Ted Falk

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member for the Bloc raises a very important issue. I think of the small periodicals in my riding. I think of the Southeast Journal, The Clipper, the Niverville Citizen and even The Carillon. These are not the media outlets that are going to benefit from this piece of legislation. The member asks, rightly, what our solutions are. We are going to come up with solutions, and we are going to announce them in our platform in the next general election. Canadians are going to be incredibly impressed, and we are going to implement those solutions as soon as we get elected.

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, every time the member for Kingston and the Islands stands up after one of my speeches, I am just looking forward to the question. I know it is going to be a lob, so I am teeing this one up.

Conservatives absolutely believe that tech giants need to pay their fair share. What we do not believe is that governments should be picking winners and losers. In this legislation, 75% of the winners will be made up of these three companies: the CBC, Rogers and Bell. That is not fair.

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity again to address Bill C-18 in the House.

I am pleased that the Senate has exercised its judgment as the place of sober second thought and sent this legislation back to the House for further work.

Right off the top, I will say that there are three areas where all members of the House are in agreement. First, we all agree that there should be some mechanism whereby tech giants are taxed, and that we do so in a way that does not negatively affect Canadian consumers. Second, we all agree that there must be some mechanism in place to deal with online misinformation and disinformation. At every one of our offices, we deal with this issue on a daily basis. Third, we all agree that we must create a framework to regulate AI or artificial intelligence.

We agree on these three principles. The issue, as is usually the case in the House, is how we go about doing that.

How do we make tech giants pay their fair share? How do we regulate information online and, perhaps more pertinent to our conversation today, particularly in light of the events of the past three years, who determines what is misinformation? How do we differentiate between fact and opinion?

In our postmodern world, or what some have called a post-truth world or a world where truth has become a relative or entirely subjective concept, how do we, as governments and media, differentiate and adjudicate between truly evidence-based information versus that which is driven by ideology and political expediency? Finally, how do we even begin to deal with the challenges posed by artificial intelligence?

In the Bible, we have the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have the story of the Tower of Babel, where people believed that by building a tower to heaven, by storming God’s dominion, they could themselves become God. We have heard the story of Pandora’s box, or jar if we want to be exact, and the story of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods.

Almost every ancient civilization has some story of humanity receiving or taking knowledge from the gods, knowledge they were not ready for, that they were ill-equipped to handle and that ultimately leads to chaos.

With the advent of the technological revolution and, in particular, artificial intelligence, humanity has come full circle to a truly frightening reality. It is good that we are beginning to address these important issues. It is good that we are at least largely agreed on what those issues are.

Unfortunately, as is always the case with the government, the flaw is in the details. There is a reason that the Senate sent this back. It could have chosen to just approve it. It sent it back and that is because this legislation, like its sister legislation Bill C-11, is deeply flawed.

Conservatives maintain that the government has misled Canadians about what the true objectives of Bill C-11 are. In short, it gives the government the ability to control what people see and post online. That is why Conservatives have committed to repealing it. I suspect that we will do likewise after Bill C-18 has been passed, and we are sitting on the other side of the House.

Like Bill C-11, at first look, the legislation looks fine and prudent, but then one starts to dig a little deeper. The flaw is in the details. One of those first pesky details is the issue of accountability. The government says that tech giants need to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians, which is the pot speaking to the kettle.

I agree. I am pretty sure my colleagues agree with this statement. Tech giants, like all multinational, plutocratic entities, do need to be held accountable. If they wish to operate within the jurisdiction of a country, those individual nation states must find a way to temper the unprecedented power, influence and wealth these entities have amassed.

When it comes to transparency and accountability, the government has very limited credibility. How the government can have the audacity to tell anyone they need to be more accountable and transparent shows its utter lack of self-awareness and the level of narcissism we are dealing with here because there has never been a government that has been so secretive. This government has so actively shunned accountability.

When, in the long line of scandals and failures of the Prime Minister and his ministers, has even one of them ever taken responsibility? I think the record clearly shows that the answer to that question is never. I could stand here and, one by one, list the scandals and failures of this government, but we would be here all night, and I know we have other work do get done here.

