44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Mar/30/23 5:17:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I thank the member for asking about what local folks and my neighbours are saying about this. I think a lot really support it, and we support freedom in this country.
We saw an example of overreach by the government not that long ago, just over a year ago, when bank accounts of some groups were shut down because people wanted to voice their freedoms, and so it leads to the next step. What if this government does not like a particular movement, a particular party or a particular message? Well, let us just make a call to the CRTC and say, “Hey, shut it down.” That is what my residents are talking about and are very worried about. They have seen examples of it already, and I think those concerns are warranted.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in 1951, when Ray Bradbury was writing Fahrenheit 451, it was a time not unlike 2023. Fahrenheit 451 presented an American society in the year 2049 where firemen were employed to burn outlawed books, along with the houses they were hidden in, because of a government deciding what people could see and what they could say.
Ray Bradbury described his book as depicting political correctness as an allegory for the censorship in the book. He called it the real enemy and labelled it as thought control and control over freedom of speech.
When the book was written, it was a time of massive social change and technological revolution. Hearings in the U.S. investigated Americans with alleged communist ties. Nuclear warfare was fresh. The golden age of radio occurred between the 1920s and the late 1950s and the television launched into living rooms in the 1950s, which changed how people consumed media and news.
Governments took actions to make sure the news and the artists they thought should be promoted in this technological shift would be promoted, and the ones they did not like would be censored.
The house un-American activities committee held hearings to investigate alleged communist ties. The Hollywood 10, a group of influential screenwriters, were blacklisted, and of course everyone remembers the Truman Doctrine and McCarthy hearings.
The government's interference in the affairs of artists and creative types infuriated Bradbury, who was bitter and concerned about government intervention, and he then wrote Fahrenheit 451. Fast forward to 2023, and we have absolute parallels with those government interventions in Bill C-11. Just like Margaret Atwood, Ray Bradbury would not be impressed with the government's looking to interfere in the affairs of artists and creators at a time of immense technological change.
We have the Internet, social media and AI. We use smart phones every day and we use tablets. It is an incredible time and certainly we all, in the House, want to see our Canadian artists and content creators be successful. In fact, we want to release the shackles and ensure all creators are immensely successful.
It is not done by government intervention; it is done by breaking down barriers so artists can succeed. There is no culture without freedom of expression, but do not take it from me. Take it from the creators themselves. We have heard all week how Margaret Atwood called this “creeping totalitarianism”.
A YouTuber and TikToker named Kallmekris has said, “I am scared...Bill C-11 was supposed to promote Canadian storytelling online. In reality, the bill has ended up so broadly worded that it lets the CRTC interfere with every part of your online life. That includes manipulating your feed and search results.” Another YouTuber, J.J. McCullough, says, “What Canadians want is what Canadian culture is, not what the government says it should be.” According to a Regina TikToker named Tesher, “C-11 would limit that reach by requiring creators to prioritize government criteria for domestic distribution over making content optimized for global audiences.”
Through this legislative measure, the government is preparing to give itself the power to control what Canadians can listen to or watch online. For example, instead of offering people more content based on their interests on platforms such as YouTube, the government would force those platforms to promote content that it deems to be a priority. It argues that the order of priority would be established according to the Canadian nature of the content.
For example, instead of giving a Canadian more of what they want on platforms such as YouTube, the government would choose what it wants Canadians to see. Let us be clear: Big tech would still monopolize algorithms and government would shut down the voices of individual Canadians.
What is worse is that it would open the door for other governments to do the same. We already know how strict buy America has been for Canadian manufacturing, and we fight it every day. What would happen if they emulated the strategy against Canadian creators by emulating a “buy or view America” against Bill C-11? If we control Canadian content, sooner or later they would control America content, shutting Canadian content creators out of America. It is cultural warfare.
Another glaring fact is that people have to want to watch it, not be forced to watch it.
Let us talk about innovation and competition as an alternative to this bill. The answer to seeing increased competition and innovation is to release the shackles of Canadian content creators, and I have an idea for creators. Let us see a Canadian Netflix competitor created that plays Canadian content. We would call it “Canuck-Flix”. Does that not sound good? Canuck-Flix would have the ability to showcase Canadian talent, showcase Canadian television and, of course, have creators put that content online. That is real competition.
