Canadian Heritage Committee on May 31st, 2021

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

When we talk about the digital content that is put online and the fact that this bill, if it moves forward the way it currently stands, will censor that content, we need to take that very seriously for two reasons: one, the impact that will have on artists or creators and, two, the impact that will have on their audience, those individuals who go on YouTube and use it in order to access content.

When it comes to the artists, we have to acknowledge that the greatest artists right now and over the last decade have come up through platforms such as YouTube or TikTok. We're talking about artists who are young, aspiring and diverse. We're talking about individuals who belong to different minority groups, represent different viewpoints and are able to bring Canada to life. However, they won't necessarily make the cut when it comes to being acknowledged as “Canadian content producers” because they don't fit the traditional mould.

When the government steps in and imposes these regulatory measures that insist that Canadian content be bumped up in its “discoverability” and that non-Canadian content be bumped down in its discoverability, first of all, they are starting with a false definition of Canadian content, and then they move on to actually demote or degrade or thwart the success of some artists, because, again, those artists won't make the cut.

Let's take Lilly Singh, for example. She's Canadian, fully Canadian, functioning from Canada and in many of her posts she talks about Canadian issues, but in many of her posts, she talks about her Indian culture and heritage. In some of her posts she talks about other countries. In other posts she talks about things that are just hilarious, not necessarily Canadian content per se, but she's Canadian, functioning in Canada and enjoying a life of artistic success. She'd be punished. If Bill C-10 passed, her content would be demoted. It would be moved to the bottom of the page. Meanwhile—I don't know—maybe basket weaving gets moved to the top because everybody wants to learn about basket weaving.

The fact that this is going to have such a detrimental impact on artists and on creators should cause us as committee members to pause for a moment and to consider the amendment that's been put on the table, because this amendment will protect the content that is produced. It will make sure that these artists have a fighting chance, that they are captains of their own destiny, that they get to determine their success based on the way they perform and based on growing an audience organically. Again, I'll remind the committee that 90% of their audience members are beyond the borders of Canada; they are from all over the world.

If we start putting fences around these individuals, sure, they'll protect some artists, but they will imprison other artists. They will actually prevent them from being able to achieve the level of success that they would be able to achieve on their own.

Artists are not asking for more government regulation. In fact, they're telling me quite the opposite. They're telling me they want the government to get out of the way. They're creators. They're creative. They're entrepreneurial. They're hard-working. They don't want the government to step in and dictate to them what they can and cannot do, and they certainly don't want the government to step in and determine what is Canadian and what is not Canadian and whether or not they make the cut. They just want to continue to create and enjoy an audience and provide something of value to those who would enjoy their talents.

I think the idea of protecting “Canadian culture” is a noble one, but in actuality that's not what this bill would do.

This bill will protect a very small niche group, a little niche group of artists who can't compete on new platforms, a niche group of artists who have lobbyists who apparently have been quite effective within this government, a niche group of artists who rely heavily on government grants. Why do they rely on government grants? If the content is wanted, if the content is desirable, then surely there would be a buyer.

Again, there are many digital first creators who are making a go of it. In fact in Canada over 25,000 Canadians have platforms and through them have organically grown an audience and are able to make over $100,000 a year. This bill will put them out of business.

So much for a government that believes in the digital economy. This bill is a direct attack on that. It's shameful.

I think we have to ask ourselves, then, what defines Canadian culture. What defines Canadian content? What is going to make the cut and what isn't? That definition, we discover, is extremely flawed, again putting an end to so many good Canadian artists.

The amendment that's been brought forward would protect the content that individuals post online. It would protect it from getting bumped up or bumped down. It would protect it from having to go through the scrutiny of being determined Canadian or not Canadian and being given a rating out of 10 on just how Canadian it is.

Further, the amendment we put on the table in terms of the content would not only protect the artists and their content but would also facilitate a person's viewing experience. In other words, when we go online in search of content, we're going to have the freedom to explore based on our desires as audience members rather than being dictated to by a government-designed algorithm.

Again, in its current form, this legislation will result in algorithms being put in place that will move content up or down in the queue and make it available to us based on what the government wants us to see, based on “Canadian content”.

Right now, Canadians go online and they go on YouTube and they access the videos they want using a search bar. Once the algorithms figure out that a person really likes looking at cartoons and learning how to draw cartoon characters, the algorithms generate more content for them that is in line with that. It's great. It curates it for us.