There is always an excuse, always someone else to blame. The government never takes responsibility. No minister has ever been held accountable. Actually, that is not quite true. We may remember that the Prime Minister did fire a minister. What did she do? Did she fail to execute the basic functions of government? Did she create chaos in her department? Did she misappropriate funds? Did she lie about a matter of national security? No, she did not. Her crime was that she tried to hold the Prime Minister accountable. She was the first indigenous woman to be minister of justice and attorney general, and the Prime Minister fired her because she refused to be party to his misdeeds or to capitulate to his unlawful demands.

When it comes to accountability, the Liberals have no credibility. Therefore, how can Canadians trust the Liberal government to enforce the very thing that the government itself refuses to do? That same statement from the heritage minister’s office states, “Canadians need to have access to quality, fact-based news at the local and national levels, and that's why we introduced the Online News Act.” I agree with that sentiment. The problem is that it is really difficult to take the government at its word when it has spent the past seven and a half years subsidizing media outlets that are friendly to it, intentionally parrot government talking points as “facts” and brand everything else as “misinformation”.

The Liberals gave legacy Liberal media $650 million and continue to fund the CBC to the tune of $1.24 billion per year. Why do they need to do this? First, it is to buy positive coverage, and they have gotten excellent bang for their buck. There is always a cost-benefit analysis, and the benefit seems to have been worth the cost of taxpayers' dollars. Second, they have done so because those friendly outlets are dying. They are trying to prop up a dying industry.

With the exception of a brief renaissance during COVID, when flush with Liberal government dollars, the media spouted government talking points and spread fear and division among Canadians. They have ceased to be relevant. We can bemoan that fact all we want, but I would ask, as I believe my colleagues have adequately done, what members' primary source for their news and entertainment is? Chances are that it is something online. I think this is really at the heart of the issue. I would pose this question to the government: What is a better indicator of what people actually believe, what they say or what they do? I would argue that it is what they do.

In the same way as the government’s track record, its behaviour has shown that it does not really believe in accountability. It also does not care about what the media prints or posts as long as it is favourable to the government. However, Canadian consumers have also spoken by their behaviour. If we were to ask a group of Canadians to define “Canadian content”, it would be difficult to get consensus. The platforms that Canadians subscribe to, the shows they watch and the content they consume would probably not be considered Canadian content by all Canadians.

Maybe listening to Canadians rather than dictating to them what the government wants them to see as Canadian content would poise the government to better serve Canadians. If we were to ask a group of Canadians how important Canadian content in media is, I suspect about half would say it is important. If we were to ask that same group how much Canadian content they actually consume, what platforms they subscribe to and what shows they watch, the answer would most likely be pretty different.

Perhaps, for once, rather than dictating to Canadians, the government that supposedly represents their interests ought to take the novel approach of listening to them. While it is listening, it should ask them what they think about the carbon tax, the cost of living, this so-called green and woke agenda, their media priorities and whether they feel safe on the streets. This is Conservatism 101. The market is the best indicator of what Canadian people want, because it is driven by Canadian people. Rather than accept this reality, the government that thinks it knows better than Canadians how to spend their money, consistently pushes back against the market to achieve its own ideological purposes.

At the end of the day, the market determines the viability of a product, including media, so we need to address these issues. Conservatives agree with that, but the weaknesses of this legislation are secondary to the sad reality that the government lacks credibility. It is a serial offender, guilty of doing the very things it claims this legislation would address.

Only a new, Conservative government would be able to address these important issues, and we will address them head-on—

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I think I was the culprit. I do apologize as I did receive a few texts during my speech.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we have seen examples of people who have been involved in Iran and in the IRGC who have made their way to Canada, finding sanctuary and safe haven here, and our government has refused to act, refused to sanction them and refused to remove them from our country.

This legislation would clarify that, if there is evidence to show that people have been involved in some very torturous activities or brutality against their own citizens, they could be sanctioned. Once they are sanctioned, this legislation would now give the government the ability to remove them from the country. That was a great question.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

There have been lots of talk and lots of lip service around sanctioning individuals, but there has been little action. The member for Edmonton Strathcona previously mentioned that the number of assets that have actually been seized as a result of these sanctions is fairly minimal.

We did read in the paper earlier this week that a cargo plane has been seized at the Toronto Pearson international airport. The Antonov 124, which I have noticed there in my travels over the last year, has now been seized by the Canadian government, so it looks as though maybe the government is actually doing something about its sanctions.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize that the hon. member is the co-chair of the committee studying human trafficking and smuggling. I compliment her for the tremendous work she does there.

