Debates of March 30th, 2023

International Mother Language Day Act

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

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I request the motion be adopted on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize three people who have worked on this for a long time. Certainly, our colleague from Surrey—Newton started a long time ago to try to get something like this in place. My friend, colleague and next-door neighbour from Cloverdale—Langley City also worked on this. We cannot ever forget the work of Senator Mobina Jaffer, from the other place, who kept the flame alive until today.

If Bill S-214 is new to colleagues, its purpose is to establish February 21 as international mother language day. This is not a piece of legislation reflecting a big headline, a big opportunity or a big issue that needs resolving, and it is not a national holiday. In fact, it is a lot more important than that. It is a foundational issue. It is a true Canadian values proposition, one that involves respect, one that involves community building and one that involves understanding and connectivity, rather than isolation.

It is really intended to honour, preserve and protect the languages that make Canada what it is. There is English of course and our beautiful French language of course. However, there are indigenous languages, too, many of which are in danger of going extinct, which is why, by the way, we have a National Indigenous Languages Day, and we will observe it tomorrow.

Language diversity is defined in Canada. A recent census shows some very interesting trends. The first language is neither French nor English for 25% of household in our country. Tagalog is the most common non-official language in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and in the Yukon. There is major growth in Spanish, Mandarin and Punjabi. Especially at home in Fleetwood—Port Kells, Punjabi is almost the dominant language and I wish I spoke it. However, I rely on my friends from Surrey—Newton and Surrey Centre to carry the ball for us on that.

When we talk about language, we have to enjoy the terms that we hear and the cadence.

Listening to somebody from Newfoundland or Cape Breton speak, they will say things like “stay where you to and I'll come where you're at”, or “Jesus Murphy”. I never knew what a “two-four” was until I lived in Fort Frances, Ontario and Brandon, Manitoba. It is an illustration of the character of the people. A Bluenoser, a Bogtrotter or a Caper mean something in Canada. Even in English, sometimes, people need translations. In these parts, of course, it is a beaver tail and out west it is a jambuster. In British Columbia, if one says “skookum”, people know exactly what one is talking about. If one says “Ditchmond”, they also know where one is talking about.

The cadence and the tone shine through the music, the poetry and I would include the food as part of a broader language that reaches out to all. In fact, had I been the one in the Senate, like Senator Jaffer, promoting this bill, there may have been butter chicken stains on the paperwork that finally made it to the House of Commons.

Observing international mother languages day is not up there with the current headlines that this place generates, but the spirit and sentiment it represents is a fundamental and essential element of what Canada is and what we represent, something entrusted to all of us here and in the other place.

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

Madam Speaker,

[Member spoke in English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish]

[Translation]

There are roughly 7,000 languages in the world. There is Aba, French, Bikol, Chabacano, Mandarin, Spanish, Artsi which is spoken by just a few thousand people, Kamchadal and Puelche. These are all languages that are for someone, somewhere, a mother language.

A language is a system of expression common to a group. Obviously, when we add mother to it we are talking about the idea of transmission, the idea of community, the idea of being together and living together. The study of language falls under linguistics, but is also a philosophy that I quite like and that I had the good fortune of studying for many years: the philosophy of language.

We study language to extract ideas. My colleagues surely know, as I do, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian author I am fond of. Like all my colleagues, we ask questions when we study philosophy.

For example, we might ask about the origin of language. That is not an absurd question. It requires a lot of thought on our part. What is the relationship between language and reality? That is another question. I am sure that is all my colleagues talk about at parties. What is the relationship between language and thought? What is the relationship between language and knowledge? What is the relationship between language and other forms of expression? What is communication? Does the multiplicity of languages lead to the multiplicity of ways of thinking? Why is there not just one language?

We have all heard about Babel. The Bible provides an explanation. It seems that in certain climates, under certain circumstances, people were made to speak in different languages and then, suddenly, to understand one another.

