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.