The Blueprint: Canada's Conservative Podcast - The Prime Minister’s obsession over censorship continues.

00:00:00.000 Hello and welcome once again to the Blueprint. This is Canada's Conservative Podcast. I'm your

00:00:11.940 host, Jamie Schmael, Member of Parliament for Halliburton Corps at the Lake Sprock with new

00:00:15.320 content for you every single Tuesday, 1.30pm Eastern Time. We ask that you like, comment,

00:00:19.380 subscribe and share this program. I'll tell you why, because the Liberal censorship machine is

00:00:25.060 on the move again to talk about the newest bill, C-63 and much, much more. We bring back

00:00:30.260 the one and only Rachel Thomas, the Member of Parliament for Lethbridge, also the Heritage

00:00:34.120 Critic. I like having you on the show, but I dislike the topic that we continue to have to

00:00:40.420 talk about. This is the third in a series of pieces of legislation that the government is working on

00:00:46.440 that censorship. Before we get to that, hang on, I want to congratulate you on your latest news.

00:00:52.580 You're expecting your first child. Congratulations. Thank you, Jamie. That is awesome news. I can

00:00:56.420 see you're extremely excited about that. Thank you. But unfortunately, now we have to talk about the

00:01:01.020 censorship. So first we had C-11. So that controlled what people could see, watch, hear online. Then we

00:01:08.420 had C-18. The latest one that in many communities, including mine, local news is basically non-existent

00:01:14.080 because you can't actually find it on the internet. Now you have C-63. What is C-63? Sir, sir. I think

00:01:21.180 that's a really important history to kind of walk folks through is the fact that this isn't just a

00:01:25.420 one-off. This is a part of a whole series of assault on freedom of speech that the current

00:01:30.180 liberal government has been undertaking over the course of years. You know, interestingly enough,

00:01:35.300 I was recently speaking to a friend who lived in Canada and has since moved her family to the U.S.

00:01:40.700 and they're living in Texas and enjoying a whole lot of freedom. And, you know, and we were having a

00:01:45.220 conversation and I was just having a regular conversation about life in Canada. And the more

00:01:49.960 I talked, the more alarming she, her facial expressions became, you know, because she just

00:01:56.200 said, Rachel, things in Canada are unrecognizable to me. You know, it's 10 years later and it's not

00:02:01.500 the country that I lived in prior. And what she was referring to, of course, was the hindrance that has

00:02:06.620 been placed on us in terms of our freedom, whether that's freedom of speech, freedom of movement,

00:02:10.660 freedom of just making decisions, freedom of access to information, those sorts of things. So

00:02:14.860 all that to say, certainly there, there is, you know, there seems to be an initiative by this

00:02:21.860 government to, to be far reaching into the lives of Canadians and certainly wanting to control

00:02:26.720 our lives to a greater extent. So with Bill C-63, what this government did is they put it out there

00:02:32.940 as a bill that was, you know, meant to be something to protect children, protect children from online

00:02:38.980 harm. I believe all Canadians will get behind that. That's a noble cause. It's the right thing

00:02:44.460 to do. We should be protecting children. Certainly we don't want them victimized. We don't want adults

00:02:49.820 victimized or re-victimized. We want to make sure that, you know, those disgusting acts are kept 0.96

00:02:56.740 off, off the internet and, and that those protections are afforded to innocent individuals.

00:03:03.840 That said, that is not what this bill does. So that was kind of the shield that the government

00:03:08.640 was able to put out there in order to get away with it. But at the end of the day, there's so

00:03:12.940 much more at play here. And so I think that's important to understand. So really I'll, I'll boil

00:03:18.800 it down to this. This bill, it, it creates a bureaucratic arm that consists of three entities

00:03:26.760 that basically will receive complaints or concerns. So if, you know, let's say a sexually explicit image

00:03:34.860 was to be posted without an individual's consent, then they could go to this bureaucratic arm and

00:03:38.680 they could submit their concern. They get to submit a form. Essentially. Yes. Essentially. Yes. So the

00:03:44.160 government has one thing people love doing. It's filling out a government, right? They love waiting

00:03:49.100 in line. They don't mind at all. They love filling out the form. They love having to make lots of phone

00:03:53.980 calls. Yeah. They love being put on hold. They love having to wait weeks or months on end before

00:03:59.240 they finally get an answer. Especially when you're victim of a potential crime. Totally. Nothing

00:04:04.560 would be more satisfying than to wait in long lines and a queue somewhere. So I think this is the point

00:04:10.620 is really there were, there were no meaningful changes to the criminal code to help protect these

00:04:15.560 individuals. That is not what this bill does. It just simply sets up this, this bureaucratic arm.

