Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 251
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I like the ability of users to decide. Quite frankly, I hate the idea of Justin Trudeau deciding what I can and cannot—
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, my apologies. Thank you for your gracious correction.
I would not want the government to tell me, a government that has been involved in so many terrible wrongs, which have recently been in the news, and Canadians what we can and cannot see. That is something that happens in the Soviet Union. That is something that happens in Communist China. That is something that will hopefully never happen in Canada.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-06-14 19:57 [p.8382]
Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleague two young men who are very precious in my life who I would call very young digital first creators. They understand social media, the web and all those things in amazing ways. They have concerns about this.
They are online. They compose music and have relationships through their apps all over the world, including Quebec, France, England and Australia. I want him to speak to that next generation, which is aware and very concerned about the fact their freedoms are being challenged here.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I have a five-year-old and a seven-year-old. I am in politics because I want a better future for them, and that better future comes from freedom.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 19:59 [p.8382]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this evening on a very important piece of legislation. I did get the opportunity, I think in second reading, to provide some thoughts on this legislation. When I reflect back to second reading, I can recall even some members of the Conservative Party somewhat implying in their comments that this is good legislation, and in fact, that there was a reflection of the time. I can remember participating in that.
It is important for us to recognize that things have changed a great deal. It has been many years since we have modernized or changed the legislation we are debating here this evening. It is really quite interesting and fascinating to listen to how the debate has evolved to this point. This—
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:00 [p.8382]
Madam Speaker, I have to be very sympathetic to our translators. They do a phenomenal job, ensuring all members can understand what is being said. I apologize for any popping noise that I might have caused.
In regard to the legislation, and as I was listening to the debate this evening, I was reflecting on a couple of points. One was the Conservatives' opposition to the legislation and the tactics they used to try to frustrate the House, and ultimately mislead Canadians on the second reading debate of the legislation. I can recall at least a good portion of that debate back then.
I realize I somewhat date myself as a parliamentarian now for about 30 years, both at the provincial and national level, but a lot of things have changed. When I was first elected, I had a Compaq computer. I think it was a 256 kB, and it had a five-and-a-half inch disk on which to back things up. To get on to the Internet in downtown Winnipeg, at the Manitoba legislature where my office was as an MLA, I would have phone into the Internet. I would get the long dial tone, a ding-ding sound and then I would be on it. It sure was slow as was the computer.
Things have changed. When I compare that to where we are at today, a couple of things that come to mind. We have underestimated for decades the impact the Internet has on society in many different ways. With regard to the legislation, for the first time we are taking steps forward to address that huge gap, those decades of doing nothing.
We have a Prime Minister who understands that technology has changed and he has mandated the Minister of Canadian Heritage to bring forward this legislation. Members within the Liberal caucus have been waiting very patiently for the legislation. We were glad to see it not only introduced, but get to second reading and then ultimately pass out of second reading. It has been long overdue.
Today, we have Wi-Fi. We can forget the telephone-dial-in type of Internet in downtown Winnipeg. We cannot even draw comparisons to the speed. I am learning this thing about music with the iPad and iPhone. It is called Apple Music, and I have acquired some music from that service. It has millions of songs. I suspect that if I were to start to listen to one song after another, I would be long gone before all the songs were played. In other words, any song one could possibly imagine can likely be found in its library. It is truly amazing what we can get on the Internet.
There are shows from the past like The Andy Griffith Show, or Three's Company orWKRP in Cincinnati. These are all shows from the past, and were fairly dominate outside of Canada. I remember The Beachcombers from British Columbia. There were many different kids' programs. I think of programs with great Canadian content. At one time, I suspect the rules sufficed, that they protected the industry, the consumers, our arts and culture and ensured we had a sense of Canadian identity.
As I have pointed out, over the decades, things have really changed. We can be very proud of some of the programs we have seen over the last number of years in particular.
I did not hear of Schitt's Creek until it won all those wonderful awards. A number of my caucus colleagues talked about the program, so I binge watched it. One gets a sense of pride that this is a first-class Canadian production. There is a very strong Canadians perspective to it.
When I think of programs of a Canadian nature, I think of Corner Gas from Saskatchewan and some of the personalities in that show. I think of some of the music industry stars such as Celine Dion and Anne Murray, just to mention a couple with whom I am familiar, as I am not really the most musically inclined.
However, Canada is rich in our heritage and in the arts, and we need to do what we can to protect that into the future. In good part, Bill C-10 is all about that. It is the part that interests me. I am very much concerned about Canadian content going forward and the opportunities for future songwriters, scriptwriters, musicians, actors, performers and the people who manage the stages. A healthy, vibrant industry exists and it needs to be supported. One of the ways we can support that industry and protect, in good part, our Canadian identity going forward is to support Bill C-10.
