Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Clerk, Ms. Tina Miller]

I think it's okay. Yes, I'm getting the response that we're okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's okay to go to six o'clock?

[The Clerk, Ms. Tina Miller]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We will go until six o'clock.

We now have an amendment on the floor from Mr. Coteau. We will entertain discussion.

Are there any hands up?

There are no hands up, and there's nothing virtually either.

Perhaps, Clerk, you can call the question, please—

[The Clerk, Ms. Tina Miller]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Ms. Thomas has her hand raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Ms. Thomas, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, we've had a few motions now where the point seems to be to give greater opportunity to those who are from minority groups in Canada. I just think it's important to remind the committee of the words that Ms. Roy spoke when she was here. This is a South Asian woman who came and testified at committee about the benefits of using a new media platform versus traditional broadcasting, suggesting why it is so important for us to make sure that freedom within these platforms is protected and that government control is kept at bay.

Ms. Roy said the following:

Frankly, I don't qualify. I'm just not the right fit. That I'm not the right fit is a story I've been told my whole life. I'm too brown. I'm a nerd. I'm too old. I'm female. I'm not feminine enough. I'm not the right demographic, but I've never been the right demographic. My voice has been suppressed far too many times. That's not an easy thing to do, because I have a pretty loud voice.

Somehow along the way, I discovered a platform that allows me to tell my story as I see fit in my own voice. Other people are indeed interested in my story. Somehow this tall, brown, old and somewhat-out-of-shape mom who skateboards resonates with people all over the globe. Authentic, inspiring, genuine content—that's Canadian content....

If my video is suppressed because the CRTC decides that someone else's content should be artificially pushed over mine, I lose my ability to get in front of my audience. That directly affects my bottom line.

The language of this bill matters. Please, sure, help—great, fantastic—but make sure the language is clear. Minister Rodriguez stated that online streamers don't contribute to Canadian culture: “[It's] very simple. Platforms are in and users are out.”

Herein lies the problem. With all due respect, the minister does not understand the language, and that can be dangerous. “Platforms” are in but “users” are out. My husband, who watches skate videos, is a user, whereas I make a living on the platform as a creator. Without creators, there is no platform for users to watch. To me, then, he's saying that platforms, and by extension creators, are in, but users are out. That's what's concerning to me. A lack of understanding leads to a lack of clarity. Please make it clear or leave that section out.

Again, if we're going to talk about defending those individuals who are from a minority group in Canada, it is of the utmost importance that we make sure that any section of this bill that might discriminate against those creators who use online platforms are taken out.

We're going to arrive at clause 4 very soon. If my colleagues are truly defending minority groups, I would encourage them to think very carefully and to act upon the words that Ms. Roy and other visual minority witnesses shared with us. It needs to be very clear that their right to these platforms and their ability to succeed within these platforms is protected—and that is to make sure that user-generated content is taken out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

Do I have anyone else wishing to speak to this?

There is nothing virtually either, so perhaps we can call the question on G-2.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're going to CPC-4.

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm happy to move CPC-4 on behalf of the official opposition. I will speak very briefly to it.

It is in my name, but my colleague, Mr. Viersen, who is with us today, is the actual author of the next few amendments, so I will allow him to make a few comments on the substance of it.

CPC-4 reads that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 5 the following:

“(3.1) Paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (iv):

(v) seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content, and

(vi) prevent the broadcasting of programs that include sexually explicit content depicting violence, sexism, racism, degrading treatment and torture;”

I am moving it, but I yield the floor now to colleagues, including Mr. Viersen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall there be discussion on this?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I could cede the floor to Mr. Viersen if he wants to go first. I don't mind if people don't mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Certainly, Mr. Housefather.

Go ahead.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the committee for indulging me today as well.

This amendment goes to something that I have been working on since I've been elected, essentially trying to bring to light the situation of a company in Canada called MindGeek, which claims to be one of the largest Internet companies in the world. They have 4.5 trillion individual hits on their website every month. That's more than Google. That's more than Facebook combined.

If this bill is attempting to hold the web giants accountable, this kind of amendment is precisely what a bill that's seeking to hold web giants accountable ought to be doing.

This company, MindGeek, and its subsidiary, Pornhub, have recently been in the news as being extremely exploitative of both youth and women. This has been something that has been brought to the attention of the government. We have had an entire ethics committee study on this as well. Fourteen recommendations have come out of that ethics committee study. The report, I would point out, was unanimously adopted by the ethics committee.

