Bill C-11

Online Streaming Act

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service, unless the programs are prescribed by regulation;
(c) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of the Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should
(i) serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from Black or other racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages, and
(ii) provide opportunities to Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(d) enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society, including by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs in both languages;
(e) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of English, French and Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide English, French or Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) takes into account, among other things, the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings,
(iii) ensures that any broadcasting undertaking that cannot make maximum or predominant use of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming contributes to those Canadian resources in an equitable manner,
(iv) promotes innovation and is readily adaptable toscientific and technological change,
(v) facilitates the provision to Canadians of Canadian programs in both official languages, including those created and produced by official language minority communities in Canada, as well as Canadian programs in Indigenous languages,
(vi) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities,
(vii) facilitates the provision to Canadians of programs created and produced by members of Black or other racialized communities,
(viii) protects the privacy of individuals who aremembers of the audience of programs broadcast, and
(ix) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which the Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on any class of broadcasting undertakings if that imposition will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(f) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(g) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(h) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(i) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(j) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(k) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(l) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(m) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act .
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of Parliament

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, listen, if I had my way, there would be no dinners that are pay to play. There should be no $1,000-a-plate dinners. However, come on. Let us not pretend that the Conservatives do not do the same thing. Let us not pretend there is not fundraising being done on the backs of bills like Bill C-11, and that there is no politicization of them. That is not accurate.

In terms of making sure the government acts seriously, I have to say that I agree with the member on that. It feels to me like the government has had to be dragged to do the right thing, kicking and screaming. We brought the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the foreign affairs committee, and basically she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the things that are so easy to do, like expel this diplomat. Frankly, this diplomat is not expelled, of course. He has just been listed as persona non grata and is no longer protected. However, for these things the government should be taking action on, it is not. It is not acting fast enough. It is not participating in building a stronger democracy in ways I would like to see.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

About three weeks ago, Bill C-11 was rammed through the Senate. There were amendments suggested originally, but they weren't taken by this government. Then it was sent over to the Senate. Yet again, the Senate did not give it the sober second thought it deserved, so it got pushed through. It now gives this government unprecedented power to control what people can see, say or hear online.

Then at the Liberals' convention this weekend, they put through another intention—a proposal—which is that they would actually regulate news sources. Basically, the state would have to approve a journalist's news source. If the government gives that news source a stamp of approval, then that article can be published. If the government—through the CRTC, I would imagine—doesn't give that stamp of approval, then of course that article would not be publishable. It's form of censorship.

What's interesting is that a journalist, Paul Wells, who traditionally is very liberal and very much inside the pockets of the Liberals, wrote an article on Friday outlining what's happening here.

He said, “It is impossible for any government to subsidize journalism without deciding, at some early point, to exercise its prerogatives as an owner.”

What's interesting is that this government has funded the media to the tune of about $600 million. As the owner of much of the media here in Canada.... Of course, there are many fantastic independent sources and alternative sources of media, but the mainstream tends to be largely owned by the government, because they're the ones that are keeping them afloat or propping them up with this massive amount of grant money.

Now it would appear, based on their convention, that the Liberals are looking to cash in on this. They're looking to exert their power. Some might call it bullying. In fact, I believe that is how many members of this committee have referred to it when power is misused. It's called bullying.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the break—well, question period, anyway.

Just to let you know, Mr. Chair, out of courtesy and assistance to our translators, I've given them some copies of the study and a few other things that I may be referring to, in order to make the translation easier. Bear with me. As I go through it, I will make sure I refer to the documents and the occasional pages to make it easier on the translators.

For those who have not been part of the discussion but are watching now, what we are doing in the finance committee is this: The government has proposed a budget implementation bill, as it's called. It amends a great many acts of Parliament, a number of which have nothing to do with the budget. Nonetheless, this is an omnibus budget bill. The government promised they would not bring in omnibus bills, and we are dealing with one.

What we have is a motion before us, and an amendment. The amendment to the main motion is what we're dealing with. The amendment to the main motion is MP Blaikie's amendment, which I think had a revision from MP Lawrence. It is asking that the Minister of Finance appear for two hours to defend the budget implementation bill. It's not unreasonable, but apparently it's a bit of a stretch for this committee, since the minister has frequently not responded to the committee's request to appear on various things.

Indeed, by my calculation, the minister has appeared in the House of Commons, as I mentioned earlier, five times since January. This budget bill, the budget implementation act, has a fiscal framework that spends $3.1 trillion over the next five years. In fact, the annual budget for the government will have almost doubled since it took office. In year five of this fiscal framework, it will be over half a trillion dollars. By my calculation, at five appearances, that's—let me get my math right—$100 billion per appearance by the minister. That's an hourly wage charged to the government taxpayers of Canada that is obviously something McKinsey would envy. I'm sure she's setting a new standard for them in the many new contracts they will get from this government.

For the sake of the translators, what we're talking about here is ministerial accountability and the parliamentary tradition in our Westminster system of parliamentary accountability. I've been enlightening the committee and those watching about an important academic study done on this issue, and I was citing the text of it before we went on break to go to question period. Just so the translators and the people watching know what document I'm referring to, it's the Australian Journal of Public Administration, volume 73, number 4.

Its summary reads:

This study examines the convention of individual ministerial responsibility for departmental actions in the four key Westminster countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The chain of ministerial responsibility traditionally began in the bureaucratic hierarchy of the public sector up to the minister, who is responsible to the parliament, which is responsible to the people. Many New Public Management reforms changed the roles and responsibilities of senior public servants, which arguably weakened the first link in the chain, despite being premised on increased public sector accountability. Various codes of conduct, guides, manuals, handbooks and legislation—

What they're referring to there, for example, in the current Liberal government, is a handbook—not law—that was issued when this government was elected, called “Open and Accountable Government 2015”. I'm not sure many of the ministers have actually read it, given their performance in the House and what it requires in parliamentary accountability.

The summary of this paper goes on to say:

—have attempted to codify and clarify politico-bureaucratic relationships. They have generally captured the complexity of executive accountability and better reflect the original convention, while emphasising the preeminent role of the prime minister in upholding individual ministerial responsibility.

