Debates of March 30th, 2023

Online Streaming Act

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

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

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

I am going to interrupt the hon. member right there. There are a lot of insults that have been flying around throughout the afternoon.

I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to refrain from inflaming the debate.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am just being honest and exercising my freedoms. Obviously, Conservatives do not like that. They do not mind meeting with neo-Nazi groups that want to suppress freedoms in Europe but they object when they are challenged on the fact that their comments over the course of the dozens and dozens of hours of debate have not carried on the bill at all.

There is no tyranny here. What we are talking about is actually providing supports for a cultural sector that has been hard hit. We are actually allowing Canadians to be able to tell stories to each other. Why does the member just admit that he did not read the bill, he does not understand the bill, and as his comments have been completely inappropriate, he will withdraw them? Why does he not withdraw them?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is the wacky NDP. They know what is best for Canadians. This is the elitist NDP who are so far removed from the working class that they have no idea what is going on out there in Canada.

People are suffering in our nation. They are looking for ideas and policies. They may look at an NDP platform or a speech that might be delivered in here by that member. The bill would limit Canadians' ability to actually see the content of that member.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Saskatoon—University might consider his recent remarks and reflect that he went a bit too far when he said that things that are on the Internet should never be censored and nothing should ever be withdrawn. I am going to give him that opportunity right now.

We have seen moments where families have been shattered by mass attacks and slaughters. Families of police officers have seen their loved ones on a video posted on the Internet and the family has begged for no one to look at that. People then take that down.

Will the hon. member reconsider and withdraw his comment that everything on the Internet should be watched, people should be at liberty to see anything and there should be no moments where we withdraw postings on the Internet with the goal of rage farming—

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

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

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

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

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

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

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I do not always give a title to my speeches, but there was a movie released back in 2020 that I managed to draw my inspiration from. This is the movie called The Social Dilemma. As we know, it is about big tech using social media as a means to manipulate and influence people.

The public was outraged about it, and rightly so. The government apparently was too, but the problem was that it did not think of it first. That is what we are going to see with this bill as it goes through. I think I have a title for my speech. I am going to go with “The Liberal Dilemma” in the same vein as The Social Dilemma.

It has been amazing to see the strong response we have gotten from the general public, which has reached out to many members of Parliament. Lots of us in the Conservative caucus have heard from a lot of people. We heard from experts, both at committee and out of committee, demanding that the Liberals stop what they are doing. Sadly, the voices have been repeatedly ignored.

What is more troubling is that these same voices might eventually be silenced. However, the Conservatives have been listening to them. We have been raising the alarm and opposing the bill while it passed through this House. The other place has also taken these concerns seriously. Bill C-11 was sent back to us with several amendments from the Senate. One of those amendments is especially relevant and important to the issue of user-generated content.

The Liberals have another chance to show some good faith and correct the problem they are creating in this country. We already know that they are not taking the opportunity in front of them. The minister has made it clear that the Liberals are going to reject this exact amendment, which has been at the heart of this entire debate so far.

At least it is crystal clear where the Liberals stand, and it is not on the right side of the issue. It is exactly the opposite. The Liberals are not interested in protecting the rights of Canadians. It is not their priority. That is really discouraging to see from the federal government. It is a complete failure of leadership on their part.

That is why, on the opposite side, Conservatives have been fighting so much on behalf of our fellow Canadians. We want them to know that someone will stand up for them and their rights in Parliament. If the Liberals go ahead with this, we would get rid of it if we formed government because we firmly believe that it is the right thing to do.

There is a reason the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it mentions a fundamental freedom of expression, includes “freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

The ability to communicate freely is so important to our society. Whether someone was born here or chose to come here from another part of the world, Canadians know and love their personal experience with freedom. We want to make sure that our children and future generations enjoy it as well. We should never take it for granted. The same freedom is essential for our political system to function.

If the Liberals controlled the press, they would let it silence voices which disagreed with them and turn our news networks into a publicly funded propaganda machine; but in fact, it is too late.

History has shown us the worst examples of what can happen with government censorship and control. Even in our own time, there are authoritarian regimes that are doing the same thing to oppress their people, and we know that there have also been attempts to interfere in our elections and have influence within our own country.

Government propaganda spread through government media can either sway public opinion toward its ideals, or what is worse, be used to cover up the corruption and crimes carried out by the state. Given that the independence of media from the government is such an important principle to Canada and other countries around the world, why do the Liberals want to provide an opening for online censorship and interference with media communications?