What the government is saying with Bill C-10 is that, no, we don't want it curated for you, Canadians. We don't want it curated for the audience member or the user. No, this government wants to dictate what Canadians should and should not have access to. Instead of algorithms curating a platform for you, the government's going to step in and create an algorithm that's going to curate it based on what they think you should see.

That is a direct attack on freedom of expression. That is a direct attack on our charter rights to be able to access information freely, to be able to express ourselves freely, to be able to hold beliefs freely, to be able to hold opinions freely, to be able to use what is now the new public square in order to have our voices heard and to access the voices of others.

It is absolutely necessary that this bill move forward only with this protective mechanism in place, with the protection of content. Content that people post online should not be regulated by the government.

We already have the Criminal Code in place, which of course protects Canadians by making sure that child pornography, let's say, is not posted online, for sure. That type of legislation is appropriate, but to put legislation in place that will rate, somehow, the Canadianness of something, and then determine whether or not it gets to be posted and where it falls in the queue, is inappropriate. That is totally inappropriate. It is extremely dictatorial. It's an affront to democracy.

Numerous experts have spoken out and said that, so why we're even having this conversation is a mystery to me. It's a no-brainer. We live in a democracy. We live in a free society. We believe people's voices should be heard. I mean, this is the government that keeps saying diversity is our strength. This is their chance to stand by that statement. If diversity is truly our strength, then why wouldn't we want to celebrate diversity of thought, diversity of artistic expression, diversity of creativity? This bill will quelch that like never before.

This amendment is needed in order to protect the content that so many post online. This amendment is needed to protect those individuals who wish to access that content freely. Without this amendment, this bill is an absolute disaster. It is an attack on the Canadian people and their freedom.

I'll end there for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

There was a comment made earlier in the meeting that if we had just not said anything different when proposed section 4.1 was gone, if we had just repeated the words of other MPs who had agreed with removing it, we wouldn't have this issue.

It's freedom of speech where we have differences of opinion. That is what this is about. In my opinion, the fundamental piece here is the comment that this controversy arose only because other people had differences of opinion. People have differences of opinion. One particular group, while perhaps made up of a number of different parties that have the same opinion while others don't, shouldn't be dictatorial in the sense that we will automatically have to repeat their words when we may not agree with them. I find it very interesting that somebody would suggest to us this morning that we created a controversy that wasn't there by not expressing the opinions of others that were different from our own.

I think we've agreed in this discussion about funding for culture. I think we've talked about the source of that. The minister in documents indicated about $400 million, but then the document became very redacted in terms of where that other $400-plus million was coming from. It's really interesting that only part of it is verified when he talks about that funding.

It's interesting about funding in the sense that we've all lobbied and many of us have for arts organizations in our communities, as I have for the Calgary Arts Commons in Alberta or the Rosebud Theatre in my riding. The parliamentary secretary will remember that, when she was chair of the heritage committee, a Liberal MP from Alberta wanted to talk about funding. It was very interesting that we found that Alberta received about 5% of the funding that went to arts and culture in Canada. Only 5% went to Alberta. It was a Liberal MP who brought this to committee for us to look at when the parliamentary secretary was chair of the heritage committee.

When we talk about funding, there get to be all sorts of interesting issues that go with the funding. It's not that we're not supportive of funding and it's not that we don't support big major foreign tech companies being taxed for the services they provide, but the minister has said zillions of times how while the Conservatives are supportive they must be in the pockets of those tech companies supporting this. I have not been lobbied by one tech company, but the list of the tech companies and the times they've been in the minister's office is huge. They haven't been in my office. I haven't talked to one of them. When the minister says, “we're listening to the tech companies”, they have to talk to you before you can listen to them, and they haven't talked to me. They haven't sent me any information. They haven't done anything to influence my decision, yet they've been in the minister's office, practically living there they've been there so many times, right at the top of the people who lobby on behalf of the tech industry. They're in his office, not mine.

When we're talking about proposed section 4.1 and we hear about the difference in opinions on net neutrality, if there is a person in between those creators and how it is placed in the world at large, then we're talking about a difference of opinion about what net neutrality is. Someone mentioned that if a judge can do it.... That's where this legislation is going to go. It's going to end up in front of judges. It's going to be there for a long time. For those who have been given to believe that the money is just going to flow and that it's going to come instantly, that's not going to happen because there are going to be judges involved in this.

