Evidence of meeting #41 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was content.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
Yes, I don't know what the relevance is. I forgot what committee I'm on because the topic is just so off.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
Yes, I don't know the relevance of the topic that my colleague is speaking to.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.
As you know, Mr. Arnold, again, we try to be germane to the point. I'm enjoying the story—don't get me wrong. However, I do have a job to stay on track. Perhaps you'd like to continue with the advice of others.
Go ahead.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly will bring it back to how it applies to this legislation and this particular amendment. This amendment will put parameters around who will be affected by the legislation.
As I was pointing out, with the cannabis legislation that was put through, there were no parameters put in place. That legislation could have been modified. It could have been amended so that it didn't have the unintended consequences that it is having now for individuals in their homes, for constituents and for people. They are who we have to consider when we're drafting legislation. We need to consider not just the big corporations but every individual, every constituent, who may be affected, intentionally or unintentionally, by legislation. This piece of legislation needs to be amended so that we don't have those unintended consequences. That is why I brought this issue forward.
We've also seen how interpretations can be changed or reinterpreted on very short notice, even though the interpretation or the regulation has been in place for years. I refer to a recent reinterpretation of fisheries regulations that basically risked putting the entire spot prawn fleet—or a large portion of the spot prawn fleet—out of work this summer in British Columbia, simply because someone reinterpreted how the regulation should apply.
It's just another example of how the legislation needs to be fully thought through. There need to be parameters put in place to ensure that we don't have those unintended consequences. Ms. Rempel Garner said it best. When people back at this legislation in 10 years' time, we want them to say that we got it right. We don't want them to look back and say, “Boy, they really messed up on this: they should have had parameters; they should have had guidelines; they should have made sure this legislation affected those it really was aimed at.”
That's where this legislation started out. We understood months ago, in November 2020, that this legislation was to make those media giants, online giants, pay their fair share towards Canadian content. Now we have changes to it in the final hours that really make Canadians concerned for their freedom of expression. I've never had as much correspondence to my office, to me individually and to me on the street—about anything—as I have had about this piece of legislation. People are concerned that they may have their personal content censored online by the CRTC, by the powers that are in this bill, if we can't modify it, if we can't amend it through these sensible amendments that my colleagues have put forward.
Mr. Rayes, I commend you for recognizing a flawed piece of legislation and how to correct it so that it could be moved forward. These are the actions that we need to take as individual legislators and as a committee: to point out the flaws, to make the corrections, to make the amendments and to make a bill that works for every Canadian, not just the ones who we think are going to support this mass move towards censorship of Canadian content.
Mr. Chair, I'll wrap up fairly shortly here. As you can see by what I've put forward, I've pointed out how the rushed legislation of the past has caused unintended consequences. We certainly don't want—and I don't want—to be responsible. As my first opportunity to have any input into this committee or this legislation, I don't want people to look back at what I did on this committee and say that it was a mistake.
Mr. Chair, we can do better than this, and I certainly hope we do.
I would now turn it back to one of my colleagues, who I'm sure has more to say.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Arnold, but I don't see any hands up right now. Therefore, with that—
Oh look—I do.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. chair.
It won't take that long. I don't think there are any more questions on the amendment I proposed, but I want to take one last little moment to remind all members of the committee that the ultimate goal is to set guidelines. We believe that the powers of the CRTC must be circumscribed. We all know how frustrating the deletion of clause 4.1 originally proposed in Bill C-10 as well as the changes made to that bill throughout the process have been.
I invite the committee to consider this request, which I repeat is quite reasonable, in my opinion. The thresholds we're proposing are below those recommended by Australia. They would provide a minimum level of protection for users and small players on social networks, so that they're not controlled and aren't subjected to additional regulations and paperwork. These people are asking for nothing more than the freedom to express their art, and not just at home but around the world.
I think that, as Quebeckers and as Canadians, we're proud to see artists succeed outside the country. In Quebec, we have Cirque du Soleil, which everyone knows and which has performed all over the world. If it had been restricted to Canada because other countries had prevented it from performing on their territory, I'm not sure it would have had the opportunity to enjoy the success it has.
