The Blueprint: Canada's Conservative Podcast - May 26, 2021


Trudeau’s Attack on Free Speech


Episode Stats

Length

16 minutes

Words per Minute

182.74295

Word Count

3,030

Sentence Count

168


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hello and welcome once again to the Blueprints. This is Canada's Conservative Podcast. I'm your
00:00:05.940 host, Jamie Schmael, member of Parliament from Halliburton for the Lakes Brock with new content
00:00:09.760 for you every single Tuesday, 1.30 p.m. Eastern Time. With content like this, we ask that you
00:00:16.160 like, comment, subscribe, share this program, help us push back against the ever-moving liberal
00:00:21.140 agenda. And of course, if you can't watch or listen to it all right now, you can download
00:00:25.940 it later on in platforms like CastBox, iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, you name it, it is out
00:00:30.980 there. Another important guest we're going to have on today, backed by popular demand, although
00:00:35.840 the topic isn't so awesome, Rachel Harder, the Member of Parliament from Lethbridge, Alberta.
00:00:41.200 She's also the Shadow Minister for Digital Government. We are glad to have her back. I know last time
00:00:46.700 we said we'll have her back. Sadly, it's not good why we're having her back. It's Bill C-10,
00:00:53.040 of course, the Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act, which has some problems. The advocates are saying
00:00:58.900 it supports artists and music providers. Other side says this could take us down a deep and dark,
00:01:05.940 dangerous path. Rachel Harder, why don't you basically give us a recap of what Bill C-10
00:01:11.120 is, how we got here, and where we are now? Sure thing, Jamie. Thank you again for having me back
00:01:18.560 and giving me the opportunity to bring people up to speed. Here's the deal. Bill C-10 has to do with
00:01:25.020 quote-unquote modernizing the Broadcasting Act, which of course is an act from, you know, the 1980s,
00:01:30.780 and it had everything to do with controlling the airwaves and making sure that limited access to
00:01:36.340 airwaves was divvied out in some form of equal, with some form of equal measure. Now that act is going
00:01:43.840 to be applied to the internet. So basically, this is the government applying a big hand in terms of
00:01:48.760 regulation with regards to the internet. In this bill, what has happened is there was originally a
00:01:56.000 clause that protected individuals and the content that they posted. So the things that you post or
00:02:02.440 your uncle posts to YouTube or Facebook or Spotify or TikTok, things like that. And so those things would
00:02:09.920 be posted and they would be protected under the original legislation. However, that clause that
00:02:16.640 offered that protection has since been removed. That happened a number of weeks ago. When that clause
00:02:22.460 was removed, it put people in danger. It put people in danger of a couple of things. One, free speech
00:02:28.740 being infringed upon because now your content is going to be censored. So some videos that you post are
00:02:33.860 going to be allowed, some are not. In terms of artists who are using platforms like YouTube in
00:02:39.840 order to generate an audience and garner huge success, they're going to be moved up and down
00:02:46.720 in terms of the queue. So what the government has said is that they want to show favoritism or give
00:02:52.520 promotion to those who are, quote, Canadian artists or those who are generating Canadian cultural content.
00:03:00.520 And so the government is somehow through the CRTC going to regulate, you know, what counts and what
00:03:06.180 doesn't and give preference to that which, quote, unquote, counts. The problem with this, of course,
00:03:13.200 is a couple. One, you know, it's really unclear in terms of what exactly counts as Canadian content.
00:03:19.420 I mean, right now, under the current definition, you could have a Canadian filming in Canada, talking
00:03:24.100 about Canada and promoting themselves to a Canadian audience, and they still wouldn't necessarily make the
00:03:29.700 cut. So that's a huge problem is this definition. And then the other problem is, you know, you're
00:03:34.740 going to have some artists who are able to make a go of it on their own, and who would, you know,
00:03:39.580 skyrocket in terms of their publicity. Now the government all of a sudden is going to say,
00:03:43.380 oh, no, you don't. You don't make the you don't make the cut, you don't fit the metrics. And so then
00:03:48.460 they get a demotion, you know, and so then you have these artists who actually would be hugely
00:03:53.840 successful, but the government's actually going to, to hold them back. And that's a huge problem.
