Debates of June 14th, 2021

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona is always great with her questions, and I am pleased that she knows some of these amendments very well.

The issue we have is the blanket clause, whereby we are going to subject Canadians to some regulations by the CRTC when they upload videos. All kinds of amendments have been put forward at committee by my colleagues to make sure that this does not cover everyday Canadians and is only counting, as the government seems to indicate, certain web giants that have a large economic footprint, ensuring they are going to be regulated. However, the writing indicates very clearly that this applies to all Canadians. That is why we are trying to make it very clear in the amendments that they are not included. That clarity is required, and I have not seen that clarity in any of the other amendments to this point in time.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my hon. colleague. The minister could not answer it earlier. Why did the minister remove section 4.1, the safeguard to protect user-generated content?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish I knew. I wish I had a response, but I do not know why amendments 2.1 and 4.1 were not considered together to provide clarity on how changes would affect Canadian Internet users going forward.

I can speculate what the answer might be, but I am not going to put words in the mouth of the minister, who chose not to answer this question. However, I will put it back to the minister the next time we get to hear from him why he chose this path.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot about free speech from the Conservatives and I would like to ask if they think that social media platforms are a place of free speech.

I will point to a situation on May 5, Red Dress Day, to commemorate missing and murdered indigenous women and girls across this country. Hundreds if not thousands of posts were removed by Instagram and Facebook from people who were expressing their sorrow, rage and loss of family, friends and loved ones to this tragedy in our country.

Does the member think this is freedom of speech? When these platforms are removing this kind of content in this country are they a democratic space?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question, and I thoroughly agree with my colleague.

We have to look at who is actually policing the web. Whether the government is policing it or it is policed through algorithms, somebody is limiting our freedom of expression, and that limit to freedom of expression should not be compounded by this legislation. We acknowledge that there are all kinds of tools used by social media giants that we have to get in check, but putting more checks in the hands of the government, which is usually a pretty inefficient operator, does not seem to be a very viable solution to the lack of democratic representation that my colleague seems to think is being constrained on the Internet right now.

As I said, I agree with him in several respects regarding content that was somewhat censored and not put up in the proper way. We do need to find a way through that, but I would say that going to government for a solution so that it can be the arbiter is not the solution.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I guess it should not have come as a complete surprise that the Liberal government would make strategic procedural moves to limit my freedom of speech as a member of Parliament wishing to speak up on exactly that topic: freedom of speech. I have heard from so many of my constituents that they were shocked at the government's attempt to limit their freedom by regulating the Internet, which, until now, has been a new-found tool of freedom of expression. People are starting to understand what the term “net neutrality” means and they want it protected. They are also starting to wake up to the prospect that their government wants to regulate this forum, the new public square.

The government members say they want to level the playing field. Canada's Conservatives support competition between large foreign streaming services and Canada's broadcasters, and we champion Canadian arts and culture, but a Conservative government would do so without compromising Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms. We are calling on the Liberals to withdraw Bill C-10 or to amend it to protect freedom. If this is not done, a Conservative government would stand up for Canadians and repeal this deeply flawed legislation. While the NDP and the Bloc may be willing to look the other way on the freedom of expression, Canada's Conservatives will not.

What went wrong? The deeply flawed draft legislation, Bill C-10, became even more problematic after the Liberals had their way at committee. We have heard them say in this chamber on many occasions that user-generated content would not be regulated under the legislation, and they refer us to proposed subsection 2(2.1), which specifically exempts users from the new limiting regulations. However, proposed section 4.1 would have exempted social media sites like YouTube and TikTok, which consist of only user-uploaded programs, except that in committee the Liberals voted down this very important freedom of speech protector, even though their original draft legislation contained it.

Where does that leave us? Well, people using the Internet, speakers, are exempted, but the platforms they use are not, so the freedom really becomes illusory. That is what people are upset about with Bill C-10, and that is why Conservatives are fighting hard against it.

