44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/30/23 7:24:08 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby does understand what he is doing.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has a point of order.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:24:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the House is built upon the foundational principle of honour, and every time the member says that a member from this side has not read the bill, it is dishonourable. He needs to show some integrity and he needs to understand that the Conservatives are doing the best they can to represent the views of their constituents. It is dishonourable of him to insinuate that we would do otherwise.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:24:38 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member raises an important point, and we have to believe that members here represent their constituencies.
I invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to be prudent.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:24:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly did not question that. I questioned their knowledge of the bill. They have yet to prove that they have read through and have knowledge of the bill.
Every time we spend an hour in debate in this place, it is tens of thousands of dollars that taxpayers have to spend. The Conservatives would have loved hundreds and hundreds of hours of additional debate, so my question to my colleague is quite simply this. Why would the Conservatives want to draw out debate for hundreds of hours when they do not have enough knowledge about the bill, as they have not read it, to impart any information about the bill to Canadians?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:25:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will recognize the member's intervention, but I believe if he had read the bill and closely read clause 7, he would have understood that there are serious problems with the bill. We need to continue debate on it to allow Canadians and the experts to be heard and to understand why we cannot trust this NDP-Liberal coalition, which he has to speak up with because of a signed agreement between the parties to carry this corrupt government forward.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
Democracy does, indeed, die at night. We are sitting here dealing with amendments from the Senate on a deeply flawed and deeply controversial piece of legislation. I have not been in the House all day, but for the last couple of hours. I have heard the debate and the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a profoundly convincing argument that he made as to why this piece of legislation should not be passed.
However, it is not just the words of the Leader of the Opposition that tell us why this piece of legislation needs to be, at a minimum, overhauled or, better yet, halted at this time. The concerns of Canadians, the concerns of digital content creators, those who understand this space, those who have looked at this piece of legislation, those who have taken the time to appear before committee to express their views and all of their concerns, including the Senate amendments, to deal with one part of this deeply flawed piece of legislation are being ignored by the government, which is certainly being aided and abetted by other opposition parties.
What I thought I would do tonight is take a different tack from where this debate has gone today. There have been, like I said, hundreds of thousands of voices. There is not one issue, perhaps other than Bill C-21, the firearms legislation that I heard more about from my constituents than Bill C-11. Like the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, I am an elected member of this place, I am the voice of the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil and I am going to share their voices this evening. I am going to share the voices of other eminent Canadians who have expressed a concern about this piece of legislation.
I received an email from Kim, who said, “Dear Mr. Brassard, The passing of Bill C-11 will be a sad moment in Canadian history. Please consider making sure this bill does not get passed. This kind of censorship should not come from our government or any free society.” Violet said, “Dear Sir: I want the brakes put on this Bill now! I am not a fan of this ridiculous Bill.”
Rose said, “This bill is an overreach. It needs to be scrapped. Anyone who has been following this bill understands that we do not need the government to tell us what we can read/see [online].” Peter said, “Hello John, Regarding the above, my opinion is Bill C-11 should be scrapped and the [...] government keep their hand off of our social media. I hope you are [doing your] best to keep this Bill from being passed. Hopefully the Liberals will be ousted in the next election.”
John and Corrine from Barrie said, “Trust all is going well with you and your family. We ask that you vote 'no' to Bill C-11. This will hurt and restrict healthy free speech and debate which is the democracy our nation is founded on. This is a great concern to us. As our constitutional freedoms and rights are restricted, this opens doors to tyranny and dictatorship which is dangerous to every level of our nation.”
Another says, “Good afternoon Mr Honourable Brassard, I know you're busy so I'll be brief.” This is from Brent in Barrie. “I'm very much against Bill C-11. I don't want an unelected government official/body determining what my family can watch. Margaret Atwood is against it. The previous CRTC commissioner is against it. This bill will stifle freedom of speech and shut down contrary views under the threat of 'misinformation and/or disinformation'. Please fight for our freedom of speech.”
We have certainly heard in the arguments from the opposition, the NDP and others about this being an issue of disinformation. In fact, I would suggest the ones spreading the disinformation are those on the government side.
The other person who has been directly involved in this entire debate has been Michael Geist, who is a law professor at Ottawa University. Interestingly, I was going through some his posts earlier today and he has been watching the debate intently in this House of Commons. He made a post earlier that said, “Bill C-11 is not China, Russia or Nazi Germany. As I’ve stated many times, it does not limit the ability....[of] implications for freedom of expression but it does [not] turn Canada into China.”
Mr. Peter Julian: Bravo. Bravo.
Mr. John Brassard: Don't get ahead of yourself.
