- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/3/24 3:46:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2559, 2561 to 2563, 2565 to 2571, 2573, 2576, 2577, 2580, and 2582 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:17:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2546, 2547, and 2549 to 2557 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one point the member referred to, because it is a really important aspect. When we think of all the information out there, it is incredible just how massive it is. Information nowadays, through technology and archives, is truly amazing. What we need to recognize right at the beginning is the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” I think “whose duties require such access” is probably the most important thing for us to recognize. How wonderful it would be to sit in any sort of meeting and get the sense that we have an entitlement to know everything that might pique our curiosity. However, I do not think that this is in the best interest of national security, in terms of things such as foreign affairs, public safety and national security.
It is interesting to listen to the debate, and particularly what is coming from the Conservatives. I say that because when I was a member of the Liberal Party when it was the third party, Bill C-51 was brought forward. At the time, Liberals were arguing that we needed to establish a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was something that was justified, because there was a sense that parliamentarians on the committee would be able to look at anything and everything and they would have the security clearance to do so. We argued that. I argued that, 10 years ago, when I was sitting in opposition, recognizing that there is sensitive information, even back then, that not all members of Parliament should be receiving because it should be based on the need to know.
Back then, I articulated why it was so important that we establish this national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Hansard will clearly show that, back then, I said the committee should be apolitical, non-partisan, and should have representatives from all political parties. We took a lot of heat back then from the government of the day and lost. We could not convince the government to establish such a committee, in the form of an amendment to Bill C-51.
We should keep in mind the relationship that Canada has with its allied countries. When we think of security, we have to think of the Five Eyes countries, of which we are one. At the time, we were the only country in the Five Eyes that did not have a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was one of the primary arguments I used back then. I believed that, whether there was the RCMP, CSIS or any other public agency, this committee of parliamentarians needed to be established to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. We made the commitment back in 2015 to establish that committee, and we did just that. We established the committee and joined the Five Eyes countries, our allies, in having this parliamentary committee, but members will recall it was with a great deal of protest from the Conservatives, because they did not want this committee to be established. Why is that?
A lot of politics is played when it comes to issues, whether it be foreign interference or any sort of foreign affairs. We were talking about hostages yesterday. There are a great deal of professional, civil servant-type individuals who are out there protecting us and making sure that Canadians are safe and secure. There is some information that we individually do not necessarily need to know, if that is in the best interest of public safety.
As parliamentarians, we get involved in all sorts of meetings. One could argue we could be more effective if there were no redactions done to documents brought forward to the standing committees. Even within in camera meetings, whether it is intentional or unintentional, we are going to have information being leaked.
I have listened to members opposite speak to this bill, and there was nothing said that addresses that specific concern. What I hear them say is that they are members of Parliament, so they should be able to have unlimited access if they can get a particular security clearance. If someone wants to be able to get information, they just go and ask for the security clearance.
I will go back to the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” For the people who are concerned that something is awry or something is happening that they should know about, there are other mechanisms currently in place. We have the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We have representatives from all political parties who sit there, and there are no restrictions there. We also have mechanisms that have been agreed upon for when certain issues come to the attention of the House of Commons.
We can talk about the Afghan detainees issue and the great uproar that took place there. People wanted classified information. They wanted to see the words and the information. That was actually done through negotiations with the then prime minister and opposition parties. There was a consensus as to how that information could be revealed to all political parties.
We have seen other issues come up in the interim. It is interesting that when the opposition talks about, for example, the Winnipeg labs issue, this government offered the very same formula that Stephen Harper offered when he was prime minister. We offered the very same formula in trying to deal with the issue, and the opposition said no to that initially.
Why did the opposition say no to that? Why did they say no to joining what the Five Eyes and other countries around the world were doing? I suspect that it has more to do with politics than good practice. That is why, when we take a look at the legislation that is before us today, I have not heard an argument as to why we should be looking over and above the need-to-know principle. However, we are not done. There is still going to be some more debate. I will continue to have a bit of an open mind on it. I will say, to this point, I have not heard anything.
1094 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:47:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member across the way that, in fact, Canada is not broken and that we are on the right economic track. The Conservatives are very good at spreading misinformation. That should not be a surprise to anyone who follows the debate.