When we left off, I had just finished the section on Canada, where it gets into the detailed analysis. Like every academic paper, it spends pages and pages outlining the academic process of doing the study. It first examines Australia, and then Canada. I had finished that off, but, just to give you a sense, New Zealand and the United Kingdom come next. I have to go through those. I think it's important for us to refresh, because we may have people watching who weren't privy to this insightful piece before we broke for question period. Perhaps I could begin with the section on Canada, at page 474.

By the way, it is written by Dr. Brenton and is entitled “Ministerial Accountability for Departmental Actions Across Westminster Parliamentary Democracies”. That section of this academic study begins like this:

Written guidance in the form of official documents or legislation is comparatively less extensive in Canada [that's relative, I guess, to Australia], with calls for a Cabinet Manual or something similar (see Russell 2010).

We should remember that this paper was written in 2015, just before the current government's “Open and Accountable Government” document came out. It goes on to say:

Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State “sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers...[including] the central tenet of ministerial responsibility, both individual and collective, as well as Ministers' relations with the Prime Minister and Cabinet, their portfolios and Parliament”. The current edition was issued in 2011 by the Privy Council Office, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

I know we can all agree he is one of Canada's greatest prime ministers.

Just to make sure we're clear, part of what we're trying to do is find Freeland. It's the “finding Freeland” effort. With only five appearances, this is as rare, I guess, as the dodo bird, or perhaps as rare as a DFO fisheries enforcement officer arresting poachers of elvers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

This is about the code set out by one of Canada's best prime ministers, Stephen Harper:

Under Section I.1., “Individual Ministerial Responsibility” is firstly defined in terms of accountability to the prime minister, with the prime minister able to ask for a ministerial resignation.

That's something I don't think this Prime Minister has ever done. I don't think so. We've even had many instances of breaches of Canada's ethics act by ministers, but that apparently isn't good enough for a resignation. The report goes on to say, “Ministers are also accountable to Parliament”. That's why we're here today. We're talking about the Minister of Finance's accountability to Parliament, which seems to be a challenge in our “finding Freeland” effort. The paper goes on to say, “Ministers are also accountable to Parliament...for all areas of responsibility, whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise”. That's in section I.1 of Prime Minister Harper's guide for ministers.

According to this study:

The most detailed section is I.3. “Ministerial Accountability”. Ministers are required to be in parliament to answer questions on the discharge of their responsibilities and use of public monies, with political judgement resting with parliament.

That's our role: the political judgment that parliamentarians play in deciding whether or not what the government, the executive of our governing structure, puts forward in legislation and spending is acceptable to the people we represent. That's why ministers have to be held to account, not only in Parliament but also in committees.

The idea of answering questions, either in Parliament or in the committee, seems to be a challenge for the Minister of Finance, having not been here in the House more than five times since January, at $100 billion a day. I'm not sure where the Minister of Finance is in her outside time, but she is not answering questions there and has refused on at least three occasions when this committee asked her to come before the committee to answer questions.

I've actually never encountered that. I'm on the fisheries and industry committees, and I have encountered the Minister of Fisheries agreeing to appear before for two hours and then showing up at the meeting and saying, “I'm only going to show up for one.” I know we can't compel ministers to appear before a committee, but a courtesy to Parliament and parliamentarians, of which they are a part, would dictate that. The odd hour here and there from these very busy ministers could be spared for their accountability to democracy.

The study goes on to say:

However, the prime minister can reaffirm support or ask for a resignation. Consistent with the principle of responsible government, it is said that ministers are accountable to parliament for all organisations within their portfolio and the “proper functioning” of their department.

We've seen a lot of those issues in obfuscation and answers in question period. I misspoke. We don't get answers in question period. We get responses.

Even today, there was the issue of the public safety minister not informing the House of when the Prime Minister was informed that a member of Parliament was threatened by a foreign government because of his vote in Parliament. This government has known about this for two years, according to the leaked security memos that apparently went to the Privy Council Office. The chief of staff to the Prime Minister, as we know, said the Prime Minister reads everything he gets and he certainly reads everything from security.

While the Minister of Public Safety may not have known, perhaps he should ask the Prime Minister why the Prime Minister didn't inform him two years ago that this was going on. It's hard for the minister to be accountable to Parliament if the Prime Minister isn't sharing with him such critical information that goes to the root of our democracy.

The academic study here goes on to say this with regard to Canada:

However, reference is also made to “appropriate ministerial oversight”. Therefore, in relation to arm's-length bodies—

This is the RCMP or CSIS, in the case of the Minister of Public Safety, and the CDIC or, perhaps, the Bank of Canada, in reference to the Minister of Finance.

—“the Minister's engagement will be at a systemic level”.

Then it goes to quote directly from “A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State” by Prime Minister Harper:

Ministerial accountability to Parliament does not mean that a Minister is presumed to have knowledge of every matter that occurs within his or her department or portfolio—

The executive makes it clear every day that they do not know everything that is going on within their department or portfolio.

—nor that the Minister is necessarily required to accept blame for every matter.

We certainly know they won't accept blame even for their own actions of giving friends and family direct contracts untendered, like the Minister of International Trade, or taking personal vacations at $9,000-a-night resorts in Jamaica, as the Prime Minister has done, or a $6,000-a-night hotel in London.

The Prime Minister, I believe, has gone off to London for the very important event of the swearing in of the king and his investiture as our sovereign. I wonder if he's staying in the Holiday Inn in London, or whether he's gone back to having a requirement to have a butler and a chef in his suite, and a piano so he can sign Bohemian Rhapsody again.

The report goes on to quote directly from Prime Minister Harper's guide for ministers on ministerial accountability, which is what this motion is about. It says:

It does require that the Minister attend to all matters in Parliament—

That's a revelation. Other ministers have clearly done it in the past, but it's a little tough when you show up five days since January, as the “finding Freeland” effort continues.

—that concern any organizations for which he or she is responsible, including responding to questions.

What a unique idea, in our Westminster system, that a minister would have to respond to questions from the opposition to be held accountable in Parliament to the people who are elected to represent our communities across the country. But it's pretty hard to do that when the minister has refused to come on three occasions to the finance committee to answer and be accountable for the financial things that she is responsible for. This baffles me.

This is a friendly group. I don't see it as an acrimonious committee. I have been on some committees.... I can think of the heritage committee last year, where I went on Bill C-11. That wasn't exactly a collegial committee at the time, but this one seems very.... I don't know why the Minister of Finance would be so intimidated by the members of this committee as to not be willing to come and answer questions—but she can only answer that if she comes.