Madam Speaker, his post continues, “To the claims that user content regulation is excluded from the bill, Section 4.1(2)(b) and 4.2.2 clearly scope such content into the bill, an interpretation that has been confirmed by dozens of experts and the former Chair of the CRTC. Liberal and NDP MP claims to the contrary should be regarded as disinformation, a deliberate attempt to spread false information. Indeed, the Senate proposed a fix. The government rejected it. That was supposed to be the focus of the debate, yet Liberal MPs such as [the member for Winnipeg North] falsely claimed that it is not there.”
He continued, “There were many other misleading or inaccurate statements throughout the day. Contrary to what some claim, the bill will not result in hundreds of millions of new spending or lead to increased consumer choice (the opposite is true). It will require the CRTC to re-examine Cancon rules, which experience suggests are only loosely correlated to the professed goal of “telling Canadian stories.” But leaving all of these things aside, there was really only one question that needed answering: if the government’s intent is not to regulate user content and the Senate passed an amendment consistent with that goal after concluding that Bill C-11 in its current form opens the door to CRTC regulation, why is the government rejecting the amendment?”
That is the fundamental question to this debate, and it is a question that has not been answered by either the government or any other members of the opposition.
In fact, Mr. Geist goes on and actually references a Bloc MP's intervention. He says, “[It probably provides] what is likely the most accurate, if deeply troubling answer. When asked to confirm that the bill maintains freedom of expression safeguards, [this Bloc member] responded with the following per the House of Commons translator 'if violating freedom of expression means ensuring that Quebec content is well represented online then that’s worth it.'”
To hell with everyone else.
We need to be able to protect freedom of expression online for everyone in this country, not just based on a geographical region. That is what is most egregious about this bill.
Mr. Geist goes on, “in the zeal to court support from the Quebec culture lobby, [the] Canadian Heritage Minister and the government are choosing in Bill C-11 to sacrifice some freedom of expression, which includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard.”
I mentioned earlier there have been other Canadians who spoke out against this. Timothy Denton, former CRTC commissioner and president of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, spoke out against this, as did Peter Menzies, former CRTC commissioner, and Scott Benzie, content creator and director at Digital First Canada. J.J. McCullough, in a well-document Twitter intervention, posted his video. He talked about his concerns, and he is a journalist and commentator, about the impact this is going to have on user-generated content.
The Digital Media Association has expressed concern, as did Jeanette Patell, the head of Canada government affairs and public policy at YouTube. We have heard all of these interventions at committee all expressing concern about this particular piece of legislation and the impact it is going to have on the ability for Canadians to be seen and heard for the type of content they create.
As I said at the outset, we are dealing with Senate amendments. The Senate found it within itself, many of its members who are Liberal-appointed senators, to approve the amendments and send those amendments back to this place so we could have a wholesome debate. What is so sad throughout this whole process is the fact that this debate is being stifled at this point by closure by the government because it does not want to hear the truth from many of those Canadians who have expressed serious concern with this bill. Of course, the government is being aided and abetted by its coalition partners within the NDP.
We will always stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are not going to sit idly by and allow the government to kill democracy at night.
1515 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:36:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. I am grateful to hear the voices of Canadians. They can rightly voice their opinions about this issue. I have received similar emails and phone calls to my office, largely after receiving fundraising emails from the Conservative Party that are filled with the misinformation that is then repeated in their correspondence back to us.
It is our duty in this House to ensure that we do our due diligence, and we respond calmly and accurately, and share information about what is actually in the content of the bill. That is what I have been doing.
I am wondering if the member has also been listening to the voices who are in support of this bill, or does he also believe that they are liars and coercive bad actors.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, there has not been any other issue that I have been seized with other than Bill C-21, which is the firearms legislation, more than this piece of legislation.
I have heard from more people who are opposed to this piece of legislation, because of the impact it would have on user-generated content. I have listened to the voices of those people I represent. I have heard, at committee, the testimony of people. I read many of their comments about their concern about this piece of legislation. The Senate has a concern. The only sides that are not concerned about this are the Liberal and NDP side, and to some degree the Bloc. It is understandable why the Bloc is in support of this piece of legislation, but the NDP and the Liberals are not doing what they need to do, and that is to listen to those people who have expressed concerns.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:38:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in response to the misinformation put forward by my colleague, I wish to point out that the Bloc Québécois has always supported and will continue to support freedom of expression, including the freedom of Quebeckers to live and thrive in their own culture.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:38:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the Bloc Québécois does not support freedom of expression. We agree with the Bloc on that.
What I said is that there are a lot of people across the country who do not agree with this bill for the reasons I have already outlined.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I spent many hours listening to the debate in this House, and I have listened to many Conservatives, the majority of whom are not speaking specifically to the bill. They are speaking about freedom and the freedom to have anything on the Internet.
