other than stubbornness, for the government not to have accepted the sensible amendments from the Senate. I hope we will continue to stay on top of this issue. In the meantime, the artists of this country need the bill.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:45:50 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, although I am not a Farley Mowat fan, I do want to say there are other great authors like Aviaq Johnston, Tanya Talaga, Waubgeshig Rice, Thomas King and Drew Hayden Taylor. I think they are great authors as well.
However, I want to ask about the member's interpretation of the concerns continually being raised about algorithms and what this bill says about algorithms.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:46:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wish Farley had not passed away before I got a chance to introduce the member. I would have loved for him to meet my friend from Nunavut.
The concern about algorithms is a real one because algorithms are being used right now to do things on social media that are referred to as “rage farming”. This is a very murky and dangerous world, and I think we need to do much more to regulate it, but in this context I am not concerned about the government using algorithms to help Canadians find Canadian content if that is what they are looking for. That is the key thing. No one is going to stop any Canadian from watching anything they want to watch. The bill is not censorship; it is clumsy. I do not like the CRTC very much either. After all, it regulated and approved Russia Today.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.
I rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Niagara West who have expressed deep concern with the Liberal government's online censorship bill, Bill C-11. My office has received hundreds of phone calls, emails and regular mail regarding the bill. I can confidently say that we have not received a single communication from any constituent in favour of Bill C-11, and that says a lot.
Bill C-11 would censor the Internet, but the Liberals do not seem to care. There seems to be this focus, almost an obsession actually, for the Liberals to attempt to gain more control over Canadians in every aspect of their lives.
Canadians want to live their lives without constant government intrusion. I do not understand why the Liberals cannot leave folks alone. Let folks live their lives freely. Let Canadians make their own decisions. Bill C-11 is just another attempt to gain more control, this time by censorship, and it needs to stop. We have seen what happened over the last three years with an incredibly intrusive government, and Canadians are fed up with it. My colleagues on this side of the House would likely agree. In fact, I think there are many Liberal and NDP MPs who have also heard from constituents expressing deep concern over the type of censorship that Bill C-11 would implement.
So what would Bill C-11 actually do? It is not what the Liberals would have people believe it would do. What would it actually do if it were to become law? It is simple: If the bill passed, it would take aim at Canadians' online feeds. One such affected feed could be a person's home page on YouTube where content could be prioritized based on goals set out by the CRTC, a federal bureaucracy. In other words, bureaucrats in Ottawa would determine what a person's YouTube home page would look like. Bureaucrats in Ottawa will decide what qualifies as a Canadian film, television program or song.
There is also uncertainty over how Bill C-11 would be interpreted. The uncertainty about how the bill would be implemented has been a concern from the first day that Bill C-10, the predecessor to Bill C-11, was introduced. There is also unease with the role of government officials in determining what counts as Canadian. Of course, there is the deep worry about the secrecy associated with the CRTC.
The CRTC will, of course, have an incredibly powerful role in approving and rejecting online content as to what is “Canadian”. If that is not an example of an intrusive and overreaching government, I am not sure what is. Other social media feeds may also be affected, not just YouTube. The government-approved and pushed-for content is what we will likely see most. It is almost unbelievable what the Liberals are doing with the bill, but they are actually doing it.
I have served my constituents in this place since 2004. I can honestly say that I am deeply concerned about the direction in which this government has already taken our country. I have said it before and I will say it again: The Liberals have implemented a ballooning, intrusive and overreaching government. I am deeply concerned that they are not satisfied yet and will keep going.
On this side of the House, Conservatives, such as myself, believe in people. We believe in Canadians. We believe that individual Canadians are best positioned to make their own decisions for themselves and for their families. Our philosophy is that decisions should be made by the people, the commons, a bottom-up approach where the bosses are the people and we as politicians are their servants. It is not the politicians or the bureaucrats in Ottawa. The bosses are the people.