Specifically in regard to the Uyghurs in China, this is an issue that has been raised in the House many times before. One of my constituents has worked very closely with the Uyghurs in China and has seen, first-hand, how they have been rounded up and put into re-education plants, how their children have been forced into slavery in factories in China, and how we, as Canadians, have been buying some of those products. I think the media has done a pretty job of identifying some of the products that have been subsidized by forced labour.

We, as a country, need to take a hard look at that, and, where necessary, we need to sanction the individuals responsible for enslaving people.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question from the parliamentary secretary. He has clearly identified that, as an opposition member, I have done my job. I have identified that the legislation itself is good and that we are going to support it, and then I used the eight minutes between the front and the end of my speech to articulate some weakness in the bill that I think needs to be addressed. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today and offer my thoughts with respect to Bill S-8, a bill aimed primarily at amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts, including the Emergencies Act, to ensure that those whom Canada has sanctioned as a result of the war in Ukraine, and others, cannot claim sanctuary in Canada.

I would like to begin by addressing three areas of my remarks this afternoon. I will start by addressing some of the weaknesses in this legislation. This will be followed by thoughts that China poses a much stronger and more relevant case for this legislation. Finally I will say why, despite the obvious flaws, I will be supporting this bill, albeit with reservations.

When this legislation was brought before the Senate last year, the senators heard from Dr. Andrea Charron. Dr. Charron is the director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba. She noted what many of us in this chamber and the other place have noted over the past seven and a half years, which is that the Liberals really struggle to bring coherent legislation. Whether here or in the Senate, there is a pattern of bringing forward legislation that sounds good, sounds comprehensive and sounds tough but ultimately achieves nothing. That really is the legislative legacy of the current Liberals: symbolism and sanctimony over substance, and virtue signalling rather than leading with virtue. It is legislation that is far more concerned with looking and sounding good rather than with doing good. It is legislation that is ultimately aimed at pleasing certain core constituencies of the Liberal establishment and international entities rather than at achieving real change for Canadians.

As Dr. Charron put it, this bill “repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues.” As Senator MacDonald noted in his critique, “[Dr. Charron's] critique of government bills is becoming all too commonplace of late. Many of the bills that the government is introducing are increasingly reactive measures, usually quick responses to external events. They are hasty measures designed to be symbolic, and it shows.”

Despite the Liberals' claim that they are listening to the experts, which is a claim that experts whose testimony has been systematically blocked or ignored by the Liberals in committee would dispute, their actions are not based on reality, unless they mean experts in how to keep the government from collapsing under the weight of its own self-righteousness and its own ineptness. The scandal-plagued government and Prime Minister consistently bring forward legislation, when in reality, as noted by expert witnesses at committee, changes to departmental processes and policies would likely be more efficient and ultimately more effective.

This virtue-signalling, reactive approach to legislation is often coupled with creating a straw man. Rather than dealing with the real issue or causes, the current government creates a false narrative with false bogeymen and false spectres of impending disaster, and then it attacks anyone who attempts to take a critical approach to its disingenuous actions. Dr. Charron asked the Senate committee a simple question: Is this actually a problem that needs to be addressed? Has this actually happened? Are there thousands of pro-war, pro-regime Russians whom we have sanctioned breaking down the door to get into Canada? Dr. Charron was unaware of such an occurrence.

The Senate heard from Richard St. Marseille, the director general of immigration and external review policy at the CBSA. Mr. St. Marseille informed the committee that no sanctioned individual from any country is known to have entered Canada in the past five years. There have been refusals abroad, including five under the Special Economic Measures Act and 10 under the Magnitsky law, but even those refusals are out of 1,858 individuals sanctioned under SEMA and roughly 2,200 individuals listed under various sanction grounds. To put it another way, none of these individuals have entered Canada, and fewer than 1% have even attempted to do so.