We have heard the Liberals say also that they just want big tech to be paying its fair share. In principle, we support that. The Conservative members of the heritage committee proposed an amendment to Bill C-10 that would have limited these limiting regulations to online undertakings with revenue of more than $50 million a year and 250,000 or more subscribers in Canada. If that amendment had passed, Bill C-10 would apply only to large streaming services, but the Liberals rejected it. I do not know why. This is a common-sense compromise put forward by the Conservatives to save the initial intent and the integrity of this legislation while still protecting Canadians' freedom of expression.

We have heard quite a bit about this. The idea of the CRTC regulating traditional media for Canadian content is deeply entrenched and widely accepted in Canadian culture, so why not the Internet too, which arguably is becoming the new preferred media? At first blush, that may make sense, but here is the problem. The legislation would regulate Canadian content by means of discoverability regulations that would require social media sites like YouTube to change their algorithms to determine which videos are more or less Canadian, all depending on a bureaucrat's opinion as to what is sufficiently Canadian.

We say, let the market decide. This is not what the Internet is, and it is not what Canadians want. We are hearing “hands off”. We are hearing about the democratization of the freedom of speech. The Internet is a new invention and it has given people, anybody with a computer, anybody with an iPad, anybody with a smart phone, the ability to publish on the Internet and to be heard, and it has led to the success of many, many artists, including Canadian artists.

Does that mean that the Internet and the contents posted on it should not be regulated at all? Of course not. The Internet is subject to all laws of general application, such as laws against promoting hatred and laws against inciting violence. There are laws for the protection of children, and there are laws against slander and libel, just to name a few.

Our freedom of speech, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not unlimited. As my law professor explained on the first day of constitutional law, freedom of expression does not give a person the right to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. Section 2(b) of the charter says everyone has the fundamental freedom of expression, but section 1 of the charter says that those rights and freedoms are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Until the Liberals started talking about Bill C-10, that is what everyone understood to be the nature of this new medium called the Internet. The laws of general application should apply. Every other free and democratic country in the world understands that to be the case, and only Canada would go so far as to tell user-content social media platforms what to promote and what to demote. Therein lies our contention with Bill C-10.

We do not stand alone. This is what Peter Menzies, the former commissioner of the CRTC, had to say about Bill C-10 in its current state:

It’s difficult to contemplate the levels of moral hubris, incompetence or both that would lead people to believe such an infringement of rights is justifiable.

University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist stated:

In a free, democratic society we don’t subject basic speech to regulation in this way. Of course there are limits to what people can say, but the idea that a broadcast regulator has any role to play in basic speech is, I think, anathema to free and democratic society where freedom of expression is viewed as one of the foundational freedoms.

With the support of experts such as these, the Conservative Party has been promoting its opposition to Bill C-10 aggressively and, I might say, effectively. What is the government’s response? It is to shut down debate. Last week, with the help of the Bloc and the NDP, the Liberal government shut down debate at committee, and now it wants to shut down debate in Parliament. One has to love the irony of that. Here we are debating free speech and the government is aggressively shutting down parliamentarians’ right to be the voice for their constituents: Canadians who have come to appreciate the freedom, flexibility and effectiveness of having their voices heard on this 21st-century platform. Social media platforms are the new public square, and free speech on those platforms in the form of user-generated content must not fall under the regulatory purview of the CRTC.

Only the Conservative Party is standing up to protect this fundamental right that all Canadians enjoy. The government has misled Canadians about this bill. Exempting user content was a key part of Bill C-10's limitations. It was something we accepted and that helped get it through the parliamentary reading stages and committee without more dissent, but removing that exception at the very last minute makes Bill C-10 unacceptable. It is the most breathtaking power grab over online speech we have ever seen in Canada. The Liberal government wants to limit our rights to fight against that, and that is why Conservatives are standing up.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the concern I have is that it is as if we are talking past each other about Canadian content. Canadian content is terribly important. Canadian artists want this legislation passed.

