SoVote

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

Mar/30/23 7:17:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to hear what our member has to say and what he has to talk about in the debate. However, here is a great example of a coordinated effort from the Liberal Party and the NDP to stifle a debate in this House about censorship. Will these members be an example, as they should be—

65 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 7:17:21 p.m.
Watch

We are going to let the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap conclude his speech.

16 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Mar/30/23 7:17:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, this harassment from the parties that simply do not want to hear the truth is incredible, especially from the member for Winnipeg North, who is known for rambling on and on in debate in this House. His speeches have become less and less relevant over the years. I look forward to tying this all together so that we can understand what I am speaking about. It is not just that we are speaking for Canadians who are concerned that their access to what they view online may be restricted by the government. It is about an even greater concern over what the government will do to hide its backroom deals, corruption and scandals if Canadians are not able to share and view things online without government censorship. The Liberals' track record, which I just laid out only a portion of, shows that they cannot be trusted to do what is right and what is ethical. Bill C-11 is a piece of legislation that would impact every single Canadian who has a cellphone, a television or a computer in their home and who enjoys online streaming and viewing and listening to content online. Through this piece of legislation, the government is about to give itself the ability to control what Canadians have access to, can listen to online or can watch online. Instead of viewers deciding what they want to watch, the government would control the algorithms, which will put things in front of them that the government determines it wants them to see. People go online to see what they want to see, not what the government wants to see. I have been asked to do all I can to stop this bill and I will. However, in turn, I ask Canadians to do what they can by contacting members of the Liberal-NDP government, MPs and senators from the other House to voice their concerns with Bill C-11, and join us as we fight on their behalf to maintain freedoms in Canada. They should tell the government that what it is doing is wrong. For the government to take control over what people can post online, view online and promote online is wrong. I have trust in Canadians to do what is right more than I trust the government. The government has shown a propensity to hide the truth. I have given many examples of that this evening, even though members tried to shut me down with their point of order interventions. I trust Canadians to do the ethical thing, but we cannot do this alone. As Conservative members in this House, we will lead the charge. I hope Canadians will fall behind us in leading the charge to end this bill and this draconian measure.

461 words

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 7:20:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I listened with confusion to the member's brief history of time, the fictionalized version. I note that it had very little to do with the bill at hand, so if the member does not mind, I am going to bring us back to Bill C-11. When the dust settles and Bill C-11 is passed, we will come to realize that the only thing changed in Canada is that Canadian creators are better supported and that there is more Canadian content entering Canadian homes. We will realize that the outrage we have been hearing has been manufactured with the nefarious purpose of raising money. This is a manufactured crisis to raise money for the Conservative Party. When this bill passes and the changes are seen as positive, and none of the ludicrous predictions the party opposite has made come to pass, will the member apologize to Canadians? Will his party apologize to Canadians? Will you return every dollar to every hard-working Canadian you have snookered with this nonsense?

173 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 7:21:58 p.m.
Watch

I have not received any money, so I am guessing the hon. member meant that through me. The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

25 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Mar/30/23 7:22:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member asked if I would apologize if I am wrong, but I truly believe I will not be wrong. I hope he will do the same thing when he finds out that Canadians are being censored improperly. The Liberals are so afraid that people will put the truth out there and hear the truth that they are doing everything they can, as they have done tonight, to end debate on this bill.

75 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/30/23 7:22:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his speech, which contained many elements. I would like to ask him to summarize in a few sentences the speech in question as I could not follow it because of the many interruptions.

45 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Mar/30/23 7:23:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I were to sum up my speech in just a couple of paragraphs, it would be very difficult, because I had to list off so many places where we cannot trust the government. That is what my speech was about: the track record of the government and its failure to exhibit trustworthiness. We cannot trust it with this bill.

62 words

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

Mar/30/23 7:23:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member, as I pointed out earlier, has clearly not read the bill, does not understand the bill and has not taken the effort to go through the bill. What we have seen from the Conservatives over the course of the nearly 100 hours of debate over many months is that most of the Conservatives getting up to speak have not read the bill at all. They have talking points, and the talking points are “something, something tyranny”, but that does not have anything to do with the bill—

94 words

Read
Speak

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 7:24:08 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby does understand what he is doing. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has a point of order.

27 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Mar/30/23 7:24:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the House is built upon the foundational principle of honour, and every time the member says that a member from this side has not read the bill, it is dishonourable. He needs to show some integrity and he needs to understand that the Conservatives are doing the best they can to represent the views of their constituents. It is dishonourable of him to insinuate that we would do otherwise.

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/23 7:24:38 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member raises an important point, and we have to believe that members here represent their constituencies. I invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to be prudent.