That is the direction Bill C-11 is taking us. It will hand over more control of media and the Internet from the people to the government. Up until this point, Canadians have had the opportunity to participate in a media marketplace that is free and open. All content is given equal opportunity and can be judged based on its own merit.

Canadian artists have impressed us with their talents here at home, and they have also punched above their weight in the global market. That has been the case with every art form. Canadians continue to succeed as actors, video creators and musicians performing in pop, classical or other genres. Each one of them has worked hard at their craft, and they have excelled based on merit. It did not require bureaucrats in Ottawa or anywhere else to decide if they should be considered Canadian enough.

We all want to see Canadian talent thrive. As much as the Liberals want to hide behind the idea of supporting artists, that has never been the issue. They need to stop using it as an empty excuse to push forward a power grab that could eventually threaten the rights of artistic expression as much as any other ability for Canadians to speak freely.

The ability of Bill C-11 to limit what Canadians would see online would also hurt Canadian content producers. They have been saying as much. Many talented creators have not only made a name for themselves in the Canadian scene, but they have also become stars in the U.S. and all throughout the rest of the world.

Bill C-11 would become a gatekeeper that bars regular Canadians from reaching audiences online. How can that be, if the government is saying it would encourage Canadian content? The problem lies in the fact that, when we give the government the right to censor some content, we must consider that lobbyists from larger producers will influence the regulatory process, which in this case would be carried out by the CRTC.

Only rich, established groups can afford to hire lobbyists. Young men and women posting music to YouTube or maybe trick shot videos in their free time cannot do that. They cannot afford it. Bill C-11 would make it much harder to break into the industry because the only people who can afford to buy lobbyists are already the established media companies.

Across the board, Canada has too many gatekeepers that stop us from building homes or developing our industries. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would expand the government's policy of gatekeeping now to our online content. When it comes to its claim about promoting Canadian content, Bill C-11 does not really make sense, nor address the major problem. The stated goal is to require that media sites give preference to Canadian content in an attempt to promote Canadian culture. However, we still have to ask: How would that rule apply in practice?

The bill fails to define Canadian culture and what content qualifies as Canadian. This vagueness is what would give the government the ability to label as “Canadian” whatever it wants us to see, and to censor anything else that does not align with its priorities. It is irresponsible and can only make people think there is some reason why it wants to leave the door open to controlling how it is that we communicate.

If the Liberals were serious at all or had any interest in defending Canadian culture, they would not allow for this ambiguity and leave so many loopholes in the bill. They would not vote against the necessary amendment to exempt user-generated content from government censorship. It was included in this new version of the bill because of careful and thorough study. Parliamentarians, both in this House and in the other place, have heard from numerous witnesses and had overwhelming feedback from constituents. Apparently, none of that matters to the Liberal government.

The legislative process of Bill C-11 has been a mess right from the start. Last year, the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, rammed Bill C-11 through the House of Commons, not allowing stakeholders to fully voice their concerns about the bill. Today, they have once again tried to censor the opposition by forcibly ending debate on this censorship bill.

As usual, the Prime Minister and his party will not listen to anyone who disagrees with their agenda. It is the same arrogance and condescending attitude that have been on display since they have been in power. That is exactly what people are worried about if they have the power to censor and remove criticism.

Earlier in my speech, I referred to serious allegations about foreign interference in Canada. It is a good example of what could go terribly wrong if we do not protect free expression. We already have a Prime Minister who has disregarded the public interest and tried to cover up accusations against him about conflicts of interest. Most recently, he refused to have an independent inquiry about Beijing's interference in Canada's elections. Can members imagine how much worse it would be if the same Liberal government had the power of censorship when we have learned as much as we have about all the scandals it has been engaged in over the years?

It is a scary thought, but we are not going to give up the fight. We are going to work as hard as ever to oppose censorship and to expose the endless failures of the Liberal government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it has been an incredible debate thus far, since after Private Members' Business.

I was quite taken aback by the member for Saskatoon—University and I challenged some of the thoughts he was sharing with Canadians, compared to the member for Lethbridge, for example. We cannot help but wonder whether there is something seriously wrong, but I will protect their rights and freedoms to be able to express themself.

Let us be very clear. In no way whatsoever is this legislation about freedom of speech. In no way whatsoever does it prevent people from being able to watch what they want to watch on the Internet. However, we have listened to some of the weirdest comments, like comparing Canada to Communist countries, to North Korea. It boggles my mind how the Conservative Party of Canada has been using these weird arguments to promote untruths.

My question to the member is this: Does he believe there is any obligation whatsoever to be more honest with Canadians about what this legislation does and does not do?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, what Canadians expect is honesty from the government.

