Larry Maguire

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would have gladly given my time up to my colleague from Perth—Wellington to answer that question because he is absolutely right. What we are talking about here is the creation and the creators on the Internet, not the traditional types of media that we have had in Canada. This is the Internet sites that we are dealing with and the types of creation that are on there are growing and expanding. I do not know where the member gets his information, but there are more creators on the Internet today than we have every had before.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to—

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, this is not about culture. We all have the opportunity to express that anywhere in Canada. The bill is about regulating programming, and the government has given the CRTC the power to determine what a program is and then regulate it. I would be very worried about it if I were from Quebec. I am from Manitoba, another bilingual province. We have to be very concerned about the government interfering in the lives of creators who are putting this content out there every day. Some of them are making a very good living at it.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, obviously it was in my speech. With the greatest number of creators we have ever had in Canadian history today, there is no way the CRTC is going to be able to manage trying to keep track of everyone through the mechanisms that it will have to put in place to monitor every one of those thousands that are coming into blogs and Internet services every day in Canada.

Our job as the opposition is to try to bring forward good ideas. The government was exempt of that, so we have tried to hold their feet to the fire as a good opposition would. We have heard from thousands, more like millions, of Canadians who have said that the bill is inadequate.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 and outline my significant concerns with what the Liberal government is proposing.

I will be sharing my time tonight with my fantastic colleague, the member representing South Shore—St. Margarets.

Let us make no mistake that what is contained within the legislation is extraordinary new powers for the government, through the auspices of the CRTC, to regulate wide swaths of what Canadians can create and watch on the Internet. Moreover, I have never received a letter, email or phone call from a constituent or a content creator in Canada asking the CRTC to regulate the Internet.

A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation on this bill, and one commentator said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I was taken aback for a moment. I had to fully understand why he made that reference, but it got to the crux of the matter, which is that no matter how noble the government’s intended goals may be, this legislation will be an absolute quagmire. It gives the CRTC immense powers. It will give it the power to regulate what Canadians listen to and watch on the Internet, which has never been done before. This bill would also leave the door wide open for the CRTC to even regulate content creators sometime down the road.

Millions of Canadians are rightly alarmed about the Liberal government’s intentions. Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to regulate the Internet, and we know the government will introduce a bill in the future to determine what people can say on the Internet. A representative from YouTube who appeared at committee said, “Our concern is that Bill C-11 gives the government control over every aspect of Canadians' experience on YouTube. It does not include effective guardrails on either the powers given to the CRTC or the content to which those powers apply.”

Before I go any further, let us just step back and contemplate the size of the CRTC bureaucracy that will need to be established to undertake what Bill C-11 is trying to achieve. The sheer magnitude of the daily content being created for audiovisual services is hard to wrap one's head around. Across online platforms such as YouTube, podcast apps, websites and everything in between, thousands of hours of content are created in Canada every day. Unlike traditional broadcasters the CRTC regulates, new apps and websites are constantly being created and released to the public. Online platforms have cut out the middleman and dramatically reduced overhead costs, which in previous generations made it difficult for content creators to find an audience. As content creators have discovered, they now have the entire world with which to share their product.

Not only have we seen an extraordinary rise in content creators, but we have also seen several new online companies and platforms emerge. I, for one, welcome this innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, all done without needing tax dollars or regulations. With this in mind, for the CRTC to keep up with all the new platforms in order to regulate them would be impossible. I can imagine it now: hundreds of new CRTC employees scouring the Internet for hours and hours as they look for new platforms they intend to regulate.

Not only is it foolhardy to think the CRTC could ever figure out a way to manage this workload, but it would also be an incredible waste of taxpayers’ dollars, and for what? What are the Liberals trying to accomplish other than to create a mountain of red tape? That question gets to the core of why this legislation is short-sighted and could have disastrous consequences. What happens if the CRTC says it cannot do the job? Does it then come back to the government and ask for legislative powers to demand online platforms apply for authorization before Canadians can access their content? Not only would that be a colossal headache for companies, but many would just walk away from the Canadian market.

Here is another big question: How can the CRTC even impose its jurisdiction on companies that operate outside Canada? Unlike TV channels or radio waves, there is no limit to the number of websites or online platforms. A company might have its headquarters in Europe, its servers in Asia and its IT developers in the United States. While the CRTC might carry a big stick at home, there is no reasonable way for it to enforce its regulations on companies that do not have a single employee in Canada. These are the questions we must be asking.

It is simply impossible to regulate the Internet, as Bill C-11 would inevitably do. As I see this legislation, there will be very limited benefit for the vast majority of Canadians who create content, the Canadians who watch that content and the companies that publish that content. The real issue is, what problem is the government trying to solve? No one, particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has ever provided a solid reason for this Goliath of a bill. The ingenuity and creativity of content creators such as musicians, artists, pundits, bloggers, gamers and everyone in between have been thriving, all without needing the CRTC to regulate the platforms on which they publish.

Never before in the history of our country has there been more Canadian content being created and watched than there is today. For those who want to learn about cooking, follow their favourite folk band, watch a tutorial on how to plant a vegetable garden or listen to people debate politics, all one must do is search for it. Many of those Canadians are generating content or deriving income from their own hard work. Many of them now generate revenue and have even made a full-time job out of it.

