Bill C-11 updates the Broadcasting Act to require streaming platforms to follow Cancon rules.  Shrouded in secrecy by force, dozens of amendments to #BillC11 were defeated or passed without reading them into the public record.

MPs have rushed through over 100 amendments to the online streaming bill to meet a deadline imposed by the government, prompting accusations of secrecy and legislative bungling.

Liberal gatekeepers and censors want to control what you see and say online.

I won't let them.

As Prime Minister, I will introduce a Free Speech Act to defend your charter right to freedom of expression on the Internet. pic.twitter.com/10SPOVzzum

— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) June 15, 2022

There were heated exchanges between MPs at the heritage committee on Tuesday night as they voted on dozens of amendments to the bill, which would update the Broadcasting Act to include streaming platforms.

MPs on the committee, who sat until after midnight voting on amendments, say they were only made aware of their contents on Tuesday morning.

The heritage committee was given until Tuesday night to debate amendments to the bill after the government imposed a time-allocation motion to push it through the Commons committee stage.

Many of the amendments, including those proposed by the government, were voted on without debate, meaning that their contents were not described to members of the public watching the committee.

Conservatives Criticizes the Government for Shutting Down Debate on Bill C-11#StopCensorship pic.twitter.com/hjs68orv6f

— Canadian Riley (@TiaRileyCanada) June 17, 2022

But senators have signaled they will not be pressured to speed up consideration of the bill, claiming they have thwarted government ploys to push it through the upper house.

The online streaming bill, which the government rushed through the Commons heritage committee on Tuesday, is now subject to a pre-study by the Senate committee on transport and communications.

The Senate committee’s chair, Conservative Sen. Leo Housakos, accused the government of planning to “ram this legislation through without proper parliamentary scrutiny.”

Many feel that the real intent is to crack down on opinions Ottawa considers misinformation.  Expressions of opinions that aren’t supported by facts could soon be ordered removed from social media in Canada if the chief architects of the nation’s nascent Online Harms legislation have their way.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association worried that the government’s plans would turn online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter into “agents of law enforcement, creating mandatory reporting and preservation obligations that may expand over time and significantly impact the privacy rights of Canadians.” The inclusion of CSIS in the process was, it noted, “of particular concern.”

Since then, Marco Mendicino has been trying to clarify his comments, saying the government consulted with police about what powers they needed to end the blockades, and the Emergencies Act was the only way to give them those powers.

Conservatives said the public safety minister has lost credibility over his comments about the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, and they’re calling for him to resign.

“From the beginning, Conservatives have said that the threshold to invoke the unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act was never met and we have repeatedly called on the Liberal government to justify its actions, but they have failed to do so.

“The Commissioner of the RCMP appeared before the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency and confirmed that Canada’s national police force never asked the Liberal government to invoke the Emergencies Act and that existing tools and laws were already available to address the situation.

Trudeau and the Liberals say that police asked for the Emergencies Act. Marco Mendicino says “police told us they needed the special power”.

RCMP documents from 2019 reveal they looked at whether they could charge Trudeau based on the findings in a report from the federal ethics commissioner, which concluded that Mr. Trudeau had violated four sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. Investigators believed there were “reasonable grounds” to think fraud may have been committed, but a lack of clarity in federal rules that apply to accepting gifts stood in the way.  The relevant section of the Criminal Code has a provision which allows officials to accept benefits if they have written consent from the head of their branch of government.

However, Trudeau in the House of Commons said that, no, he was not given permission to take the trip. The RCMP just never asked. So, according to his own answers and the RCMP flowchart, Trudeau should be charged with fraud.

New evidence came out that the RCMP considered charging Prime Minister Trudeau over the free trip to the Aga Khan’s Island. Even though it was a conflict of interest and proven fraud, the RCMP thought it would ‘look bad’.

Cheryl Gallant says that “Trudeau does not like being challenged by women. So we ended his question by calling us effing idiots.”

This is not the first time Trudeau has lost his composure and swore at somebody in the House of Commons. It’s just another sign of his disrespect for parliament and democracy.  When reporters asked him about it after question period, Trudeau quoted his father’s lame excuse for cursing in Parliament, and the media gobbled it up. One Toronto Star journalist even found it Trudeau is misogyny hilarious.

If, as Trudeau claims these spy plane flights were just training exercises? Why is he so upset to be asked about it? The regular training of our Armed Forces is critical to our national security.

If Trudeau really, truly cared about combating misinformation, he’d release all the records regarding these flights. When were they scheduled, what activities were undertaken, what training was conducted, what data was gathered. If this was actually a training exercise, then there are no national security issues with releasing this type of information.