The idea is not to close in on ourselves. We must instead show that we are proud and strong, and that there is talent here. We should be proud to see our home‑grown talent exported around the world and let everyone's creativity shine on social networks.
The game has changed. Digital players like Netflix and Disney+ have joined the so‑called closed broadcasting system. There is also the open system, where broadcasters use certain algorithms and let users choose the content they want to download.
As legislators, we have a responsibility to protect users and the content they broadcast. The proposed amendment to add section 9.2 to the Broadcasting Act does not amend Bill C‑10 perfectly, I agree. Personally, I would have liked there to be no standard. At least this amendment protects a certain number of users.
Also, as you know, under proposed subsections 9.2(2) and 9.2(3), the CRTC will have the opportunity to review these thresholds every two years, if I'm not mistaken. I'm going from memory, since the short notice we had for this meeting didn't give me a chance to get my notes from home.
I implore the members of the committee to consider this in their thinking before voting. I also ask them to rise above the direction they've received from their strategists. We now know that they have a kind of hold over the committee. We only have to look at what they did: the gag order was imposed on us and then, as a result of corridor discussions between the whips, this meeting was set up without all of us knowing about it.
I'm asking you to allow us to do our job and make sure we protect all Canadians and Quebeckers who use social networks to post content. We're not just talking about videos of dogs and cats, as some would have you believe, in an attempt to simplify the situation. We're also talking about artists who produce quality content, content aimed at informing people, such as documentaries. They create this content without a budget, using simple tools and democratized technology. Now, people can create high‑quality things just from their phones, thanks to a few low‑cost apps. These digital tools make it possible to democratize information and create content.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Rayes.
Now we go to another tourist who has come by to visit—and I mean “tourist” in the best sense.
Mr. Poilievre, before you start, we're going to need a sound check from you. I just spoke of Mr. Arnold's beautiful riding. It's absolutely stunning. I want you to talk about your riding and just how stunning it is in one sentence or less, please, so I can get a sound check.
Go ahead.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Testing, one, two, three, from the beautiful capital area riding of Carleton, where roughly 100,000 Canadian citizens are excited to have a chance to express themselves freely online, if they're still allowed.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
One second. I'll just get confirmation from our interpreters.
We have a thumbs-up. Okay.
Mr. Poilievre, welcome. The floor is yours, sir.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Well, here we are today with the government censoring debate on a censorship bill, an incredible compounded attack on our freedoms as Canadians. What's at stake here is section 2(b) of the charter, freedom of expression, so really, what we're debating is 2(b) or not 2(b): that is the question. Will Canadians continue to have their section 2(b) rights to express themselves uninhibited by government bureaucracy?
Before us is a bill that would allow government bureaucrats to rig technological algorithms in order to favour certain kinds of pro-government content online while discouraging content that government does not want us to see, in some cases taking that content off the Internet altogether. Now, they tell us that this new power, which we have done just fine without for the last 20 years since the Internet blossomed and online communications and the existence of social media occurred, is necessary to protect Canadian content. But they can't tell us exactly what Canadian content is.
Apparently, for example, when the CBC plagiarizes a CNN story out of Washington and runs a full story, without even mentioning Canada, about what's happening in the United States, that would be considered Canadian content. My local community association in Canada puts out a newsletter informing a Canadian audience about what's happening in a Canadian community, produced by a Canadian author, and that would not be considered Canadian content. It therefore would be knocked down on the algorithmic food chain and pushed out of sight and out of mind. We don't—
June 9th, 2021 / 6:55 p.m.
Liberal
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I see we have a Liberal member trying to censor my content right now.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
One second, Mr. Poilievre. Hang on to that editorial for just a moment. I'm sure you will have ample time for it.
Mr. Housefather, go ahead on your point of order.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, you say that you want to keep things on the ball field. My friend isn't even in the outfield. He's not even in the bleachers. He's outside the stadium. If he could perhaps move back to the amendment, it would be greatly appreciated. He's well smart enough to stay on the amendment.
Thank you.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Poilievre, first of all, we're on amendment CPC-9.2, moved by Mr. Shields. The last three numbers of the reference number are “583”.