The report continues to quote from the Harper guide:

It further requires that the Minister take appropriate corrective action to address any problems that may have arisen, consistent with the Minister's role with respect to the organization in question (3).

It's very clear that for a long time, at least during Conservative governments, we held them accountable. We even had ministers resign for their expenses. But apparently that doesn't happen in this government, because it comes from the top. The Prime Minister sets the tone on accountability. When the Prime Minister is found guilty three times of ethics violations and doesn't resign or recognize that he has caused a problem and is entitled to his entitlements, he sets the tone for his management team, the cabinet; all they have to do is make mistakes and apologize and everything's okay. That's not in the traditions of the Westminster system, as we'll find out here in the next section of this report, which talks about New Zealand.

It says here “While lacking a formal written constitution”. Some members and people watching may not know that New Zealand doesn't have a constitution. As a parliamentary democracy, it is like Britain. It doesn't have a constitution. It relies on case law and common law and goes back to the Magna Carta for its precedents and how it does things.

The article says about New Zealand:

While lacking a formal written constitution, the Cabinet Manual is self-described as “an authoritative guide to central government decision making for Ministers, their offices and those working within government”, as well as “a primary source of information on New Zealand's constitutional arrangements”. It is endorsed by each new government, with the current version updated in 2008.

This was in 2015.

Section 3 of the Manual deals with “Ministers of the Crown and the State Sector”. In terms of roles and responsibilities:

They quote directly from this manual:

Ministers decide both the direction and the priorities for their departments. They should not be involved in their departments' day-to-day operations. In general terms, Ministers are responsible for determining and promoting policy, defending policy decisions, and answering in the House on both policy and operational matters (3.5).

You see, New Zealand has it right. They have it right, as the Harper government did—it's part of accountability and ministerial responsibility to answer in Parliament. In our country, Parliament means the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, and all parliamentary committees in both Houses, to be held accountable. To not come at the courteous and very friendly invitation of this committee—three times by the minister for $100-billion-a day work—Minister Freeland, in the “finding Freeland” effort here, is not even following the traditions in other Westminster parliamentary systems.

Point 3.21 refers to “Individual ministerial responsibility for departmental actions”:

It quotes again directly from the manual from New Zealand:

Ministers are accountable to the House for ensuring that the departments for which they are responsible carry out their functions properly and efficiently. On occasion, a Minister may be required to account for the actions of a department when errors are made—

That's quite a bit by this government.

—even when the Minister had no knowledge of, or involvement in, those actions. The question of subsequent action in relation to individual public servants may be a matter for the State Services Commissioner—

Obviously, this is a title or role that's different in New Zealand as we have no such role.

—(in the case of chief executives), or for chief executives if any action to be taken involves members of their staff.

The study goes on to say, on page 475:

A series of “Accountability documents” help to monitor departmental performance, including one-year performance information, statements of intent for at least the next three years, an output plan—

There's a novel idea. An output plan is required in New Zealand for ministers and their accountability. I think all we get is input plans. There are input plans of spending, input plans of intent, input plans of good wishes and fairy dust, but not much in the way of output. The measurement of success of this government is how much you spend, not how much you produce.

I don't think many of these ministers would survive very well in the private sector, except maybe Navdeep Bains, who left. He's done well for himself. Navdeep Bains was the minister of industry responsible for bringing down cellphone prices. When he left, we had the highest cellphone prices in the world. In fact, you'll be shocked to learn that when the minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, who was responsible for cellphone rates when we had the highest rates.... Every minister in Canada has a two-year cooling off period. Before the ink was dry on his cooling off period in January of this year, Navdeep Bains decided to negotiate with Rogers Communications to be in charge of their government relations. Can you believe that? Minister Bains, in his accountability, who feather-bedded the telecoms to have the highest prices in the world, went to work for Rogers.

Let me tell you about Rogers. They have the highest cellphone rates in the world. It's not just in Canada, but in the world. It's not shocking to me that the minister in charge of the highest cellphone prices in the world, after his two-year cooling off period, would be rewarded by Rogers with a cushy job in charge of government relations. It's the very same company he was responsible for regulating and allowed to become the most expensive cellphone company in the world.

Where was I? The study continues: “Crucially, responsibility for financial performance is vested solely in the minister”. Financial performance? Why, just in the fall, this minister, in her economic statement on the budget of the finances of this country, projected—this is something they hadn't said in quite a while; in fact, they hadn't said it since the 2015 election—a balanced budget. I think it was by 2027-28, a four- or five-year mandate. That was just in the fall. If the minister had shown up here at the finance committee subsequent to that, she could have been questioned, as Westminster parliamentary tradition requires, on the financial performance of that.

We know the financial performance of that. In this document, in the budget implementation act that we're talking about, there is no balanced budget projected in the next five years. In fact, it goes a long way out before it's even considered. In fact, this budget, in the five-year framework, adds $130 billion to Canada's national debt.

I know that people watching and the members of Parliament here were all listening intently when I led off the debate for the official opposition in the House of Commons on this bill, the budget implementation act. You'll recall that I went through the sins of the father and now the sins of the son. When you take the combined financial performance of the father, former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the son, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the total addition to Canada's national debt between those two members of the same family is $1.1 trillion.

It would be enormously helpful for the Minister of Finance, in this “finding Freeland” exercise, to be able to come here and explain to us why she thinks that a balanced budget in the fall no longer can be balanced, and why it is a prudent fiscal thing—for all of us and all of Canada—for the Trudeau tradition to continue adding $1.1 trillion. This government has never met a target that it has set, financially. It's blown the doors off, financially, with bigger debts than it ever has before.

One of the most interesting things is that, in order to meet that $1.1 trillion or to add only $130 billion to the national debt in the next five years, this government has to not introduce or spend one dollar more on anything new in the rest of its mandate. I don't think the odds of that are very strong. We see a lot of betting commercials now during the NHL playoffs, and I'd like to see some of those companies place a bet on the likelihood.... Vegas will do bets on anything. I'd like to see Vegas do the odds on this government's meeting any of the targets in this budget plan. I wouldn't take that bet. I'll tell you, though, that if you put $1 down, it would probably make you a gazillionaire if the government actually did it once, by the odds that you would get. Maybe that's what's going on here. Maybe the Minister of Finance, in trying to understand this, is trying to understand her own numbers and figure out how this government put Canada in such a mess.

