SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 176 - Mar/30/23

Mar/30/23 1:22:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Windsor West is rising on, I believe, the same point of order.

16 words

Mar/30/23 1:22:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious, though, that one cannot use one's technology here in the chamber while it is sitting. It is a well-established practice that we have had, and any disrespect for that has always been corrected. Unfortunately, we are in real time right now, and it is obviously more complicated. I am hoping that perhaps this will be expedited, at least as to whether the allegation is accurate. I do not know. I have not seen the video just yet, but I understand that it is pretty serious. If it is in real time, happening right now, it is just going to create more egregious debate in the House of Commons. That is unfortunate. If it is true, then that should also be reflected because there is an attempt on the outside to do what one cannot do on the inside.

147 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:23:31 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on the same point of order.

14 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 1:23:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear: It is a violation of a rule if the mace is on the table and one is taking a picture or a video. Traditionally, in the past, when the issue has been raised, we have often seen the Speaker call for an immediate deletion. It has nothing to do with censorship. It is 100% about rules inside the House. The leader of the official opposition is blatantly disobeying a rule. He should be deleting it, not because of censorship but because he should be respecting the procedures of the House of Commons. I would ask, and suggest, that he be called upon to delete the video that is in direct conflict with our rules.

121 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:24:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just think this is such a classic example of an attempt by the government to censor what a member is saying on this very debate. It is very ironic that we have a government talking about it not being about censorship while attempting to censor a member of this House.

53 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/30/23 1:24:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the rules and procedures of this House are not up for debate. It is not about trying to censor anything; it is about respecting the rules. If Conservatives want to change the rules so the Leader of the Opposition can film a video in here while the mace is on the table, they should bring forward a motion to change the rules. We have rules in this House; they need to be respected. We are blatantly seeing support for that coming from the other side. Like the parliamentary secretary said before me, the Speaker needs to review this matter, report back to the House immediately and take the necessary actions against the Leader of the Opposition regarding this matter.

121 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Mar/30/23 1:25:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just think it is interesting that the government, which has been in breach of ethics laws, is raising this point of order. How many ethics laws has the party been in breach of over the last number of years—

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 1:25:44 p.m.
Watch

I believe we are now delving into debate. The only thing I can say at this point is that we are not supposed to take pictures or videos while we are in the chamber. However, I am in the chair right now and cannot review that. I know the Chair is looking at it, and maybe the Speaker is looking at it. We will hopefully come back with a response as soon as we possibly can. Continuing debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

87 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:26:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, for all the Liberals' claims, Canadians understand that if this bill passes, the government will regulate what can be seen or posted online and control which videos they will see more or less often on their feeds. After eight years, the government has lost the trust of Canadians. Transparency and accountability are not its strong suit. It avoids both at every opportunity, whether it is by providing inaccurate testimony in committees, refusing to allow witnesses to appear before a committee to shed light on very serious issues or refusing to answer questions in this place like who stayed in a $6,000-per-night hotel room during the trip to the U.K. for the Queen's funeral. We can all understand why Canadians are dubious about the Liberals' intentions in introducing this bill. They see it for what it is, which is an unacceptable attempt by the government to target the freedoms of individual Internet users in Canada. This is clearly not a government that will be accountable to Canadians, and it cannot be trusted with the power of regulating user-generated content. Lastly, Conservatives understand that government censorship of the Internet is something that happens in totalitarian societies, not free ones. That is why we have fought so hard, both in this place and in the other place, to amend Bill C-11 in order to narrow its scope and fully exempt the content Canadians post on social media. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition rejected those amendments. After eight years, it is time for a government that protects free speech, protects consumer choice and encourages Canadian creators instead of getting in their way. A Conservative government would repeal Bill C-11 and pass legislation requiring large streaming services to invest more of their revenue into producing Canadian content, while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.

311 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 1:28:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member opposite, I wonder if she sees any value in Canadians having maybe a button on one of their streaming services or a special carousel dedicated to Canadian shows like Heartland or Corner Gas, which employ many Canadians and tell our great Canadian stories. Is there no value in making sure that when Canadians use these streaming services, we can find them easily?

68 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Mar/30/23 1:29:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I can already find the things I want to watch quite easily. That is not what this bill is about. Bill C-11 would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching the content they choose. It would instead mean, as I said in my statements, that Ottawa bureaucrats would control what Canadians could see and watch online and through streaming services.