31 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Mar/30/23 7:24:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly did not question that. I questioned their knowledge of the bill. They have yet to prove that they have read through and have knowledge of the bill. Every time we spend an hour in debate in this place, it is tens of thousands of dollars that taxpayers have to spend. The Conservatives would have loved hundreds and hundreds of hours of additional debate, so my question to my colleague is quite simply this. Why would the Conservatives want to draw out debate for hundreds of hours when they do not have enough knowledge about the bill, as they have not read it, to impart any information about the bill to Canadians?

115 words

Questioned

Mr. Mel Arnold

Mar/30/23 7:25:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will recognize the member's intervention, but I believe if he had read the bill and closely read clause 7, he would have understood that there are serious problems with the bill. We need to continue debate on it to allow Canadians and the experts to be heard and to understand why we cannot trust this NDP-Liberal coalition, which he has to speak up with because of a signed agreement between the parties to carry this corrupt government forward.

83 words

Coalition

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Mar/30/23 7:26:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21 Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. Democracy does, indeed, die at night. We are sitting here dealing with amendments from the Senate on a deeply flawed and deeply controversial piece of legislation. I have not been in the House all day, but for the last couple of hours. I have heard the debate and the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a profoundly convincing argument that he made as to why this piece of legislation should not be passed. However, it is not just the words of the Leader of the Opposition that tell us why this piece of legislation needs to be, at a minimum, overhauled or, better yet, halted at this time. The concerns of Canadians, the concerns of digital content creators, those who understand this space, those who have looked at this piece of legislation, those who have taken the time to appear before committee to express their views and all of their concerns, including the Senate amendments, to deal with one part of this deeply flawed piece of legislation are being ignored by the government, which is certainly being aided and abetted by other opposition parties. What I thought I would do tonight is take a different tack from where this debate has gone today. There have been, like I said, hundreds of thousands of voices. There is not one issue, perhaps other than Bill C-21, the firearms legislation that I heard more about from my constituents than Bill C-11. Like the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, I am an elected member of this place, I am the voice of the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil and I am going to share their voices this evening. I am going to share the voices of other eminent Canadians who have expressed a concern about this piece of legislation. I received an email from Kim, who said, “Dear Mr. Brassard, The passing of Bill C-11 will be a sad moment in Canadian history. Please consider making sure this bill does not get passed. This kind of censorship should not come from our government or any free society.” Violet said, “Dear Sir: I want the brakes put on this Bill now! I am not a fan of this ridiculous Bill.” Rose said, “This bill is an overreach. It needs to be scrapped. Anyone who has been following this bill understands that we do not need the government to tell us what we can read/see [online].” Peter said, “Hello John, Regarding the above, my opinion is Bill C-11 should be scrapped and the [...] government keep their hand off of our social media. I hope you are [doing your] best to keep this Bill from being passed. Hopefully the Liberals will be ousted in the next election.” John and Corrine from Barrie said, “Trust all is going well with you and your family. We ask that you vote 'no' to Bill C-11. This will hurt and restrict healthy free speech and debate which is the democracy our nation is founded on. This is a great concern to us. As our constitutional freedoms and rights are restricted, this opens doors to tyranny and dictatorship which is dangerous to every level of our nation.” Another says, “Good afternoon Mr Honourable Brassard, I know you're busy so I'll be brief.” This is from Brent in Barrie. “I'm very much against Bill C-11. I don't want an unelected government official/body determining what my family can watch. Margaret Atwood is against it. The previous CRTC commissioner is against it. This bill will stifle freedom of speech and shut down contrary views under the threat of 'misinformation and/or disinformation'. Please fight for our freedom of speech.” We have certainly heard in the arguments from the opposition, the NDP and others about this being an issue of disinformation. In fact, I would suggest the ones spreading the disinformation are those on the government side. The other person who has been directly involved in this entire debate has been Michael Geist, who is a law professor at Ottawa University. Interestingly, I was going through some his posts earlier today and he has been watching the debate intently in this House of Commons. He made a post earlier that said, “Bill C-11 is not China, Russia or Nazi Germany. As I’ve stated many times, it does not limit the ability....[of] implications for freedom of expression but it does [not] turn Canada into China.” Mr. Peter Julian: Bravo. Bravo. Mr. John Brassard: Don't get ahead of yourself. Madam Speaker, his post continues, “To the claims that user content regulation is excluded from the bill, Section 4.‍1(2)‍(b) and 4.2.2 clearly scope such content into the bill, an interpretation that has been confirmed by dozens of experts and the former Chair of the CRTC. Liberal and NDP MP claims to the contrary should be regarded as disinformation, a deliberate attempt to spread false information. Indeed, the Senate proposed a fix. The government rejected it. That was supposed to be the focus of the debate, yet Liberal MPs such as [the member for Winnipeg North] falsely claimed that it is not there.” He continued, “There were many other misleading or inaccurate statements throughout the day. Contrary to what some claim, the bill will not result in hundreds of millions of new spending or lead to increased consumer choice (the opposite is true). It will require the CRTC to re-examine Cancon rules, which experience suggests are only loosely correlated to the professed goal of “telling Canadian stories.” But leaving all of these things aside, there was really only one question that needed answering: if the government’s intent is not to regulate user content and the Senate passed an amendment consistent with that goal after concluding that Bill C-11 in its current form opens the door to CRTC regulation, why is the government rejecting the amendment?” That is the fundamental question to this debate, and it is a question that has not been answered by either the government or any other members of the opposition. In fact, Mr. Geist goes on and actually references a Bloc MP's intervention. He says, “[It probably provides] what is likely the most accurate, if deeply troubling answer. When asked to confirm that the bill maintains freedom of expression safeguards, [this Bloc member] responded with the following per the House of Commons translator 'if violating freedom of expression means ensuring that Quebec content is well represented online then that’s worth it.'” To hell with everyone else. We need to be able to protect freedom of expression online for everyone in this country, not just based on a geographical region. That is what is most egregious about this bill. Mr. Geist goes on, “in the zeal to court support from the Quebec culture lobby, [the] Canadian Heritage Minister and the government are choosing in Bill C-11 to sacrifice some freedom of expression, which includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard.” I mentioned earlier there have been other Canadians who spoke out against this. Timothy Denton, former CRTC commissioner and president of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, spoke out against this, as did Peter Menzies, former CRTC commissioner, and Scott Benzie, content creator and director at Digital First Canada. J.J. McCullough, in a well-document Twitter intervention, posted his video. He talked about his concerns, and he is a journalist and commentator, about the impact this is going to have on user-generated content. The Digital Media Association has expressed concern, as did Jeanette Patell, the head of Canada government affairs and public policy at YouTube. We have heard all of these interventions at committee all expressing concern about this particular piece of legislation and the impact it is going to have on the ability for Canadians to be seen and heard for the type of content they create. As I said at the outset, we are dealing with Senate amendments. The Senate found it within itself, many of its members who are Liberal-appointed senators, to approve the amendments and send those amendments back to this place so we could have a wholesome debate. What is so sad throughout this whole process is the fact that this debate is being stifled at this point by closure by the government because it does not want to hear the truth from many of those Canadians who have expressed serious concern with this bill. Of course, the government is being aided and abetted by its coalition partners within the NDP. We will always stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are not going to sit idly by and allow the government to kill democracy at night.