I find it amazing that the Conservatives have taken a hardened approach to it. I asked a question earlier about freedom of speech. I asked the member to be very specific, to provide me with a quote. A former member mentioned a couple of clauses, which I will have to take a look at, but the member I asked the question of did not even attempt to answer the question. I do not think she had any idea what it specifically was.
The Conservatives are very good at spinning things. I have been getting emails, as I am sure others have, about concerns with freedom of speech. It was even brought up at one of my virtual town hall meetings. A lot of Conservative spin out there is amplified for a wide variety of reasons. The skeptic side of me might say it has something to do with the Conservatives fundraising machine. Another reason might be that they are frustrated with other issues related to the pandemic, such as the government's performance in its work with other levels of government and Canadians and how reasonably well things have gone on that front, so they are trying to find something to complain about.
Based on today and what I heard coming out of committee, the Conservatives have definitely found something, and that is Bill C-10 and freedom of speech. I still do not understand the connection.
I do not remember the date, but the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, just as Canada's analysis confirms that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter's guarantee of freedom of expression, Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between creators and web giants.
It requires big, powerful foreign streamers to provide information on their revenues in Canada, to financially contribute to Canadian stories and music, and to make it easier for individuals to discover our culture.
The bill explicitly says that obligations apply to web giants only: not to Canadian users. Web giants have gone unregulated for far too long. Our government has chosen action over reaction.
I appreciate that there have been some amendments, changes and modifications, but whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Heritage, they have done a fantastic job representing what the legislation would do, considering the degree of support it is getting. I believe the National Assembly of Québec, listening to the minister, unanimously said that Bill C-10 was good legislation and it should be passed.
It surprises me that when Bill C-10 was in committee, the Conservative Party was determined to prevent it from moving out of committee. I genuinely believe that if it were up to the Conservative Party, Bill C-10 would never have left committee.
Some members say that they feel ripped-off because they did not get the chance talk to the amendments, because the government put time allocation on the amount of time the committee had for the bill. I would like to remind my Conservative friends that, as a minority government, for us to successfully put in any form of time allocation, we require at least one other opposition party to support that initiative. We cannot ram it through committee stage.
It seems to me that the Conservatives feel their rights have been walked on if the government brings in a motion for time allocation and gets passed. However, for the government to have the time allocation motion passed, it has to have an opposition party onside, and in this situation the Bloc Québécois provided the government the numbers necessary to ensure that Bill C-10 would get out of committee. If it were not for the desire to move this legislation forward and get the support to do so, it likely still would be in committee today.
Many members, including myself, would have thought the New Democrats would have supported that move. Those members are not what I would classify as naive. They understood what was taking place in committee. They seemed to understand what the Conservative Party was attempting to do with Bill C-10. However, we were able to move the bill out of the committee stage and get it to report stage and then third reading so we can get it passed. As I pointed out at the very beginning, this is critical legislation.
I have been in opposition in many governments for 20-plus years, and I have had the good fortune of being a part of a majority government. Typically, when we get to the month of June, hours are extended and we look at passing important legislation before the summer.
It is no different this time. We attempted to bring in extended hours and we were successful, but not because of the Conservatives. That is the reason why we are debating this legislation right now. We were able to get support, not from the Conservatives but from other opposition members, so that we could actually sit longer to debate the legislation we are debating right now.
Ironically, Conservative Party members would argue that they do not want extended hours. They did that. Let us remember that last Thursday the Conservatives tried to adjourn the House. They did not even want us to sit on Thursday. It is because the Conservative Party has no interest at all in seeing any legislation pass at this point. Conservative members will do what they can to filibuster and prevent the government from passing legislation. On the other hand, they will be critical of the government because they say we are trying to limit the amount of time in which they can speak to legislation. However, they were denying the opportunity to speak by having extended hours and by actually sitting as opposed to trying to adjourn debate for the day.
Just as the Conservative opposition continues to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, as it attempts to frustrate the government in trying to pass legislation such as our budget, the Liberal government will continue to be focused on Canadians and on ensuring, as much as possible, that we have legislation like our budget, Bill C-10, Bill C-6 and other progressive pieces of legislation that other progressive parties will see the merit of passing. This is as opposed to buying into what the Conservatives want, which is to prevent at all costs any legislation from passing in the House of Commons.
This legislation is good legislation. It is good for Canadians. It is good for the industry. I highly recommend that all members of the House support its passage.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2021-06-14 20:19 [p.8384]
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here in Canada, in our Canadian House of Commons and in our Canadian Parliament. We are not in the U.K. right now. We are not virtual. We are actually here, literally, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, where people throughout Canada elected Conservative members of Parliament to be.