62 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/30/23 1:29:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what we have to take away from this debate is that our culture needs a boost, that it needs more discoverability. If we do not help our culture, we will only see the culture of others on our networks, the culture of our bigger neighbour, which has tons more money to invest in its industry. I would like the Conservatives to understand that and also that the bill has nothing to do with censorship but seeks to present more local content. The Bloc Québécois has done its homework. We spoke with the cultural sector before studying this bill. Members of this chamber have a responsibility to consult people affected by the bills that we must vote on. My question is very simple. Did the Conservative members consult Canada's English-speaking cultural sector? The Conservative Party does have 10 members from Quebec. Someone must have spoken to people in the cultural sector in Quebec, who are asking us to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

172 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Mar/30/23 1:30:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I will take the word of law professors, former CRTC presidents and Canadian content creators themselves when it comes to the impacts this bill will have not only on what Canadians are allowed to see but also what they are allowed to post online. There is a huge difference between giving supports through tax breaks or funding and directly deciding who should be featured as Canadian content and who should be suppressed. On this side of the House, we believe that Canadian creators have proven they are capable of building large international audiences.

99 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Mar/30/23 1:31:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the former CRTC chair is well known for supporting large Internet providers and being against consumers. This is one reason that we have some of the highest prices in the world for our system. Where I come from, we are a peninsula surrounded by the United States. Therefore, Windsor-Essex and Chatham-Kent counties basically get inundated with U.S. content on a regular basis. If we do not do anything with respect to this right now, it will be Alphabet that controls what we see and do not see. I wonder if the Conservatives have reached out to the artists in the border communities about their concerns with respect to being shut out by some of the structural positions the United States has taken. These not only limit them from even going into the country but also from sharing their information. Have they reached out to those artists and dealt with the fact that, with so many Canadians living on the border like us, we are being inundated? If we look at the hearings taking place in the U.S. Senate and Congress, there have been admissions that this is not a red or blue issue. Instead, it is being called the green issue with respect to what Fox and others are showing. This is because it is all about money and not about truth. Have the Conservatives talked to the artists in the regions who are affected by the border?

244 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Mar/30/23 1:32:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this piece of legislation, the bottom line is that the government is about to give itself the authority to control what Canadians watch. Instead of giving Canadians more of what they want, as the member is proposing, YouTube will be instructed to give viewers more of what the government wants for them.

58 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:33:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are here today in the middle of a debate where the Liberal government has curtailed debate on a censorship bill. It has actually censored debate on its censorship bill. To put into perspective what is happening here today, people who have reviewed this bill, from all political stripes, all walks of life and all backgrounds in Canada, have said this bill would create in Canada the most authoritarian media-control regime in any western country. This is a fight worth having tooth and nail. Every member of the governing caucus needs to give their head a shake, including members of the NDP as well, who are in coalition on this bill, on the fact that this would censor Canadian content. In the brief time I have today, because we know the government is shutting down debate on this, I want to make an appeal directly to my colleagues in the NDP and on the backbench of the Liberal government caucus, to really think this through. First of all, the government's talking point is that this bill is needed to modernize the Broadcasting Act, to bring Canadians into alignment with what is happening today versus 30 years ago, pre-Internet. However, the reality is that this is not about what Canadians want or need; this is about the few elite media broadcasters and content creators who, in the past, have been creating content based on criteria of #MeToo incidents and doing what is best for profit. Frankly, they have been marginalizing racialized voices, women's voices and independent women creators. That is the history of the elite companies that need this bill to squeeze the dregs of profits out for their shareholders in a last-ditch attempt to prop up a failing business model they did not have the foresight, the wherewithal or the innovation to keep competitive while small, independent creators gradually built up platforms and voices for themselves on new content creation platforms like YouTube or even streaming services. This is not the fault of Canadians, and Canadians should not be subject to government censorship because a few well-connected producers, media companies and whatnot want to have more profit for their shareholders Again, for parties in this place that purport to stand up for intersectional, racialized and women's voices, in the long run, what anybody voting for this bill in this form is doing is actually taking away those voices. At the end of this day, what this bill would do is give the government the power to select what Canadians see. That is what this bill would do. Morally, that is wrong. Other colleagues here, even colleagues from the NDP, have asked about large platforms like Alphabet or Meta. This bill would do nothing to improve algorithmic transparency; it would only make it worse. In fact, what it would do is keep censoring those platforms and add another layer of censorship where the government also would get to downgrade what voices are heard. Imagine if Steven Harper had introduced this bill in the House of Commons and if he had created a government ministry where his appointees got to control what was upgraded or downgraded. There would have been pitchforks and torches in the street. The NDP would have been outraged. There would have been signs across the country. Instead, because we are acquiescing to the Liberals, who have a long history of propping up elitism in this country, elitism in thought and elitism in production, somehow it is okay. People from all political stripes across the country, with so many disparate political voices, are saying this is wrong. Instead, what our government should be doing is modernizing legacy archaic bills like the Broadcasting Act, to get out of the way of innovative new forms of producing content so we can have more choice and more innovation. Then, those groups, people who have traditionally been without platforms, would not have the sword of Damocles of the government's CRTC regulation looming over them while wondering whether they are going to be successful. There is no transparency in this bill. The worst part of it is that people would not even know what is being downgraded or upgraded by the federal government. How is that possible in a western democracy, where freedom of speech is supposedly and purportedly the cornerstone of what we do? I will make it about me for a minute, or any other woman who is in this place. This place has typically repressed female politicians' voices. The Canadian media, for generations, has had a hard time putting women at the forefront. In my time in office, I have been able to use platforms like this to get around the elites, who might not allow me any voice, to be able to talk directly to my constituents. How do I know that I, or any of my female colleagues in this place, am not going to have my content upgraded or downgraded based on whether or not the government and its appointees think what I am saying or what I am advocating for is right? This bill would benefit only elites. It would prop up a model that no longer works in this country, and I guarantee that the people who would suffer are the people who need these platforms the most. I cannot believe that the government is curtailing debate on this bill. What it should be doing is listening and working collaboratively with the opposition to come up with amendments on this steaming pile of garbage so the thoughts of Canadians who have vociferously voiced that we cannot have curtailments on the freedom of speech in this country are appeased. Why would the government not accept an amendment to exempt user-generated content? The only reason it is that it intends to downgrade and hide user-generated content in Canada. That is motive. Why is that not in there? The government has refused it time and time again. If the government really wants to create more freedom of speech, it should be trying to work with these big platforms to have more algorithmic transparency. It is not doing that. It is adding another layer of algorithmic downgrading. The government should be putting amendments in this bill. Frankly, people are talking about content that has been created in Canada. We put $1.5 billion into the Canadian Broadcasting Company every year. My colleagues from the Bloc were talking about French-language content. Is that money being well spent on French-language content? The CBC has had atrocious human resources issues in the last year. There are all sorts of questions about their conduct and what is happening. Instead of objectively looking at these legacy, elite institutions and how they should be forced to modernize and come up with the change in how Canadians communicate, the government is putting in more elite blockages to what Canadians can see and which Canadians can be heard. That is not my Canada. We should have more diverse voices. Frankly, how many journalists in the parliamentary press gallery are from western Canada? There is one, maybe. The only way we get heard is through these types of platforms, and now, and I intend no offence, the government does not have the best track record on supporting western Canada. It is telling us the CRTC would get to regulate what content is seen from western Canadian content creators. I say “no”. This is 100% a violation of every Canadian's right to free speech. I cannot believe that any Liberal backbencher who actually cares about supporting women and marginalized voices would think this is a good idea. This is designed to prop up a legacy model that is going directly into rich shareholders' profits, while small, independent voices would be downgraded. There is no transparency in what the government is talking about. It is vague. It is a steaming pile of garbage. It has been panned by every political stripe; by experts from academia, law and media; and by content creators themselves. The only people speaking in favour of this are people who have already made it and have benefited, for a very long period of time, from a system that no longer is in line with the times. That is why it is wrong. That is why the government should not be censoring debate. We should be robustly debating it. This should be amended. It should be scrapped.