00:03:58.420 In today's day and age, I think artists of all kind have a platform to reach whatever audience
00:04:05.040 basically they want. And we're not just talking domestic, we're talking internationally as well.
00:04:09.500 So if, if artists have this ability to reach a wide audience with their content, in this case, wouldn't
00:04:18.480 you say the free market would prevail because people will pay or watch what content they like,
00:04:24.160 they will pass on what they don't? Why does the government need to get involved in this?
00:04:29.680 Yeah, exactly. And it's a great question. And you know what the truth is, Jamie, the government
00:04:32.960 doesn't need to get involved. And, you know, I've had the opportunity to reach out to successful
00:04:37.020 YouTubers and individuals who, who are making a tremendous go of it. And they're telling me,
00:04:44.500 we don't want government regulation. We don't want the big hand of government interfering in this.
00:04:48.920 We actually want the government to get out of the way. They've learned how to function within
00:04:53.940 the platforms that are available to them online in order to organically grow an audience and become
00:05:00.460 very successful. So for example, Jamie, you know, Justin Bieber is one of these individuals,
00:05:05.360 he was a kid posting music to YouTube, you know, and starting in about 2013, he kind of started to
00:05:11.200 garner some publicity. And it just kept growing. And you know, here's a Canadian artist who has
00:05:16.840 shown himself to be noteworthy in terms of the music content that he's able to generate. And as a
00:05:22.120 result, Canadians watch him, and then they recommend that other people watch him and then he grows. And
00:05:26.560 now, of course, he's become, you know, a sensation. And we're very proud of him and the success that
00:05:31.940 he's garnered for himself. There are others who are coming up right now. And Jamie, I think it's
00:05:37.080 important to notice that, you know, successful artists over the last decade have come up through
00:05:43.240 platforms, they don't come up through government grant programs, they don't come up, you know,
00:05:48.300 because of handouts, they come up because they've learned to function within the free market, they
00:05:55.220 have learned to function within this thing called the internet, they have learned to use these platforms
00:06:00.160 such as TikTok and YouTube, etc, in order to put their skill or their talent out there. And then again,
00:06:06.940 elicit an audience. Jamie, it might be of interest to those who are watching, you know, I recently
00:06:13.860 learned that within YouTube, there are 25,000 Canadians who are able to generate a full-time
00:06:22.600 income for themselves of about $100,000 or more. So that's 25,000 Canadians that are potentially going
00:06:29.680 to be impacted in a really negative way by this legislation. Of course, there's far more than that,
00:06:34.940 but that's 25,000 that count on it as a full-time income. So if this passes, you could have
00:06:40.060 theoretically, some unelected bureaucrats at the CRTC deciding what content is to be supported and what
00:06:47.780 is to be demoted. But again, this isn't about this, we're not having freedom, the talk about freedom
00:06:54.600 here. Because say I like, say, I'll say jazz music, and you like, I don't know, hip-hop.
00:07:05.700 Everyone's different. To have a bureaucrat to say, no, we're only going to allow country music or allow
00:07:10.280 country music to be promoted, you're not actually getting what you want, you're getting what somebody
00:07:15.040 else wants. And this, I think, is the fundamental principle of this. Everyone is different, everyone
00:07:20.800 should have the choice and the freedom to make those decisions. Yeah, and that's exactly it. And so
00:07:28.440 what the government would respond, you know, to that with is they would say, well, you know,
00:07:34.780 YouTube and TikTok and Facebook, like they already use algorithms in order to direct content your way.
00:07:41.300 And so now they're just saying these algorithms are going to be government regulated rather than
00:07:46.620 controlled by the individual platforms. That might look like an okay argument up front. But here's
00:07:53.040 the problem. When I go into an art exhibit that is owned by a private curator, I expect them to curate
00:08:02.420 that art according to their desire. So some art is going to be higher on the wall, some lower, some is
00:08:08.320 going to be toward the front of the center, some is going to be in the back, some rooms are going to be
00:08:12.260 larger and more, you know, prominent. And then other rooms are going to be smaller. And so artists
00:08:18.080 are going to be given different places within this art exhibit. But I expect that as the person who's