On New Zealand—and we're coming up to the United Kingdom, the mother of all Parliaments—the report goes on to say, “Crucially, responsibility for financial performance is vested solely in the minister”. Well, it's hard to do that if you're mysteriously not attending committee. I wish we could compel her more. I know we can subpoena witnesses in committees, but I doubt that...although it would be great if MP Blaikie and the other opposition parties would agree, because I suspect that's the only way you're going to get the Minister of Finance here for two precious hours.

What does that work out to, two precious hours of her time? Let's see. Well, it's five days at $100 billion a day to show up in Parliament on her spending. What does that work out to? My colleague, Marty Morantz, could work on that.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Oh, right, it's the Prime Minister as well. He hasn't admitted to it, I don't think, but everybody else on the trip to London for the Queen's funeral denied, including the Governor General, that they spent $6,000 on a hotel room with a chef and a butler. There was only one butler. I'm sure that was a hardship for the Prime Minister. But it wouldn't have been a hardship for the “finding Freeland” future prime minister, who maybe is out campaigning for his job now and not staying in $6,000-a-night hotel rooms. That might be the inspiration for her campaign.

The paper continues, “Predictably Labor pledged to improve ministerial standards upon returning to government in 2007, and under Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard committed to a more compact set of Standards of Ministerial Ethics. This has largely remained intact, although renamed as the Statement of Ministerial Standards by new Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2013.” So there were new ministerial standards and there was an open and accountable government.

I'm not sure we're getting open and accountable government when the Prime Minister and the public safety minister were briefed about Chinese interference in our elections and threats to an MP and yet did nothing for two years. That's not very open or accountable, in my mind.

In section 1 of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's updated code, under “Principles”, a couple of references are made to individual ministerial responsibility, particularly in carrying out their duties. Paragraph 1.3(iii) of the code states, “Ministers must accept [accountability] for the exercise of the powers and functions of their office...and the conduct, representations and decisions of those who act as their delegates or on their behalf—are open to public scrutiny and explanation.”

Furthermore, “Ministers must accept the full implications of the principle of ministerial responsibility. They will be required to answer for the consequences of their decisions and actions”.

That's paragraph 1.3(iv). What a concept, actually being answerable for the consequences of your decisions and actions.

When there's a decision to spend $3.1 trillion over the next five years, I think it's not a very high threshold to say that the Minister of Finance, in this “finding Freeland” exercise, needs to be held accountable by the duly elected members of Parliament who are scrutinizing this record level of spending.

Section 5 of that updated Australian ministerial accountability policy is called “Accountability” and it goes on to say, “Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office”. What a concept. I'll repeat that one because that's really apropos of what's happening in the House of Commons these days.

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

I think I should repeat that because I'm not sure everyone was paying attention. So let me repeat that. Section 5 of the Australian code, called “Accountability”, says:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide inquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

So let's just apply that to the current situation of whether or not we have ministerial accountability in this government. We don't have it, clearly, given the difficulty that the House of Commons finance committee has been having in getting the Minister of Finance—the “finding Freeland” exercise—to committee to be held accountable. How can you, when the total number of appearances in the House of Commons since January is five, each worth $100 billion, as I said earlier?

The current Minister of Public Safety—and I know we were dealing with a subamendment on public safety—refuses to answer a simple question. On what date was he briefed on China interference?

Oh, did he? I'm told he did answer about the date.

What was the date? Was it Monday? It was Monday.

So the Minister of Public Safety was kept in the dark on the issue of China's interference with the member of Parliament, but as we know from the appearance of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ms. Telford, before a parliamentary committee—and she would never mislead a parliamentary committee, I'm sure—the Prime Minister reads everything, and in particular national security briefs.

So it's unbelievable that the Prime Minister wouldn't have known about this two years ago when the note came up. If he had, there's something wrong about Ms. Telford's testimony, and it says a lot about the Prime Minister's leadership that if he was briefed on this important public safety issue two years ago, he didn't inform his Minister of Public Safety about it—the person, and I'll quote from the Australian document, who is responsible for “the activities of the agencies within their portfolio”.

Why would the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office not ensure that the Minister of Public Safety knew? Why would he know only on Monday, two years after the fact? That's incredible.

Ministerial accountability seems to be something very odd here, or maybe it's just a pattern, since apparently the Prime Minister rarely spoke to the former minister of justice about anything until the time he wanted to interfere in the charges against SNC-Lavalin, again, trying to override ministerial accountability. The Attorney General of Canada and independent head of lawmaking had integrity that we don't often see in this government and said no. She told the Prime Minister she wasn't going to interfere.

Now that's accountability, under the Australian position on ministerial accountability, that we don't seem to be getting from the Minister of Finance in her five $100-billion appearances in the House and her desire to avoid being accountable for a budget that plans to spend $3.1 trillion in the next five years.

While Australia also has a cabinet handbook, which was publicly available for the first time in 1984 and which has existed in some form since 1926, its focus is on internal operations of cabinet and ministerial codes, and the conduct more explicitly addresses individual ministerial responsibility.

It's much like the open and transparent 2015 Liberal government guide that guides all of cabinet, which primarily dictates how you conduct yourself in cabinet and that kind of thing. It has a very thin section on ministerial accountability and the role of Parliament. This is from a government that said, in 2015, that it would restore integrity to parliamentary committees, restore openness and transparency, return ministerial accountability and remove parliamentary secretaries from driving the agenda in parliamentary committees.

I sit on two other committees, and I've seen the parliamentary secretaries drive those. Certainly last year, on Bill C-11, I sat in and saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage whipping everybody and driving every single issue of debate. It was yet another promise broken.

[Jim Balsillie]

Yes, a hundred per cent the government can keep up. You have to focus on it deliberately.

I've spent the better part of a year working on predecessors—Bill C-11 and Bill C-27. On the Centre for Digital Rights website, we have a 50-page set of proposed amendments to it.

Canadian Heritage

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Bill C‑11 received royal assent. It was a painstaking process and, as we know, the Conservatives and their leader chose to support billionaires and web giants instead of supporting and defending the interests of our Canadian artists.