We are so proud to be here to debate legislation that we believe is not good for the freedom of Canadians. The Internet should be a place where Canadians are able to share their thoughts and to view different thoughts and opinions.
Why do these Liberals think that a basic dictatorship, the one they admire in China, should be adhered to here in Canada where they could control what Canadians see, think or watch on the Internet? I would like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who is not here—
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:20 [p.8384]
Madam Speaker, I like to think that I have contributed significantly over the years, at least in terms of the debate taking place physically on Parliament Hill. Nothing has changed from a virtual perspective, and I can in fact continue to contribute to that debate.
Whether I am doing it virtually or standing on the floor of the House of Commons, both should be respected for what they are and that is an important part of our institution. Both are equal in terms of the statements that are made, whether I make them here or on the floor of the House of Commons physically.
Having said that, there is no concern with regard to Canadians sharing their concerns on the Internet, and I will expand on that in the next question.
View Julie Vignola Profile
BQ (QC)
View Julie Vignola Profile
2021-06-14 20:21 [p.8384]
Madam Speaker, I listen, I read and I try to take the time to put myself in others' shoes to understand what scares them and why they feel that way.
When reading the bill, I noticed that the programming promotes indigenous languages, French and even English as a minority language in Quebec. It makes more room for those who should have it and supports jobs for francophones and members of first nations. It does not infringe on the freedom of expression of anyone who wants to upload content who is not employed by a broadcaster.
After all is said and done, I am asking myself the following question: Could the problem with freedom of expression simply be related to the fact that the majority would, according to them, have less time because the minority would have more? Are they afraid of change because we are making more room for indigenous people and francophones?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:22 [p.8385]
Madam Speaker, I am very proud that the Liberal Party of Canada, while in government, is the party to have brought in the Charter of Rights. I am very proud that my colleagues understand and value the importance of freedom of speech. Misinformation is being espoused by and fed, in part, by members of the Conservative Party.
After listening to members speak today and after reading some of the email correspondence going out, I do not believe for a moment that Canadians need to be concerned about how this bill is going to limit their individual rights or their freedom of speech. I do not know a clearer way of putting it. This is good, solid legislation.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am not sure about the Conservatives, but I think that everyone else here is in agreement. This is a 30-year-old bill that we are trying to bring up to date. It was brought in originally before the Internet and social media, yet the Liberal government has been in power now for almost six years.
Why did it leave this so late? Why did it do such a terrible job of explaining all of this to Canadians? Now we are trying to rush this through because it is an important bill. This is leading to all of these questions and has given the Conservatives an opportunity to say that it would inhibit freedom of speech, when it clearly does not.
After reading the bill and seeing the amendments put in by the Conservatives themselves, can the member say why they blew this so badly?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:25 [p.8385]
Madam Speaker, I would like to address the issue of rushing this through. Members can look at the number of days that we have actually sat and the agenda we have had to deal with. Many pieces of legislation have dealt specifically with the coronavirus and the pandemic. Initially, there was a great deal of support from all sides of the House as we tried to pass legislation that was critically important to dealing with the pandemic. Today there is still critically important legislation to pass, such as Bill C-30.
Not a day went by that the government, while responsible for the agenda of the House of Commons, did not attempt to bring forward good, solid legislation to debate. We have attempted on several occasions to be able to—
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North touched on what is going on in the House and the delay tactics. As a result of watching the interactions between parties over the last several months, I can honestly say that while I do not see eye to eye with the Bloc and the NDP all the time, I cannot think of a time when I have seen the Conservatives turn to tactics like this. The Conservatives are trying to exploit and hijack an issue for political gain, and every single party in the House has called them out for it.
Can the member comment on why he thinks it is that they are doing that?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-14 20:27 [p.8385]
Madam Speaker, I must compliment the member for the fantastic job he has been doing on behalf of our caucus colleagues, and I appreciate the question.
I believe that the Conservative Party as a whole is playing a very destructive role as the official opposition. It is more interested in partisan politics and its electoral future than it is in things such as the pandemic and working together.
I have come to the conclusion that the Conservatives want to prevent legislation from passing, and I suspect that when they see other progressive parties looking to support some of this legislation to pass, it can be very frustrating to them because they are not getting their way. It should not be about their way. It should be about getting important legislation passed through the House so that—
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, when we look at the government legislation the Liberals have tabled here, quite often they leave it very broad. It is very vague, and it is very unclear what they are trying to accomplish with it. We are seeing that yet again with this bill. The original piece of legislation was very clear in some of its provisions, but the Liberals took those out.
How is the member so certain that this would do what we are hearing from many experts that it would do?
Results: 121 - 135 of 251 | Page: 9 of 17

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data