There's a difference of opinions on what net neutrality is, and that's what 4.1 was protecting, people's ability to do things differently, a creator's ability to do things differently, not the status quo.

People talk about the algorithms of the tech companies out there, and, yes, those are based on data and they drive people to where they want them to go, but that's not what the CRTC does. It's not based on data. Historically it has been based on content, not data.

We know what the algorithms of the big tech companies are for. They're for making money and being data-driven, but that's not the model the CRTC has used for 30 years. It is based on content, so it's not data-driven.

Removing 4.1 took us from being data-driven to a different algorithm, not what people necessarily want but what people are driven to, so that rating system...and it's been interesting as the news stories of this past week have talked about how businesses buy services to get them rated higher, but how there are also services they can buy to take away negative ratings they might have. They might also want to buy that service to take away their competitor by driving that rating.

This is the kind of mechanism we're putting in the hands of the CRTC. It's a mechanism on content driving people to a certain platform—not on data but on content. That's why this is not net neutrality. That's why proposed section 4.1 was important, Mr. Chair. What we need to be doing is protecting.

When there were consultations done by the minister, members of this committee said consultations were done from sea to sea, from ocean to ocean, and that we talked to everybody, but we know that's not true. We didn't talk to those 200,000 creators who are on there. We didn't talk to the 25,000 who are making a living. As was mentioned earlier, they don't have lobbyists, so who was that consultation with? It was with lobbyist organizations, with those cultural groups that have been there forever, not with the new ones.

Social media has changed. It's not the mainline media of print newspapers and CTV, CBC and Global. It's not there. That's not where the younger generation is. They're in a different world, and they didn't speak to those people who've been very successful.

Chair, I think it's of critical importance that freedom of speech be protected. As we express differences of opinions on this committee, we ultimately have to ensure that we protect that for Canadians. They can be successful doing it. We shouldn't have to repeat the same opinions of other people in this committee when we have differences of opinion.

That's what this committee is about. That's what Canadians are about. We should protect freedoms of speech, and this is what we need to do with this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a short comment to make about what my colleague Mr. Champoux just said. He implied that my proposed amendment CPC-9.1 to section 4.1 did not necessarily affect social networks or content downloaded by social network users.

I'd like to remind him that a memorandum from senior officials delivered to the minister clearly stated that the CRTC would have the power to regulate applications, including audiobooks. We often hear about YouTube and TikTok because that's what grabs people's attention, but also included are Amazon Prime, NHL, TV, TVA Sports en direct, RDS Direct, Sportsnet, PlayStation Plus, and Internet sports workout applications.

This would legally give the CRTC the power to regulate content that users who are not part of an association create privately and share by creating a market.

We are not making this up. A missive received by the minister from his own officials explains why the removal of section 4.1 would have this impact, and we are simply revealing the situation.

By removing section 4.1, the government has given incredible and even mind-boggling power to the CRTC to enforce the act on all social network users and applications, whomever and whatever they may be. In the end, it will create a lot more red tape and at the end of the line, we Canadians and Quebeckers are going to pay the price. This is clear, and it comes from a memorandum from senior officials to the minister.

The minister was well aware of what he was doing. I would like to point out that all content uploaded to the web by users could be regulated by the CRTC, no matter what application is being used. I'm not making this up.

If he hasn't seen it, I'd be happy to give my colleague a copy of the memorandum received by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Manly.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

People might have noticed that I have an amendment coming right after this. It would have been a subamendment, but I can't put subamendments forward to amendments. Basically, it says the same thing except that people would be exempt from this process and their programs would be exempt under the act, except where Canadian creators of programs want to voluntarily choose to be subject to the act for discoverability purposes. The undertakings would be exempt except in those situations where Canadian creators want to be part of the program and voluntarily be subject to the act.

There's been a lot of discussion about how to determine what is Canadian content. It's actually a very simple process. In addition to being a professional musician, I ran an artist management company for a number of years. I had some very successful Canadian artists I did record deals for. I negotiated international record deals and distribution deals and licensing agreements for them. I stepped them through the process of MAPL—the music, artist, production, lyrics process—in determining what is Canadian content for music. It's a very simple process. It's an easy thing to step through and score.

I've also produced documentaries and educational films. When I got a Canadian broadcaster that was interested, that hadn't commissioned a film before it was made but wanted to play it afterwards, I stepped through the CAVCO process. That's very straightforward as well. It's based on a points system. It's really easy to get something certified as Canadian content.