The mother language is the first language learned, the one that guides us, allows us to learn, to understand and, sometimes, to lose ourselves in the moment. We have to be careful, because these days there is often a very strong temptation to speak English. I am not talking about Shakespeare's English, but rather what I call airport English. This form of the English language tends to reduce us to a certain kind of single-mindedness. As Orwell said, the fewer the words, the smaller the temptation to take thought. People who speak only one language must be able to transcend perfect conformity. However, globalization has resulted in a kind of single-mindedness, of conformity, which, in a way, prevents a mother language from fully flourishing. Single-mindedness means the death of literature, the death of poetry and, I am sure my colleagues will agree, the death of artistic sensibility. Please hold the applause.

I want to come back to Wittgenstein, who said that what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. It would be so interesting to apply that maxim here, but I will not draw any conclusions. Aristotle, meanwhile, said that the human being is the only animal with the gift of speech, and to speak is to communicate.

I want to come back to the topic of mother languages and say that a person's mother tongue allows them to evolve from silence to existence. The mother tongue allows us to understand, to learn, to surprise and even to be surprised. It is the first language a child learns, and I believe that everyone has a right to that. That is why, of course, the Bloc Québécois will support the idea of creating an international mother language day.

In conclusion, I believe my colleagues have all understood the essence of my remarks. As my friend reminded me, Aristotle said that the human being is the only animal endowed with language. Language is what allows humans, but not animals, to convey judgments and values. In fact, it is paramount for the organization of a community. Because we are animals with language, humans are political animals, which allows us to assert, propose and promote our ideas.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP in support of Bill S-214, a bill that proposes to recognize international mother language day, that recognizes the value of linguistic and cultural diversity in our country.

This is a bill that is important, because of the value statement it makes clear, that we, here in Canada, are proud of our mother tongues, of our linguistic and cultural diversity. I am proud to be a Canadian, the daughter of immigrants, whose first language is not one of our official languages, but my own language, Greek.

[Member spoke in Greek]

[English]

I am proud to have the opportunity to be able to speak my language, Greek with my two children who are now five years old. I am proud that they are able to claim Greek as their own mother tongue.

Our mother tongues are who we are. They are our roots. They are our stories. They are our strengths. They are our future.

Today, it is important to reinforce that we cannot just recognize, we need to actively support the survival and strengthening of our mother tongues. We must do that with concrete actions. Perhaps the most important thing that we could do is support indigenous languages here in Canada.

While there are more than 70 indigenous languages spoken in Canada, many of them are endangered, as the majority of them maintain fewer than 1,000 fluent speakers. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, who often communicates in Inuktitut and is clear on the responsibility that Parliament has to interpret and communicate in Inuktitut and other indigenous languages.

We must be clear that this situation, in which so many indigenous languages are endangered, did not just happen. It is the result of genocide, of colonialism, of the residential school system, of the sixties scoop, of the foster care crisis. In saying that, we have the power to reverse that damage that has been done. That means action through funding, investment and legislation.

Canada must step up to work with indigenous communities in supporting their education and the revival, for many communities, of their indigenous language as a mother tongue.

I am proud of the work that is done in my home community of Thompson on Treaty 5 territory to bring back Cree in the Cree immersion system at Wapanohk Community School. We need to see much more being done across the country.

I also want to acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done to protect French and stop its decline in our country. That is why I am proud of the work we are doing in the NDP to improve Bill C‑13. The Official Languages Act is a law that needs to be modernized to stop the decline of French in the country, including in Quebec.

We need to acknowledge that the survival of the French language is key to the future of our country. We need to support it with meaningful measures, immigration measures and protection measures, such as the inclusion of linguistic clauses in our agreements. Of course, the federal government needs to have a lot more power to support French in the country.

I want to recognize that many of us grew up, certainly my generation grew up, proud to be part of a multicultural country, but we need to recognize and strengthen those cultures. We need to make sure that Canadian education systems and Canadian society is supporting the education of the multitude of languages of communities that come here.

We heard about Tagalog, Punjabi, Mandarin and so many languages that are spoken by so many Canadians. We need to make sure that the children of these immigrants, if their parents or if they want, have the opportunity to learn their language, through their schools, in after-school programs, on the weekends.

I am proud to have been a Greek school teacher in Winnipeg, Manitoba while I was attending university. This work is done heroically by many ethnic communities across our country to teach the next generation the language of their parents and grandparents; their language. However, that work requires resources and support, and the Government of Canada needs to be part of the solution.