I just wanted to hear from the member. This is from the B.C. Association Chiefs of Police. As a past municipal councillor, child exploitation is one of the fastest growing crimes in Canada. The former president of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police said:
New social media applications create new opportunities for predators to target and exploit children online. As social media continues to grow, it's important for police to keep pace and prevent the victimization of children.
I wonder if the member has some comments about how we protect children from online predators.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:40:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do, it is called the Criminal Code.
To conflate the issue of child sexual exploitation with amendments or legislation that deal with the Broadcasting Act is disingenuous to say the least. None of us in this place want to see child exploitation manifest itself through online channels. The Criminal Code addresses that. The police services across this country address that. We have already addressed that. Could we do more? Absolutely.
However, this is about the Broadcasting Act, and this is about user-generated content and the impact for what people could see online.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:40:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question.
This is from the Senate testimony:
Ian Scott, who was, at the time, head of the CRTC, testified before our committee about their concerns that subclause 7(7) of the bill could give new and unprecedented powers to cabinet to intervene in independent CRTC decisions.... In this sense, Bill C-11 reduces enormously — potentially — the powers that the CRTC has and hands them over to the Government of Canada.
I have a simple question for my colleague. Can the Prime Minister be trusted with our freedoms?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think we have already seen examples of an overreach with this particular government on many aspects. I talked about Bill C-21 during my speech. My colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap highlighted many of the egregious events of the government in taking down or limiting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I think that is a concern and certainly a concern that I have heard from people as well.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:42:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to this debate tonight. In 2023 alone, I have held 15 constituent round tables of two hours each. I have heard from a couple of hundred constituents on a variety of issues, and this is among the top issues that constituents have raised with me.
I am not an expert to the extent that the member for Lethbridge is. She has done such fantastic work for our party on this issue. I am not as eloquent as our leader was tonight in his articulation of the issue, but I am here to represent my constituents.
I have been around here for 17 years, and today there is not only an observation about Parliament but also an observation about Canadian society that, if anything, we have to be a society that has more conversations not fewer conversations.
We need to be more open to approaching political debate and trying to persuade people. We need to be more open to being persuaded. Having as free of an Internet as possible, of course with safeguards for criminal justice issues and those kinds of things, and using the means available to us and the technology available to us is absolutely critical to the functioning of our democracy and the furtherance and the betterment of our society.
I have been watching and studying this, as I have been listening to the debate and also preparing for today, and I recognize that many experts have said that, under this bill, user content would be subject to CRTC regulations. The government has said, no, that is not the case. However, experts have come before committee and said, actually, it is the case.
The bill went to the Senate, and the Senate, dominated by Liberal-appointed senators, believed the experts. The senators came up with a reasonable amendment to address the issue. The Liberals in the House, led by the Prime Minister, decided that they were going to reject it. They were going to reject the wisdom of the senators who studied this and the experts who appeared before the Senate.
The senators came up with a common-sense amendment to address the issue. Liberals rejected it. The experts raised an alarm, and what did the Liberals do?
These are not hard-core Conservatives, by any stretch. These are people who, when we were in government, would appear before a committee and they used to be widely respected by Liberals. They are people like Michael Geist.
Now the government, members from the Liberal Party, call them names. They go to the Internet and criticize them publicly. They go to war with experts who have the courage to disagree with them, the people who have spent their lives looking at these things.
In the House today, it was interesting listening to an NDP member, earlier, down the way, talk about us wanting to debate this issue on behalf of our constituents, like somehow that is wrong and that we are wasting time raising the concerns of our constituents.
The NDP used to stand to debate, overnight, talking about things that the NDP wanted to talk about and debating. Its members used to stand up day after day, alongside the Liberals as well, complaining about the use of closure, every time closure was used. Now the NDP-Liberal coalition shut down debate at every opportunity.
Today, they are shutting down debate and limiting what Canadians hear about a bill designed to limit what Canadians see and hear on the Internet. That is the height of hypocrisy, and it is only in Liberal Canada today that we see this. We have a crisis of civil discourse in Canada.
At the root of this crisis is the fact that people do not feel heard. People do not trust the government. People do not understand the algorithms at play on Internet platforms either. We have those three things at play here, and this bill would exacerbate all those problems.
The Liberal and NDP members will say that the bill does not limit what people can post. Technically, that might be correct, but instead the bill just limits what Canadians see. It is called discoverability. The bill limits what Canadians see. We can think about what the challenge is with that. Right now, we are in a world where people feel like they are not heard, and there is increasing frustration among people who feel like they are not heard.