1416 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/30/23 1:43:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we do not hear as much from the member as we used to, and I miss that. I am being genuine. She is actually one of the more progressive in the Conservative Party and I wish we would hear her voice more often, notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with her on this particular issue. I did take note that the member spoke specifically about the government backbench and the NDP as though they were the only members in the House who support this, but that is not true. The entire Bloc Québécois caucus and the Green Party caucus support it as well. Therefore, the only party here that does not support this is the Conservative Party. I think it is a huge stretch to suggest that the Bloc Québécois, the separatist party, is somehow going along with a scheme to allow cabinet to make decisions on algorithms and what people see. I am wondering if the member can comment on why she talked just specifically about the Liberals and the NDP in her statement and completely left out the Bloc and Green Party.

194 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Mar/30/23 1:44:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with my colleague's first statement. Speaking in this place is a privilege. It is about quality, not quantity, and that is a lesson the member should undertake. The member should also understand that speaking truth to power is something that is our responsibility, rather than being a toady for the PMO.

58 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Mar/30/23 1:44:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out some of the flaws in this bill. Professor Michael Geist, whom I know she has worked with in the past, said that this bill is going to restrict how people can be heard. I want to read the definition of “censorship” into the record. “Censorship” is defined as “the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information”. I was wondering if the member could please comment on why the government cannot be trusted with any type of legislation like this, on Margaret Atwood's comment that this is creeping totalitarianism and on why we have to be very cautious of it.

113 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Mar/30/23 1:45:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think Margaret Atwood presents a lot of tales we should take into consideration, like the need to continuously protect women's rights under any circumstance. I also think, though, that Margaret Atwood is one of those voices that would not necessarily speak in favour of a Conservative Party position, but would certainly speak in favour of the fact that free speech is an underpinning of Canadian democracy and something that should be protected at all cost. The government is in the middle of a foreign-interference scandal, it has had multiple ethics violations, and it kicked out Jody Wilson-Raybould, Canada's first indigenous minister, for speaking truth to power. I do not trust the government as far as I can throw it.

126 words