The Liberals do not see it that way. In fact, their approach is the exact opposite. Their philosophy is a top-down approach, a top-down decision-making approach, where Liberal politicians and bureaucrats tell people what to do and, in the case of Bill C-11, what to see or not to see on the Internet. Liberals think that politicians know best. They think that bureaucrats know best. That is the Liberal government and the Prime Minister's approach.
We have seen this style of governing for eight very long years now, which have divided our country more than ever. The divide-and-conquer approach has been the hallmark of the Prime Minister. Not many would debate that. Even their pals at CBC would agree with me on that one. With Bill C-11, things are continuing in the same direction.
At the end of my speech, the Liberals and the NDP collaborators may engage in veiled insults and some name-calling because of the stance I am taking: a small, limited government, which is part and parcel of Conservative philosophy.
However, let us set aside politicians' comments on Bill C-11 for just a minute and let us focus on what experts are saying about the bill. The reason I am saying this is that, as many of my colleagues have done and will continue to do, I want to introduce into the record the comments made by experts who deal with this issue day in and day out.
For example, Michael Geist, who I know has been mentioned in the House, is a law professor at the University of Ottawa, a Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, and a graduate of Columbia Law School. He has received dozens of awards and recognition for his work. He has taught in some of the top schools in the world. Let us see what he has to say about Bill C-11. He has been a vocal opponent to the bill and has suggested various ways it can be improved, yet the Liberal government has ignored his suggestions.
In Professor Geist's words, “The government consistently rejected attempts to provide greater clarity with the bill and insisted that its forthcoming policy direction be kept secret until after the bill receives royal assent. If there is criticism to bear about Bill C-11’s uncertainty, it should be directed in the direction of [the] Heritage Minister”.
A recent article said, “professor Michael Geist said [in regard to Bill C-11] trust is waning in the CRTC because it acts like an arm of the government instead of acting like an independent regulator.” The CRTC acting “like an arm of the government” is a strong statement by an expert who deals with this type of content every single day. If Professor Geist is saying that, then why are the Liberals not paying attention?
Furthermore, regarding the Minister of Canadian Heritage's rejection of some common-sense amendments, Mr. Geist said, “It is exceptionally discouraging to the thousands of Canadian creators who spoke out”. Many digital creators are extremely concerned with the negative impact the bill would have on their work and have repeatedly voiced this in their committee testimony.
Here is an example of another expert. Scott Benzie, who is the director of Digital First Canada, which represents digital creators, stated, “It's shocking that the Senate's sober second thought was dismissed, and that the government continues to act as though digital creators are not legitimate artists and entrepreneurs.” These are more strong words aimed at the government's seemingly disregarding attitude toward anyone who is providing testimony that is critical of Bill C-11.
Let us talk about Margaret Atwood and what she had to say. I know we have had a lot of conversation about her from our last speaker. Let us first mention that she is a renowned Canadian author, winner of the Booker Prize and the Giller Prize, and perhaps one of the best-known authors in Canadian history.
In regard to Bill C-11, she said, “bureaucrats should not be telling creators what to write.” She also said that bureaucrats should not decide what is Canadian. Most importantly, and I really hope the Liberals are paying attention, she said, “All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through—government bureaucrats. So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.” We have heard that statement quite a few times today, “creeping totalitarianism”. Once again, these are pointed words.
The member of the Green Party from across the way quoted Ms. Atwood as saying the bill was “imprecise”, so it sounds like Margaret Atwood would like to see some amendments as well.
Are the Liberals taking heed? No, they just ignored this and came back with poorly written talking points, delivered in a fiery manner to stifle and end the debate on their incredibly faulty legislation.
Through Bill C-11, the Liberal government is censoring the Internet and forcing content on Canadians. It is plain and simple. We know it. Their NDP collaborators know it and the Bloc definitely knows it. In fact, the Bloc members recently admitted that they do not care if this bill is stifling freedom of expression. I have an inkling that the NDP and the Liberals agree with the Bloc on this.
