SoVote

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

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

Sad
Closure

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 6:36:57 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

9 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Mar/30/23 6:37:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, what is happening in Canada? The world is watching our nation and seeing a big, bossy government close down debate on censorship. The Liberals are censoring the debate on censorship. This is what the world is seeing. This puts us in the category of the Communists of Beijing and countries like North Korea and Russia. Putin would be envious of the ability to change the algorithms of his viewers to watch content online. This is a dangerous time in Canada. We have all had struggles for the past three years. The division in our country has never been as great as it is today, and now we have a government that wants to take it a step further, jumping on that raw nerve in Canada that distrusts government because of its actions on this bill. We are here tonight debating because of the forcing of closure on this bill. If people are watching this online, I am going to clip this and put it out there and hopefully if Bill C-11 does not pass they will still be able to watch this. People should like and share this right now, because this might be the last opportunity. People will be able to post things, but no one will be able to find them. This is what is in this bill. This is a layering-on of effects on our freedoms. Even this beautiful Parliament, where 338 people from across Canada are elected to bring our views here, to debate ideas and policies and directions for our country with respect to what is right and what is wrong, has been affected, even before this bill. We are taking a system of communication that has been a tool of democracies all over the world and we are taking a tool out of the tool box. There are problems in Canada. There are problems in our democracy. We have seen it with foreign influence in our country. We have seen that the state is now sponsoring media throughout our land, and when Canadians turn on the news, they are saying that it does not reflect their views and the Canada they know. Then they come to the realization that it is being sponsored by government and so they mistrust it. This goes back to the divisions that we have in our country. We have to come up with policies and ideas and laws that bring people together and not divide them. This is the problem that I have with this bill. It is another big, bossy government wanting to divide Canadians. Censorship has been in our history in the world. History does not always repeat itself, but it rhymes. We only have to look to the failed regimes around the world, and not even that far back in our history, to the 1940s in eastern Europe. In 1945, there was a vote in Hungary. There was democracy in Hungary in 1945. In the vote, the Communists finished sixth. By 1949, it was a Communist country. How is that possible? One of the tactics they used is called a salami tactic, where they just take a slice, and every time a little slice more and a bit more each time. Right now, this is what this bill represents. The government will tell its citizens what they can watch, what they can consume, how they should be thinking or what thoughts they should be portraying. I send pleas to the members here tonight to think about the impact if this bill becomes law in our country and in a future Parliament there is a leader who takes these tools and censors their party and their beliefs and what they want to post. This would take us into a country of Canada that I do not want any part of for myself or for my kids. The bill would allow one to post all one wants, and we heard this earlier tonight, but one's fellow Canadians would not be able to view it. We still have time to stop this. Later in my speech I will have two direct asks to Canadians who are watching live tonight or who are watching this online. I ask them to please, once again, like and share this video. I would like to go back to some of the struggles we have in Canada because our institutions such as this place, Parliament, are not functioning how they were set up to function. Everybody in here has probably had people phone their office and say that they were watching question period and that everyone was asking questions but they were not hearing any answers. The citizens of this country see this over and over. They hear questions asked that they want to hear the answers to. They phone and write and ask why the Speaker is not telling them to answer those questions. The problem is not so much that the Speaker needs to impose new rules on this place; it is how this was set up. We have freedom of press in Canada. How this place is supposed to work is that if we have an opposition grilling a minister or a prime minister and they are giving us garbage, the media would hound that minister or prime minister until they received answers to those questions. If they did not answer, it would heighten the question of what they are trying to hide. We are not getting that right now in Canada. We have some great journalists who are working hard on uncovering the truths of what is happening, but those stories are not being published. This is because, like I said, when states start sponsoring media, everyone questions the stories they are hearing. We know whoever pays the piper picks the tune. That is how this place is supposed to work. We should have the galleries full of media right now. We do not. During question period, we do not have media filling the galleries. It is because there are no stories; the opposition heckles. There is nothing they want to hear. I do not know how this is going to end. We heard the government talking about proroguing, which is cancelling or shutting down Parliament. That could kill the bill. The bill is going to be passed to the Senate, unless the Bloc and the NDP decide they are not going to vote for it later tonight. There are still chances. I am an optimist; there is still hope. The Canadians who are watching should not give up on hope. They can search out the petition we are circulating right now. They should be sure to sign up to get updates because we do not know what YouTube is going to show people in the months or years to come if this becomes law. However, they can have confidence. We heard earlier tonight from the Leader of the Opposition that one of the first things we would do is cancel Bill C-11. I know my time is limited. I would like to thank everyone for being here tonight. I have one last ask of the people watching online. They should please like and share. I ask them to contact their NDP member of Parliament, because they can perhaps get the courage to stand up for their convictions, vote against the government and bring the government down. We could then have an election that elects a government that will protect our freedoms.