The actual tax credit system, where you get money back, is a little bit more onerous and difficult. You have to engage accountants to step through everything and determine what you're eligible for in terms of funding. If you don't have a big budget to deal with that, it's not necessarily advantageous for small producers.

But that's a whole other thing. The actual determining of what is Canadian content is pretty straightforward. It's in the regulations. Those regulations haven't changed for a long time. I think they do need to be reviewed, but the idea that CanCon actually fences in Canadian artists is erroneous. That's not true at all. In fact, CanCon has made it easier for Canadian artists to be discovered in Canada and have the financial wherewithal to be able to go and expand into other markets.

Take musicians working in Canada. When they're eligible for grants or whatever, or when they're getting airplay, whether it's on commercial radio or on college radio and getting promoted because they're Canadian content, they can tour across Canada and get airplay. It helps them to finance tours going into the United States, where it's harder to break in as an artist if you're not making it through the algorithmic process on YouTube, Facebook or the social media platforms.

I have produced stuff for social media. I've had YouTube videos that have gone viral and had millions of views. I didn't have to bother going through a CanCon process with them. I just let them loose. But I've also had programs that I wanted played on a Canadian broadcaster, so I hopped through that process, which was very simple and easy, just to determine whether or not it met the certification requirements. To have a voluntary system where artists and producers are able to actually determine for themselves whether they want that discoverability, and then have a system where Canadians who are looking for Canadian content can find Canadian content easily through this process, makes a lot of sense for continuing to support Canadian talent—musical talent, film talent and all of these other things.

The CRTC regulations say that programs under five minutes aren't covered under the Canadian content rules. There's no requirement for somebody making a TikTok video or an Instagram video to apply for Canadian content rules, and you can submit stuff for broadcast that is under that limit. It's not required that you meet the CRTC regulation for it.

Of course, those regulations can change, but it doesn't make sense, really, for the CRTC to be doing something that would be detrimental to Canadian artists. The idea that there's a fence around Canadian producers that would be created by these CanCon regulations is ridiculous. The CanCon regulations have helped artists who I've worked with tour Europe, tour all over North America and break into those markets, because they could afford to after making it here in Canada.

I don't know if somebody wants to put forward a subamendment to this one, or we'll just wait and see what happens when we get to my amendment, but I think that having a voluntary process would meet the needs of people who are concerned about free speech and just want to put something out on the Internet, those who want to be discovered as Canadian content and audiences who want to be able to buy Canadian content more easily through a discoverability process, and also have these giant social media companies pay into a fund that helps produce more Canadian content.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be brief. I simply want to respond to what Mr. Shields said a while ago.

He said something very important when he talked about not rejecting other people's opinions in a discussion. I fully agree with him.

Besides which, we took the time to ask questions, listen to the experts and check whether indeed there was anything to worry about in terms of an attack on freedom of expression for users of digital platforms and social media. I think we kept an open mind on this matter. I fully agree that it is important in debates to remain open to the opinions and ideas of others, because the healthy exercise of democracy means that we shouldn't necessarily cling our positions.

I also just wanted to add that when I said that we had no judges on the committee, I was drawing an analogy, an image to say that what we have here is a dialogue of the deaf. Each party is doggedly defending its positions, and I said that it might take a judge to rule on the matter. I am well aware that these issues will highly likely end up in court.

I also wanted to return briefly to Ms. Harder's lengthy monologue. I got the impression that we were being schooled on the quality of the work that had been done by the committee members, and I must say I take umbrage at this. We received 121 witnesses and 54 briefs during the study and preliminary study of Bill C-10. Indeed, I think that the Conservatives were able to invite many of these witnesses, and our colleagues who were there at the time were very effective. When we were began doing it, I think each of the parties did a good job of inviting the witnesses they felt were most appropriate at the time.

Did we invite everyone who should have been heard? I think we would agree that's impossible, but a call was nevertheless sent out to all interested parties across Canada to prepare a brief to state their opinion on this issue. So I think the work was indeed done well and that several issues were raised by people who were not necessarily there during the studies of Bill C-10, and I'll admit that there were moments when this struck a chord with me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Aitchison.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess what I'm struggling with here, in all of this, is that there's been so much discussion about what we started with and what we've heard. We've talked about reports from staff. We've talked about experts on different sides of this issue. What I'm finding frustrating about this right now is the argument I'm hearing against the concept of putting proposed section 4.1 back in, or a slight variation of it that we think might capture some of the concerns of the governing party. I'm hearing that it's unnecessary from a number of colleagues, not just the Liberal MPs.