Now that Bill C‑11 has passed into law, can the minister tell us the impact it will have on our Canadian culture?

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that, in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments and does not insist on its amendments to which the Commons disagreed.

The Senate takes note of the Government of Canada's public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, accordingly.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, when the Liberal-NDP coalition was trying to shut me down on this, I was barely a minute into my speech. These members need to let me get to the point I am trying to make, instead of just trying to silence me, as the government is doing with its censorship bills. This is what we are dealing with here, being silenced.

Instead of debating the budget, as we are supposed to be doing, the NDP put something forward called a concurrence motion. That is what we are debating right now. The concurrence motion is to deal with a very tricky bit of Liberal-NDP machinations, which is actually really harming people and delaying the help that Bill S-245 would provide.

Instead of debating the budget, we are debating a concurrence motion on something that happened, and I want to break down what happened. Bill S-245 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It went through the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Yonah Martin to deal with a very narrow scope, dealing with something called “lost Canadians”. It was very narrow in scope, and because it was so narrow in scope, it sailed through the Senate, on the understanding that it would stay narrow and it would go through the Senate.

It came to the immigration committee. What ended up happening was that, first of all, before moving this in the immigration committee, the member for Vancouver East went and did a press conference, pre-positioning herself to do this.

The Liberal-NDP coalition got together and did two things. It moved a motion to extend amendments to the bill by 30 days, which delayed action for people who would have been impacted by the bill, and then it also moved a motion to extend the scope of the amendments that would be debated well past what was in the bill itself.

For those who are watching who may not understand what this does, it allows members, in a private member's bill, which is supposed to be very narrow in scope, to put forward any amendment they want. What that does, in effect, and the reason why I do not think we should have done that, is forces the bill to go back to the Senate yet again.

This is going to delay justice for the people who we had non-partisan, all-party agreement to deal with. That motion itself, to do what the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do, passed in the citizenship committee with its support. Even though it passed, it introduced this concurrence motion in the House of Commons today, and it is doing what? It is eating up time to debate the deficit budget issue because it doesn't want to talk about it.

If it is saying, oh no, nobody should talk about this and then we go back to the budget, we actually gave it an opportunity to go back to debate. My colleague from Calgary Shepard rose to move a motion about an hour ago to move on from the debate, yet it voted against that.

That is the agenda here. The agenda here is to curtail debate on the budget while it is supporting the passage of Liberal censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. These are the types of tactics that we are going to see over and over and over again from this Liberal coalition because it does not want to stand up for what Canadians need, either in the budget or in Bill S-245.

When the Liberal and the NDP coalition decided that it was going to delay the passage of the bill through the committee and delay justice for people who were in that bill, who we all support justice for, and open up the scope of the bill, it forgot one thing. It forgot that, if it opened up the scope of the bill for its one issue, which the senator and the Senate did not want because they agreed to sail it through on a small amendment, it forgot that maybe other people would want to put forward amendments too, such as me and my colleague from Calgary Shepard.

It then had the audacity and the gall to stand in this place during this debate, which it did not need, and which it put forward to waste time on debate on the budget because it does not want to talk about how much deficit spending money it puts forward, which has caused an inflationary crisis in Canada, all while it is putting forward censorship bills. Because it does not want that debate to happen, it puts this debate forward.

Now it is saying that it is because the Conservatives want to put forward amendments to the Citizenship Act. Well, guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supporting censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to shut down conversations in the Canadian public, are using a concurrence motion to shut down debate in the House of Commons, we are absolutely right that Conservatives will be putting forward motions beyond the scope of the bill. It is as simple as that.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wants a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then let us giddy-up and do it. I have a lot of great ideas, which I will definitely be bringing forward. This does nothing to help the people who could have been helped if the NDP had just let this go.

The other thing I can show is why we should not be delaying this bill and why the scope of the amendment should not be put through. It is not just because it delays justice for people within this bill; it is also because the NDP is propping up a government that has refused to do this in its own government legislation. If the government had actually wanted to do anything else, it has had nearly eight years to put forward, through its own government legislation, what my colleague from the NDP wants to do.

The NDP is actually in a coalition with the government. I do not know if the NDP wants to go to an election, but I know the Liberals do not. Considering what the polling numbers show today, I do not think there are a lot of people on the Liberal backbench who would want to go to an election today.

The NDP could be using that coalition agreement to say that, within a piece of government legislation, we need to do this. However, they do not actually have the leverage they claim to have over the government, so what they are trying to do is sneak through committee what they cannot get the government to do in the House.

To people who are watching and are impacted by this bill, I say that the Liberals delayed the passage of the bill because they did not understand what they were doing. That is brutal. It is terrible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe they would not do what we all agreed to do in a non-partisan way, as the Senate did, which is to get Bill S-245 through.

Today, we are debating the concurrence motion and the substance of the motion, and we are using House of Commons time that we could have used to debate the budget. The Liberals moved this concurrence motion even though the bill has already passed through the immigration committee. They actually ate up hours of critical, precious House debate time, which we could have used to talk about the budget. This is a path to ruin that the government, the Liberal-NDP coalition, put us on by inflationary, deficit spending in the budget bill. That is critical.

People cannot eat. People in Vancouver, the member's home riding, are eating out of dumpsters because of the inflation crisis and the affordable housing crisis. Today, she moved a motion that would essentially cut off debate on the budget today, even though it has already passed through the House of Commons.

If my colleague wants to open up the scope of the bill so that it is going to have to go back to the Senate anyway, through her actions, not mine or those of any of my Conservative colleagues, then we will be putting forward other amendments as well. One of the amendments I would like to put forward, given that we are now reviewing the citizenship bill, has to do with the fact that the Liberals said they were going to do away with the need to have in-person citizenship ceremonies. This is something that has received wide, cross-party condemnation. I have an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star on April 10. The title is “I'm horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”. It goes through quotes from non-partisan people, including Adrienne Clarkson, a former governor general; a Syrian refugee; and others who are saying the government should not be doing away with the requirement for in-person citizenship ceremonies.

