SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 176 - Mar/30/23

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

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

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Mar/30/23 7:51:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

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

Hon. Mike Lake

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

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/30/23 7:53:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

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

Hon. Mike Lake

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

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

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

Hon. Mike Lake

Mar/30/23 7:56:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is actually the flip side of that argument. I think the government's response to the Senate amendments, by way of completely ignoring them and then taking to the Internet to actually attack people who criticize the government's approach, is what erodes Canadians' confidence and trust in their government, more than anything else.

57 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Mar/30/23 7:56:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11 Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to the people whom I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot across east-central Alberta, and also to ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard within this place. Certainly, when it comes to the amount of correspondence and calls I receive, or the people who come up to me in the grocery store or on the street, or who walk into my office on the main street in Camrose, or when I chat with them across the many communities I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot, time and time again I hear from constituents who share their concern and who share their dismay at the fact that the Liberals and the Prime Minister would perpetuate a type of censorship that would limit the ability of Canadians to express themselves online. It is unbelievable that in the 21st century this would happen in Canada, yet we are seeing it now, not only through Bill C-11, but we saw it through the previous Parliament's Bill C-10. Liberals seem to stop at nothing to control what Canadians believe and think, control everything to do with their lives. My submission to this place today, on behalf of so many constituents, is to plead with the government to reconsider. As we discuss specifically the bill, which has been studied thoroughly, what I find interesting, now that it is back before this place, with the government's response to a thorough debate that took place in the Senate, is that we see so clearly that there is no consensus on the path forward for the bill, which is very contrary. In fact, I would like to call out a very significant falsehood that is often perpetuated by members of the government. They somehow suggest, and in fact in question period earlier today they said it very clearly, that every Canadian supports the bill and that nobody is opposed to it. They asked the Conservatives what we are doing and said that we stand alone. I will definitively answer that question and say categorically that it is a falsehood, because of what we have heard throughout the course of this study. I know for a fact that there are some Canadians who live in constituencies represented by Liberals and by New Democrats who have reached out to me and other colleagues and have said unequivocally that they do not support Bill C-11. I want to call out that falsehood in this place today, because government ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other talking heads of the government stand and say it is only the Conservatives who are somehow opposed to this great idea called “Bill C-11”. They forget to talk about the substance of it; rather, they would simply make the case that everybody is on their side and that nobody opposes them. That is categorically false, and I am going to call out that falsehood here today, as my constituents expect me to. We face a unique circumstance. We are facing not only a censorship bill that is before this place, in the form of Bill C-11, but we are facing the limiting of debate. Can members believe it? We see that not only does the government want to control the online feeds of Canadians, but it is truly stooping to a new level by limiting the debate in the people's House of Commons. Can members believe it? The Liberals, with their coalition partners in the NDP, would do everything they can to silence opposition voices and to silence the voices of so many Canadians. It is not just Canadians we have heard from on this matter. It is not just regular folks who are living their daily lives, but we have seen that there is certainly no consensus across the artistic community in Canada. In fact, we have heard from many of Canada's most talented individuals, those in the more traditional spaces like art and writing, as well as television stars and that sort of thing, but we have also seen, incredibly, the rising digital creator class speak so clearly in opposition to the bill. In fact, I remember the previous iteration, Bill C-10. It can get a little confusing for those watching, and I am sure there are many watching this egregious attempt by the Liberals to censor not only members of Parliament, but all Canadians. The previous iteration of the bill in the last Parliament was called Bill C-10, and I remember chatting with the president of a digital film festival. I can assure members that this person was not a natural Conservative. This was not somebody who would be predisposed to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, but the plea from this pioneer in the creation of digital content was to say to stop it, stop the Liberals from being able to control our feeds and stop the Liberals from being able to introduce a massive government bureaucracy that would endeavour to control what we see online. I am proud to stand in this place with my Conservative colleagues as the only party that stands for freedom and democracy and against censorship. An hon. member: Kill the bill. Mr. Damien Kurek: We do need to kill Bill C-11. There is no question. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because even the Prime Minister's appointed senators brought up concerns about this bill. Again, it is not simply Conservatives who are concerned about cat videos like the member opposite suggested, but it is a growing chorus of folks from across the country who are saying that this is not the right direction for our country. I would note that over the course of the study that took place in Canada's Senate, we heard time and time again from Liberal-appointed senators. It was not simply Conservatives who were appointed in the Senate. It was a chorus of Liberal-appointed senators and they were tired of the propaganda that the Liberals were trying to sell. I know that my colleagues have done a great job of unpacking various elements of that here this evening, but certainly when it comes to some of the specifics, we see a number of examples where senators endeavoured to make a bad bill a bit less bad, in an earnest attempt for democracy to be able to play its course. Those voices, in the other place as we refer to it, those senators, include those whom the Prime Minister appointed and some of whom were artists themselves, ironically. They endeavoured to make this bill less bad, so they sent it back as is tradition and procedure and yet here we have the government rejecting most of those amendments. They were the way that the Liberals would have the opportunity, a “get out of jail free” card, to address some of the most egregious concerns that certainly Conservatives have highlighted but also that experts from across the country have highlighted. The Liberals were given an opportunity from Liberal Prime Minister-appointed individuals. Here was how they could have helped them get a pass so that they could have exempted some of the biggest concerns that experts from across the country had brought forward and yet what does the government do? Margaret Atwood is no Conservative and certainly not a traditional Conservative voter, although we will see what happens in the next election. We see a “creeping totalitarianism” where all the Liberals want is control. It seems that they will stop at nothing to control what Canadians see online. Let me take a bit of a step back, if I could, and describe what is so sneaky about this bill because we have here not a frontal assault. We have examples throughout history of direct assaults on freedom of expression. There are numerous examples that one could point to from around the world where governments specifically say individuals can or cannot believe this. There are many examples where this Prime Minister will certainly call out anything he does not like and call people un-Canadian or a fringe minority or those with despicable views. He is certainly a purveyor of that sort of divisive language that divides Canadians. However, this bill is sneaky. Let me unpack for members why it is so sneaky. It does not say that a regular Canadian or a content creator, or whatever the case is, cannot post something online, that they cannot go onto YouTube or cannot participate in a social media platform of some kind. The bill does not say at all that they cannot post something. That is where it is sneaky. Certainly the members of the Liberal Party have bought into this. I would hope that they simply do not understand what they are actually promoting and trying to pass into law in this country because of how terrifying a precedent it sets, but here is what is really terrifying. The bill does not at all say that people could not post it. What it does do is say very clearly that the government could control who sees it. As I describe this to many constituents who rightly are concerned, we see that it is backdoor censorship at its finest. We see that it is the government using a sneaky mechanism and increased government bureaucracy to endeavour to control what Canadians can see. In the guise of the government saying it will never limit what people can say, it will simply limit what they can see. It is terrifying that this is something that would be debated in the 21st century in this place. It is the sneakiness. I would implore all Canadians and all members of this place to stand up against that sort of sneaky, creeping totalitarianism because it sets a terrifying precedent that the government can control not necessarily what people can say as they allowed to think and say whatever they like, but it will control who can see it and what they see. That is an absolutely terrifying precedent that is being set. When it comes to the bureaucracy that has been proposed, there are many examples where government fails. In fact, I would suggest the government is not really that good at delivering much and certainly the Liberals have demonstrated time and time again that they are not very good at delivering anything, let alone the promises they make either during a Parliament or during an election, whatever the case is. The Liberals' response to the mechanism that they will use to control the information on the Internet is the imposition of broadcasting-like codes into the way that streams and algorithms work online. The way they are going to do this is to use a government agency. The government is saying to just trust it, do not worry about it, there is no reason to be concerned, people can certainly trust anything and everything the Prime Minister says, who has demonstrated himself to be less than truthful on more occasions that he can count. We see that Liberals are saying to just trust them when the reality is that Canadians cannot. Let me unpack that a little. By using the CRTC, Liberals are giving a tremendous amount of authority, albeit at arm's length, to individuals who are subject to cabinet orders and approval, who are subject to appointments that are made by the Governor in Council or by the Prime Minister, in essence. We see the fingerprints of the Prime Minister, this backdoor type of censorship, that would limit the ability of Canadians and gives an incredible amount of authority to a bureaucracy that does not necessarily have the best interests of Canadians in mind. I want to provide a bit of a paraphrase of part of the debate that I had with former minister of heritage, now Minister of Environment. He certainly has a checkered record when it comes to his activism and whatnot, but during the previous debate on Bill C-10, the comment was made that as long as it is the right sort of information, then it must be okay. In fact, I think it was a Green Party member who no longer sits in this House who had made this assertion during questions and comments during a late-night sitting when the Liberals were again trying to force and censor the debate around censorship. It seemed to be in the eyes of some within the left that it was