SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 297

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 10, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Apr/10/24 4:27:58 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the questions of privilege raised by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the member for Lethbridge respecting the government's response to two similar Order Paper questions, Question Nos. 1425 and 1445. The members alleged that the government's response to these two Order Paper questions deliberately misled the House. I submit that this is, in fact, not the case. The government stands by its responses to these Order Paper questions. Question No. 1425 reads in part, “With regard to government requests to censor information, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests has the government made to social media companies to censor information...?” In the case of Question No. 1445, it reads, “With regard to the government requests to remove, edit, or alter information in the media, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests has the government made to social media companies, including for any article, post or reply...?” Both questions deal with whether the government initiated a request for action. As part of the written submissions and testimony before the public inquiry on foreign interference, officials spoke about the Declaration on Electoral Integrity Online, to which social media platforms voluntarily signed on. In accordance with its terms, these social media companies would identify inauthentic activity on their platforms and consider taking down information they considered to be violations of their community standards. In early 2019, platforms had signed on to a framework agreement, the Canada Declaration of Electoral Integrity Online. Under this framework, Facebook engaged the Privy Council Office on an article from The Buffalo Chronicle, which contained misinformation. As noted in the testimony, the Privy Council Office agreed with Facebook that, in their opinion, the article contained misinformation and agreed with their proposal to remove it, pursuant to the declaration. At this point, Facebook ultimately reached the conclusion that the article represented a violation of its community standard and took action of its own accord. I submit that, at best, the matter raised by both members constitutes a debate as to the facts, which is a normal part of debate in this place. The government stands by the accuracy of the responses to Order Paper Question Nos. 1425 and 1445; in no way did it seek to mislead the House on this matter. The facts stand: A social media company engaged PCO about a posting on its platform that violated its own policy regarding its community standards on misinformation, and after notifying PCO of the situation, removed the offending post. That is a key point for the Speaker to consider in making a determination on matters relating to the responses to both Order Paper Question No. 1425 and Order Paper Question No. 1445. It is a long-standing practice of this place to take members at their word. Moreover, there are numerous precedents to demonstrate that the Speaker is not empowered to judge the quality of the answers provided, as you stated in your ruling of February 29. Having said that, I want to assure the House that the government takes seriously its commitment to providing accurate and truthful information to ensure that members have the information they need to discharge their parliamentary duties.
544 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border