I would like to amend the Citizenship Act to ensure that, rather than doing away with the ceremonies because the government cannot figure out how to get services to where people want them, the government would actually be required to make sure new Canadians have the right and the ability to go to an in-person ceremony, take the oath with fellow new Canadians and be welcomed into the Canadian family in such a glorious way, instead of doing what it is doing now.

Members in this place have used up precious House time. I am speaking here because members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against a motion to end debate on this and move forward. They gave me an opportunity to speak. For once, instead of speaking on Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, the censorship bill, I am, they are darn right, going to speak in this place. I am certainly also going to be putting forward amendments. I do not know if they have forgotten how this place works or have forgotten that each of us has our own individual rights to work within the process that they put forward.

They stand up and say that one person can put forward an amendment that is completely out of scope, but they are going to use that to justify delaying justice for the people in the bill and use that to delay debate on the government's inflationary budget deficit crisis bill. Therefore, yes, I am going to put forward amendments that make sense for my constituents. My constituency is a diverse community in north central Calgary where the Citizenship Act matters. If the member for Vancouver East is going to use her Liberal-NDP coalition position to try to get the Liberal government to extend the scope of the bill and, in doing so, delay justice for people, while delaying debate on the budget, then yes, I am going to be putting forward amendments to amend the Citizenship Act.

To the people and stakeholders watching this, this bill could have been through our committee already. It could have been sailing through the House. However, what is the Liberal-NDP coalition doing? Instead of the government putting forward its own legislation to address any additional issues, the NDP is proposing a motion to extend this by another 30 days, plus have a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. It is plus, plus, plus. They did not think through the process. I am sure that when they were talking to stakeholders, they did not talk to them and were not honest with them about what could or might happen if this path were undertaken.

If I had been meeting with those stakeholders, I would have said that this is something we need to lobby the government for in different legislation, because the senator who put it forward in a private member's bill had agreement among her peers on a narrowly defined scope in the bill in order to get it through and get justice for people. If we do what the member for Vancouver East is suggesting, we would delay it for another 30 days. Then it would probably have to go back through the Senate. The Senate takes a lot of time to look at things. Then it would have to come back here again. That would be months and months of delay, when it could have been done maybe before June. Now we do not know when it is going to be done.

That is why I opposed the approach in committee. Frankly, it is why I oppose using all this time in the House to continue a debate that the NDP-Liberal coalition settled at the immigration committee, an unwise course of action, only to vote against it. They just voted, an hour ago, against moving forward. Also, as we saw at the start of this debate, time after time my colleagues were getting interrupted by points of order, with members saying we should not be allowed to raise the issue of the budget. Absolutely we should be able to raise the issue of the budget, after the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against a Conservative motion that would allow us to move forward to debate the budget.

However, here we are, and if members have given me the opportunity to speak by not moving on that, absolutely I am going to speak about it. Of course, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want to talk about that inflationary budget, that big, expensive nothing burger that would cost Canadians more, that would lead to food inflation and that is not addressing the core issues facing this country, because it is an embarrassment. They do not want an election because they are all afraid of losing their seats. Canadians are on to them, just as I am on to them right now.

I am tired of this. I am tired of these games. We did not need to have this debate in the House. This could have gone forward to the immigration committee. What we have done, in effect, is delay justice for the people in Bill S-245, delay debate on the budget and, in doing so, delay justice for all Canadians, who are dumpster diving in Vancouver East to eat and who continue to not be able to afford places to live.

This is a hard truth. It is an inconvenient truth for everybody in this place. However, it is time coalition members are confronted with it. There are consequences for the actions of the coalition and its backroom dealings. They lead us into places like this, where they make mistakes on parliamentary procedures and where they do not explain the implications of their actions to stakeholders who are advocating for change in this bill. Again, the government could have done this.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my privacy-loving constituents in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Bill C-27 is another piece of legislation that had to be resurrected after the Prime Minister called his superspreader pandemic election. Originally, this was supposed to be a long overdue update to the Privacy Act, and it has since morphed into Bill C-27, the data-grab act.

Everything about Bill C-27 should leave the Liberals feeling embarrassed. A Canadian's right to privacy is fundamental. Sadly, Canadians' privacy rights are not a priority for the government.

This bill has languished for years. It was first introduced immediately after the original online streaming censorship act was introduced. However, when the Prime Minister called his pandemic election and reset all legislation, what did the Liberals make a priority? Was it the privacy rights of Canadians? No. Was it securing Canadians' ownership over their data? No. Instead, what the Liberals prioritized was a bailout for big telecom and a bailout for the legacy media.

Not only does the government care more about padding the bottom line of Postmedia, but it also adopted Rupert Murdoch's false narrative about tech profiting off the content produced by the news media. Social media companies and search engines do not profit off the news media. They profit off us. These companies profit off our data, and the Liberals know the truth. Unfortunately, this legislation seeks to make it easier for companies to profit off our privacy.

If Bill C-27 is not significantly improved at committee, then together with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, the government will have entrenched the surveillance economy in Canadians' lives. By combining the updates to the Privacy Act with the creation of a new artificial intelligence act, the Liberals have actually illustrated the brave new world we live in.

The Privacy Act and the way we talk about privacy even today are holdovers from the industrial era. We do not live in that world anymore. In the industrial economy, privacy rights were concerned with the ability to control what information could be shared. The goal was to prevent harm that could come from our personal information being used against us.

In effect, information was personal and an economic liability. We spent money on shredders to destroy personal information. The careless use of our personal information could only have a negative value, but then the world changed. Our personal information stopped being a liability and became an asset.

It started out slowly. Early examples were Amazon recommending a new book based on previous purchases and Netflix recommending what DVD rental we should next receive by mail. Google then began displaying ads next to search results. That was the eureka moment: Targeted ads were very profitable.

However, the targeting was pretty basic. If someone searched for shoe stores near them, Google returned search results alongside ads for shoes. Then it became ads for shoes on sale nearby. Then came Facebook and millions of people signed up. In exchange for an easy way to connect with friends and family, all someone had to do was share all their personal information, like who their friends were, how many friends they had and their geographical proximity to friends.

With the addition of the “like” button, the data harvesting exploded. If someone liked a news story about camping, they would start seeing ads for tents and sleeping bags. Every action Canadians took online, every single bit of their data, was commodified. Our privacy was turned into property and we lost both.