In conclusion, I would like to say something I have said numerous times in this House over the last three years, and I would like to direct it at the NDP-Liberal coalition: They should let folks live their lives and leave them alone, stop interfering and stop intruding. They should let Canadians live their lives freely without this egregious overreach that has been happening, especially since the pandemic began. That includes incredibly flawed legislation such as Bill C-11, the online censorship act.
I have observed over the last couple of days some very disturbing and worrying behaviour from individuals who have made some very personal comments. I have not seen much of it today. The debate has actually been much better today. However, I think we have to watch what our discourse of debate is in this House and really work hard not to make it personal.
I look forward to answering questions. Let us hope that this time we can keep things civil, unlike what members have been doing in the House.
1768 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:56:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from hundreds of individuals and stakeholders, including different provincial governments, and I would cite the Province of Quebec and its legislature, there has been a groundswell of support to see this legislation pass.
It is important to recognize that the members of the Green Party can say what they want, but I understand they are voting in favour of passing the legislation. I understand the Bloc is voting in favour of passing the legislation, the NDP is voting in favour of passing the legislation, and obviously the Liberals are. The Conservative Party is standing alone in the House of Commons in opposition to it. It is the opposition party that continues to promote misinformation on this issue.
I will ask the member a very clear and concise question. Does he truly believe that this legislation would take away the freedom of Canadians to be able to upload their personal information on Facebook, for example?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:57:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that. It has been spoken about here, even by some of the other parties who said that there were some concerns about amendments that were actually rejected.
We had a number of great amendments, as has been discussed today throughout the course of the debate, from the Senate, which were clearly rejected. We have the admission from the Green Party member that the comment from Ms. Atwood was imprecise and, once again, legislation that probably was not as thorough.
We have to guard against unintended consequences in the House. When legislation comes forward, we need to find ways to make it better. Quite frankly, if the government had accepted more of those amendments, it would have made this legislation better.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:58:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, by dismissing out of hand this legislative measure that the cultural community has been calling for for years, the Conservatives seem to be suggesting that all social media networks, which are not regulated enough, do a good job of promoting Quebec culture.
I know that, like the other Conservatives, my colleague claims to be a defender of Quebec culture, including on social media. I would like him to open up a little and tell us about two or three of his favourite francophone influencers from Quebec and their work.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:59:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we support Quebec culture, absolutely, this party does.
We also believe that some of the larger techies need to be paying their fair share. There is no question about that. Our concern is that we do not want government bureaucrats deciding what the Canadian people can have access to and what they cannot.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 4:59:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I understand the member takes exception to the idea that Canadian content might feature a little more prominently in the news feeds of Canadians on social media platforms.
I wonder then, what does the member think about the current state of affairs, which is that social media companies, behind closed doors, without any transparency, concoct these algorithms and are deciding right now what Canadians see and what they do not see based on rules that have nothing to do with the public interest and that have absolutely no transparency at all.
Does the member object to the current practice of using algorithms to filter content, which is already happening? It is just happening with corporate interests behind closed doors.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:00:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have said over here that there is absolutely no way that big tech is perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination. They have major issues, and there are things that they need to do as well.
What we are concerned about is what would be suppressed at this point in time, and that is the challenge right now. If individuals are creating content and are not able to put it out there because the government has decided that it would not go forward or see the light of day, then we obviously have a very huge concern with that.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know this bill has been an absolute disaster in how it was managed through the House.
It was introduced in the previous Parliament, and the Liberals called an election, so they were the ones who killed Bill C-10. It was brought back as Bill C-11. It did not include the critical exemption that critics from the Green Party, as well as other critics out there and Conservatives, pointed out was a real problem. It was just a dog's breakfast of amendments having to come back.
Now the Liberals have come in with closure today to stifle debate rather than further study the amendments, something the Government of Quebec would also want.