Right now, Canadians who have something they think is important to say, maybe through poetry, music, speech, dance or some form of the arts, will post it on the Internet. It might be anything in whatever form of expression Canadians have. Let us assume that what they post in this hypothetical situation would go viral today with whatever mysterious algorithms are at play in the social media world. If we are on YouTube searching for something, it gives us a list of suggestions to watch. It suggests things based on what we have watched, and we get a chance to see something. It does a pretty good job of feeding us what we want to see. In that case, the post would go viral.
However, there are two very negative potential outcomes with the legislation. One might be that a person posts some incredible Canadian content that might go viral around the globe today, but under the legislation, it does not meet some vague, undefined criteria laid out by government-appointed public servants. Therefore, it would not be shared. This is not because it would lack popularity but because it would fail to meet what the government is trying to do. Thus, people will not get to see it. This incredible content that would otherwise have been shared would not get shared.
The second thing that people do not talk about as much is this: Let us say the post is one that would go viral otherwise and it meets the government-designed criteria, whatever they may be, and is shared with Canadians on the basis of criteria that are different from what fits with their interests. Therefore, it gets shared with me as I am surfing the Internet, watching YouTube or whatever is the case, and it is shared on the side. However, it is not shared with me because it might be something I am interested in; it is shared because the government thinks I should see it.
Thus, I do not engage with it because I am not interested in it. Now comes the profit motive. The regular algorithms kick in on social media, and because that post has been shared with a whole bunch of people who do not engage with it, instead of sharing it with people on the basis that they would actually like it, the algorithms do not share it with anybody else at a global level. Therefore, people around the world who otherwise would have absolutely loved this amazing Canadian content never see it. The algorithms do not share it because the government has limited the number of people who see it by sharing it with the wrong people according to government priorities as opposed to people's actual interests.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled from the other side. They will not stand up and actually debate today, but they will stand up and heckle me. Then, they will probably ask questions about misinformation without making any arguments or trying to persuade anybody. They know they have the numbers tonight to just ram this through, regardless of what Canadians think. This is the issue we are talking about right now.
I am standing up in the interests of my constituents, who have massive concerns about the bill and already do not trust the government. It has been proven time and time again that the government will take steps against the interests of the constituents of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, which I will mention is the largest constituency in the country. It has a population of about 230,000 constituents who feel completely abandoned by the government. When they take steps to share their feelings with Canadians and people who might be interested, or share anything on the Internet, they now feel that their sentiments and perspective are going to be further throttled by a government that already does not listen to them, neglects their point of view and never comes to visit or hear what they have to say.
I will wrap it up there. Hopefully, the questions I get from the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members will indicate that they have heard some of the concerns my constituents have raised and reflect that maybe there is an openness to being persuaded in some way.
1468 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague that I listened to his speech. Frankly, I did not hear anything different from what I heard the other night when we sat here in the House until midnight. However, that is what freedom of speech looks like.
I am a member of Parliament for a riding in Quebec that is home to creators, artists, people who work in the film industry. It is very important for me and my constituents that Bill C-11 be passed by the House.
I would like to know why my colleague insists on continuing this exercise.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:52:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this exercise is called democracy. The hon. member talks about how she listened until midnight the other night and did not hear anything different from me than what she might have heard the other night. I do not know what she heard the other night, but she certainly did not hear the member of Parliament for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, representing the 230,000 constituents who I represent, standing here, representing the views that I have spent hours listening to at my constituency round tables.
That is the problem with the government. The views of constituents in areas that it does not represent are completely disregarded.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I have not been surprised, I guess, by the Conservative rhetoric during this debate on Bill C-11. They are quite repetitive in their interventions. They have not shared any real interventions on the actual text of the bill, including on discoverability, which in this act will be to ensure that cultural content created by artists is accessible and promoted and that discoverability requirements will not authorize the CRTC to impose conditions that require the use of a particular computer algorithm or source code.
I wonder if the member can explain to us what the Conservatives understand the discoverability clauses to be in the bill.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:54:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things to that point. The bill is many pages long, and experts who have spent their entire lifetime studying this stuff have, in large numbers, come before multiple committees of the House to say that user-generated content is open to being regulated by the government through the CRTC.
On the cultural side of things, I trust that Canadian creators, from across the country, in whatever language they come up with, in whatever form their content takes, will come up with something that will be really special and demanded by people all over the world.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 7:55:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, over the last few hours we have heard a lot of talk of censorship, knowing there is no censorship in this bill. I appreciate that the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin focused his time on speaking about concerns from his constituents, which is exactly what we should be talking about in this place.
My question for him is this. Is he at all concerned with how talk about censorship could take away from and erode trust in legitimate, real concerns with the government's response to the Senate amendments?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