Not only does this bill not secure privacy rights, but it effectively enshrines the loss of our property rights with just two words: legitimate interest. Proposed subsection 18(3), entitled “Legitimate interest”, has this to say:

(3) An organization may collect or use an individual's personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for the purpose of an activity in which the organization has a legitimate interest that outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual resulting from that collection or use

Is “legitimate interest” defined anywhere in the legislation? No. It is just another example of the vagueness found throughout the legislation.

Even if we accept the plain-language definition and that private business really somehow does have a genuine, legitimate reason to collect private information without consent, it is weighed against the adverse effect. However, this is industrial-era thinking. It views personal information only as a potential liability. Businesses have a legitimate interest in making money. With the Internet and mobile phones, much of our private information can be collected without any adverse effect. This legislation turns the private information of Canadians into the property of corporations and calls it legitimate.

I mentioned earlier that combining the privacy legislation with the AI legislation actually puts a spotlight on the issue of private data as property. However, as important as it is to highlight the connection, it is more important that these bills be separated. The artificial intelligence and data act has been slapped onto previously introduced privacy legislation.

With the privacy portion of the legislation, the devil is in the details. Overall, however, the bill reflects a general consensus developed over countless committee studies. That is not to mention the contributions to the privacy debate from the federal and provincial privacy commissioners. The issue has been well studied, and the minister has indicated that the government is open to responsible amendments. I am sure that the committee is well equipped to improve the privacy sections of this bill.

The same cannot be said about the artificial intelligence section of the bill. It seems rushed, because it is. It is intentionally vague. The Liberals claim the vagueness is required to provide them with regulatory flexibility and agility. The truth is, they do not know enough to be more precise. I have been trying to get a study on artificial intelligence in the defence committee for years, but there was always a more pressing issue. AI was treated like nuclear fusion technology, something that was always just over the horizon.

Since this bill was introduced 10 months ago, we have gone from ChatGPT to open-source GPT models, which any teenager can apparently run on their personal computer now. AI programs went from producing surrealist art to creating photorealistic images of the Pope in a puffy jacket. We have gone from short clips of deepfake videos impersonating real people to generating fictional people speaking in a real-time video. When we all started to learn Zoom in 2020, how many people thought the other person on the screen they were talking to could just be a fake? Now it is a real possibility.

The speed at which AI is developing is not an argument for delaying AI regulation; it shows that it is imperative to get the regulation right. Would this bill do that? The only honest answer is that we do not know. They do not know. Nobody truly knows. However, we can learn.

We should split this bill and let the stand-alone AI bill be the first legislation considered by one of the permanent standing committees, adding artificial intelligence to its official responsibilities. Artificial intelligence is not going away, and while much of the media attention has focused on chatbots, artistic bots and deepfakes, AI is unlocking the secrets to protein folding. This has the potential to unlock cures to countless different cancers and rare genetic diseases.

A paper was just published describing how an AI trained on data about the mass of the planets and their orbits was able to rediscover Kepler's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of time dilation. If we get this wrong, Canada could be left behind by the next revolution in science and discovery.

Given the government's track record on digital technology, Canadians should be worried about the Liberals rushing vague legislation through to regulate an emerging technology. Rather than modernizing the Broadcasting Act, they are trying to drag the Internet back to the 1980s. With Bill C-18, they claim that linking is a form of stealing.

The Liberals and their costly coalition allies do not even understand how broadcasting technology or the Internet works. They see people's personal data as the legitimate property of corporations, and now they are seeking the power to regulate a revolutionary technology. They did nothing while the world shifted below them, and now they are trying to rush regulations through without understanding the scope and scale of the challenge. Protecting Canadians' privacy and establishing property rights over their personal data should have been prioritized over bailing out Bell and Rogers.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague, who is always fighting for those important artists and cultural curators in our country. The government absolutely failed. This is the most impacted sector in our economy from COVID, which was left hung out to dry. We have even been asking for the CEBA loan to be extended for many of them, but many did not even qualify for it, so the government failed.

We know Bill C-11 will bring forward some important funds and resources to support those artists, but it is not quick enough. In this budget, the Liberals should have been bridging the gap with some resources for that.

I am disappointed to not get a question from the Conservatives on housing, because their free market approach has failed Canadians. It has left them hung out to dry.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe I answered the question adequately: Bill C-11 and the regulation of social media and newsfeed algorithms—

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would say Bill C-11, with the new government policy of regulating social media newsfeed algorithms, is a very clear example of something the government has no need to do, no business doing and no need to even contemplate doing. If we were not so focused on Bill C-11 and social media newsfeed algorithms, a lot more federal civil servants could focus on issuing passports and doing the things that government should be doing.

I would also add the confiscation and buyback of hunting rifles and shotguns and the fertilizer restrictions on farmers. There are lots of things the government does that it does not really need to do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Clearly, we are not going to agree on certain things, such as Bill C‑11 and all the disinformation around it. No, Bill C‑11 will not infringe on freedom of expression. However, we do agree on the issue of security, and I am very interested in hearing her talk about that. For example, it is deplorable that there is still no independent inquiry on Chinese interference, which is quite serious. We might have expected an announcement about some action being taken on this issue. Concerning arms trafficking, there are no measures to strengthen the control of gun smuggling across the border. That is very worrisome.

I would like my colleague to talk about that.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to budget 2023, which is yet another high-spend budget that will likely make life more expensive for Canadians.

I have spent time over the last couple of weeks talking to people across my amazing riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to hear their opinions on this budget. I have heard from families, individuals, businesses and organizations alike that are struggling to make ends meet due to record-breaking inflation, and they are really having a hard time right now. Their paycheques do not stretch as far as they used to, between the increased cost of heating, the skyrocketing grocery prices, and the overall cost of living, which seems to be ever-increasing. These hard-working people I have chatted with just want to see lower taxes. Specifically, the thing I hear resoundingly throughout Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is that they want to see the carbon tax axed because it is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. It is inevitably going to raise the price of everything, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown it has already done and will continue to do as we go forward.

One thing I hear loud and clear from people across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is their concerns about the ever-increasing crime. For far too many years, families and individuals across rural Alberta have been complaining about the revolving door of criminals being caught and released back into their communities without so much as a slap on the wrist. The catch-and-release policies of the Liberal government mean that more Canadians do not feel safe in their homes, their communities, their streets and their country. Recently, we have been seeing an ever-increasing rate of high-profile violent crimes in the news. These are now happening in cities and are random. There are random stabbings happening on transit and in the streets. This is not gang-related violence that is terrorizing everyday Canadians, but just random crime.

