44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/30/23 10:11:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure and honour of tabling a petition concerning provincial sovereignty.
The over 3,000 petitioners note that the government's continued appeal of decisions regarding Bill C-69 and the constitutionality thereof is a violation of provincial sovereignly and jurisdiction.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to respect the ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal by not seeking further appeals, to recognize Bill C-69 as unconstitutional and to immediately repeal this legislation.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 10:13:17 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition from many concerned Canadians from Alberta and B.C., including in my own riding of Calgary Confederation.
The petitioners are justifiably concerned that individuals with a history of sexually inappropriate behaviours are permitted to live in close quarters with vulnerable seniors in care homes. The petitioners highlight a tragic case involving an Alzheimer's patient, Ruth, and they believe her sexual assault could have been prevented if care homes took these threats more seriously.
The inability of care homes to separate known sexual abusers from very vulnerable populations is allowing them to commit their crimes with little recourse. This is wrong, violates the vulnerable and causes untold stress for their families.
The petitioners want the government to bring forward legislation that prevents known sex offenders from cohabiting in facilities with known vulnerable seniors.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:02:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie River basin drains nearly 20% of Canada's land mass. Waters in Alberta and B.C. flow north toward Great Slave Lake, down the Mackenzie River and into the Arctic Ocean.
The illegal, unreported Kearl tailings leak is just the most recent risk to one of the largest freshwater sources in the world. It is yet another industrial project south of 60 that threatens the basin. Even before this leak, NWTers had long had concerns about the impacts of these projects on our waters. Creeks and small rivers are drying out. Ice is more treacherous. Ponds and small lakes have disappeared. Water is less deep and warmer. Mammals and fish are disappearing.
Regulating this specific cleanup and developing a monitoring plan with all those impacted is necessary and important. Northern indigenous peoples and the Government of Northwest Territories are impacted and are a necessary part of the discussions. The Mackenzie River basin must not be used as another tailings pond.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:19:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is in a name? Let us ask the provincial Liberal parties. We would think that having the same party name as the federal governing party would be an advantage, but clearly it is not.
Provincial Liberals, suffering from the brand damage that the Prime Minister is doing, are barge polling away from the PM's party name.
The Saskatchewan Liberal Party had a long history in my province. In fact, six out of seven of our first premiers were Liberal. However, the PM has destroyed the party's name so badly that the Saskatchewan Liberals just voted to end their embarrassment and stop calling themselves Liberals altogether. They do not even have a name for the new party. They would rather be called the “no-name party” than have any association with the Prime Minister.
The Liberals in B.C. recently made the same decision, realizing that to win elections, they cannot have any association with the disastrous Prime Minister either.
I am told that the Alberta Liberal provincial caucus was considering doing the same thing until it realized it does not exist.
This comes as no surprise. After decimating Canada's energy sector, dividing Canadians and 40-year high inflation, it is no wonder nobody wants to be associated with him.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:32:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in fact, all the infrastructure that he is talking about will be built by workers with union jobs or workers who are paid prevailing union wages. That is a game-changer in this country. That is something that union leadership, from the Canadian Labour Congress to Unifor, the Alberta Federation of Labour and Trades NL have all been asking for. They have all asked for a seat at the table. We have told them for years they will lead that table, and this budget proves it.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:51:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' campaign of misinformation continues. The claims that Canadians get more back in rebates for the failed carbon tax have been proven false by the public budgeting officer. He said the largest net loss will be felt by Alberta families, who will pay $2,773 in tax. In a bid to look more virtuous to eco-radical groups, the costly coalition is going to jack up its failed carbon tax this Saturday.
Why do they not axe the failed carbon tax and stop punishing families for eating, heating and driving?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:52:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every time we put forward an affordability measure, the Conservatives vote against it. However, good news is coming to the Prairies, where the member and I live. As of April 1, a family of four will receive a climate rebate of up to $1,500 in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and $1,000 in Manitoba.
This is going to help families. It is going to help families because the cheques are going to arrive quarterly. Eight out of 10 families will benefit. I do not know what the Conservatives have against good news.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain some of what he has heard from some of his constituents, who, I am sure, are very similar to those I have heard from in northern Alberta who are very concerned about what this is going to mean and about what they are going to be able to see and say on social media platforms.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
