44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are debating Bill C-11 in a political context and in terms of what my constituents see as a barrage of false information about it taking away freedoms is very distressing. However, it is also not perfect legislation.
I want to tell my hon. parliamentary colleague, the parliamentary secretary, that I absolutely could not agree more that this bill does not affect freedom of expression. That is protected in the Broadcasting Act and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, likewise, I do not understand why the government removed Senate amendments that make it very clear the bill would not affect user-generated content. I am concerned about that because I think it needlessly confuses the situation. We need to pass Bill C-11 to protect Canadian writers and Canadian artists in a context where their access to work has been declining rapidly because of online streaming services.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her hard work in standing up for freedom.
The Senate looked at this with its sober second thought, and it came up with an amendment that tried to protect people's individual content and to exclude that from the scope of the bill.
Why does the member think that the Liberal government will not support that amendment?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I heard that the Premier of Quebec sent the Minister of Canadian Heritage a letter to say that he was concerned about the fact that the bill would infringe on freedom of expression. Is the hon. member also concerned?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is high time we pass Bill C‑11, for the cultural sector and for our local artists and craftspeople who tell our stories.
I would like the member to take a minute to reassure us, and reassure everyone, Quebeckers and Canadians alike, that, despite the Conservative propaganda, when it comes to freedom of expression, we are still going to be able to post pictures and videos of our cute cats and dogs on YouTube, and we are still going to be able to say whatever we want.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I believe I said in my remarks that a professor at the University of Montreal who specializes in CRTC issues made a strong case that, no, we are not at the point of needing an Internet police force.
More than that, if restricting freedom of expression is the same as trying to get an adequate proportion of francophone content on digital platforms, then I want more francophone content. If that is the one and only thing that Bill C‑11 is designed to do, I do not believe it is infringing on freedom of expression. It is better representing the diversity of our cultural milieu.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
The title of Bill C-41 is a bland one, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, but the impact on people's lives is exciting. This bill is about providing help and hope for those in desperate need. It highlights the Canadian tradition of caring for those in other countries.
As we are all aware, the situation in states under terrorist rule can leave innocent people in dire need. As a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I have heard many tragic reports from those with first-hand experience of war and authoritarian regimes where basic human rights are not recognized. As someone who came to Canada from a war zone, I can empathize with those innocent people who did not choose the authoritarian regimes that they may be forced to accept.
Canadian values of helping those in need are rooted in a Christian humanitarian world view. We want to help where we are able, and Bill C-41 would allow us to do just that. Canada does not take unilateral military action against aggressive regimes. Our way is to work co-operatively with like-minded countries for the benefit of everyone, and while military force is sometimes necessary, building international consensus can take time. While that is happening, innocent people can suffer. This legislation attempts to address that suffering.
For example, Canada does not recognize the legality of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, as the Taliban is a terrorist entity. We have no relations with it. We do not support terrorists. However, the people of Afghanistan are in need and their terrorist government has no desire to help them. Drastic changes are needed in states like Afghanistan, but more war is not the answer. This bill is a sign that Canada recognizes that. As we deal with the reality of the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this bill would allow us to assist the critical organizations involved in providing immediate aid to those people most in need.
Our role as parliamentarians should be to have a free and open debate about the specifics of Bill C-41, which includes conducting an adequate study in committee. However, we should not be delaying the passing of this bill. To achieve this goal, I would suggest that the justice committee launch a prestudy on this bill. By doing so, we would allow a thorough study of this act and provide interested Canadians the opportunity to debate and understand the specific details of what Bill C-41 has to offer.
Canadians do not want to endorse non-democratic states. However, the on-the-ground support offered through various activist-led operations should not be hindered due to the oppressive cultural and political climate entrenched in these states. We need to promote “Women, Life, Freedom” in these areas. Real changes have to start somewhere. This bill has the potential to provide a beacon of hope to those in dire need of humanitarian aid. There is also the potential to leave a distasteful legacy if we in this House fail to launch a swift and adequate study of this bill.