One of those things would be to ensure that sexually explicit content isn't falling into the hands of children. That is what my amendment seeks to pursue, to get the CRTC to prevent that from happening.

The other thing that comes up often when dealing with the company MindGeek is just how racist and misogynist this company is, given the fact that they have entire genres dedicated to sexually explicit material that is specifically violent, specifically racist, specifically sexist, specifically degrading and specifically torture. These aren't things that are side issues. The content is explicitly for that very reason. These are genre topics that are pursued by this particular company. They are exploiting women and children in order to gain commercial interest in this and make money off of it.

I would suggest that these amendments would be a small step in the right direction. I look forward to having the support of this committee to get these amendments passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Viersen.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

While I appreciate all the work that my colleague, Mr. Viersen, has done in this area, but this is somewhat funny in the sense that this entire discussion has been the Conservatives arguing that content is about to be regulated by the CRTC. This is introducing an amendment for content to be regulated by the CRTC. I can't even get over that. This is exactly what this amendment does.

It is saying that user-generated content should now be regulated to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit content, etc. Now, if we're talking about illegal content, there's another bill that hopefully will come forward shortly that will deal with illegal content, including the illegal content that may potentially be existing that's referred to in subparagraph (vi) here, but I don't believe that this is appropriate. This is actually asking the CRTC to get into content.

We have the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council that already deals with this type of issue. I don't think the CRTC needs to, and certainly not by introducing it to Bill C-11 and going into user-generated content.

I actually do not support the amendment and I would also note that, in terms of preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content, that's a question for parents to decide what their children can and cannot see if they're minors, not the government.

In any case, I don't support this amendment, and it really goes against everything the Conservatives have been saying at this committee for the last month.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Julian.

[The Clerk, Ms. Tina Miller]

Madam Chair, Mr. Viersen has his hand raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Viersen spoke. I have Mr. Housefather and Mr. Julian.

Mr. Viersen can speak after Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a serious subject and it needs to be taken seriously. I agree with Mr. Housefather that this would be the only part of Bill C-11 that actually prevents the broadcasting of programs. It is interesting, given what I've seen online from Conservative MPs railing against censorship, that there are no provisions in Bill C-11 that deal with censorship. This amendment, I would suggest of the four—there are three from Mr. Viersen and one from Mr. Nater—actually does prevent the broadcasting of programs.

I think, though, there is a welcome amendment. Given the concerns that are around both protecting children but also ensuring that the broadcasting of programs that are produced through sexual exploitation or coercion, that is something I think we do have to take into consideration. Mr. Nater and Mr. Viersen, between them, have produced four very similar amendments. Each one of them seeks to do the same thing but is worded differently. Obviously, we have to make a choice as members of this committee as to which approach we prefer.

I would set aside CPC-4, CPC-5 and CPC-6, which are very similar but have different wording. I would look at CPC-7, which reads:

(v) seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content, and

(vi) safeguard the human rights of women and marginalized people by preventing the broadcasting of programs that include pornographic material that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion;

I will be voting down the other amendments. I will be voting for CPC-7. As I mentioned, each one of them is similar, but to my mind, CPC-7 is the best approach. It is important to note that this would be, if we pass this amendment, the only part of Bill C-11 that actually prevents broadcasting, that stops broadcasting.

It is ironic. We should note that the Conservatives are introducing the only amendment that prevents broadcasting, that censors broadcasting, in the entire Bill C-11. I certainly hope that Conservatives, if we adopt this amendment, will speak to that and say that they introduced the one portion of Bill C-11 that actually addresses the issue of preventing the broadcasting of programs, or censoring programs that are harmful. If Conservatives are being honest, they will say to the folks they are in communication with that they introduced the one element of Bill C-11 that prevents broadcasting.

In this case, I believe it is in the public interest, and I commend them for that. That's why I will be supporting CPC-7, which is the best of the four, and I will be voting against CPC-4, CPC-5 and CPC-6.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Viersen has something he wants to say.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I just want to thank Mr. Julian for his support for CPC-7. I would note this is not directed at user-generated content. This deals specifically with the broadcasters.

I spoke to this bill already—way back when it was Bill C-10—and repeatedly mentioned the fact that these are the things we're looking for in a bill like this, not “picking winners and losers”, which some other aspects of this bill do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Before we vote on this, I just want to let—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, we still have people who wish to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mr. Champoux.

We have Mr. Champoux. Do we have somebody else?

[The Clerk, Ms. Tina Miller]

We have Mr. Coteau and Mr. Bittle, who raised their hands.