1248 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 6:46:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it felt a lot like we were listening to a sermon of sorts with some of the fire and brimstone coming our way in regard to the bill. I wonder if the member would be willing to apologize to Canadians once this bill reaches royal assent, is implemented in Canada and inevitably the sky does not fall and it is not the end of times. Will he apologize for the fearmongering and the mis-characterization of this bill?

80 words

Apologize

Mr. Corey Tochor

Mar/30/23 6:47:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, governments have always enacted things for people's safety. It is for their benefit, and it will all be okay, my hon. colleague has pointed out. The problem is that people will not realize that they are not watching the videos that they want to watch; they are watching what the government wants them to watch. That is the problem. This is how badly written this is: People will not realize that the content they consume in the future is what the government wants them to consume, not what the viewer is looking for.

96 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/30/23 6:48:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a guarantee that private companies cannot be held responsible for the comments that third parties post on their platforms. At the same time, the act already strengthens the protection of personal information. I would like to know why the Conservatives are saying that freedom of expression is threatened when the companies have the duty to leave the comments online.

63 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Mar/30/23 6:48:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe the analogy is a little bit about what is being spoken in the town square. The comment is that we cannot have people speaking their mind in the town square because it might go against other people's views. Instead, they would like to shut down town squares across Canada. That was in the past. How we consume information right now is online. Anything that changes what people are viewing online is wrong, and it is censorship.

81 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/30/23 6:49:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is the craziest, wackiest speech that we have heard from Conservatives although they have, through this debate, been crazy and wacky at every single step. It is quite clear to Canadians that there is not a single Conservative who has actually read the bill because they all have the same speech: something, something, tyranny, North Korea; something, something freedom. We saw how devoted—

67 words

Speech

Mr. Brad Vis

Mar/30/23 6:49:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is incorrect for the member for New Westminster—Burnaby to state that Conservatives have not read Bill C-11—

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 6:49:45 p.m.
Watch

This is a matter for debate. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

14 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Mar/30/23 6:49:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that they have not read the bill. At no point in the hours and hours of debate—

24 words

Read

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Mar/30/23 6:50:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have in fact read Bill C-11. Many of my colleagues have read Bill C-11. I think that it is absolutely important that we always make sure we tell the truth and the whole truth in this—

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 6:50:17 p.m.
Watch

I am going to interrupt the hon. member right there. There are a lot of insults that have been flying around throughout the afternoon. I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to refrain from inflaming the debate.

41 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Mar/30/23 6:50:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am just being honest and exercising my freedoms. Obviously, Conservatives do not like that. They do not mind meeting with neo-Nazi groups that want to suppress freedoms in Europe but they object when they are challenged on the fact that their comments over the course of the dozens and dozens of hours of debate have not carried on the bill at all. There is no tyranny here. What we are talking about is actually providing supports for a cultural sector that has been hard hit. We are actually allowing Canadians to be able to tell stories to each other. Why does the member just admit that he did not read the bill, he does not understand the bill, and as his comments have been completely inappropriate, he will withdraw them? Why does he not withdraw them?