I'm struggling with that. We've now heard from a number of experts and a number of people who say it is absolutely necessary. I'm hearing MPs say that it is unnecessary, because people's protections are already guaranteed in other sections of the bill. What I haven't heard is a legitimate argument to say that somehow, putting proposed section 4.1 back in, or a variation of it like we've proposed today, is somehow damaging to the bill. If it's just simply unnecessary, if you see it as duplication, what's so wrong about a little duplication when it comes to protecting freedom of expression online? Is it really just unnecessary, or is it in some way going to hurt something somewhere else?

You're hearing a pretty clear message, I think, from the Conservative members of this committee that if we do this, we can move on. If it's simply unnecessary—I'm seeing Ms. Dabrusin kind of roll her eyes and giggle, and that's great—then why can't we just agree and move on? If it's somehow going to damage the bill, then tell us what that is, because I see enough credible evidence, from the staff to the minister, from the debate we had with the experts....

This is what representatives of the public do. They listen to the public and they change if they need to make changes. That's what I've heard. It seems as though some of the comments I've heard, particularly from Ms. Dabrusin, about how we've done this and we have to move on....

Maybe that's the advantage I have of growing up in small town politics, where you listen to people. If you make a mistake, you change course. There's plenty on the public record of me making mistakes and having to change course because of something. I can give you all kinds of examples. You change course.

This is, to me, a legitimate question. I'm not used to this partisan game that goes on around here. This is ridiculous. All we're asking for is something that we've heard regularly now from experts and individual creators who use online forums who are concerned about this. If it's just duplication to you, why do you care? We've given you an option here to move forward and help these creators who need this support.

Mr. Chair, I throw the question out there. I apologize that I don't have a particular individual to share it with. I'm just at a loss here, trying to understand if this is just a game or if they're truly concerned that it somehow damages the bill in some other way. I'm kind of lost. I'm hopeful that maybe somebody, if they don't answer that question, could at least give it some thought and wonder what on earth we're arguing about anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Just briefly, I've been attacked by a couple of individuals who are on this committee right now, Mr. Champoux and Mr. Housefather, with regard to bringing up the fact that we really haven't heard from content creators.

Then it's been said that I should be silent—sit back down, Rachel—because I had my chance. The members of this committee had their chance to put forward their witness list. That's unfair. That's uncalled for. That's undemocratic. Here's why. Number one, I have a voice, and my voice matters. Number two, I'm a member of Parliament elected by the constituents of Lethbridge, and I'm here representing them. I have not only the duty and the responsibility to do that but also something called parliamentary privilege, which means that I can be here at this table and I can express the concerns that have been expressed by so many Canadians across this country.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I'll be brief.

I don't know if this really is a point of order, but Ms. Harder is interpreting what people are saying. I don't know where her comprehension went astray, but I never implied that she wasn't welcome here or that she should be silent. I would never dare say anything like that. I respect parliamentarians' freedom of expression.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux, thank you very much.

Ms. Harder, you still have the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Number three, in terms of witnesses and whether or not we did or did not call creators forward at the start of this bill, that has zero to do with where we're at now. Proposed section 4.1 was still part of this legislation in the fall, and 4.1 is no longer a part of this legislation. That is what we are speaking to today: 4.1.

With all due respect to my colleagues at the table, it would be appropriate for us at this point in time to hear from those witnesses and allow their voices to be heard, because this legislation has changed significantly. The content of those creators, the content of those digital first creators, will be impacted in a very detrimental way by this bill, because proposed section 4.1 has been removed. It actually is incumbent upon us, as members of this committee, to hear from them. If we can't bring them to the table as witnesses...although we could if it was the will of this committee to do so. If we're not going to do that, then let's at least take the time on our own to go and listen to them, hear from them and bring their voices to this table to read aloud the statements they are putting out there for the public to read. You will see that they are extremely concerned about this legislation and the negative impact the removal of 4.1 will have on them.