Why are the Liberals rushing this through and insisting that the opposition are delaying the bill, when there are so many known problems with the bill and when it so clearly needs more work?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:02:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to go to what Senator Dave Richards had to say:
No decree by the CRTC could, in any way, tell us what Canadian content should or should not be, or who should be allowed to bob their heads up out of the new murkiness we have created. Like Orwell’s proclamation, the very bill suggests a platform that decrees, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
That is one of the concerns, and why we should have had amendments to deal with these issues.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day to debate Bill C-11. I have asked this question many times before, but I am going to ask it again in this way. Do people trust the Prime Minister to defend their freedom of speech?
That is the crux of our debate from our party to the parties across the way. Other concerns have been brought up by other parties. They are still going to support the bill, but that does not mean that there are not concerns around this and possible threats to user-generated content, which could possibly be implicated by this legislation. Again, it is not just us. There are many people across Canada who have read the bill, who have been brought to testify about their worries for its potential.
I always like to use facts. Let us get right into it. Bill C-11 used to be a bill called Bill C-10. I have an article in front of me from May 20, 2021. It all started with clause 4.1, which I will be referring to quite a bit. This is a little hiccup for the Liberals that has a lot of Canadians calling it the censorship bill. The article is called “What is Bill C-10 and why are the Liberals planning to regulate the internet?” It is from The Globe and Mail.
It reads:
The bill is currently being reviewed by the House of Commons heritage committee. Members of the committee were studying the document line-by-line, but that process was disrupted in late April when Liberals on the committee moved an amendment that removed a section of the bill.
That sounds very familiar, like a particular part of Bill C-21 where they just table-dropped or pulled amendments out of legislation. The articles goes on:
The change was approved “on division,” meaning there was no recorded vote to show which opposition parties sided with the Liberals. This segment, section 4.1, provided an exclusion for user-generated content. Removing that exclusion set off concerns that the legislation could then be used to regulate Canadians’ social media posts.
That is what we have been talking about across the country for the last three years, worries about censorship and the government with this particular bill. Further, the article continues:
However, other critics draw a distinction between users, specified in 2.1, and 4.1′s exclusion for user-generated content, and so maintain that social media posts could still be subjected to the legislation.
On May 7, the Liberals introduced a new amendment that they said would put these questions to rest. The text of the new amendment is very similar to the text of section 4.1 that was originally removed, but was added to a different section of the bill that defines the regulatory powers of the CRTC. The government says this change ensures that the posters of user-generated content are not regulated.
That was back in the day when we were all supposed to be reassured that it was all going to be great. The problem is that section 4.1 has remained. The government could have easily dealt with concerns of the parties and put that to bed. I am going to directly read sections of the current legislation, Bill C-10, but the numbers are still the same.
This is clauses 4.1 and 4.2. on page 9 of the actual act so that Canadians out there watching can read it for themselves. Even lawyers get confused with some of this wording but I will give it a go,
4.1 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of a program that is uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.
(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program
(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or
(b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.2.
It opens the door to user-generated content, wide open, that it could possibly be regulated by the CRTC.
I will go on to 4.2. Again, this is the really difficult one to follow.
4.2 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 4.1(2)(b), the Commission may make regulations prescribing programs in respect of which this Act applies, in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression.
Sounds great, except:
(2) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Commission shall consider the following matters:
(a) the extent to which a program, uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service, directly or indirectly generates revenues;
Despite the government's reassurance that user-generated content is going to be exempted, the door is flung wide open again. How is the government ever going to regulate content that could produce revenue? It could be a share of a post, or whatever. Some other content provider could share a post that was previously not funded. It opens the door to user-generated content.
The implications are as vast as what we have been saying. It is not just us who have talked about these being significant issues. I will refer to testimony at the Senate hearing committees. Hon. Paula Simons referred to the concerns of the former CRTC head. It is not just a senator making a comment in a general way.
She said:
Several expert witnesses, including Monica Auer, Executive Director of the Forum for Research Policy in Communications; Robert Armstrong, a broadcasting consultant, economist and former CRTC manager; and Ian Scott, who was, at the time, head of the CRTC, testified before our committee about their concerns that subclause 7(7) of the bill could give new and unprecedented powers to cabinet to intervene in independent CRTC decisions. As Dr. Armstrong put it in his testimony before us:
In this sense, Bill C-11 reduces enormously — potentially — the powers that the CRTC has and hands them over to the Government of Canada.