For example, the member said that we are scaring away investors. Last year, Canada was number one in the G7 countries for GDP, based on the population base in terms of direct foreign investment for the first three quarters. Worldwide, we were number three on a per capita basis.
How can the member or the Conservative Party across the way try to mislead Canadians by saying we are scaring away investment when we see that kind of reality staring us in the face?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/24 12:28:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2438, 2439, 2441, 2444, 2445, 2447 to 2449, 2452 and 2454 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 10:19:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 2362 originally tabled on April 10 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately in an electronic format.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/10/24 6:13:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Question Nos. 2356, 2358 to 2360, 2362 and 2364 to 2370 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 6:53:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member put on the record, and it is a great deal of detail. On the other hand, my understanding is that the clerk had put in writing some requests for specific information and that information was provided. Therefore, the written request that came from the clerk of the committee was, in fact, complied with.
The bottom line is that I do not think we are in a comfortable enough position to respond until we have a little more time or enough time to respond in more detail on what is a very important issue.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 6:53:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2254, 2256, 2258, 2261 and 2262 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on February 26 regarding the alleged premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-63, the online harms act.
I would like to begin by stating that the member is incorrect in asserting that there has been a leak of the legislation, and I will outline a comprehensive process of consultation and information being in the public domain on this issue long before the bill was placed on notice.
Online harms legislation is something that the government has been talking about for years. In 2015, the government promised to make ministerial mandate letters public, a significant departure from the secrecy around those key policy commitment documents from previous governments. As a result of the publication of the mandate letters, reporters are able to use the language from these letters to try to telegraph what the government bill on notice may contain.
In the 2021 Liberal election platform entitled “Forward. For Everyone.”, the party committed to the following:
Introduce legislation within its first 100 days to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This would make sure that social media platforms and other online services are held accountable for the content that they host. Our legislation will recognize the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and will take a balanced and targeted approach to tackle extreme and harmful speech.
Strengthen the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate.
The December 16, 2021, mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada asked the minister to achieve results for Canadians by delivering on the following commitment:
Continue efforts with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host, including by strengthening the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate and reintroduce measures to strengthen hate speech provisions, including the re-enactment of the former Section 13 provision. This legislation should be reflective of the feedback received during the recent consultations.
Furthermore, the December 16, 2021, mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Canadian Heritage also asked the minister to achieve results for Canadians by delivering on the following commitment:
Continue efforts with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host. This legislation should be reflective of the feedback received during the recent consultations.
As we can see, the government publicly stated its intention to move ahead with online harms legislation, provided information on its plan and consulted widely on the proposal long before any bill was placed on the Notice Paper.
I will now draw to the attention of the House just how broadly the government has consulted on proposed online harms legislation.
Firstly, with regard to online consultations, from July 29 to September 25, 2021, the government published a proposed approach to address harmful content online for consultation and feedback. Two documents were presented for consultation: a discussion guide that summarized and outlined an overall approach, and a technical paper that summarized drafting instructions that could inform legislation.
I think it is worth repeating here that the government published a technical paper with the proposed framework for this legislation back in July 2021. This technical paper outlined the categories of proposed regulated harmful content; it addressed the establishment of a digital safety commissioner, a digital safety commission, regulatory powers and enforcement, etc.
Second is the round table on online safety. From July to November 2022, the Minister of Canadian Heritage conducted 19 virtual and in-person round tables across the country on the key elements of a legislative and regulatory framework on online safety. Virtual sessions were also held on the following topics: anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, women and gender-based violence, and the tech industry.
Participants received an information document in advance of each session to prepare for the discussion. This document sought comments on the advice from the expert advisory group on online safety, which concluded its meetings on June 10. The feedback gathered from participants touched upon several key areas related to online safety.
Third is the citizens' assembly on democratic expression. The Department of Canadian Heritage, through the digital citizen initiative, is providing financial support to the Public Policy Forum's digital democracy project, which brings together academics, civil society and policy professionals to support research and policy development on disinformation and online harms. One component of this multi-year project is an annual citizens' assembly on democratic expression, which considers the impacts of digital technologies on Canadian society.
The assembly took place between June 15 and 19, 2023, in Ottawa, and focused on online safety. Participants heard views from a representative group of citizens on the core elements of a successful legislative and regulatory framework for online safety.