According to a 2019 university report, there are an estimated 160,000 Canadian content creators on YouTube alone, including 40,000 who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels. I can only surmise that number has grown since then, and more Canadians have unplugged their cable boxes and now turn to the Internet and online content for their entertainment and news. The reason I am bringing this up is the fact that, through Bill C-11, the Liberals are giving the CRTC the power to regulate the platforms their content is uploaded on.

Internet expert Michael Geist, who has been following this legislation, said, “for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a 'program'.”

This is important because Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to write its own regulations. It would be able to determine what is considered the program, which will then fall under its purview. Due to the vague nature of the bill, no one knows what could possibly be deemed a program.

Mr. Geist also wrote about how this bill is created, stating:

[It] is a legislative pretzel, where the government twists itself around trying to regulate certain content. In particular, it says the CRTC can create regulations that treat content uploaded to social media services as programs by considering three factors:

[First,] whether the program that is uploaded to a social media service directly or indirectly generates revenue;

[Second,] if the program has been broadcast by a broadcast undertaking that is either licensed or registered with the CRTC;

[Third,] if the program has been assigned a unique identifier under an international standards system.

The Liberals can get up to say that user-generated content is exempt, but they cannot say that with any great confidence. As a parliamentarian, I am not comfortable with giving so much power to a body that is not directly accountable to Canadians. If Bill C-11 simply wanted to regulate Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime and the other large streaming services, we would be having a completely different conversation. I implore my Liberal colleagues to shelve this bill and go back to the drawing board. There are too many questions and too many concerns for it to proceed.

In closing, I want to stress how unrealistic and impractical it is to regulate the Internet. The consequences of this poorly drafted legislation would likely be to weaken consumer choice and hurt the potential of Canadian creators. I, for one, cannot and will not vote in favour of a bill that would grant the CRTC so much power. Canadians are rightly very concerned that this is overreach by the current Liberal government.

[Online Streaming Act, June 13th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the motion we are speaking to here, Motion No. 16, is a limiting fact. We have had closure in the House many times on bills, but for the government to put forward Motion No. 16 for committee work is restrictive in the utmost. It is no wonder there is a majority over there with the Liberals and NDP getting together to try to push this through the way they want to.

My colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood has made many comments here in the House about the amount of witnesses who have not been heard from yet. He made that point particularly about APTN. I think it is very unconscionable of the government to be putting this motion forward at this time when there is no rush. They have even said it will not pass the Senate before the summer recess. We could still debate this and make sure that all of the witnesses were heard.

I cannot understand it when the minister talks about raising funds. The only way that can be done is if the people of Canada are not happy with it.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, a mandatory minimum does not mean life in prison. I want to make that very clear to my colleague who was just indicating that, which perhaps would mislead people into thinking that this is what this bill is all about. I will just leave it at that as well.

I am talking about those who are trafficking in these drugs, and drugs are only a part of this. We know that there is smuggling of drugs just as there is smuggling of firearms, and this bill does nothing to stop either one of them.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, in response to some questions from my previous colleague and from our side of the House, I am very much in favour of using education as a better opportunity to be able to educate persons today in regard to the use of drugs.

However, when we go ahead and license fentanyl at the levels that they are talking about today, at 2.5 grams, we know that many people can be killed by that amount of fentanyl. It is not the same as 2.5 grams of many of the other drugs that are out there today.

I think education is a great opportunity to be able to do that, but in the meantime, people who are trafficking and selling these drugs illegally, which is what is happening, or making them available to our youth on the streets should be penalized.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his commitment to the justice committee, which has been dealing with this issue. All I want to say on that is that the government is targeting the wrong sector of people with this particular bill.

I have given the numbers here in regard to the drug crisis in Canada. I want to say that I was going to add that Bill C-5 is not about reducing mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession. In fact, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not even exist. We also know that in constituencies such as mine, the RCMP is spread very thin, and I mentioned the lack of resources for policing.

My colleague from Lakeland passed her motion to conduct a study on rural crime, and that is the one on which the Liberals on the committee used their majority and turned the report into a one-page report that was void of any substance.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today to Bill C-5.

In the same month the Liberal government introduces legislation that specifically targets law-abiding firearms owners, the House is now debating a bill that eliminates mandatory minimums for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, willfully importing or exporting illegal firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, possession of an illegal firearm and possession of a firearm obtained illegally.

As people say, we cannot make this up. No one in my constituency has called me to tell me they want mandatory minimums repealed for these serious crimes. People are furious, and rightly so.

As Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said at the justice committee, “The police in Canada support the primary objectives of mandatory minimum penalties to ensure consistency in sentencing, to protect the public and to discourage others from engaging in similar conduct.” He also mentioned that these mandatory minimums “hold significant value when addressing public safety and gang-related violence: the use of a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence”.

The government is not even listening to the recent report published by the public safety committee right here in Parliament. Recommendation 11 states:

That the Government of Canada recognize that serious crimes involving firearms and drug trafficking should bear serious penalties given the threat to public safety, and that violent offenders should be kept off our streets to protect the public, while a public health response should be adopted to deal with people suffering from substance abuse.