One thing that is so terrifying and that I have heard so many people say they are concerned about is the fact that many of these crimes were committed by people who were released on bail or out on parole. After eight years of the current Prime Minister and his soft-on-crime policies, our communities just feel less safe, and the Liberal government is doing nothing to stop it. Sadly, it is making it worse. Violent offenders are thrown back into the streets, sometimes within hours of their arrest.

Conservatives believe in jail, not bail for violent repeat offenders, and I think it is really important to stop this revolving door of catch-and-release criminals. In the eight years since the Prime Minister has taken office, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. Conservatives will restore their trust in the legal system and ensure that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars, where they belong.

The people I talked to were also really concerned about government censorship. Specifically, their concerns were with respect to Bill C-11. They made it clear to me that they do not want the current government, or any government for that matter, making a decision as to what they can see or say online. We now have proof that the current Liberal government has unashamedly asked tech giants to make news articles that it does not like simply disappear. We have proof that this has been happening under the current government. Bill C-11 would make that much easier, and the government would be able to control more of what we can see and say online.

I am proud to say that a Conservative government will repeal Bill C-11 and protect the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. It is a shame that the Liberals are more concerned with catchy talking points than addressing the real issues facing Canadians. They are more concerned with keeping their partners in the costly coalition happy than helping everyday Canadians.

Conservatives made three requests of the federal government in order to gain our support for the budget: one, lower taxes; two, end inflationary deficits that would increase the cost of goods; and three, remove the gatekeepers that would prevent more homes from being built, allowing home prices to drop. However, none of those conditions were met, not a single one of them. As such, it is pretty clear that Conservatives simply cannot support this big-spend budget.

It is truly time to speak out against the injustices we face under this current administration. With budget 2023, the Liberals are continuing their war on work and imposing higher taxes that are punishing hard-working individuals, rather than listening to the needs of real Canadians. It has never been so good to be a Liberal insider, and it has never been so bad to be an average Canadian. That is wrong, and it should not be the case in 2023.

The price of food and groceries has skyrocketed. I am not sure if the Liberal members hear the same thing I do when I am back home, but just about every person I talk to talks about how expensive gas is and how expensive groceries are. I constantly see posts on social media from friends of mine who have kids about how their grocery bill has gone up by another $100 this week.

Living in an isolated, rural community, I see even more expensive groceries than what many of my city counterparts would see, just by the nature of the fact that the groceries need an extra five hours to get to where I am, which is an end-of-line community.

The carbon tax actually adds a unique perspective. Not only are the farmers taxed to make the food, and then the people who produce the food are taxed on all the energy it takes to manufacture it, but the hard-working truck drivers who bring the food from distribution centres and farms to my community are also taxed. The grocery stores have additional carbon tax. That little bit of carbon tax, which is just a tax plan, is multiplied so many times over, and the farther Canadians are from a distribution hub, the more that has an impact on them.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that Canadians will, in fact, pay more than they receive back in this carbon tax scheme. In fact, for the average Alberta family, the net cost of the fuel charge is $2,773. It is $1,723 to the average family in Saskatchewan, another $1,490 to the average family in Manitoba, an extra $1,820 to a family in Ontario, an extra $1,513 to a family in Nova Scotia, an extra $1,521 to a family in Prince Edward Island, and an extra $1,316 to a family in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I repeat those costs because it shows that families are not better off, if the average family in that many provinces is going to be paying that much more. Most of the families I have talked to over the last two weeks do not have an extra $2,700 lying around to pay for the extra cost of the carbon tax. They do not have it. They are already struggling. They are already making the hard choice of whether they are going to pay their heating bill, pay for gas so they can get to work, or put groceries on their table.

We have a record number of people skipping meals in this country: one in five Canadians is skipping meals. We have a record-breaking number of people visiting food banks right across this country every single month so that kids get nutritious food. We are in a crisis right now with affordability, yet the government seems to think that this is not really a huge problem. It did put forward a small win with a grocery rebate, but with the additional costs I cited, that will evaporate before a couple of months is up.

While it is definitely going to help in the short term, in the long term families will still be worse off than they were before. That is not even taking into account that because of all the extra spending in this budget, the average family is going to have an extra 4,200 dollars' worth of costs to pay for all the spending in this budget. Most of these families do not have that kind of money.

This is the part where I think there is a huge disconnect between the talking points and the reality. Canadians are struggling today and the solutions are not here. I will be voting against this budget.

Social Media Content

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House in order to make a request with regard to an emergency debate concerning revelations that the government has pressured social media platforms to edit or remove content that it considered embarrassing. These attempts at what can fairly be described as government censorship of the news, and the Internet more generally, came to public attention through a response that my colleague, the member for Niagara West, put forward in an OPQ.

The response, which has been tabled in the House of Commons, reveals that the government pressured social media platforms a total of 214 times over a 24-month time period and that this pressure was applied simply because the government did not want this information made public or it felt embarrassed by this information.

We know that there were many times when the platforms were able to successfully push back. However, we also know that Bill C-11 is currently in the Senate; if it should pass, it will actually legislate the government's ability to engage in this type of censorship going forward. One can imagine just how scary this is for many Canadians who count on the fact that we have a charter in this country that protects their freedom of speech, and therefore, freedom to access information that they wish to listen to or watch or access online. Therefore, given that we have now seen it come to light that the government applied pressure 214 times, we would ask that the House be able to engage in a debate with regard to this important matter.

I acknowledge that the Chair normally affords a wide latitude for contributions during the budget debate, which is the current debate taking place here today. I recognize that this type of request might not normally be granted under the emergency debate opportunity. However, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that these issues touch upon one of our fundamental freedoms, which is freedom of speech, and further, that censorship of the news and Internet is decidedly not an economic question, as the budget is. Therefore, it could not necessarily be addressed through financial initiatives.

To suggest that this issue can simply be raised within the context of the current debate seems perhaps reckless, and so I would respectfully allow my question to stand: Could we be granted an emergency debate with regard to the government's decision to apply pressure 214 times to social media platforms across this country?