It is important to the Canadian people that we stick to our true democratic values. Because of this, upholding the legacy of honourable success stories should be of utmost importance. The Canadian war efforts from 2001 and 2014 in Afghanistan highlighted the tragic failure of democracy against a terrorist stronghold. Since the reoccupation by the Taliban in 2021, it has been made abundantly clear that our approach was not effective in creating lasting change.
Our Canadian troops heard first-hand the stories of Afghan citizens of repression under the Taliban. They not only fought for their Canada, but they also fought for the good, innocent people they grew to love in their day-to-day lives. The grim situations they observed first-hand in Afghanistan should be enough for us to see that this bill, which would allow aid groups to meet the needs of the desperate without fear of criminal charges, should be supported.
One of my staffers, whose mother served with our troops in Afghanistan, has recounted the stories her mother shared of her time serving there protecting the people from the Taliban. As she struggled to reintegrate into the Canadian way of life upon returning, she found herself facing deep grief and inner turmoil as the Taliban once again seized power 13 years after she had physically left the country.
My colleagues, that mother's experience is not hers alone.
Canadian troops put their lives on the line not only for their country, but to help Afghan women and children have hope of a better life. Years of conflict and violence led to a humanitarian crisis that shattered the innocence of these people. Many were left with the impression that dangerous and unethical acts are how one earns the love desired from one's parents. Their sense of purpose in life is determined by the warped world view of the Taliban.
No child should have to grow up in fear, but that is the situation in Afghanistan. While we cannot do anything at this point about the government that creates that fear, with Bill C-41 we can probably do something to help with the humanitarian crisis the Taliban has created. We owe it to our veterans and to our fallen soldiers to continue the effort toward a better humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We cannot let their sacrifices be in vain.
Bill C-41 would allow us, as Canadians, to help the immediate situation on the ground while other work is being done behind the scenes to influence the meaningful societal shift required.
With that in mind, I believe approaching the situation from both the top down and the bottom up should be the most effective way of inciting the change we seek.
This bill provides the foundation that assists on-the-ground organizations to operate in terrorist-run states. However, we must tread carefully. Bill C-41 still needs work. The people of Afghanistan, and others, still need help. We must ensure this bill is swiftly examined and improvements adopted.
We might, for example, want to look at our duty to protect Canadians who become targets of oppression in states like Afghanistan. Citizens who courageously go to these states to provide humanitarian aid to the suffering victims of these states know the Government of Canada will support them in any way it can.
Many questions will arise as this bill progresses through this House and we should allow some time to address the concerns of our colleagues in a thorough but timely fashion. A prestudy by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would assist in this goal.
To be quite honest, the real question is whether Liberal government members are serious about providing protection for aid organizations and will make it a priority or whether it will be consigned to the legislative back burner as not important. Human lives are at stake. The choice is theirs.
1208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, unlike the member I heard earlier, I am burdened with a legal education from the best law school in Canada, Osgoode Hall Law School.
I very much enjoyed the member's speech. My question is about what she said when she was talking about the freedom to speak but not necessarily the freedom to be heard. My understanding is that this would give the CRTC the ability to control algorithms, thus potentially burying comments, perhaps like burying a comment that was called out on Twitter for not being truthful, like the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Would the member be worried that the content by the member for Kingston and the Islands might be buried?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, unlike the member I heard earlier, I am burdened with a legal education from the best law school in Canada, Osgoode Hall Law School.
I very much enjoyed the member's speech. My question is about what she said when she was talking about the freedom to speak but not necessarily the freedom to be heard. My understanding is that this would give the CRTC the ability to control algorithms, thus potentially burying comments, perhaps like burying a comment that was called out on Twitter for not being truthful, like the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Would the member be worried that the content by the member for Kingston and the Islands might be buried?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is always the same old story from the Conservative side. They are fearmongering, saying that freedom of expression is under attack, when there is absolutely nothing to that effect in the bill.