Again, what we're talking about here is the removal of something that provided protection for the content generated by Canadians. That protection is gone. What we are talking about here is an amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague Mr. Rayes. He has asked for that protection to be put back in. It's an appropriate request, it's the right request and it's what creators from across this country are asking. But it's not just creators. It's Canadians as a whole. It's the Canadian public who also deserve that. They deserve to be able to access a variety of content that is not dictated to them by the government through some algorithm determined by some bureaucrat in some back office because the heritage minister thought it would be a great idea.

This is Canada. We are not Turkey. We are not Iran. We are not China. We are not Russia. This is Canada. We're a democracy. Why is the government proposing that Canadians be dictated to in terms of the content that they can and can't post and its prioritization or “discoverability”? What we're asking for here is completely reasonable, that we would be able to provide those mechanisms of protection for Canadians so that they can continue to use the public square the way it is intended to be used. That's to share ideas, to share talent, to share one's ability with others and to be able to organically grow an audience. It's also for Canadians to then be able to go and access that content, enjoy those talents, enjoy those abilities and enjoy those artistic expressions regardless of how “Canadian” they are, or whether or not the government approves.

For the sake of democracy, this amendment is a no-brainer. It's a no-brainer. I'm baffled by the fact that we're even having this conversation, that there would be some who would dissent on the protection offered to content, that there would be some who are of the view that Canadians should be censored, that there would be some who would suggest that the voices of some Canadians are more worthwhile than others, that the artistic expression of some should be celebrated more than the artistic expression of others, and that some individuals deserve to be promoted and some individuals deserve to be demoted.

That baffles me. It's sad. The fact that we're not willing to heed the advice of experts who understand this field far better than any individual member on this committee, the fact that we're not willing to give their voices weight and, then, further to that, the fact that we're not willing to hear from creatives themselves, that we're not willing to sit down, listen and understand what it is that they're concerned about.... Shame on us. Canadians deserve better.

The amendment that my colleague has brought forward that would allow for that protection to be put back in place, the amendment that would again make sure that the content that Canadians generate is easily accessed by all, an amendment that would allow Canadians to be able to access the content that they want, rather than the government wants for them—that amendment is worthwhile. It's not like we reached into outer space and brought this amendment forward. It was an original part of this bill. It was once believed to be necessary.

To my colleague Mr. Aitchison's point, we haven't been provided a reason as to why not to put it back in. I'd love to hear that. Ms. Dabrusin is moving her mouth. Maybe she'd like to put her hand up to speak. Through you, Mr. Chair, I'd welcome her thoughts on this, as to why 4.1 was damaging. Why wouldn't we want to protect the content that Canadians post online? Why wouldn't we want to make sure that their freedoms are safeguarded? Perhaps someone could answer that for me, because right now that is totally unclear. Again, I'm confused as to why we would want to become more dictatorial in our approach. I mean, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Don't we respect that? Don't we honour that? Don't we want to uphold that?

Again, this is the government that says they're for advancing the digital economy and wanting to celebrate artists and all things Canadian and diversity is our strength, so I'm confused as to why changes have been made to this bill that actually attack those things they speak so passionately about. Why the attack on Canadians? Why the attack on freedom? Why the attack on artistic expression? Why the attack on young artists? Why the attack on aspiration, potential, opportunity, furthering oneself, entrepreneurship and innovation? I'd love to know.

Why the attack on those things? Why aren't Canadians being celebrated for what they're bringing to the table? Why aren't they being looked at as amazing human beings who are capable of great things and who don't need big government to step in and dictate to them what they can and cannot say, what they can and cannot post and what they can and cannot access? I'd love to know. Why the low view of people? Why the low view of Canadians?

That's it for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've gone an hour and 40 minutes without a break, so I think we can all wait another 20 minutes. I certainly won't speak for 20 minutes, but I want to reiterate what Mr. Rayes and others have said about bringing back proposed section 4.1.

To my dear colleague in the House, Mr. Champoux, I agree that proposed section 4.1 did allow for YouTube to be regulated when it operated as a broadcaster of its own for-profit content. The language of 4.1 said it clearly, but then the department, in December of 2020, in a memo to the minister, clearly stated that YouTube Originals and YouTube Music would be regulated even under 4.1.

I've been quoted several times by the minister in the House and in committee talking about this. Of course, on that Friday afternoon, proposed section 4.1 was suddenly eliminated. I think it's been an interesting conversation, not only today but for the last three weeks. All of our offices, I'm sure, have been inundated with concerns about Bill C-10, and rightfully so. It is an important part of our culture.