We have a lot of problems with our immigration and border security systems right now, but the simple facts and figures show that this is not one of them, nor is it likely to become one of them, because, despite the Prime Minister's belief that he has created a progressive utopia where everyone wants to live, many people in other parts of the world, including Russia, do not see it that way. Many Russians look at similar so-called progressive policies by the Zelenskyy government in Ukraine as a degradation of traditional values and, by extension, as part of their justification for invading in the first place: in order to rescue Ukrainians from what they view as western decadence and widespread immorality. A vast majority of Russians are appalled by the decline of traditional family values and what they see as the failures and weaknesses of western culture.

A growing number of Russians may be opposed to the war, even to President Putin, but let us not mistake that for a seismic culture shift that will suddenly embrace progressive policies and values. The notion that we are going to have a flood of Russians, especially those who have been sanctioned by Canada for supporting the regime, and who have had their assets seized, suddenly wanting and trying to come here is, frankly, ridiculous. They know they are not wanted here, and that is fine with them because they do not want to live here. There is no evidence or even indication this has been, is currently, or will become a problem.

We do have a pressing public safety and immigration problem, and that is with the Chinese Communist government. We have the Chinese ambassador and an untold number of agents of Beijing working to actively undermine our democracy; to intimidate and harm expats and family members, even members of the House; and to engage in espionage and cyber-attacks.

The government has consistently refused to address the actions of Beijing; better put, it has actively covered up for China's government. There are our National Microbiology Laboratory, the Chinese police stations that continue to operate despite the government's claim they do not, and the government's continuing to fund them through the Liberals' Canada summer jobs program. In fact, if one substituted China for Russia as the impetus for this legislation, it would be a lot easier to see this as a genuine effort rather than as just more virtue signalling. The opposition has been demanding, for months, the removal of the Chinese ambassador, the shutting down of these police stations, a stop to the government's covering up for its friends in Beijing, and its coming clean about what happened at the National Microbiology Laboratory and with election interference.

Instead, the government seeks to keep Canadians in the dark and distracted by creating a straw man so they will not pay attention to what the actual problem is. I really think the MO of the PMO has become to address something that has not been a problem, that is not a problem and is unlikely to become a problem, in order to distract Canadians from the myriad problems the government has created. Rather than address the illegal guns that the government has allowed to flood across the border, as used by the violent criminals it has kept out of jail, it goes after law-abiding firearm owners. Rather than go after its wealthy friends, it labels small business owners as tax cheats and goes after them. Now, rather than deal with the pressing and proven problem of Beijing, it raises the unsubstantiated spectre of an influx of sanctioned Russians.

I am not denying that Russia presents a threat to our Arctic sovereignty or to our digital infrastructure, or that the invasion of Ukraine is not a problem. It is a big problem, and Canada has gone above and beyond in our efforts to help Ukraine. However, this is Canada's Parliament, and those who poses an immediate domestic threat and should not be coming here are not the Russians; they are those from Beijing. This is really my main point here today. If we are going to pass this legislation, let us make sure we do so for the right reasons and use it against the right people. Let us use it to finally deal with Beijing, to finally deal comprehensively with the IRGC and those who are already here and pose a direct threat to Canadians and to our democracy.

With that said, as I noted at the top of my speech, despite these reservations, I will be voting in favour of this legislation. First, it would address a gap in the existing legislation that would allow IRCC to deny an individual based on international sanctions. Second, it would grant new powers to the Minister of Public Safety that would allow the minister to make a determination and issue a removal order. While any additional ministerial power, especially with the current government and its track record of shunning accountability at every turn, is a cause for concern, the opposition hopes that by removing the disingenuous excuse of so-called departmental dependence, the minister would now act in accordance with the will of the House to remove bad actors. Third, Conservatives have always been strong supporters of sanctions and the Magnitsky law, and have been critical of cases where individuals with ties to certain organizations but who are not necessarily on the terrorism list, like members of the IRGC, have been allowed to enter and remain in Canada. The legislation would remove the government's chief excuse for failing to deal judiciously with such individuals, so there is a chance it would become useful down the road, especially once a new Conservative government cleans up the legislation.

Despite the obvious flaws, there is sufficient merit to this legislation, and I will be supporting it.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the bill being clear about making people inadmissible on the basis of their being sanctioned, or an entity that they belonged to being sanctioned, or a country being sanctioned, but the bill also includes some ministerial overrides.

Could she talk a little bit about the breadth of those overrides and the ministerial powers for overriding what would normally be a sanction that would make someone inadmissible? How much latitude and how much power would the bill give to the minister?