Furthermore, in March 2022, the government established an expert advisory group on online safety, mandated to provide advice to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on how to design the legislative and regulatory framework to address harmful content online and how to best incorporate the feedback received during the national consultation held from July to September 2021.
The expert advisory group, composed of 12 individuals, participated in 10 weekly workshops on the components of a legislative and regulatory framework for online safety. These included an introductory workshop and a summary concluding workshop.
The government undertook its work with the expert advisory group in an open and transparent manner. A Government of Canada web page, entitled “The Government's commitment to address online safety”, has been online for more than a year. It outlines all of this in great detail.
I now want to address the specific areas that the opposition House leader raised in his intervention. The member pointed to a quote from a CBC report referencing the intention to create a new regulator that would hold online platforms accountable for harmful content they host. The same website that I just referenced states the following: “The Government of Canada is committed to putting in place a transparent and accountable regulatory framework for online safety in Canada. Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.”
Again, this website has been online for more than a year, long before the bill was actually placed on notice. The creation of a regulator to hold online services to account is something the government has been talking about, consulting on and committing to for a long period of time.
The member further cites a CBC article that talks about a new regulatory body to oversee a digital safety office. I would draw to the attention of the House the “Summary of Session Four: Regulatory Powers” of the expert advisory group on online safety, which states:
There was consensus on the need for a regulatory body, which could be in the form of a Digital Safety Commissioner. Experts agreed that the Commissioner should have audit powers, powers to inspect, have the powers to administer financial penalties and the powers to launch investigations to seek compliance if a systems-based approach is taken—but views differed on the extent of these powers. A few mentioned that it would be important to think about what would be practical and achievable for the role of the Commissioner. Some indicated they were reluctant to give too much power to the Commissioner, but others noted that the regulator would need to have “teeth” to force compliance.
This web page has been online for months.
I also reject the premise of what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle stated when quoting the CBC story in question as it relates to the claim that the bill will be modelled on the European Union's Digital Services Act. This legislation is a made-in-Canada approach. The European Union model regulates more than social media and targets the marketplace and sellers. It also covers election disinformation and certain targeted ads, which our online harms legislation does not.
The member also referenced a CTV story regarding the types of online harms that the legislation would target. I would refer to the 2021 Liberal election platform, which contained the following areas as targets for the proposed legislation: “hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.” These five items were the subject of the broad-based and extensive consultations I referenced earlier in my intervention.
Based on these consultations, a further two were added to the list to be considered. I would draw the attention of the House to an excerpt from the consultation entitled, “What We Heard: The Government’s proposed approach to address harmful content online”, which states, “Participants also suggested the inclusion of deep fake technology in online safety legislation”. It continues, “Many noted how child pornography and cyber blackmailing can originate from outside of Canada. Participants expressed frustration over the lack of recourse and tools available to victims to handle such instances and mentioned the need for a collaborative international effort to address online safety.”
It goes on to state:
Some respondents appreciated the proposal going beyond the Criminal Code definitions for certain types of content. They supported the decision to include material relating to child sexual exploitation in the definition that might not constitute a criminal offence, but which would nevertheless significantly harm children. A few stakeholders said that the proposal did not go far enough and that legislation could be broader by capturing content such as images of labour exploitation and domestic servitude of children. Support was also voiced for a concept of non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
It also notes:
A few respondents stated that additional types of content, such as doxing (i.e., the non-consensual disclosure of an individual’s private information), disinformation, bullying, harassment, defamation, conspiracy theories and illicit online opioid sales should also be captured by the legislative and regulatory framework.
This document has been online for more than a year.
I would also point to the expert advisory group's “Concluding Workshop Summary” web page, which states:
They emphasized the importance of preventing the same copies of some videos, like live-streamed atrocities, and child sexual abuse, from being shared again. Experts stressed that many file sharing services allow content to spread very quickly.
It goes on to say:
Experts emphasized that particularly egregious content like child sexual exploitation content would require its own solution. They explained that the equities associated with the removal of child pornography are different than other kinds of content, in that context simply does not matter with such material. In comparison, other types of content like hate speech may enjoy Charter protection in certain contexts. Some experts explained that a takedown obligation with a specific timeframe would make the most sense for child sexual exploitation content.
