Thank you, Madam Chair.
I totally agree with what Mr. Champoux just said.
Essentially, I read this, “preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”, in a bill in which we have Conservatives reticent to give powers to the CRTC, as giving unlimited powers to the CRTC to determine what is sexually explicit. How do we stop children from seeing this? Does this mean that a 17-year-old, who is not an adult...is a 17-year-old not allowed to watch Game of Thrones?
I find this to be absolute censorship. I don't agree with it at all, and I don't agree with giving the CRTC those powers. Much as Mr. Ripley may minimize what the CRTC would do, I don't agree with that. I think we're giving it effectively wide open powers to determine what is sexually explicit, which is not its mandate or its role or its expertise, and then to figure out how to somehow stop children from seeing this. Then we're going to restrict adults from seeing materials that are not illegal but are simply sexually explicit.
I don't agree with how this is worded. I also question whether or not the CRTC is the one, because there are other means to stop pornographic material that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion, which is illegal in Canada. It is an illegal activity. I don't believe the CRTC has the means to know what material was produced that way.
If anything, in a bill where we've been talking about all of the draconian powers we could be giving to the CRTC, this is the first amendment that gives real censorship powers to the CRTC, a body that I don't think is equipped to do this. I think there is an online harms bill that is coming. If stuff like this should be anywhere, it should be in an online harms bill, where you create a regulator that has expertise and knows how to do this. I don't think the CRTC is the right body at all.
Thank you, Madam Chair.