So, yes, today let us recognize the importance of mother tongues. Let us recognize the strength that this recognition gives to our country. More importantly, let us act through funding, investment and support, so we can all continue to speak the languages that belong to us.

[Member spoke in Greek]

[English]

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

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, in recognizing the effort that it took to get the international mother language day to this point, I do have to recognize the tireless efforts of our consul general from Bangladesh, because Bangladesh is where this all started. They saw something important and have been working tirelessly across all nations to bring this to where we are today.

I mentioned the food, poetry and music, but there is also the issue of humour. I will divert for a second here, because years ago, I got to attend a lecture by Marshall McLuhan who said that one could tell an awful lot about society by its language and its humour. He told a story from the Soviet Union, and this is back in the early 1960s.

The Soviet Union said it was going to lighten up a little bit and was going to build a nightclub, and it did. It opened with great fanfare, but eight months later it was shuttered, and so there was a Russian equivalent of a royal commission to find out what happened. Members of the commission asked the people questions:

What about the decor, was it okay? They said that they had copied great designs from Paris, Rome and Berlin.

What about the food or the booze? It was perfect, and things people could not get in Russia they could get at their nightclub.

What about the chorus line? It was perfect, every one a good party member since 1917.

That was a big joke in Russia back in those days, but it told a little bit about the ethos that we had at that time.

The ethos here I think was most appropriately set by our late friend and superb parliamentarian, Jim Carr, from his final speech in the House of Commons. He said, “I love this country, every square metre of it, in English, in French, in indigenous languages and in the languages of the newly arrived.”

I would like to repurpose Jim's following remarks, because his remarks were intended to preempt the notion that his private member's bill on greening the Prairie economy somehow encroached on provincial jurisdiction. Jim said that rather than a federal intrusion, it added leaves to the table, one that we set to build a better Canada. That, too, is the outcome of celebrating international mother language day across Canada each February 21. We are not constraining, diluting, confusing or imposing. We are adding leaves to Canada's cultural table. The feast we enjoy by doing so will be satisfying in every way.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I request that it be passed on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 6:30 so we can begin the debate again on Bill C-11 in Government Orders.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 2 in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and of the amendment.

Online Streaming Act

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, “War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength”. Those are the words that repeat again and again throughout Orwell's legendary Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book is not just about massive government control by Big Brother over the citizenry. It is also about how such control is enabled by the abuse of language.

We can always smell a rat when words are used to mean something other than what they say, and this bill is filled with such false words. Let us start with the very premise. The government purports to apply the Internet to the Broadcasting Act or to apply the Broadcasting Act to the Internet, even though the Internet is not a broadcast instrument. Television and radio are broadcast instruments; online streaming is not. This might seem to be merely a matter of words, but then we go through the semantics and we catch other nice little white lies.

For example, the Liberals use the term “Canadian content” in their talking points and their press releases. Supposedly, the entire raison d’être of this bill, its reason for existing, is to promote Canadian content. Which two words appear nowhere in the 50-page bill itself? It is the words Canadian content. Not only is such content not defined, and it is impossible to define it, but it does not exist in the entire bill. Therefore, we have entire apparatus of bureaucracy that would have tentacles across the entire World Wide Web within Canadian borders tasked to do something that the bill says does not even exist. Why is this important? It is important because if the bureaucracy in question has its powers circumscribed to defining and promoting Canadian content, but there is no limit on what Canadian content actually means, then we give that agency limitless powers to control what people see and hear online.

What is Canadian content? Is it posts about maple syrup, beaver tails, hockey and maybe lacrosse? No, that is not in the act. Is it music made by Canadian musicians? No, it is not necessarily; in fact, many Canadian musicians are no longer considered Canadian because their record labels have been sold to foreign entertainment companies. Is it books that are written by Canadians? No, that is not the definition either. We have absolutely no idea what it is. In fact, we can be very sure what it is not.

Here is an example, and this will send my opposition, because they will be in the opposition soon, friends across the way into a fit of rage. Obviously, the Canadian commentator who is most widely viewed and listened to around the world today is, of course, Dr. Jordan Peterson. That is just a numerical fact when we look at the view counts that he has garnered. I see the rage across the way among those who think he is anything but Canadian. Sure, he was born in rural Alberta. Sure, he was a professor at the University of Toronto before he was censored there. However, he surely cannot be Canadian: He does not use the right pronouns, he does not mouth the right talking points and he does not meet the current government's view of Canadiana. This Prime Minister has described people who disagree with him as un-Canadian. Surely, the bureaucracy that he appoints would have to agree.