It also notes:
Experts disagreed on the usefulness of the five categories of harmful content previously identified in the Government’s 2021 proposal. These five categories include hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, child sexual exploitation, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Another point is as follows:
A few participants pointed out how the anonymous nature of social media gives users more freedom to spread online harm such as bullying, death threats and online hate. A few participants noted that this can cause greater strain on the mental health of youth and could contribute to a feeling of loneliness, which, if unchecked, could lead to self-harm.
Again, this web page has been online for more than a year.
The member further cites the CTV article's reference to a new digital safety ombudsperson. I would point to the web page of the expert advisory group for the “Summary of Session Four: Regulatory Powers”, which states:
The Expert Group discussed the idea of an Ombudsperson and how it could relate to a Digital Safety Commissioner. Experts proposed that an Ombudsperson could be more focused on individual complaints ex post, should users not be satisfied with how a given service was responding to their concerns, flags and/or complaints. In this scheme, the Commissioner would assume the role of the regulator ex ante, with a mandate devoted to oversight and enforcement powers. Many argued that an Ombudsperson role should be embedded in the Commissioner’s office, and that information sharing between these functions would be useful. A few experts noted that the term “Ombudsperson” would be recognizable across the country as it is a common term and [has] meaning across other regimes in Canada.
It was mentioned that the Ombudsperson could play more of an adjudicative role, as distinguished from...the Commissioner’s oversight role, and would have some authority to have certain content removed off of platforms. Some experts noted that this would provide a level of comfort to victims. A few experts raised questions about where the line would be drawn between a private complaint and resolution versus the need for public authorities to be involved.
That web page has been online for months.
Additionally, during the round table on online safety and anti-Black racism, as the following summary states:
Participants were supportive of establishing a digital safety ombudsperson to hold social media platforms accountable and to be a venue for victims to report online harms. It was suggested the ombudsperson could act as a body that takes in victim complaints and works with the corresponding platform or governmental body to resolve the complaint. Some participants expressed concern over the ombudsperson's ability to process and respond to user complaints in a timely manner. To ensure the effectiveness of the ombudsperson, participants believe the body needs to have enough resources to keep pace with the complaints it receives. A few participants also noted the importance for the ombudsperson to be trained in cultural nuances to understand the cultural contexts behind content that is reported to them.
That web page has been online for more than a year.
Finally, I would draw the attention of the House to a Canadian Press article of February 21, 2024, which states, “The upcoming legislation is now expected to pave the way for a new ombudsperson to field public concerns about online content, as well as a new regulatory role that would oversee the conduct of internet platforms.” This appeared online before the bill was placed on notice.
Mr. Speaker, as your predecessor reiterated in his ruling on March 9, 2021, “it is a recognized principle that the House must be the first to learn the details of new legislative measures.” He went on to say, “...when the Chair is called on to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, it must take into consideration the extent to which a member was hampered in performing their parliamentary functions and whether the alleged facts are an offence against the dignity of Parliament.” The Chair also indicated:
When it is determined that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the usual work of the House is immediately set aside in order to debate the question of privilege and decide on the response. Given the serious consequences for proceedings, it is not enough to say that the breach of privilege or contempt may have occurred, nor to cite precedence in the matter while implying that the government is presumably in the habit of acting in this way. The allegations must be clear and convincing for the Chair.
The government understands and respects the well-established practice that members have a right of first access to the legislation. It is clear that the government has been talking about and consulting widely on its plan to introduce online harms legislation for the past two years. As I have demonstrated, the public consultations have been wide-ranging and in-depth with documents and technical papers provided. All of this occurred prior to the bill's being placed on notice.
Some of the information provided by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is not even in the bill, most notably the reference to its being modelled on the European Union's Digital Services Act, which is simply false, as I have clearly demonstrated. The member also hangs his arguments on the usage of the vernacular “not authorized to speak publicly” in the media reports he cites. It is certainly not proof of a leak, especially when the government consulted widely and publicly released details on the content of the legislative proposal for years before any bill was actually placed on notice.
The development of the legislation has been characterized by open, public and wide-ranging consultations with specific proposals consulted on. This is how the Leader of the Opposition was able to proclaim, on February 21, before the bill was even placed on notice, that he and his party were vehemently opposed to the bill. He was able to make this statement because of the public consultation and the information that the government has shared about its plan over the last two years. I want to be clear that the government did not share the bill before it was introduced in the House, and the evidence demonstrates that there was no premature disclosure of the bill.
