44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 9, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his question. I too really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
No, I do not see those things. As I said earlier, misinformation is being used to fearmonger regarding issues like freedom of expression and the freedom to surf the web without impediment or constraints. I think this has more to do with bad faith and fearmongering, to serve their own interests. I guess it pays off politically. I confess that I do not resort to spreading disinformation, or at least as little as possible. If I do, it is truly accidental, and I apologize in advance.
No, I do not at all see what the Conservatives see in this bill.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague is as tired as I am of all this disinformation.
What the Conservatives are doing is taking bits of information out of context and trying to scare people with them. It reminds me of the documentary on Robert Charlebois in Paris called À soir on fait peur au monde, which translates to “tonight we scare people”. I feel like that is what the Conservatives have been doing for months, or years, I should say.
This is the party that made all sorts of cuts to culture. Are they just trying to find an excuse to promote their political agenda of taking a laissez-faire approach and giving digital multinationals absolute power?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is true. Disinformation is all we have been hearing from the Conservatives since we began debating this bill.
As I said in my speech, it is time to make room for Canadian content, to make sure that Canadian content has a place, to stand in solidarity with our artists and creators and provide them with the support they need so much after two tough years. This bill shows our willingness to stand behind them and with them.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier, following the speech by the opposition leader, we noted that he was clearly pandering to a certain demographic, certain people, just as he did during his election campaign by spreading a lot of disinformation and using algorithms to redirect certain text messages and so on.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will begin by expressing my disappointment. I am disappointed because I really do value my colleague who just spoke. I think he is a man of great intelligence and exemplary quick thinking, as he has often demonstrated. Unfortunately, this morning, he seems to be embarking on a global disinformation campaign on behalf of his pan-Canadian, pro-oil, pro-pipelines-in-Quebec political party, by telling lies, by saying that Bill C-11, will, for one, control the content that people will be able to view on the Internet. That is not true. He should reread the bill. There is nothing in the bill that does that. What the bill will do is promote Quebec content. I will never believe that my colleague disagrees with promoting Quebec content, without imposing anything, without imposing a menu choice, but by making it visible on the platforms. That is the essence of what the bill does.
If my colleague is such an ardent champion of Quebec, the day his party wants to ram an oil pipeline down Quebec's throat, will he stand up and support Quebeckers?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the member does not like what his government has done, but it does not change the fact that it is there in black and white. Experts, again, have made it very clear.
[The minister]'s statement suggests that somehow removing digital creators from the ambit of the legislation creates a loophole. From a substantive perspective, this is disinformation.
That is what Michael Geist said.
He went on to say:
The narrowly crafted amendment by two [Liberal]-appointed Senators is specifically designed to meet [the government]'s stated objectives. The Internet platforms will still be brought into the Broadcasting Act as the use case [the minister] often cites...would be met. The only change is to ensure that user content would be excluded...
That is what the Senate amendment would have done. The government could not handle it because it would lose control over the ability to manipulate the algorithm and impact user-generated content.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