If the association of psychologists, which gives out licences to practise in Ontario, does not believe that his views permit him to continue to practise in his field and if a university is effectively banning him from teaching his classes, what would stop yet another powerful bureaucracy from saying that this man is not Canadian enough to be considered Canadian content and therefore should not be found online by Canadian users? The answer, of course, is that nothing would stop that from happening when they give the power to the state to control what people see and say online.

The government members across the way would say not to worry; that the bill does not apply to user-generated content, once again with the fancy, confusing words.

To use real language, “user-generated content” is “stuff people post online”. The Liberals say the legislation would not apply to that, unless it does. Let me read the section of the bill: “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”. We have to make sure to read the fine print.

Later on, the bill would specifically exempt user-generated content. This is the stuff that everyday Canadians post every day. The Liberals say the bill would not apply to any of that, unless it is posted on a platform that uses it for revenue generation. Are Twitter, Facebook and Instagram in the charity business, or do they generate revenue off of the posts that go online?

Do members know about that thing called “advertising”? That is revenue. Literally every single post that every Canadian puts online is used to generate revenue for an online platform. Therefore, everything that is posted online is captured by the essence of the bill. These are more weasel words. If they were going to regulate everything everybody posted online, and they believed they were justified in doing so, why would they create an exemption that does not apply to a single, solitary post? Of course, it once again is a use of Newspeak, putting in words that say exactly the opposite of what they mean.

I want to quote Michael Geist, who is no Conservative. He is a former critic of mine, actually, and not traditionally a friend of people on this side of the chamber. He said:

To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content (including algorithmic outcomes). The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.

If the Liberals did not intend to deprioritize, silence and push down the voices of some, why would they even include these provisions in the bill in the first place? The answer is that they want to regulate what can be heard and seen. They want to create the false perception that people can speak merely because they can post things online, but frankly there is no reason to post something if no one is allowed to see it. It would be like screaming into an empty forest.

Furthermore, the fact that the government would give the power to a state regulator to alter the algorithms of the Internet is, frankly, terrifying. Who are the shady operators in the back room who would be manipulating the algorithms that bring our newsfeeds and social media posts onto our screens? What are their motives? What is their direction? None of these things are defined anywhere in the bill or by the testimony of the head of the government agency that would be charged with implementing them.

In a world where we are already overly controlled by technology, they would alter algorithms. We can think of the devastating power of artificial intelligence. We know it because there is plenty of artificial intelligence on that side. In reality, the ability of a government bureaucracy to alter those algorithmic powers is indeed an enormous and unforgiving power.

I will quote Orwell: “This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs—to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.” That is exactly what we are talking about here because algorithms determine everything that appears on our devices.

It is mathematical programming that puts those things in front of our eyeballs. Right now, that programming is determined by a raw human emotion: greed. There is no doubt about it. The social media platforms want to make money. How do they do it? They give people stuff they want to see. One might take issue with the fact that they want to make money off that, but that is just the reality. The outcome is that we see what we want.

The economic motivation for the bill is also greed. It is the greed of the broadcasting corporations that want to dominate eyeballs, but instead of dominating them by producing things people want to see, they would dominate them by having more power over the regulator that determines what people get. That is also motivated by greed. Both of these profit motives are going to exist, one in the free world where people choose for themselves and another in the coercive world where bureaucrats choose for them.

However, do not ascribe any angelic motives to the bill. It is nothing more than a dirty alliance between big government and big corporations. Big government wants to control the citizenry, and big broadcasting and entertainment corporations want to control the advertising revenue. That is precisely why Bell, Rogers and all the other broadcasting corporations have come pleading for the bill to be put forward and advanced on their behalf, not on behalf of everyday people.

