44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, we caught him. Just at the end there, the truth jumped out of his lips. He said the problem is that disinformation, like the opinions expressed here today, would not be allowed if Bill C-11 were passed, which is an admission that the NDP believes government should be able to decide what is true and what is false and censor out what it does not like. That is exactly what we suspected from the beginning.
What happens when the government is a liar? The government said the Prime Minister did not interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That turned out to be false. It said the budget would be balanced in 2019. That turned out to be false too. Do I have to go down the long list of falsehoods stated by the government?
Now we are supposed to trust this same government to censor out what is true. I guess government members believe there should be a ministry of truth populated with people who agree with them. The only way to distill the truth is through the hot cauldron of debate, not through the clamping down of censorship. That is why we believe in allowing people to make their own decisions. Government members may think they are the watchmen, but the question is, who watches the watchmen? The only ones who can do that are the citizens.
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the great George Orwell said in 1984, “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end.” What we are seeing here today is one of the biggest power grabs on the individual freedoms of Canadians. If our leader, the member for Carleton, becomes Prime Minister of Canada, what will he do to reverse this power grab of the government?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, all of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by governments, yet we are constantly warned by the woke parties in the House that the scary thing is too much freedom, that the people have to be feared. No. Excessive power by government has been the source of every single major atrocity committed in this country or anywhere around the world. The solution to that is freedom.
What will I do to reverse this power grab? I will repeal Bill C-11 to restore freedom of speech online. I will make it my mission to transform Canada back again to the freest nation on Earth.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech given by the leader of the official opposition, and I wonder if he would like to backtrack or apologize for characterizing the CRTC as a small group of privileged insiders closest to the Prime Minister. I would also ask him if he would like to define the word “woke”. I asked one of his colleagues for that definition, and I would like to hear what he has to say.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:18:27 p.m.
- Watch
Actually, Madam Speaker, I will backtrack. It is a big group of insiders. It is a big, sprawling bureaucracy with far too many people working for it. There will be fewer people working for the CRTC when I am Prime Minister, because they will have less power and a hell of a lot less to do when I restore freedom of speech and freedom of expression online and on the Internet.
As for the definition of “woke”, woke has one purpose and only one purpose. It has plenty of pretexts but only one purpose: control. It is designed to divide people by race, gender, ethnicity, religion, vaccine status and any other way one can divide people into groups. Why? It is because then one can justify having a government to control all those groups. No more woke; we need freedom.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is one kind of threat to free debate, which is to silence people. Another way to silence people is by putting words in their mouths. What I said earlier is that I am concerned, and I think it is naive to expect that social media platforms do not have an agenda and that as they write algorithms in private, outside of any kind of transparency or accountability, they do not consider their own self-interests in the ways they promote particular kinds of content.
The point is not to say that someone else is going to police all of that content. Bill C-11 is talking about promoting Canadian content within the feeds of Canadians. I do not think there is anything particularly nefarious about that, and there is room for reasonable debate about how that gets defined. However, what I was saying earlier is that I do not understand why this guy, who says he is so concerned about freedom, does not care a whit about what is going on behind closed doors right now with people who are accountable to no one and have all the power and control he says he is concerned about.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:20:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear. The member is not proposing to take away any power from Google, Facebook or any other social media giant. All he is proposing to do is give the government the power to manipulate the controls that those social media platforms already have.
Right now, social media algorithms are designed to give people the stuff they want to see, because that is how social media companies make money, just like a restaurant gives people the food they want to eat. The government wants to take away the power of people to choose for themselves and have government authorities decide for them.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Saskatoon—University.
I am thankful for this opportunity to rise again and speak to the government's disastrous bill, Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which would regulate the Internet and stymie free expression. It is ironic that the government claims to be modernizing the Canadian Broadcasting Act by creating a “flexible, fair and modern” approach, when in fact the bill would punish Canadian digital creators and move Canada's cultural, creative and media industries backwards.