There is a great show in my riding, airing right now on Bell's Fibe, called Stoney Lonesome. It is filmed entirely in Belleville. It stars some really great professionals in some great local backdrops. They are 10-minute episodes that are very funny, content-created and something they want to see outside and to compete with others. That is a great example of great Canadian content, and we should be promoting it.
Tomorrow is a very special day, my eldest son Jack's 10th birthday. I look forward to his future, and all of us as parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents wish all our children, Canada's children, equality of opportunity for success in whatever each of them wants to achieve and do in this country, whether that be in sports or as researchers, volunteers or, dare I say, politicians, to be whatever they want to be. The government's role is not to tell them what to be; it is to assist in breaking down any barrier that does not allow them to be what they want to be, and this bill would not do that.
Today's creators do not function according to the same rules as previous generations did. Today's creators exist in a new space and have new ideas, freedoms and choice. Choice is a fundamental right of Canadians and an absolute necessity for competition. Competition allows Canadians to make their own choices so they themselves can choose which content goes viral and which does not. It allows Canadians to succeed or to fail, but it allows Canadians to allow the free market to dictate what success is like and what it is not.
I share the desire of the member for Lethbridge, who has been an incredible advocate for this cause and for which she deserves a round of applause, for Canadians to know that this bill would impact them in two areas. It would censor what they see and it would censor what they say. With regard to what they see, if a Canadian government determines what gets promoted and what gets demoted, it means it is censoring what Canadians can see.
Furthermore, this bill would censor what an individual can say or post online. Creative talent here in Canada would no longer succeed based on merit, as it does now. Instead, content would be subject to a list of criteria that the government has not released yet. Let us make that clear. We would have a list of criteria by which the government would determine just what Canadian content is, and yet we have not seen it. As parliamentarians, we have no idea of the content of that list or how it would determine what is Canadian or not. Therefore, it would be left up to interpretation or, as I like to say, to the greatest line I have ever heard, “I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”
Through that, the government directed that those criteria have to be weighed and measured to see if they are met by the artists. If they are, they would be deemed Canadian. How do we fancy that? If they are not, they would not be discoverable, and those that are not discoverable would be bumped down the list of search engines, on YouTube, on TikTok, on Instagram, or whatever. That is censorship, not only what viewers can see but also, for creators, what we can say.
The bill is a travesty of Canadian freedoms that needs to be replaced. Here are the alternatives: a bill that updates the Broadcasting Act, that promotes all Canadian artists and creators without censorship, what one sees and says; the promotion and development of our arts and culture in Canada, celebrating great artists, great content and the arts, which we know all do well and are incredible; and a new tax code that taxes big tech. Conservatives agree with that.
Some have said this bill is all about only taxing big tech. It is a little part of this bill. A larger part of the bill is what people can say and what they can see, but we need to also have a separate bill. If that were the case, why was this bill not separated into a tax bill that just did that? We are all about doing things we say we are going to do. If this were about Canadian creators creating more content, this would be under creative arts funding and entrepreneurship. There are a lot of great things.
I am going to leave everyone with a quote before I end. It is a great quote by Diefenbaker, because it really summarizes what we believe on the Conservative side and what we believe for Canadians. He said, “I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
Another great saying that is attributed to Voltaire is, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Fahrenheit 451 ends with the symbolism of the legendary phoenix. It is an endless cycle of long life, death in flames, rebirth and the symbolism that the phoenix must have some relationship to mankind, which constantly repeats its mistakes, but men and women have something the phoenix does not. Mankind can remember its mistakes and try to never repeat them.
Let us repeal this bill, let us come back and get it right and let us make sure we respect the fundamental right of freedom of Canadians.
1800 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:29:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, whether it was the minister or one of the many other members, it has very clearly been said that what the bill would not do is, “impose regulations on the content [of] everyday Canadians post on social media.” It “does not limit [Canadians'] freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.” Why does the Conservative Party continue to give false information and plant anxiety in many individuals, and use that anxiety, when it knows it is not true?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the bill specifically states there would be criteria determined by the government that would determine what is Canadian and what is not. That very definition is what we can see and what we can say, and that is censorship. On this side of the House, we are against that.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:30:27 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:31:11 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