00:08:24.460 paying to go into this private art exhibit, I want it to be curated for me. And I enjoy it within those
00:08:30.660 parameters. What I don't want is for the government to step in and now tell this curator how they need to
00:08:37.880 hang the art and where they need to hang the art and which artists they need to give priority to.
00:08:43.480 And that is exactly what is happening on the internet is right now, yes, YouTube uses algorithms,
00:08:49.380 TikTok uses algorithms, Facebook uses algorithms, they use them in order to give me more of what I
00:08:54.600 want. They look at the things that I'm viewing and where my interests lie, and they give me more of
00:08:59.660 that. What the government is going to do is they're going to step in and instead of giving you more of
00:09:04.080 what you want, they're going to give you more of what they want you to see. So you want to look at
00:09:08.800 pictures of, you know, model airplanes from the 1950s, they want you to watch basket weaving. So
00:09:16.780 all of a sudden, your screen starts getting filled with videos on basket weaving. Well, you don't want
00:09:22.720 that. So then Jimmy, what ends up happening is you watch the video for two seconds, and then and then you
00:09:28.840 turn it off. Or maybe you give it a bad rating because you're like, dang, I don't want more of that.
00:09:33.420 Like who's giving me basket weaving. So then by doing that, you're actually hurting those artists,
00:09:39.680 you're hurting those individuals who are trying to promote basket weaving. The reality is, if basket
00:09:46.540 weaving clips went to those who already like basket weaving clips, those artists would continue to
00:09:52.660 naturally move up in the queue. The government by stepping in is actually hurting the artists that
00:09:59.160 they're claiming to help. And it's it's incredibly detrimental. And I think that can be said for any
00:10:04.620 industry. When the government decides something, it pushes down the competition and picks winners and
00:10:10.800 losers in the marketplace. I'm sure if if the government had an ever more footprint in the
00:10:15.200 telecom industry, we'd still be on Blackberries and not be using developments that we've seen
00:10:19.560 through iPhone and and and other such platforms. But that's because the market is adapting to the
00:10:25.780 changing behavior, the wants and needs of the actual consumer. And everyone is different.
00:10:32.080 Personally, I like my Blackberry. I like the the keyboard. But again, as you said, with with the
00:10:37.740 artists, this is important because you need artistic freedom that that creation element that allows the
00:10:46.400 artists to to put their their wares out their content. And then for the market to decide whether they
00:10:53.680 like it or not. And that would have maximum ability for artists of all kinds to put their work on
00:11:01.280 display. If you're right, if the government does it, you will get what the government wants you to
00:11:05.480 see what the government wants you to have. And that's it. That is not freedom.
00:11:10.860 And that's exactly it, Jamie. And and this is, you know, this is what the artists are saying.
00:11:15.640 When I talk to, you know, creators, when I talk to those individuals who are using these platforms
00:11:23.040 successfully, they're saying to me, Rachel, we just we want freedom. We want to be left alone. We want
00:11:27.980 to be allowed to function within the realm that we're currently playing in. And, and we can do it
00:11:35.280 on our own. We don't want the government to intervene. But, you know, Jamie, I think one of the important
00:11:39.160 things to acknowledge here is really what's happened is the government has been lobbied hard by a very
00:11:44.000 small coalition of artists who, you know, I believe in many ways are stuck in the 1980s. They just
00:11:49.880 unfortunately haven't been able to make it in in in today's modern sphere and using these platforms.
00:11:57.860 Look, their art might be great, but they've they've got to figure it out. They've got to adapt. They've
00:12:02.700 got to be creative and innovative and they have to move forward with the times. But for them to lobby
00:12:08.020 the government and ask for the government to apply a big hand and pull some artists back,
00:12:14.000 in order to help this little niche group move forward, it's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. And
00:12:20.460 so this that is exactly what this government legislation is all about. It's about showing
00:12:24.500 favoritism to a few elite artists who just simply cannot make a go of it today. And and so they're
00:12:30.800 asking for the government support and the government's giving it to them. And it's very sad because it's