However, there is one thing the bill does that the Conservatives never talk about: It brings fairness to Quebec and Canadian cultural production. Cable companies have been contributing for 30 years, but digital broadcasters were not included in the act at the time because they did not exist.
Why do the Conservatives want to prevent YouTube, Netflix and Disney+ from paying their fair share for cultural productions and helping our creators and artists?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am going to read a section of Bill C-11, which reads:
(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with
(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings;
I wonder if the member agrees with me that indigenous groups like the Maskwacis, who were mentioned earlier, will not be negatively impacted by this bill.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that I totally agree with what he said in his speech. It is so hard to be here and have a debate when some parties are saying that this is not true and that Bill C-11 is regressive and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Why does he think the Conservatives have become so successful on social media these days with ideas that are completely false? Bill C-11 does not in any way infringe on the right to freedom of expression.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is very interesting. Conservatives are now switching from North Korea and tyranny and freedom to trying to disingenuously take the bill and pretend that there is something hidden in it that Canadians should be concerned about. He knows very well that user-generated content is exempt.
As the member would know, if he had followed the debate at committee, the NDP ensured in the bill that, first, user-generated content is not impacted, and second, of course, freedom of expression is preserved. It would be great to have just one Conservative member stand up and honestly acknowledge what the NDP did, the fact that the bill has been improved and that what we wanted to preserve has been preserved in the bill.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate on Bill C-11. I quite seriously think there is a deeply held belief that this bill is going to hurt freedom of expression that is entirely on the part of members and the Conservative caucus.
I am so grateful, and I am not going to claim that law school makes a person understand everything, but statutory interpretation is one of those things that one gets a good skill for, being able to read a piece of legislation. Where one finds freedom of expression is protected in this bill is in the Broadcasting Act, and then we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defends freedom of expression.
Nothing in this bill could possibly reduce Canadians' freedom of expression, nor has it ever been the case that anyone, before this debate, has ever conflated protecting Canadian content with censorship.
They are completely different concepts. I am very frustrated at this hour of night that we are still debating Bill C-11 without really debating it, because there were places I wish it had been improved. There are questions of whether there is a two-tiered approach to our cultural industries. However, there is no doubt that creators in this country have been losing the opportunity to make a living because of the competition from online streaming services that are big-time—
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is absolutely right. Freedom of expression is absolutely not impacted by this bill. I wish just one Conservative would honestly stand up and admit that.
She also raised another key point. The—
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have heard all evening that this bill would not regulate or diminish freedom of speech. What I heard in the member's speech was that freedom of speech includes the right to be heard. I am wondering if he could expand on that. Those two concepts must go together.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the platforms, it is my understanding that it is the level of use by the users that determines the prioritization and not the platforms. The algorithms are driven by those who are using and viewing. It is by the users. It is the freedom to choose what one sees. That is what is driving the algorithms behind it, and that is exactly what we want to see. We want to see that freedom of the users of the content: the hearers. That is what this legislation would be impacting. It is not the freedom of speech as much as the users.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my maiden speech to the House in 2019 or 2020, I referenced my four daughters and said I hoped they would have no glass ceiling above them. The Internet provides the opportunity, if that is their chosen field, not to put any ceiling above them. They have the full freedom.
I am surrounded by very capable female colleagues who did not require the quota to bring them here. The freedom the Internet provides gives the expression of those opportunities. It does not hinder racialized Canadians, Inuit and first nations. It provides the platform that is accessible to all. A quota does not help that. It will not help my daughters; they will make it on their own.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was interesting a short time ago when we had an opportunity to listen to one of the answers from the Bloc. The member for Shefford said that if violating freedom of expression means ensuring Quebec content is well represented online, then it is worth it. They may not vote against this particular bill, but they are certainly saying what the member is saying about the fact that there are violations.
Can the member comment on our colleague from the Bloc's assessment of the bill?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