1515 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 7:36:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. I am grateful to hear the voices of Canadians. They can rightly voice their opinions about this issue. I have received similar emails and phone calls to my office, largely after receiving fundraising emails from the Conservative Party that are filled with the misinformation that is then repeated in their correspondence back to us. It is our duty in this House to ensure that we do our due diligence, and we respond calmly and accurately, and share information about what is actually in the content of the bill. That is what I have been doing. I am wondering if the member has also been listening to the voices who are in support of this bill, or does he also believe that they are liars and coercive bad actors.

139 words

Mr. John Brassard

Mar/30/23 7:37:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, there has not been any other issue that I have been seized with other than Bill C-21, which is the firearms legislation, more than this piece of legislation. I have heard from more people who are opposed to this piece of legislation, because of the impact it would have on user-generated content. I have listened to the voices of those people I represent. I have heard, at committee, the testimony of people. I read many of their comments about their concern about this piece of legislation. The Senate has a concern. The only sides that are not concerned about this are the Liberal and NDP side, and to some degree the Bloc. It is understandable why the Bloc is in support of this piece of legislation, but the NDP and the Liberals are not doing what they need to do, and that is to listen to those people who have expressed concerns.

162 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/30/23 7:38:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in response to the misinformation put forward by my colleague, I wish to point out that the Bloc Québécois has always supported and will continue to support freedom of expression, including the freedom of Quebeckers to live and thrive in their own culture.

49 words

Mr. John Brassard

Mar/30/23 7:38:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the Bloc Québécois does not support freedom of expression. We agree with the Bloc on that. What I said is that there are a lot of people across the country who do not agree with this bill for the reasons I have already outlined.

55 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Mar/30/23 7:39:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I spent many hours listening to the debate in this House, and I have listened to many Conservatives, the majority of whom are not speaking specifically to the bill. They are speaking about freedom and the freedom to have anything on the Internet. I just wanted to hear from the member. This is from the B.C. Association Chiefs of Police. As a past municipal councillor, child exploitation is one of the fastest growing crimes in Canada. The former president of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police said: New social media applications create new opportunities for predators to target and exploit children online. As social media continues to grow, it's important for police to keep pace and prevent the victimization of children. I wonder if the member has some comments about how we protect children from online predators.

143 words