Here is the decision: Do we want the content on our phones and screens to be determined by the click or by the clique? The bill proposes to have it done by the clique. All the brilliant artists whose parents are not rich enough to have agents that will promote them with news and entertainment bodies and corporations will be shut out. It will be the rich kids, whose parents dream of them being famous, who will be able to go to these entertainment companies and have the ability over the years to get record labels set up. Those rich kids always had a head start; those shut out will be the poor kids who learned how to play the piano in their basements and would otherwise have posted it online and had it go viral. They will not have the political influence in Ottawa, in the CRTC, to get themselves on the big screen. This is once again protecting the privileged behind a wall of gatekeepers.

On this side of the House, we believe in a meritocracy, not an aristocracy. We believe everybody should get ahead by their own merits, and we believe that Canadians are intelligent enough to decide for themselves.

Let me address one other issue about social media platforms. The government claims it wants to crack down on them because they are making too much money. The bill would not affect their profit or their bottom line by one penny. It proposes to keep all the content we see on those same social media platforms. Our broadcasters do not compete with social media platforms; they compete with other Canadians who are fighting for share of voice and share of eyeball.

What the bill would actually do is simply take money and opportunity away from the individual citizen to have his or her voice heard in entertainment, news, discourse and everywhere else and concentrate it once again in the hands of the politically powerful, the well-connected and those who can find favour with the government. On this side of the House of Commons, we exist to decentralize power, to disperse it among the many instead of concentrating it in the hands of the few.

That is why we rise today with such alarm that the Prime Minister would censor debate on a censorship bill. I do not know if, in the century and a half of this august chamber, it has ever happened that a government has done so. It is an appalling precedent and one that should concern every freethinking Canadian citizen.

We inherit our rights not from the state, not from a powerful government bureaucracy, but as a gift from God. Freedom is written on every human heart. We all have the ability to express ourselves culturally, politically and in every other way, not because the Prime Minister has bestowed us with that right but because we are born with it. Conservatives would make sure people have that right.

The bill is designed to take away that right and concentrate it in the hands of the few. Members should not take my word for it but listen to Margaret Atwood. Again, she is no friend of Conservatives, but she said: “All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through—government bureaucrats.... So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.”

Those are her words. She said “creeping totalitarianism”. If anyone else in Canada had used those terms, they would have been called an alarmist. She is part of the literary establishment in this country, possibly among the most well known. She is someone with whom I agree on almost nothing because our views are not at all aligned. However, she understands one thing and that is that the power of words can only exist in concert with the freedom to express those words.

I am sure that she would vigorously debate most of the things that I say on the floor of the House of Commons, but that is only possible if there is freedom to debate. Disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. It is the worst system of government, except for all the others, as the great Winston Churchill said. It is messy, frustrating and arduous.

Every day and every way, it would be much easier to have, as the Prime Minister has suggested, a basic Chinese Communist dictatorship where a powerful hand can decide something on a whim. That was the reason he admired it. He said they decide on the spot what to do and impose their decisions without any debate. That would be a lot easier in the short run.

Often, we are told there is too much partisanship and disagreement in Canada. There are places in the world with no partisanship and no disagreement, and they are terrible places to live. I would rather live in a place where we are allowed to disagree and speak out. That is who we are as Canadians.

The question is: Who decides? Do we allow a small group of privileged insiders close to the Prime Minister decide what we think, say and believe, or do we believe that every single Canadian is endowed by God with the ability to decide for themselves?

I believe every Canadian has that ability. That is why we will stand up every day, in every way, for the section 2(b) rights of freedom of expression. That is who we are and what we believe. It is the common sense of the common people united for the people's home, my home and our home; Canada, let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about misinformation. The industry has seen the value of the bill from every region of the country and wants to see the legislation pass through; the only political entity that is not going to be voting in favour of the legislation itself is the leader of the Conservative Party and his caucus.

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Let me give an example. Earlier today, I posed a question to one of his members, asking if they really believe that the government is trying to prevent people from being able to upload a video on Facebook. I used the example of a cat video. The member said yes.

The amount of rhetoric we get coming from the Conservative benches is spreading false information, when we know that the legislation does not limit freedom of expression or freedom to be able to upload to Facebook in any way whatsoever. However, the Conservative Party continues to spread misinformation.

Does the leader of the Conservative Party believe that the government, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party are trying to prevent individuals from uploading cat videos on Facebook?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, do I believe that the government wants to limit people in putting cat videos online? Of course I do not.