I have always believed that serious violent offences that are committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. It is astonishing that the Liberals want to weaken the punishment of these crimes in Canada. I also have grave concerns with the Liberals' proposal to allow criminals to serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including those involving sexual assault, human trafficking and kidnapping.

This bill is soft on crime and puts communities and victims at risk. The sad irony of the Liberals' plan to make our streets safer is, in fact, going after trained Canadian firearms owners, while at the same time reducing penalties for those who commit violent gun crimes and sell hard drugs. Bill C-5 is sending the wrong message to criminals and organized crime.

I doubt any of these criminals are watching CPAC at this very moment, but I can assure members that law-abiding firearms owners are watching. The government is insulting hundreds of thousands of law-abiding firearms owners, who are being blamed for the government's lack of action to tackle gun smuggling and organized crime.

Gun violence has gone up significantly over the past seven years of the Liberal government. That is a fact. It is also a fact that most guns used in violent crime are smuggled in from the United States. According to CBSA's departmental results report, almost 20,000 illegal firearms and prohibited weapons were confiscated before coming into Canada. Those are just the ones that were confiscated, and just the illegal ones we know about. No one knows how many slipped through the cracks and were used in a violent crime. Gun smugglers and gun traffickers are directly responsible for the murder of too many innocent Canadians.

As the president of the National Police Federation said at the justice committee, “Bill C-5 strikes down some mandatory minimum penalties related to weapons trafficking and firearms offences. This is inconsistent with the expressed intent of the government to reduce firearms violence in Canada.” He went on to say that if the Liberals are going to repeal these mandatory minimums, they must provide “additional deterrence measures to address criminal activity, such as providing more resources to stop the import of illegal drugs and firearms at the border.”

Through Bill C-5, the Liberals are proposing to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for the very crimes that are putting illegal firearms on our streets in the first place. Tell me how the Liberals can justify placing heavy restrictions on law-abiding citizens while removing them for violent criminals on the streets. The short answer is they cannot. Let us not forget that last year, the same Liberals voted down a Conservative bill that proposed making the punishment harsher for criminals using smuggled guns.

I received an email from John Schneiderbanger the other day, who asked me to share his comments in the House of Commons. Before any of my Liberal colleagues start smearing John as some sort of firearm lobbyist, let me tell his story.

John proudly served in the Canadian Armed Forces and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was posted to CFB Shilo, which I am honoured to say is in my constituency, where he served as base commander. He is a firearms expert and has decades of experience and a wealth of knowledge of which we should take heed.

While Bill C-5 repeals mandatory minimums for actual criminals, the Liberals are going after sport shooters in his case. If the Liberals get their way, they will be impacting legitimate shooting sports such as Cowboy Shooting Action, International Practical Shooting Confederation, 3-Gun, IDPA and Cowboy Mounted Shooting.

Many of these competitors participate in high levels of competition, some of them around the world, and there are governing bodies at the provincial, national and world levels. They are legitimate and organized sports that are recognized around the world and would no longer exist in Canada due to the Liberal government's inability to focus on correct root causes of violent crime committed by criminals with illegal guns.

As John said, these shooting sports will wither away quickly as the current membership becomes older and leave the sport, as other sport shooters cannot replace the competition handguns over time. No new members will be able to join these activities, as there will be no legal handguns available to acquire.

If the Liberals will not take my advice, they will at least listen to one of Canada's finest, Mr. Schneiderbanger, who also knows the Firearms Act inside and out.

Along with eliminating sentences for gun crimes, this Liberal bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious drug-related offences. These include sentences for drug trafficking as well as importing, exporting and producing drugs such as heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth.

Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis. We all know that. In 2020, the opioid crisis claimed the lives of 6,306 people. That is the equivalent of 17 opioid deaths per day. The volume of police calls related to suspected overdoses has also been increasing. As of right now, police services across the country are dealing with an average of 687 calls per month of suspected overdoses. One would think the Liberals would have proposed some solutions in the latest budget to help, but they did not offer a single new dollar to assist police services with this increased demand.

It gets worse. The Liberal platform promised $250 million in 2021-22 and $625 million in 2022-23 for a Canadian mental health transfer, but none of those dollars have materialized. While provinces and municipalities are in dire need of help, once again they were promised action but given platitudes. My Conservative colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has repeatedly asked why the Liberals did not keep this promise, and all he has heard back is useless talking points.

I know my Liberal colleagues care about this issue; I just do not know why they are not holding their own government's feet to the fire. Why are they letting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance get away with this broken promise and then voting in favour of Bill C-5, which is going to lessen the penalties for the gangs and organized crime that are peddling the opioids?

I want my Liberal colleagues to know how bad drug-related offences are under their watch. Cocaine trafficking is up 24% since 2016. Trafficking of drugs other than cocaine and cannabis is up 73% since 2016.

Contrary to Liberal talking points, Bill C-5 is not about reducing mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession. In fact, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist.

In closing, I want to say that it is unfortunate that the Liberals on the committee used their majority and turned the report into a one-page report that was void of any substance—