140 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Mar/30/23 6:51:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is the wacky NDP. They know what is best for Canadians. This is the elitist NDP who are so far removed from the working class that they have no idea what is going on out there in Canada. People are suffering in our nation. They are looking for ideas and policies. They may look at an NDP platform or a speech that might be delivered in here by that member. The bill would limit Canadians' ability to actually see the content of that member.

87 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/30/23 6:52:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Saskatoon—University might consider his recent remarks and reflect that he went a bit too far when he said that things that are on the Internet should never be censored and nothing should ever be withdrawn. I am going to give him that opportunity right now. We have seen moments where families have been shattered by mass attacks and slaughters. Families of police officers have seen their loved ones on a video posted on the Internet and the family has begged for no one to look at that. People then take that down. Will the hon. member reconsider and withdraw his comment that everything on the Internet should be watched, people should be at liberty to see anything and there should be no moments where we withdraw postings on the Internet with the goal of rage farming—

147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 6:52:52 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member for Saskatoon—University 10 seconds to answer.

15 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Mar/30/23 6:52:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, she is misrepresenting my words. We need to watch the video again. I will post this, and she can comment on it. I will put it on Facebook. That is how freedom of speech and expression should work in Canada. Members can disagree with me. Come onto the forum, put a comment—

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 6:53:19 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