00:12:35.180 to the detriment of of thousands, if not tens of thousands of artists who otherwise would be able
00:12:41.880 to make a go of it on their own. And I think this also relates to this, the freedom of speech that
00:12:47.800 we hear have here in Canada. This would actually regulate that as well, because content that the
00:12:53.220 government is not particularly fond of could get demoted in terms of its reach. The the content that
00:13:00.440 goes against the government narrative could get demoted content that is deemed, you know,
00:13:06.260 against what the government believes could be demoted. And we know what path takes that takes
00:13:12.340 us down. And it's not a very good one when anything that that opposes the government is deemed offensive
00:13:17.840 and taken down or demoted in terms of reach.
00:13:21.460 And that's exactly it is really, you know, this is attack. This is an attack on on freedom of speech,
00:13:27.220 because some content will be moved up in the queue, some content will be demoted. The government is,
00:13:33.100 in fact, picking winners and losers. And so in doing that, they are they are censoring,
00:13:37.580 they are censoring not only what you post, and whether or not others have access to it,
00:13:42.800 but they are also censoring what you can or cannot see. Again, you know, I would argue that that is a
00:13:50.260 direct infringement upon Section 2B of the Charter, which gives us the right to freedom of expression,
00:13:57.220 freedom of belief, freedom of opinion. And so we exercise that right within
00:14:02.940 what I would call the new public square, which, of course, is online and largely on social media
00:14:07.380 platforms. So by the government intervening, they really are coming against our freedom as Canadians.
00:14:13.900 All right, we don't have much time left. Where is the bill now? What's going to happen next?
00:14:18.780 Yeah, so the bill is that committee, and we're doing something called clause by clause,
00:14:23.040 which is where we're going through it line by line and determining what gets to stay and what has to go.
00:14:27.320 And so conservatives are fighting hard to bring forward some amendments that would offer protection
00:14:32.200 for individuals and for their content, in order to alleviate some of the concerns I've outlined
00:14:38.600 here today. You know, we're hopeful that that we'll be successful, but we need the support of
00:14:43.820 the block and the NDP in order to move our amendments forward. And, and that that can be a challenge for
00:14:49.940 sure. But we're going to continue to fight. You know, the routine, I always give the guests the
00:14:53.920 final word here. So maybe in your final words, say your piece, we have freedom of expression here on
00:14:59.580 this show. But also maybe, if you could maybe fill people in on what they can do to help kind of slow
00:15:05.740 this, stop this, anything they can do. Yeah, I think the bottom line is this, this legislation
00:15:11.480 does attack the free speech that Canadians enjoy day in and day out within, you know, the public sphere.
00:15:18.080 And it is going to crush the voices of creators, which is detrimental. This is one of the most
00:15:25.240 regressive bills that many creators have ever seen. And so they're, they're very fearful in terms of
00:15:31.040 what this means for them as artists going forward. I would invite Canadians to reach out and to write
00:15:36.640 a letter or an email or make a phone call to Minister Gibbo, the heritage minister, and make their voices
00:15:41.020 heard. Stand up for freedom.
00:15:42.660 The one and only Rachel Harder, member of parliament from Lethbridge, Alberta, also the shadow minister for
00:15:47.300 digital government. We do appreciate her coming on the show. Again, I didn't think it'd be so close,
00:15:53.100 but this is a very important topic. But it's always great to have her because her points are so
00:15:57.580 solid. How could you disagree with one and only Rachel Harder? So we appreciate her coming on the
00:16:01.940 show. We'll have her back again. Of course, new content every single Tuesday, 1.30pm Eastern Time,
00:16:07.880 like, comment, share, subscribe to this program, help us push back, push back against the ever moving
00:16:13.860 liberal agenda. And of course, if you can't watch this program in its entirety right now, download it,
00:16:18.660 listen to it later on, maybe even show it to your friends, have them have a listen on platforms like
00:16:23.540 CastBox, iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, you name it, it is out there. Thank you so much for joining us.
00:16:28.540 We'll see you again next week. Until then, remember, low taxes, less government, more freedom. That
00:16:33.720 is The Blueprint.