I have some concerns with the legislation, but it certainly is not the case that Canadian content is something the market decides, as the hon. member just said. Canadian content is about creators and protecting the efforts of Canadian writers, actors and all aspects of our creative class, and they need to be protected. I would ask the hon. member this: How does the market decide that?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Internet has been a powerful tool for up-and-coming artists. I was talking to a high school class just the other day in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove. The students were talking about some of their friends who are budding musicians and have found success on the Internet. That is the democratization of the Internet. It is such a powerful tool. We do not need to regulate it.

I would say that Canadian artists are the best in the world. We should get out of their way and let them be successful. Art has always been about marketing.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was listening intently to my colleague and he referenced Michael Geist, one of the leading thinkers of free speech in our country and a very independent voice on this bill.

I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit on what Michael Geist has said about Bill C-10 and maybe some of the pitfalls the government has fallen into while trying to reduce free speech for Canadians across the country.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, Michael Geist is indeed a champion for free speech, particularly on the Internet. Being a law professor, he is an expert in that field and deals exactly with that area of the law. I have a great deal of respect for him and for the work he has done. He is a champion to whom we should be listening. He is a promoter of allowing the Internet to develop in a way that enhances people's ability to promote their thoughts, ideas and expressions and, in this case, also their art and their music.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it very rich to listen to Conservatives talk about free speech and about the rights of parliamentarians when they are the only party that has blocked the Green Party from having our fair share of questions in the House of Commons. We are the only members of Parliament who get a question every second week, after they evicted one of their members for taking donations from a white supremacy group.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he has read the Broadcasting Act, which states:

This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.

This is right at the very beginning of the act, and this constrains the CRTC to ensure Canadians have freedom of expression. I am wondering if he has actually read the Broadcasting Act as well as the legislation.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Green Party is representing its constituents very well and effectively in Canada's Parliament.

Bill C-10 was better before, because it was more effectively protecting individual users and their content. With the amendment that removed section 4.1, it took a lot of that freedom away. A lot of the benefits of this act have been destroyed because of that, and we would be better if that were put back in. The freedoms the minister keeps talking about are illusory. It is one thing to say content providers, people who add content to YouTube and platforms like that, are not being regulated, but if the platform is being regulated, then that freedom is illusory.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

On February 5, I spoke to Bill C-10 before it was referred to the heritage committee on February 16. Here I am speaking to Bill C-10 again, a few months later, now that the bill has returned from committee. Most times when a bill returns from committee, we see a couple of amendments here and there to fine-tune it before passing it along to the Senate, but with BIll C-10, it is not a vew changes here and there. This bill is completely different than its previous form.

What is even more abnormal about this is the fact that so many of the amendments came from the Liberals, the ones who introduced the bill in the first place. The government owes it to Canadians to explain why so many amendments were introduced after the fact and why it is pulling every trick in the book to try to push legislation through without proper debate and while ignoring legitimate concerns.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is using tactics to make people believe that Conservatives are anticulture and standing in the way of Bill C-10, when in fact, many experts who testified at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage agree this bill is flawed and needs further review.

Protecting Canadian content is important for Canadians, but what good do rules around Canadian content do, if Canadian content is not properly defined. The minister recently demonstrated in committee that even he does not know what classic Canadian movies actually count as protected Canadian content under this legislation.

Over the past month I have received countless emails and phone calls from constituents in fear of the government's legislation. They want to know what they can do to stop it. One man even said to me that this legislation embodies the same police-state-like control he emigrated to Canada to escape.

The question I get most often is, “Why?” Why does this legislation contain an amendment giving the CRTC this much power. Why is the government trying to push this through so quickly? Why does the government think it has a mandate to police the Internet?

Conservatives recognize that the Broadcasting Act is in need of updates. No one is arguing against that. When Conservatives raise legitimate questions about user-generated content being affected by this legislation, instead of providing answers, the minister diminishes our concern and proceeds with his carefully scripted paragraph about why the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated, even though we are already agreeing that it needs to be done.