Goodness knows I appreciate any reference to Shakespeare and the like. However, as I've said to them before, although thinking outside the box is allowed, and I'm fairly flexible, I can't have you wandering outside the warehouse.
With that in mind, Mr. Poilievre, the floor is yours, please.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I understood that the heritage committee was a place for promoting the arts, so I thought, what better thing to do than quote Shakespeare, one of the world's most famous artists.
It is interesting that members of the government side are now trying to censor what I do and don't say here in a parliamentary committee on a censorship bill. I don't know how many times we can go around this Orwellian tree. It looks like an awfully strange action for a government to shut down debate on a bill this important, giving a notice to the committee that it only has five hours to finish up the work and then send the bill back so that it can ram it into law so that the censorship can begin before Canada Day. That is really what the government's agenda is.
The reason I mention the issue of Canadian content, Mr. Chair, is that this really comes down to who decides. Who decides what is Canadian content? I haven't heard a single name of a CRTC official who's going to be on this decision desk, looking at content and saying, “Oh, yes, that qualifies. Well, there's a maple leaf in that one, so it's in. The other one only has a beaver and some maple syrup, so it's not quite Canadian enough. The third one, of course, might have a Canada goose in it, but that doesn't quite meet our criteria of 'Canadian'.” We know what Canadian content will be when the bureaucrats and the government officials have a chance to decide. It will be pro-government, liberal-leaning, boring, statist content that is approved of by the establishment crowd in general and the liberal glitterati in particular. That's what will be qualified as Canadian content.
Of course, the reason the government needs a bill like this is that if it just allowed people to choose what they wanted to watch with the clicks of their fingers, it knows that people would choose differently from what the government wants. They would choose to listen to dissenting voices, as they do. In fact, on my social media, we do reach millions of people, about four million people a month, but I'm not, probably, Canadian enough for the government officials. I suspect that the audiences I reach who consume the information I provide would be deprived of that point of view in favour of a more approved message, something that the CRTC would be confident in allowing them to hear.
When someone can't win the debate, what do they do? They shut down the debate and put themselves in charge of that debate. That's why I'm here today: to stand up against censorship and to fight back on behalf of the millions of Canadians who demand their right to free speech.
I also note that when the government claims there is support for this bill, all it does is quote lobbyists. It doesn't quote artists; it quotes lobbyists. What this bill would effectively do is favour those content producers who have the best lobbyists rather than those who have the best products. Whenever the government decides who is seen and heard, then those who have influence in the government become the deciders of what gets heard and what does not. Of course, the everyday man and woman who produce content in their own way will be disadvantaged because they don't have political influence. It will be those organizations quoted so often by this minister that have their voices heard because, of course, they have the influence in Ottawa. They have the money. They have the big broadcasting corporations funding them. They will have a megaphone that everyone else will lack.
This is about, basically, converting the power of the state into a louder megaphone for the favoured few at the expense of the voices of the very many. That's why I'm proud to fight against it. I am also proud that a Conservative government would repeal—
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
One moment please, Mr. Poilievre. I'm sorry.
Folks, when someone raises a point of order, can we please just, everyone, be silent once they say that? What's going to happen is that we're all going to escalate our voices to the point.... I just want you to remember that someone's ears are attached to your microphone—they would be the interpreter's—and when we elevate the sound, it's hard on them. I don't know if you've noticed, but recently there's been more of that going on. I ask you humbly to please not do that. If someone says, “Point of order,” let's try to stop right there, and I'll deal with such.
Ms. Ien, you have a point of order. Go ahead.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Marci Ien Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Shakespeare. I appreciate a lot of things. I would just point out that we need to stick to this amendment, which talks about subscribers. It talks about a lot of things, but not what my fellow colleague is talking about now.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Ms. Ien.
Mr. Poilievre, go ahead, again with the advice of others about staying within the confines of our amendment. You have the floor, sir.
7 p.m.
Liberal
7 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Right. That point of order and the earlier one are a good illustration that government doesn't want certain things said, so they shut down the voices that say them.
There are confines of what's allowed to be spoken in Canada. Anybody who goes outside those confines risks being silenced. We have here a vivid demonstration, where government members—