10 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Mar/30/23 6:53:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. I do not always give a title to my speeches, but there was a movie released back in 2020 that I managed to draw my inspiration from. This is the movie called The Social Dilemma. As we know, it is about big tech using social media as a means to manipulate and influence people. The public was outraged about it, and rightly so. The government apparently was too, but the problem was that it did not think of it first. That is what we are going to see with this bill as it goes through. I think I have a title for my speech. I am going to go with “The Liberal Dilemma” in the same vein as The Social Dilemma. It has been amazing to see the strong response we have gotten from the general public, which has reached out to many members of Parliament. Lots of us in the Conservative caucus have heard from a lot of people. We heard from experts, both at committee and out of committee, demanding that the Liberals stop what they are doing. Sadly, the voices have been repeatedly ignored. What is more troubling is that these same voices might eventually be silenced. However, the Conservatives have been listening to them. We have been raising the alarm and opposing the bill while it passed through this House. The other place has also taken these concerns seriously. Bill C-11 was sent back to us with several amendments from the Senate. One of those amendments is especially relevant and important to the issue of user-generated content. The Liberals have another chance to show some good faith and correct the problem they are creating in this country. We already know that they are not taking the opportunity in front of them. The minister has made it clear that the Liberals are going to reject this exact amendment, which has been at the heart of this entire debate so far. At least it is crystal clear where the Liberals stand, and it is not on the right side of the issue. It is exactly the opposite. The Liberals are not interested in protecting the rights of Canadians. It is not their priority. That is really discouraging to see from the federal government. It is a complete failure of leadership on their part. That is why, on the opposite side, Conservatives have been fighting so much on behalf of our fellow Canadians. We want them to know that someone will stand up for them and their rights in Parliament. If the Liberals go ahead with this, we would get rid of it if we formed government because we firmly believe that it is the right thing to do. There is a reason the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it mentions a fundamental freedom of expression, includes “freedom of the press and other media of communication”. The ability to communicate freely is so important to our society. Whether someone was born here or chose to come here from another part of the world, Canadians know and love their personal experience with freedom. We want to make sure that our children and future generations enjoy it as well. We should never take it for granted. The same freedom is essential for our political system to function. If the Liberals controlled the press, they would let it silence voices which disagreed with them and turn our news networks into a publicly funded propaganda machine; but in fact, it is too late. History has shown us the worst examples of what can happen with government censorship and control. Even in our own time, there are authoritarian regimes that are doing the same thing to oppress their people, and we know that there have also been attempts to interfere in our elections and have influence within our own country. Government propaganda spread through government media can either sway public opinion toward its ideals, or what is worse, be used to cover up the corruption and crimes carried out by the state. Given that the independence of media from the government is such an important principle to Canada and other countries around the world, why do the Liberals want to provide an opening for online censorship and interference with media communications? That is the direction Bill C-11 is taking us. It will hand over more control of media and the Internet from the people to the government. Up until this point, Canadians have had the opportunity to participate in a media marketplace that is free and open. All content is given equal opportunity and can be judged based on its own merit. Canadian artists have impressed us with their talents here at home, and they have also punched above their weight in the global market. That has been the case with every art form. Canadians continue to succeed as actors, video creators and musicians performing in pop, classical or other genres. Each one of them has worked hard at their craft, and they have excelled based on merit. It did not require bureaucrats in Ottawa or anywhere else to decide if they should be considered Canadian enough. We all want to see Canadian talent thrive. As much as the Liberals want to hide behind the idea of supporting artists, that has never been the issue. They need to stop using it as an empty excuse to push forward a power grab that could eventually threaten the rights of artistic expression as much as any other ability for Canadians to speak freely. The ability of Bill C-11 to limit what Canadians would see online would also hurt Canadian content producers. They have been saying as much. Many talented creators have not only made a name for themselves in the Canadian scene, but they have also become stars in the U.S. and all throughout the rest of the world. Bill C-11 would become a gatekeeper that bars regular Canadians from reaching audiences online. How can that be, if the government is saying it would encourage Canadian content? The problem lies in the fact that, when we give the government the right to censor some content, we must consider that lobbyists from larger producers will influence the regulatory process, which in this case would be carried out by the CRTC. Only rich, established groups can afford to hire lobbyists. Young men and women posting music to YouTube or maybe trick shot videos in their free time cannot do that. They cannot afford it. Bill C-11 would make it much harder to break into the industry because the only people who can afford to buy lobbyists are already the established media companies. Across the board, Canada has too many gatekeepers that stop us from building homes or developing our industries. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would expand the government's policy of gatekeeping now to our online content. When it comes to its claim about promoting Canadian content, Bill C-11 does not really make sense, nor address the major problem. The stated goal is to require that media sites give preference to Canadian content in an attempt to promote Canadian culture. However, we still have to ask: How would that rule apply in practice? The bill fails to define Canadian culture and what content qualifies as Canadian. This vagueness is what would give the government the ability to label as “Canadian” whatever it wants us to see, and to censor anything else that does not align with its priorities. It is irresponsible and can only make people think there is some reason why it wants to leave the door open to controlling how it is that we communicate. If the Liberals were serious at all or had any interest in defending Canadian culture, they would not allow for this ambiguity and leave so many loopholes in the bill. They would not vote against the necessary amendment to exempt user-generated content from government censorship. It was included in this new version of the bill because of careful and thorough study. Parliamentarians, both in this House and in the other place, have heard from numerous witnesses and had overwhelming feedback from constituents. Apparently, none of that matters to the Liberal government. The legislative process of Bill C-11 has been a mess right from the start. Last year, the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, rammed Bill C-11 through the House of Commons, not allowing stakeholders to fully voice their concerns about the bill. Today, they have once again tried to censor the opposition by forcibly ending debate on this censorship bill. As usual, the Prime Minister and his party will not listen to anyone who disagrees with their agenda. It is the same arrogance and condescending attitude that have been on display since they have been in power. That is exactly what people are worried about if they have the power to censor and remove criticism. Earlier in my speech, I referred to serious allegations about foreign interference in Canada. It is a good example of what could go terribly wrong if we do not protect free expression. We already have a Prime Minister who has disregarded the public interest and tried to cover up accusations against him about conflicts of interest. Most recently, he refused to have an independent inquiry about Beijing's interference in Canada's elections. Can members imagine how much worse it would be if the same Liberal government had the power of censorship when we have learned as much as we have about all the scandals it has been engaged in over the years? It is a scary thought, but we are not going to give up the fight. We are going to work as hard as ever to oppose censorship and to expose the endless failures of the Liberal government.

1660 words