I have to point out the irony in the fact that we are being censored here in the House of Commons on a debate regarding censorship. Instead of allowing Bill C-10 to go through full and proper review, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion to shut down debate on Bill C-10 early, and effectively censored our debate on censorship.

Here we are, around midnight, mid-June, speaking for the last time to a bill that would have the power to limit our freedoms and could change the way Canadians are able to use the Internet. The government imposing time allocation on this bill, which is fundamentally flawed, is wrong because it attacks freedom of expression. The minister is attacking our freedom of expression as parliamentarians, who are just trying to do their jobs. Instead of telling us Conservatives that we are preventing work from moving forward and that we are anticulture, the government members should be explaining to Canadians how they can possibly justify this time allocation motion, when the committee still has many amendments to review. This is deeply concerning to not only me, but also to many Canadians.

I also want to talk about the precedent legislation like this could create for the future. In a society that values freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Bill C-10 would leave the door open to a massive abuse of power concerning the rights of Canadians.

It is not enough for the minister to stand in the House of Commons and claim this bill is not meant to target ordinary Canadians. Words spoken by the minister mean nothing if they do not coincide with the wording of the actual legislation.

The amendment regarding user-generated content aside, Bill C-10 creates a regulatory mess of a streaming and broadcasting industry in Canada. There are real harms that could come with this legislation as it currently stands. This bill is far broader than many Canadians realize, and certainly broader than the minister has claimed. This has led to a lack of understanding of the consequences of the bill as it relates to the general public.

With so many amendments being brought forward in such a short timeframe, it is hard for the public to keep up and stay informed. One thing we must always remember as parliamentarians is that we work for the people. It is our duty to keep our constituents informed and to seek their input on legislative matters. With this amendment being added, and this legislation being rushed through the legislative process so quickly, I fear many members will not have adequate time to properly inform and consult their constituents on this issue.

It is with extreme disappointment that I am speaking on this legislation tonight, knowing that so many voices have been silenced and important dialogue on this bill will not be heard. The government claims that limitations are integrated into this bill, so that it is not too overreaching.

The minister said in the House of Commons, “user-generated content, news content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation could be imposed.”

This claim made by the minister is false, as there is no specific economic threshold that is established by the bill, which means that all Internet streaming services carried in Canada, whether domestic or foreign owned, are subject to Canadian regulation. That would mean if someone has Canadian subscribers, this law would, regardless of where the service provider is located, apply to them.

The limitations the minister is referring to are that the bill gives the CRTC the power to exempt services from regulation. It also leaves it entirely up to the CRTC to establish thresholds for regulations once the bill is enacted. This is dangerous, and while I have confidence in the work that the good people working for the CRTC do, it is our duty to legislate, not the CRTC's, and that means properly defining the term “significant economic threshold”.

Bill C-10 now has over 120 amendments, of which about a quarter were put forward by the government itself, even though it wrote the bill. My Conservative colleagues at the heritage committee did everything they could to fix the problems with Bill C-10 in the time they had. My colleagues say that in review stage, the work at committee was going well and progress was being made. That is until the Liberals decided to bring forward an amendment to include social media.

This amendment was so large it changed the scope of the bill entirely. It was at that point people, including experts, former CRTC commissioners and thousands of Canadians across the country, starting raising objections.

As I wrap up my speech, I am thinking of all the flaws contained in this bill and worry for the future of freedom of expression. While I do not suspect this bill was brought forward with malicious intentions, the wording in this legislation could set a terrible precedent.

It is okay for the government to admit when it is wrong and when it has gone too far. Now is the time for the government to acknowledge that it needs to take a step back, re-evaluate and correct the course.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of the bill, where it says, “A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet...does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act.” Therefore, users can upload content without being subject to this legislation.

From what my colleagues are saying, one might think that eliminating a clause from the bill invalidates it. There have been almost 120 amendments.