I would submit to the House that consulting Canadians this widely is a healthy way to produce legislation and that the evidence I have presented clearly demonstrates that there is no prima facie question of privilege. It is our view that this does not give way for the Chair to conclude that there was a breach of privilege of the House nor to give the matter precedence over all other business of the House.
3096 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the leader of the Conservative Party could explain. When he talks about the spreading of disinformation, I would ultimately argue that he is the king of doing just that through social media.
Why does the leader of the Conservative Party instruct his members not to participate in political panels? I was on CTV yesterday and there were no Conservatives around. I was on other CBC panels and there were no Conservatives around. It is an avenue through which Canadians can find out what it is the Conservatives are saying. However, when it comes time for it, the Conservatives are nowhere to be found because they know that there is more accountability when they are on those political panels.
Why does the Conservative leader support the absence of Conservative members on panels and public meetings?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:20:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I asked the member's colleague from British Columbia a question, and I will be more focused on the question itself in regard to how the leader of the Conservative Party is touring the country and literally spreading information that is questionable and that many would say is intentionally misleading. Examples of that include the province of British Columbia, where the carbon tax does not apply, and the member's home province, where the carbon tax does not apply. To people like my constituents in the province of Manitoba, he is saying there is no net benefit, in terms of dollar value, from the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax, when over 80% do receive more than they actually pay.
I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the ongoing spreading of misinformation by the official opposition.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:50:37 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member and the speaker before her have put on the record.
The question I have is with respect to the spreading of misinformation. If one takes a look at social media, there is a great deal of information out there that is just not true.
Can the member provide her thoughts on the impact this has on sound, good public policy, when we have the official opposition spreading misinformation to the detriment to the policy itself?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 10:26:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we saw the former leader of the Conservative Party twist, bend and jump all over the place to try to justify statistics so that Conservatives can continue their spin of misinformation.
Let us be very clear. There is a carbon tax, and there is a carbon rebate. It is as simple as that. Eighty per cent plus of people will receive more in the rebate than they will pay in the tax. No matter how many somersaults or twisting of the facts the former leader of the Conservative Party does, that is the reality.
Why do Conservative Party members not go around Canada saying they are going to be cutting the carbon rebate? They know full well that the disposal income for 80%-plus of people is going to go down under the Conservative plan.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:46:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 2064, originally tabled on January 29, 2024, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:13:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 2070, originally tabled on January 29, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled in an electronic format.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:32:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting how Conservative members stand in their places and have no problems whatsoever giving misinformation. Let me give an example. The member talked about inflation and tried to give the false impression that inflation is being caused by a carbon tax, even though a majority of the constituents I represent will get more back in the carbon rebate than they will pay in carbon tax. That is a fact.
The Bank of Canada has been very clear that the impact of the carbon tax, as the Conservatives call it, is less than 1%. It is 0.15% on inflation. When one listens to the Conservatives, one would think it is an 8% increase. It is ridiculous the type of false information the Conservative Party is giving to Canadians. Why do they do it?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:01:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in many ways, I think it is important for us to look at the contrast on the table today in regard to what the Conservative Party of Canada continues to propose, and which will no doubt become a major election platform. It is determined to get rid of a price on pollution. That policy is in contrast with what other opposition parties are saying and what the government is saying. The amount of misinformation that the Conservative Party is spreading through social media and in other ways is, I believe, to the detriment of sound policy.
Could the member provide her thoughts on the damage caused by the misinformation that is out there today about the price on pollution?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party's fixation on the bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax” has caused the Conservative Party and the MAGA right to ultimately say things like they do not support the trade agreement with Ukraine. There are so many bizarre things coming from the far right under the leadership of the Conservative Party.
How does the member justify providing misinformation, or selected information, to the constituents I represent? When he says he wants to axe the tax, he is really telling the majority of the residents in Winnipeg North that he would also get rid of the rebate, which means there is going to be less disposable income because he has a desire for a bumper sticker. How does he justify that?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:46:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder about the problems of having the leader of the Conservative Party going around indicating misinformation in regard to the price on pollution. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that and what he believes the impact will be, just in terms of the general knowledge of the population?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