okay to censor as long as it was censoring the views that one did not like. Let me state definitively and uncategorically in this place that freedom is something that cannot be dictated. Freedom is something that exists because people are free. Freedom of speech is something, as is very clearly outlined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that requires the full scope of what that means. When there is a very clear attempt, a precedent that has been set, examples of the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal Party who have demonstrated a willingness to use the authority and the power of government to get their way, to cover up their scandals, to use the massive infrastructure of government and the associated bureaucracy to influence the direction of Canadians, it is not something that Canadians want, whether they support the Conservatives or not. This is where there is a growing number of individuals. I think that directly related to the Liberals' shutdown of debate, their censorship of the censorship discussion, we have what I suspect is a growing message that Liberal MPs, backbench and otherwise, are likely hearing from their constituents who are asking questions. They are asking what the deal is with this. Instead of Liberals being honest with those constituents, addressing those concerns and taking a pause on what would be massive government overreach, they are buckling down. Instead of being honest and instead of representing their constituents, they simply slam the door on debate and push the bill through for royal assent so that they can have the control they so much desire. We have seen this before. It is incredibly troubling that they are using the heavy hand of their coalition, in which nobody in either the NDP or the Liberal Party were elected. The Liberals are using that confidence and supply agreement, a fundamentally undemocratic agreement, as a weapon to try to control what Canadians can see on the Internet. I will tell members that it is wrong and it needs to be rejected. This will be the last chance for members of the House to take a stand for Canadians and for freedom. There is so much that can, and I believe needs, to be talked about when it comes to the myriad circumstances surrounding Bill C-11. I would like to talk about the idea of Canadian content. As the Leader of the Opposition articulately stated earlier, this is one of the sneaky ways that the Liberals are able to massage the debate around this issue to somehow suggest that Conservatives are the ones who are somehow offside with regular Canadians. On the question of Canadian content, clearly it is the Bloc that shows that the Liberals are absolutely full of it when they try to hide behind this idea. Let me unpack that a little. It would be nice to know what Canadian content is. I think that the Conservatives, over the course of this debate, have been asking that question: “Give us a definition of what Canadian content is?” However, the Liberals seem unwilling to have that discussion, let alone meaningfully engage on the issue. The question must be asked: Why is that significant? It is because it comes back to who is in control. When we are basing a bill on so-called Canadian content, it sounds great. Who does not love maple syrup? Who does not love being proud to be from Alberta, and the western heritage there? Who would not love to watch the Calgary Stampede for those 10 days? There are numerous examples, such as country music. Not everybody may agree with me on the best form of music, but it certainly is country music. We see how the Liberals talk about Canadian content. I think they are endeavouring to ensure that Canadians think of the motherhood and apple pie-type messages: maple syrup, the moose and the fond memories of childhood. Those are related to various elements that people may associate with what they might call Canadian content. What is concerning is that we see a direct attempt by the government to manipulate that term to serve its political purposes. The government is not defining Canadian content in the bill, in fact, if members can believe it, it is not even mentioned in the bill. However, the Liberals talk about it in such a forward way that it provides this, what I would suggest, massive funnel where they can say, “Okay, here are the only things that can fit” in what they would determine is the type of Canadian content they would deem acceptable. Is that coming from a directive from the Prime Minister's Office? I do not know. However, for the Liberals to suggest that it is or it is not comes directly down and back to the question that I asked earlier as to whether or not we can trust them. I think Canadians increasingly are speaking very clearly on this issue that “we cannot”. We cannot trust this Prime Minister, we cannot trust this cabinet, and we cannot trust these members of the coalition, when they have demonstrated time and time again that they simply cannot be trusted. Where does this leave us, as we come down to what is literally the end of debate, where we will be, once again, voting on the bill? It is the last chance. I think the solution is actually quite simple. Canadians have a choice: creeping totalitarianism and a respect for a basic dictatorship, or the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is willing to bring home freedom for every Canadian, so let us bring it home.

3068 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 8:16:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

It being 8:17 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Motion No. 2 relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C‑11 now before the House. The question is on the amendment.

54 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Mar/30/23 8:17:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote, please.

10 words

Recorded
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/23 8:17:43 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members. And the bells having rung:

9 words

The Speaker

Mar/30/23 8:48:10 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House]

20 words

Mar/30/23 9:02:48 p.m.
Watch

The Speaker

Mar/30/23 9:03:06 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

60 words

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/30/23 9:05:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Speaker

Mar/30/23 9:14:51 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. The Speaker: It being 9:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 9:15 p.m.)

37 words