However, his question is very telling. I would first say that it is designed, like everything the government says, to make the people feel small and tell them that they are really only concerned about cat videos. The people of Canada are smarter than that; they are not idiots.

The people of Canada post poetry, music and beautiful stories online. They share their most beautiful moments. To distill all that down to cat videos is, once again, an insult by a Liberal snob on the common people. It is to suggest that they are interested only in frivolous and stupid things that need to be filtered out by a class of much more elite people.

We believe in the common sense of the common people. We believe they have the judgment to choose what they should post, read and do online.

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

Madam Speaker, I really like debating in the House, and I am pleased to know that the Leader of the Opposition and I share a love of Orwell.

Orwell said, and I quote, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

We know how Orwell defined freedom of expression, but how does my colleague from Carleton define it?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I define freedom of expression as every person being able to decide what to say, and when and how to say it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier tonight, I heard another Conservative MP talk about Fahrenheit 451, and I thought maybe he was about to start talking about when the Harper government closed a number of libraries that were world renowned for fisheries and oceans. It actually burned a bunch of books and other material at that time. That was not what the member chose to talk about, but it was an example of how governments do indeed have agendas.

It is important to defend the freedom of people against the tyranny of governments. However, it is equally important to defend people against the tyranny of wealthy private interests, which is a continuous blind spot of the leader of the Conservatives. When he talks about inflation, people would think it is only government spending that drove inflation. He cites the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has also said, at the finance committee, that companies are raising prices well above the increase in their input costs.

The Conservative leader talks about government putting more Canadian content in the algorithms that show Canadians what they see in their newsfeeds or streams, but the fact of the matter is that right now those same social media platforms, without any supervision and transparency, also make decisions about what people see. He says that we should trust in the greed of corporations to create an online meritocracy.

Let us get real. Does he think social media platforms are not showing people more disinformation about Bill C-11 right now, because it is in their interest that—

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

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we caught him. Just at the end there, the truth jumped out of his lips. He said the problem is that disinformation, like the opinions expressed here today, would not be allowed if Bill C-11 were passed, which is an admission that the NDP believes government should be able to decide what is true and what is false and censor out what it does not like. That is exactly what we suspected from the beginning.

What happens when the government is a liar? The government said the Prime Minister did not interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That turned out to be false. It said the budget would be balanced in 2019. That turned out to be false too. Do I have to go down the long list of falsehoods stated by the government?

Now we are supposed to trust this same government to censor out what is true. I guess government members believe there should be a ministry of truth populated with people who agree with them. The only way to distill the truth is through the hot cauldron of debate, not through the clamping down of censorship. That is why we believe in allowing people to make their own decisions. Government members may think they are the watchmen, but the question is, who watches the watchmen? The only ones who can do that are the citizens.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the great George Orwell said in 1984, “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end.” What we are seeing here today is one of the biggest power grabs on the individual freedoms of Canadians. If our leader, the member for Carleton, becomes Prime Minister of Canada, what will he do to reverse this power grab of the government?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, all of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by governments, yet we are constantly warned by the woke parties in the House that the scary thing is too much freedom, that the people have to be feared. No. Excessive power by government has been the source of every single major atrocity committed in this country or anywhere around the world. The solution to that is freedom.

What will I do to reverse this power grab? I will repeal Bill C-11 to restore freedom of speech online. I will make it my mission to transform Canada back again to the freest nation on Earth.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech given by the leader of the official opposition, and I wonder if he would like to backtrack or apologize for characterizing the CRTC as a small group of privileged insiders closest to the Prime Minister. I would also ask him if he would like to define the word “woke”. I asked one of his colleagues for that definition, and I would like to hear what he has to say.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Actually, Madam Speaker, I will backtrack. It is a big group of insiders. It is a big, sprawling bureaucracy with far too many people working for it. There will be fewer people working for the CRTC when I am Prime Minister, because they will have less power and a hell of a lot less to do when I restore freedom of speech and freedom of expression online and on the Internet.

As for the definition of “woke”, woke has one purpose and only one purpose. It has plenty of pretexts but only one purpose: control. It is designed to divide people by race, gender, ethnicity, religion, vaccine status and any other way one can divide people into groups. Why? It is because then one can justify having a government to control all those groups. No more woke; we need freedom.