I look at the Toronto Sun today, and now we have the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation doing an attack on culture. That's what we don't want, I believe, in heritage. Now we have creators and culture, so now we have an editorial in the Toronto Sun today, and several comments now, done by Franco Terrazzano. I think as politicians we support our creators. We support our culture in this country, but now all of a sudden what this bill has done is to say, you know, you're a bunch of freeloaders. You've gotten millions of dollars in the past, and now you've been exposed. Many of these groups have lobbied the heritage department over a number of months and years. Now we're seeing the figure that the minister himself brought out of $835 million.

Mr. Chair, we still have some doubts about where that money will come from. I have an idea of where that $835 million will come from. Everyone says it comes from YouTube, and it could come from Amazon, Netflix and so on, but indirectly that comes from Canadian pockets. Don't fool us. That $835 million will come from consumers, on top of what is already put into culture and all the sectors that the heritage department supports in this country. We dearly love the support, especially during the time of the pandemic for the last 15 months. We've seen it. The member for Edmonton Strathcona talks about her constituency and about being viable and wanting to get back to normal and having our culture in the summer and feeding hundreds if not thousands of people in our communities. That's what this is all about.

I must say that Bill C-10 is a disaster now. We need to step back. Let's face it: Tomorrow is June 1, and it may pass the House of Commons but it won't pass the Senate. There's no time in three and a half weeks. This amendment by Mr. Rayes should be brought back in, and for very good reason. Canadian content should be accessible to all—I agree with you guys—but the algorithms will put some ahead and some back. Now we have winners and losers. Who knows? Once you get into the loser category, where you go from there?

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say that. I won't go on much longer. I used four minutes of the time. I just felt that I should support my colleague Mr. Rayes on bringing back proposed section 4.1.

I think it's a very good amendment to bring back in, because I was quoted several times by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I thank him for quoting me. “Saskatoon—Grasswood” is what the riding name actually is. He has trouble with saying that at times in the House. When he quotes me in saying that I supported the bill, I did because that's what the bill said in November. Then it was changed in March and April here. I haven't had time to say that on the record, but I think proposed section 4.1 should be brought back in as an amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh. I appreciate that.

Just for the record, we're debating CPC-9.1, and we're still on clause 7.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This will be my final comment on the amendment I'm putting forward. I'd like to place something in context for the people listening. Very respectfully, I believe that Minister Guilbeault is misleading them when he talks about the web giants. Basically, what people don't like about the web giants is that they monopolize all the advertising revenue without giving print media, whose content is shared on the various networks, their share of the pie.

So, two different things are involved, because the minister did not at the outset want to take this aspect into account in his bill. He even told us, as he mentioned in several interviews, that he had made a personal decision to split up the Broadcasting Act bill and remove some elements, including the sharing of the advertising revenue currently monopolized by the web giants like Facebook, Google and the rest.

He also decided to exclude authors from his bill. God knows that we are all being approached by organizations that defend Canadian authors, and they all think it regrettable that they were not included.

The minister also decided to exclude the CBC/Radio-Canada mandate from the bill, which prevented us from introducing amendments intended only to make sure that CBC/Radio-Canada complied with its mandate. That was so wacky that not so long ago, only a few months in fact, when some CBC/Radio-Canada representatives were testifying before the CRTC, they themselves were asking for legislation on the digital aspect of their work, right in the middle of our clause-by-clause study of a bill on repercussions for digital broadcasters. CBC/Radio-Canada didn't even have an opportunity to talk about it, because it wasn't even defined

So every time we wanted to discuss our public broadcaster in the course of this study, it was impossible because the minister had decided to address it at a later date, for strategic reasons, as we now know. It's a very sensitive issue that he didn't want to address, so he deferred it. It's the same thing for hate speech. He said in several interviews that the bill was coming soon. In the end, we'll never see it, because we all know that elections are coming very soon. He deferred it because he knew that by addressing these issues he would be walking on a tightrope with respect to freedom of expression.

We therefore tried to include social networks along the way without having the opportunity to discuss doing so. As Ms. Harder pointed out clearly, we didn't bring in any witnesses affected because at the outset it was not part of the bill. That's the reality of it. So I feel duped as a parliamentarian. It's true that we welcomed 120 witnesses—I don't want to get the numbers wrong but Mr. Champoux tallied them up and I thank him for doing so—and we all wanted to work very hard and had an opportunity to submit a list of witnesses. But at no time did we feel the need to look for players from the community, namely social network users who are not members of any associations, like influencers who earn their a living from social networks and never apply for grants. I admit that I never thought of inviting them, and I'm sorry that I didn't. It's only after the removal of section 4.1 that it became totally obvious. That's the reality.