Did the Conservatives believe that this clause carried so much weight that 120 amendments to improve the bill still do not make it an adequate bill? What would it take to satisfy the Conservative Party?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not disputing that there are many good points to this bill and many parts of the amendments brought forward do help give a better explanation as to what is going on. There are a lot of unknowns with the bill where it is not clear and concise as to what the regulators would or would not be able enforce.

The CRTC could potentially have quite wide-sweeping powers. That is why we are very concerned. There is not a clear definition as to how much the CRTC can be regulated. What kind of rules will there be for content providers that the CRTC may have in the future? That is what we are protecting. We are making sure that there are not these things in the legislation that can allow for many different types of content to be censored. The way it is written, it does allow that, and that is what we are opposing.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech at midnight. I represent a very ethnically diverse riding, and I have heard my constituents talk about how they have left behind censorship, as we talked about, in their home countries. They have come to Canada looking for a free country where they can express their views and explore the mediums that are available.

Could the member speak to how this bill would impact those rights and how are Conservatives trying to address that?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, in my speech, that is exactly what I did talk about. One of the residents in my riding, an immigrant, was persecuted in another country and did not have the ability to have free speech. That is why we want to make sure that we do not have that kind of censorship here, regardless of what kind of cultural background one comes from.

Many people come to Canada to make sure they have their rights and freedoms protected. That is why we are very concerned about this bill and are making sure that the censorship is not allowed.

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

Madam Speaker, just to reiterate, if the hon. member read the Broadcasting Act, he would know that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are actually already established in the act. There was a lot of filibustering. We heard a lot of endless repetition in committee. We did not get a chance to discuss some very important amendments.

One of those amendments was about levelling the playing field with independent producers in the large companies that they have to negotiate contracts with. It was a market-based solution to a market imbalance. It is a system that they have in the U.K. and in France. I have heard that the Conservatives support the small producers and want to see freedom of expression.

Why would the Conservatives not support this amendment that I put forward? I sent the explanation to members of the committee, and I wonder why the Conservatives would not defend the little guy in this situation.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the whole point is that we are trying to make sure we are protecting the little guy. We want to make sure that we are here protecting everyday Canadians, whether they are producing their own content or downloading their own content. We want to make sure that their freedoms and expression are not censored.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I stand today, and I hope my colleagues will indulge me for a moment.

This is the first time I have been on my feet in this place since a tragic accident in Saskatchewan where we lost a member of the RCMP, Constable Shelby Patton, who was killed in the line of duty. I send my deepest sympathies to his family, friends, colleagues and all of his brothers and sisters in the RCMP. Our hearts are with them at this very difficult time.

Constable Patton was killed in the line of duty at a traffic stop at Wolseley, Saskatchewan, and the people who committed this crime have been captured. Our hearts go out to the family of the slain hero and RCMP officer. Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved.

Moving on to Bill C-10, I think about everyone who enforces the rule of law in Canada and how everyone is able to express their opinions and say what they want. The member for Calgary Skyview just said that a lot of people from around the world see Canada as a beacon: A place where they can come without fear of censorship or of not being able to express themselves. I think this country should always be known as a beacon of that light and freedom. This is why we on the Conservative side are trying to fight so hard to make sure that Bill C-10 is right.

My colleague and friend for Yellowhead talked about some of the things in the bill that need to be reviewed. The Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed in 30 years, and a lot has changed in this country over that time. Conservatives are not disagreeing with renewing and reviewing legislation to make sure that it is up to date and current with the times—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

My apologies, but I had a point of order from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The member is not responding.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, apparently there was a disconnect with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but hopefully he can tune in and hear the rest of my speech.

On the Conservative side, we are trying to make sure that the legislation is right going forward. As I said before I was interrupted, we do have some agreement. The legislation does need to be renewed as it is 30 years old—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize.

Could the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan put his mike on mute?

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had a point of order that we were frozen for a while and I missed a substantial piece.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Well, it must have been the hon. member alone, because we did not have anybody else complaining about it.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.