I am going to go back to the reason I called the bill “the Liberal dilemma”. Again, it is about manipulating algorithms and allowing big government to have the power to regulate user-generated content, as well as other things.

We are asking for a simple clarification in the bill. The Liberals refuse to do it. The independent Senate, which is people the Prime Minister appointed, even these Liberal senators, let us make no mistake, opposed what the government is trying to do with this bill. They made several good amendments and raised several good points in their speeches. The government has chosen to ignore each and every one those things. It is shameful what the government is doing.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really appreciate his speeches. However, I would like him to set aside the briefing notes provided by Michael Geist and tell us how he himself defines censorship.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, when the government is turning over the power to big government bureaucrats to be able to make all these decisions, without taking the input of basic, everyday Canadians, that is definitely a big part of it.

One thing the Conservatives want to do, a goal of ours when we form government, is to introduce a plain-language law. What the Liberal government does is use confusing language—

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

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member really did not really speak to the bill at all. He spoke about foreign interference and he spoke about freedoms.

I would like to put those two elements together, because we saw with the convoy, supported heavily by Conservatives, the denial of freedoms for the people of Ottawa. Seniors were denied the freedom to go grocery shopping. People with disabilities were denied the ability to get their medications. Families were denied the right to sleep, by the convoy, supported by Russian state actors as the National Observer and the institute for conflict studies have shown very clearly.

The Conservatives supported a takeover that denied thousands of people in downtown Ottawa their basic freedoms, and they have not denounced the involvement of foreign state actors from Russia. Could the member come clean on those two things?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, what is fascinating is that the Minister for Public Safety at the time based the government's decision-making on reports from the CBC that were proven to be false. They were spinning a false narrative, both about buildings allegedly lit on fire by the convoy, which did not happen, and that Russia interfered or huge foreign groups tried to fund this movement, which did not happen; FINTRAC said as much and CSIS proved as much as well.

What this member actually just did was spread misinformation about what was going on. That is shameful, and he should apologize for that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise in the House as the representative of the awesome people and beautiful area of the North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I rise today to debate Bill C-11, what has become commonly known as the Liberal government's censorship bill. I rise on behalf of a long list of people who contacted me by email, social media, handwritten letters and on the streets, asking me to do all I can to oppose this draconian bill that would control what they will see online and what they can post online, all controlled by a government deciding what government wants them to see and post, not what users choose to see and post.

As I rise today, the government has already taken other steps to limit what Canadians can say about this bill. Today, the government has decided to further censor open debate on Bill C-11 by forcing closure of debate on the bill and, in doing so, deny any further debate in the House today and force a vote on it tonight.

More and more Canadians are realizing the government cannot be trusted. Its actions are becoming more egregious on a weekly basis and Bill C-11 is just one more example, yet it expects Canadians to believe it, to trust it. It is no wonder we, as His Majesty's official opposition, as well as Canadians en masse, simply no longer trust the government.

When we look at the government's track record on transparency, or lack thereof, the examples are becoming too numerous to mention. I will mention a few, but there are so many instances of the government censoring the information Canadians deserve to receive, that the trend of excessive censorship is very clear.

The first significant issue was during the controversy of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the removal of a justice minister, and the attempts to hide the truth from Canadians. That minister chose to speak truth and the Prime Ministerchose to silence her. Then there was the Prime Minister’s ethics breach with his trip to the Bahamas, when he refused to answer questions until the truth was dragged out and he was found guilty of that ethics breach. There was also the WE Charity scandal that eventually lead to the proroguing of Parliament because the government did not want the facts to come out, so it censored what could be heard by shutting down Parliament.

We also learned other facts the government would have preferred to kept secret from Canadians, that the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Fredericton.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am just wondering about the relevance of what the hon. member is discussing right now, so that we could get back on track for Bill C-11.

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

There is a lot of attitude in how we manage debates. I am sure the hon. member will bring it to the point of the bill.

The hon. member.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I expected that the Liberals might wonder what I am getting to. What I am getting to is the fact that they cannot be trusted, so why should we trust them on this bill?

As I was mentioning, the list of egregious actions by the government just continues to grow. I spoke about the ethics breaches, how that was dragged out—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is obvious the member has not read the bill, because he is not referring to it. I would question relevance. If he has not read the bill, why is he speaking to it in the House?

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

I am hoping the hon. member still has enough time in his speech to bring us to the relevance.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, just in response to the NDP member—

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

There is no debate here, as I already stated. The hon. member will bring us to the point in his time.

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.