We are now being asked to approve this bill and move forward without having really done our homework. I can't agree with that. I'm trapped. I think we could make progress on behalf of of the cultural sector by returning to the essence of the bill that the minister introduced at the outset. I think that he made a serious mistake by attacking us during question period and in his interviews, by implying that Conservatives were being obstructive and anti-culture.

It's not true! The Minister of Canadian Heritage is solely responsible for the mess we are in now.

We now have an opportunity to find a system that is equitable for our digital broadcasters, not for social networks and not for users like ordinary Canadians who share content at home. Even fellow members of my own party regularly have millions of viewers when they share videos. That means that one day, the CRTC could decide to regulate content shared by politicians. If that were to happen, it would have serious repercussions on our democracy.

And the experts who comment on the subject are not just anybody, and deserve to be heard. I'm proud that our party is giving them a voice. I'm proud that one of the political parties in Canada's Parliament is taking the time to listen to these experts and to defend them before this committee, where they no longer have a voice now that the bill has been amended.

I'm going to weigh my words. Sometimes—and I can't imagine that this could really be the case—I have wondered whether this whole process was planned deliberately. At the outset, the proposed bill did not include social networks. Was the intent to remove the initial exemptions excluding social media after having heard witnesses, and reached the clause-by-clause study of the bill, making sure thereby that they would be included?

I don't think so. I'd like to believe that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whom I know and with whom I've had several conversations, had not planned it this way. It might have been the intent of some of his people, with he himself unaware of it. When we see him defending his own bill in various interviews he has given, he doesn't appear to be aware of all the details. Don't people often say that the devil is in the detail?

When we began analyzing the bill and listening to experienced experts in the field, we began to realize that the minister was simply unaware of all the details. He even said so at one point, and so…

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes.

Ms. Dabrusin, do you have a point of order?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We have been out of the warehouse, into different fields in different industries and all around, Mr. Chair. I've been patient, but if we can go back to the amendment....

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes, I'm going to ask you not to go far afield on this one, please. There are two things that we risk doing here. One, of course, is going outside the scope of the conversation, and the other thing is repetition, which the Standing Orders strongly discourage.

I would ask that your return to your comments. Thank you very much.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

If I did so, then I'm truly sorry. Sometimes passion causes us to diverge somewhat from what we want to say. I don't have any notes and I'm speaking from the heart on this issue, which affects us personally, because as members of this committee, we have studied the bill and have worked hard. I will now refocus on amendment CPC-9.1, and will wrap up if I can have another minute.

I feel summoned to speak because I'm the person who proposed amendment CPC-9.1. I would ask the members of the committee one last time to allow us to move forward and return to the essence of what the minister was asking of us at the outset, which was to find a modicum of equity in the CRTC regulations.

We are not all in agreement on the extent of the powers the CRTC should have. We need to ensure that the act equitably regulates digital broadcasters like Netflix, Spotify and Disney +, as well as conventional broadcasters.

We need to start working on net neutrality again, which we all have a duty to defend. We need to stop being the only country in the world to attack its own citizens' content.

We also need to allow for artist discoverability. I'll repeat that we are 30 million people in a world of billions. If every country did what we do, our creators, who would like to take advantage of net neutrality to get discovered around the world by millions of people, could be shut out. It could put us in competition and limit the ability of Canadian artists to share their creative work with the people of Canada.

It's a bit like the free-trade principle in economics. Give us the power to provide Canadians with an opportunity to be discovered around the world. Let's not introduce restrictions that force us to stay at home. We need to take pride in all of these artists, even if they are not represented by an association or an organization. Let's give them a voice.

People often say that parliamentarians are there to defend people who are forgotten, set aside and not represented. In this instance, we are responsible for defending the multitude of Canadians on the Internet. We need to avoid excessive bureaucracy, which would have us going around in circles and harm them rather than help them.

Once again, I'm asking members of the committee to think before voting, and to vote for amendment CPC-9.1 so that we can continue with a clause-by-clause study of this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rayes.

Ms. Harder.