00:04:21.660 On the other hand, however, where it does instigate change within the criminal code is, is with issues

00:04:28.820 pertaining to freedom of speech. Of course. Right. Of course. You can't have people speaking their

00:04:33.700 minds. Right. Not under this liberal government. Right. Yes. And so, and so that is the issue with

00:04:39.300 this bill, um, is that the criminal code, you know, I, I believe really should be used to protect

00:04:46.620 those individuals who are being victimized. Absolutely. Um, who have images that are shared

00:04:51.420 online that shouldn't be those individuals who had, you know, child pornography produced

00:04:56.180 of them. Of course, that should not be happening. That should be penalized to the, to the greatest

00:05:01.320 extent of the law. Um, individuals who are, who are adults, but victimized, of course, they should have

00:05:07.460 a way of seeking justice and it should be through the courts. These things should be reported to the

00:05:12.620 police. They should be investigated and ultimately criminal charges should be laid where there is

00:05:15.980 guilt. That is the way the system should be set up. That is not at all what the liberals are doing

00:05:20.400 here. No. Instead, they've reserved the criminal code in bill C-63. They've reserved the amendments

00:05:26.300 to the criminal code for freedom of speech. So for example, they've come out with hate speech laws.

00:05:32.160 Oh, we all love that. Right? What is hate speech? What is hate speech? It's what the government hates.

00:05:36.680 Exactly. And that's, that's the problem. That is the problem is that this definition of hate speech

00:05:40.960 is left so subjective that it actually puts us in great danger. Um, because ultimately then,

00:05:48.500 you know, it's, it's this shifting definition that is, you know, entirely subjective in nature. Um,

00:05:54.400 and, and ultimately then through bill C-63, uh, these hate speech crimes will be punishable with up to

00:06:01.400 life in prison. Um, and on- That's incredible. It's crazy. There are murderers being let out on

00:06:06.600 bail. And if you criticize this government potentially, you're going to be going away a

00:06:11.920 lot longer. So that's exactly it. That's incredible. That's exactly it. Right? So, so you have an entire

00:06:17.780 court system that is, that is backed up and, and literally letting, you know, individuals who have

00:06:23.880 committed violent, you know, sexual crimes, they're, they're, they're being let go because they're just

00:06:29.780 not, the cases aren't being seen in time. Um, you have individuals who are committing murder and

00:06:34.200 they're being let out on bail only to commit another murder. Yep. Meanwhile, this government

00:06:39.400 is now focusing its time, attention, and resources on cracking down on hate speech, which is ill-defined.

00:06:47.340 Um, that's a problem. It is because once you start, once that, that train goes down that track,

00:06:53.640 it, it, it, it's hard to stop it because I, you know, in a, in a world that I live in, if, if I were

00:07:01.360 in charge, no one party, no one individual would have the power to censor somebody else's speech.

00:07:06.720 Right? And I think that used to be anyway, something we all agreed on. Uh, but what it is coming to now

00:07:13.560 is the, the government under Trudeau believes that what you're watching might be, might be bad because

00:07:20.560 it might be calling out the government on some of the issues they're having, uh, local news, which

00:07:26.020 is, uh, in my opinion is a lot more, um, impartial. They're, they're very well balanced. The, the local

00:07:31.920 news agencies, they're being taken offline in many cases. And now, now we have the ultimate hammer,

00:07:38.600 which is you watch what you say or you're going to jail. Maybe, maybe Super Producer Nick can throw

00:07:44.600 the graphic up while we talk about it. So again, as you were saying, $50,000 in fines in some cases,

00:07:52.580 life imprisonment, like this is, this is incredible. Yeah. So I, I think I, exactly. And I think this is

00:07:59.760 where there's, there's, there's these, these different parts to the bill. And this one is

00:08:04.040 referring to one that would put, you know, there's this hate speech penalty that would be created

00:08:08.040 under the human rights tribunal that, you know, could result in a fine of up to $50,000. And remember,

00:08:14.180 this isn't through the court of law. This is a tribunal. Yeah. Right. Another thing,

00:08:18.500 which, which means that there's a lack of accountability there and actually not a proper