It is disheartening to see that the criticisms and calls for reform coming from Internet and media experts, former CRTC commissioners, and Canadian artists and creators themselves are being ignored. Bill C-11 is an example of what happens to a government that has been in power for far too long. It has forgotten who it serves. Frankly, it has grown fat on entitlement and hubris.
This bill gives unacceptable and inappropriate permission to the government, and any future government, to control Canadians' use of the Internet with respect to what they choose as content, what they watch and listen to and even how to express themselves freely online in a public square. The greater danger of Bill C-11 is that it opens the door to an increasing government manipulation of technology and algorithms for the purpose of social control. Why would any government want to limit expression in a strong, free and democratic society such as Canada? It wants to do this simply for power and to seek control.
Any government can give into the temptation of overstepping its authority when it is left in power for far too long. When there are too few checks and balances in place and when institutional legacy media begins to do the bidding of the governing party, the system breaks down and the doors for the thought police open. When that happens, all of the freedoms and liberties we take for granted in this precious country slowly disappear, even freedoms in our own homes. Government, if given the chance and opportunity, will trespass into telling us what we can watch even in our own homes by using algorithms that will determine the content we see online and the narratives we hear.
This is what we must guard against. Clause 7 of Bill C-11 specifically gives permission to cabinet to direct the CRTC with regard to this legislation. The bill requires that online platforms prioritize Canadian content over non-Canadian content. It grants the CRTC the ability to require platforms such as YouTube and Facebook to change and manipulate algorithms and search engines to meet government directives. What does this mean? It means this bill gives the government control over what Canadians see, what they post and what they watch online. Bill C-11 will also give Ottawa bureaucrats the power to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly, which could apply to most user content online.
The government had a chance to accept the Senate's amendments to narrow the scope and protect Canadian content, but it failed to do that. It failed to do the right thing and voted against the Conservative amendments. Why? I would argue it is because the government does not trust Canadians with their own thoughts and their own freedoms, and is, in fact, trying to expand its control of Canadians online, even in the privacy of their own homes.
Jeanette Patell, the head of Canada government affairs and public policy at YouTube, explained it like this: “[Bill C-11] explicitly give[s] a government regulator authority over what content is prioritized, and how and where content is presented to Canadians, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses”.
Timothy Denton, who is a former CRTC commissioner and chair of the Canada chapter of the Internet Society, said this about Bill C-11: “C-11 makes user-generated videos or podcasts—virtually anything involving sound or video—subject to CRTC regulation. Indeed it is a wonder the government stopped there: why not regulate email as well? Nor does the regulation of speech stop at Canada’s borders. Bill C-11 permits the CRTC to exercise global authority over 'programs' in any language, from any source.” He goes on to say, “The CRTC is all about control: who gets to speak, within what limits, how often, and to what effect. Usually the control is exercised indirectly, but in this case it was overt.”
Bill C-11 would empower government-dictated algorithms to decide what one can see and which videos and sources are Canadian enough to see. Conspicuously, there is no definition of what is classified as Canadian content in the bill, which focuses on Canadian content.
Moreover, the current definition used by the CRTC is so antiquated and so narrow that it eliminates productions like the The Canadian Story and The Handmaid's Tale, which were filmed in Canada with Canadian actors and Canadian producers, or Netflix's major francophone film Jusqu'au déclin, which was made and written in Quebec.
I would argue that the bill is a form of censorship that is more insidious than a government-issued order, mandate, or sanction because, in this case, Canadians will not know what they are being censored for. If the bill passes, bureaucrats behind closed doors, subject to the will of their political masters, will issue directives to manipulate algorithms and control the search bar in people's homes. Canadians will never know what is not being allowed. In this scenario, the government could control what is presented to them and what is put in their very mind by controlling what they see.
