SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 69

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)
  • May/11/22 2:39:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the truth is zero pipelines have been proposed or built under the Liberals, and they have killed billions in projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs. The PM ignored experts, workers, indigenous leaders and investors in every province and territory on Bill C-69. The court said it is a “profound invasion” that places a chokehold on provinces. It called it a “wrecking ball” that “smacks of paternalism” and overrides indigenous agreements. It is uncertain, unpredictable, unquantifiable and unreliable, just like Conservatives warned. Therefore, instead of wasting more time and tax dollars to appeal, will he just repeal Bill C-69?
109 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22
Mr. Warren Steinley
  • May/11/22 7:18:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-11, and maybe the member did not hear me talk earlier about some of the issues we had specifically with Bill C-11, such as proposed subsection 4.1(2), which talks about an exception to the exception and some of the criteria that the CRTC has laid out on what could be admissible under the new Broadcasting Act and what may not be admissible. There are issues we have with the bill we are talking about right now. I laid that out quite cleanly in my opening remarks, when we were talking about this bill, which is Bill C-11, and we will debate Bill C-18 another time. I look forward to having that discussion with the hon. member, when that is the actual bill we are supposed to be discussing on the floor.
143 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22
Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)
  • May/11/22 9:45:06 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his measured tone. I may not have agreed with everything he shared, but I do appreciate the tone he shared it in. My question is with respect to making sense of the user-generated content provisions of the bill. My understanding of proposed subsection 4.2(2) is that it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, which would ideally cut out concerns with respect to a parent who might be posting videos on Facebook, for example. I am looking to better understand the member's concern with respect to user-generated content. He used the term “censorship”. If it is limited to that which is revenue-generating, does that not address the concern?
126 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22
Mr. Bob Zimmer
  • May/11/22 11:42:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, one thing we have fought for on this side is algorithmic accountability and looking through the dark curtain of big tech to see how it is throttling up and down certain social media accounts. Again, what this member fails to mention, and I have not heard him refer to it yet tonight, is proposed section 4.2. He may want to check it out, because it is the exemption that would allow a truck to drive through what he just said. It would allow for all that to happen. I challenge the member to read it.
98 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border