That is not just some random person walking down the street. These are the former heads of the CRTC. To all the testimony, the Liberal government just says, “Hey, no biggie. Just ignore that expert testimony.” She continues:
But I think the biggest and most critical amendment we made was to a vexing part of the bill, subclause 4.2(2), which I like to call the “exception to the exception” clause. In the wake of some of the controversy around Bill C-10, the Minister of Canadian Heritage promised that Bill C-11 would not pertain to nor capture users of social media but only big streamers who were analogous to traditional broadcasters. Indeed, that is what clause 4.1 (1) of the bill says — that the act does not apply to a program that is uploaded to a social media service by a user of that service.
Unfortunately, clause 4.2 (2) of the bill, as it came to our committee, undid that assurance by giving the CRTC the power to scope in a program uploaded to a social media service if it directly or indirectly generates revenues. That exception-to-the-exception clause rightly worried all kinds of small and not-so-small independent producers who use services such as YouTube and TikTok to distribute their programming, though they retain the copyright.
I have a lot more here. I could put stacks here and read them for the record. I started off by asking whether we could trust the Prime Minister with our privacy and to protect our freedom of speech. I take that testimony from some pretty solid folks who were actually at the head of CRTC, and they said they were worried about the potential of this legislation.
We need to heed that advice. Canadians out there who are watching this, and many who are going to watch it online from some of our content that we generate, are concerned about where this is going, in a very bad direction.
I look forward to questions, but I think the answer is very clear: we cannot trust the Prime Minister to defend our freedom of speech.
1438 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:13:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there has been a drastic shift in Canada's broadcasting sector that has directly impacted the level of support for Canadian programming and talent. Does my colleague believe that continuing to treat online and traditional broadcasters differently is fair?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:13:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of Canadians, and we have former artists on our side, who want to see Canadians who produce content do well. I produce content myself. A lot of us in the House produce content, and we want to make sure we can continue to do that.
I think it is fine if a person can produce content, freely send it out to the Internet and people can purchase it or watch it at their choosing. However, the problem is that, if a directive were to be given by the cabinet, there is the potential, as has been warned about by the former head of the CRTC, that it would say it does not want people to watch things that have a certain word in them or that are from a particular area in the country. That is the potential this has. We have seen examples around the world where this happens. Like I said, we cannot trust the Liberal cabinet and Prime Minister to defend our freedoms.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government of Quebec called for Bill C‑11. Quebec's cultural community called for Bill C‑11 or its equivalent. It is true that the Government of Quebec asked to be consulted when Bill C‑11 is applied in the Quebec context. Despite all that, the Conservatives continue to say that the bill violates freedom of expression based on the word of a single expert, Mr. Geist, who testified in this case but also on almost every other committee for the Conservatives. He is like a Renaissance man.
Are the Conservatives also telling us that the Government of Quebec is against freedom of expression when it wants to protect and promote Quebec's French-speaking culture?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:15:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the Conservative Party, compared to the Bloc, is a party that is not willing to trade away our freedoms.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for Canadians at home to know that tonight's vote is not on Bill C-11. It is on the message from the House of Commons going to the Senate with respect to the amendments that the Senate sent here and whether we agree with the substance of that message. In particular, it also includes a message to disagree with the amendment from Senators Simons and Miville-Dechêne with respect to addressing user-generated content.
I wonder if the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies would like to comment specifically on the motion we are debating this evening.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the amendments would address the concerns around user-generated content, I think we would have a whole bunch of viewers listening over here. However, the bill is flawed. We have been talking about this bill for many years, since Bill C-10. It is still flawed today, and frankly does not cut it for us on this side of the aisle.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain some of what he has heard from some of his constituents, who, I am sure, are very similar to those I have heard from in northern Alberta who are very concerned about what this is going to mean and about what they are going to be able to see and say on social media platforms.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