Canadian creators would not know the reason why their content is not going viral. Canadian creators will never know when their content is being demoted by government-dictated algorithms. This is a form of technocratic control. I fear, as many Canadians do, that this technocratic control will grow as our society becomes more digitally dependent on artificial intelligence and Internet-connected smart technologies.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty and our responsibility to serve the interests of Canadians and uphold the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. The bill is an attack on freedom of choice and freedom of expression of all Canadians online. We must not allow the government to creep down a path that leads to silencing critics by promoting some voices over others that politically suit its ends.
In closing, I want to say that creativity blossoms in a culture of freedom and not control. We need to go back to the days when governments served the people. As we consider the bill, I urge all parliamentarians in the House to remember our great foundations of freedom upon which this country was built: the freedom to think, the freedom to speak, and the freedom to live without government interference.
1170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:31:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want everyone to understand and have an appreciation for the contrast—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:31:31 p.m.
- Watch
Order. We are in a period of questions and comments. Could the hon. members listen to the questions being asked, please?
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:31:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about contrast. If we want to use the word “attack”, we can put it in the perspective of how the Conservative Party has made it very clear, through that member's speech and the leader of the Conservative Party's speech, that this is an attack on Canadian content. This is an attack on the CRTC. We now have the leader of the Conservative Party with another policy platform, and that is to diminish the role of the CRTC here in Canada.
As he and his other colleagues clap, there are Canadians who are in the arts and culture industry. That industry is so valuable to Canada, and the Conservatives are throwing it up in the air, saying they do not care. The Liberals and the government care about that community.
My question for the member is why the Conservative Party has given up on Canada's heritage and those who promote it through arts and—
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:32:41 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:32:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in fact, we have not given up. We are the warriors who are fighting to preserve this heritage, because we know that this heritage can only be preserved if we have freedom of expression, and we have to ensure that governments cannot dictate what Canadians see, what they think or what they hear online. That is not the role of government. The role of government is to stay out of the lives of Canadians and let freedom reign.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if I can clarify something from the speech of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk. My understanding is that Bill C-11 already passed in this House back in June. I understand she did not support it then, and it is clear she does not support it now. Tonight, we are debating the message being sent back to the Senate with respect to the amendments that the Senate proposed, some of which the governing party disagreed with.
Would she like to comment on that which we are voting on this evening?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:33:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is a travesty that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc did not support the amendments of the Senate, specifically about excluding creator content. That would have done a lot to protect Canadian creators. It is a travesty that the Senate put so much work into that and that this House partially rejected it. I am proud to say that the Conservatives stood with the Senate proposals.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:34:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I found it really fascinating that the Senate, which is filled with a lot of the Prime Minister's supposedly independent senators, was upset about the bill and was pushing back. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts about what the Senate was trying to do and how the senators were actually standing up for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:34:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that this is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that have ever been passed in this nation, and I think the Senate sees the danger in the legislation, the danger of encroaching upon the freedoms of Canadians. I think that, as sober second thought, these amendments should have been taken more seriously by this House. The Senate spent a great deal of time, as the House of sober second thought, crafting these amendments to make sure Canadians' liberty and freedom are protected in the online forum.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:35:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is ironic that the members opposite do not understand that they are censoring the censorship bill. In second reading, the government and its costly coalition partner, the NDP, imposed closure, and then they used their coalition in the House to impose a rule on the committee study of the bill that did not allow for the amendments being proposed to even be read in the committee before committee members voted on them, which is another form of censorship and closure. Today, they are again putting closure on the Senate amendments.
I would like the member to comment on this. On a bill that would restrict the freedom of what people can do on the Internet, why would we expect anything other than the government censoring it all along the debate?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:36:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very sad. With the interest that this bill has generated among grassroots, average, everyday Canadians, it is very sad that the Liberals did not take this to heart but actually sought closure. We should have had prolonged debate on this bill so that the Liberals could convince Canadians that they were in fact not taking—
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:36:57 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