Reporter ask Mr. Holland if he can explain what happened in the house yesterday regarding the Prime Minister’s, unparliamentary language.  Holland responded that it was extremely noisy a lot going on and that emotions can run high and that yesterday was a very emotional day, but did not deny that Prime Minister Trudeau said a F-word.

These events raised some serious national security concerns.  A joined committee pushing for the government to hand over a series of documents about what happened in these cases.  The documents were still never handed over. The NDP and the Bloc worked collaboratively with Conservatives throughout this whole process to try to get to the bottom of this affair.

The NDP have now switched sides and are aiding the Liberals in preventing a Parliamentary committee from accessing these documents. With the NDP switching sides and now failing to support Parliamentary committee access to these documents, they are weakening our democratic institutions by compromising on a fundamental principle of democracy.

Winnipeg Lab Documents What Did Liberals Promise the NDP to Make them Complicit on Another Liberal Cover Up? May 5, 2022.  The conservatives say that the Liberals have still failed to provide the production of the Winnipeg microbiology lab documents.

I can’t sit here and be part of a government cover up. And that’s why this morning I again wrote to the RCMP Commissioner regarding the RCMP criminal brief on the investigation into the Prime Minister’s $215,000 private island vacation. The criminal brief says the RCMP differed to the Ethics Commissioner. interpretation of the Prime Minister’s actions were not criminal in nature. However, we now know from the news, the former commissioner Mary Dawson was unfamiliar with the Criminal Code offense of fraud against the government, she had no interpretation to give. So has the Prime Minister spoken to the RCMP in the last week about his criminal behavior?

I think it’s important to recognize even before the Prime Minister was the Prime Minister, even before he was the leader of the Liberal Party, conservative members always had personal attacks against the Prime Minister. Ever since we’ve been in government. Their focus has been character assassination. While they want to focus on that, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to focus on programs that matter. And an excellent example of that is the National Child Care Program. Mr. Speaker, a program that is serving Canadians in every region of our nation today.

The Prime Minister should really answer his questions he can run but he can’t hide from the law. The RCMP difference to the retired Commissioner Dawson was asserted as one of the justifications for why it was not in the public interest to pursue a criminal investigation. But now all the public interest arguments by the RCMP for not pursuing charges have been undone in the past week. It is in the public interest for Canadians to know the Prime Minister is not above the law. So will the Prime Minister and his staff cooperate with the RCMP in this investigation of fraud on the government by the Prime Minister.

April we’re witnessing is an ongoing continuation of political theatrics from the Conservative Party. Three leaders ago they were talking about this, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, as I’ve pointed out in the previous questions, is that they can continue they can do what they want with their focus. What I can assure Canadians, Mr. Speaker is that this government, whether it’s the Prime Minister, other cabinet ministers, or the Liberal caucus, a whole as a whole will continue to focus our attention on making life better for all Canadians in every region of this nation.

I would like to start off by questioning Miss Lucky commissioner of the RCMP. Miss Lucky Do you acknowledge and agree that the RCMP is independent of the federal government and is free to investigate without influence? Yes. Has the RCMP ever been influenced and or deterred by the federal government to investigate a criminal matter? Not to my knowledge. Is the RCMP free from any influence or direction by the federal government to lay a criminal charge?

Absolutely.

If the subject matter of an investigation, is the prime minister himself, are you concerned about any government interference or reprisal? No.

The measures that were undertaken pursuant to the scope motion that Mr. brach himself voted for, and that’s with respect to the enforcement measures.

I suggest we listen to Mr. Brock here his line of questioning not sure, but I would imagine that there was a link there.

Miss Lucky? Are you aware that today in the house during question period, the Prime Minister admitted that he did not give himself permission to accept a free vacation from a federal lobbyist competing mission.

I’m gonna have to agree with Mr. Villani to rock unless you have an explanation to provide I don’t think this is relevant to our current study, on the declaration in the state of emergency.

I respectfully disagree. The prime minister as head of government, the Prime Minister was the lead voice in the invocation of the emergencies act. He is now under a cloud of suspicion with respect to the offense of fraud. Fraud is offense of dishonesty. Dishonesty involves the matter of integrity and character.

I would just like us to give Mr. Brock an opportunity to explain things he’s comments or I’ve said are not relevant. He’s trying to make an argument to try to convince us I’m listening but he hasn’t yet caused me to change my mind. I’m gonna let him have this opportunity to continue explain thing. Are you done? Mr. Brock?

I had one final point. Okay. On the issue of integrity and character and honesty, Canadians have a right to know whether or not our head of government has been compromised because of his involvement in this particular matter. And hence, there has been an erosion of trust in the federal government to grow the nation.

I’m sorry, Mr. Brock, but thank you, Mr. Brock. I’m maintaining my decision in that. This question, this line of questioning is not relevant to our debate.