00:08:22.520 justice system followed. Um, meanwhile, then there's also these changes through criminal code

00:08:27.180 that I was referring to before, um, which would, you know, for, for hate, for a hate crime, uh,

00:08:33.200 hate speech crime, um, would, would be, you know, potentially up to life in prison. I should also

00:08:39.380 mention one of the things that this bill does that I think, you know, many Canadians are afraid of,

00:08:43.620 um, or certainly causes alarm bells for many is this, it, it actually creates the ability,

00:08:50.580 um, for an individual or a group to come forward with a concern or a complaint against another

00:08:58.220 individual who is deemed, uh, likely to commit a hate crime. Oh, there we go. There was a movie

00:09:05.860 about this. I believe it was Tom Cruise, Minority Report. Yeah. Where they thought they could predict

00:09:10.780 the crime. You didn't actually do anything, but you're under arrest and going to jail anyway.

00:09:15.100 Absolutely. This is incredible. So the thought that you might say something, right? Yes. So we'll

00:09:20.080 just shut down any dissenting opinion, any dissent against us, us being the government and punish

00:09:27.000 those that are, that are free thinking individuals that might not agree. I, I think, you know, we,

00:09:32.600 we, we, we would hope, um, you know, we would, we would hope that this provision would be used in,

00:09:38.880 in the most, uh, responsible manner possible. But at the end of the day, does such a thing even exist?

00:09:45.700 Is, is there a responsible manner when you're actually convicting someone of a crime that they

00:09:50.640 didn't commit? Right. It was only deemed likely. I would argue not, right? That, that's, that, that's

00:09:57.020 totally contrary to our, our, our system of justice in this country. Um, and so I think, you know,

00:10:02.940 Canadians are rightly concerned about that provision for sure. Well, even, even, we even have, I, I don't

00:10:09.180 like using her as an example, but Margaret Atwood, we even have Margaret Atwood coming out and saying,

00:10:13.980 she's thinking the government has gone too far. They have gone too far. So, so Margaret Atwood has

00:10:20.580 raised some really good concerns with this. Uh, you know, her and I don't see eye to eye on most of

00:10:25.800 our politics, but nevertheless, I think on this one, she raises a really good point. And her concerns

00:10:30.380 are this, that this bill would actually allow for what she calls revenge accusations. So essentially, 1.00

00:10:38.080 you know, one individual or one group is offended with another. And so they bring forward these

00:10:42.240 accusations, which Bill C-63 allows for people to do while preserving their anonymity. And so again,

00:10:49.100 there's little accountability. So you really could just take revenge on an individual or a group,

00:10:55.200 um, quite readily with this bill. And so that's certainly concerning. The other thing that,

00:10:59.820 that Margaret Atwood raises with regard to this bill is, is essentially this idea of, of going after

00:11:06.660 people because of thought crimes, um, is, is the term that she uses. And so I think, again,

00:11:11.600 that is something that we do have to take very seriously that you would penalize people for

00:11:15.580 thinking a certain way, um, and then speaking freely what those thoughts are, uh, to, to go down

00:11:21.520 that road is incredibly dangerous. Um, it, it, you know, just, just even putting the bill on notice,

00:11:30.480 just even tabling the bill has a chilling effect on free speech in this country. I can only imagine the

00:11:36.980 effect that it will have, you know, should it be passed into law. And you can imagine, uh, the,

00:11:42.400 the fear that the government's trying to, to impose on people, right? You better not protest against us.

00:11:48.820 We'll freeze your bank accounts. You better not say anything against us. Right. We will come after

00:11:53.520 you. You're looking at fines. Don't even think this certain way because we're going to lock you down.

00:11:58.480 And it just puts that fear. There are countries out there that do this already and, and, and living

00:12:04.900 there is not exactly ideal. When you have people risking their lives to get out, right? In, in a

00:12:10.840 free society, the guns are pointed out where it's in a communist or socialist dictatorship, they're

00:12:15.840 pointed inwards, right? Like this is a very dangerous path to take. 100%. And I think, again,

00:12:22.380 that's why really, you know, if, if, if we wanted to do something noteworthy, um, you know, if the

00:12:28.980 government was really focused on the wellbeing of children as they claim to be, um, then really what

00:12:35.300 needs to happen is meaningful changes need to be made to the criminal code in order to make sure that

00:12:40.680 things like deep fakes and the use of AI cannot be used against a child or an adult for that matter,

00:12:48.120 for anyone, um, to, to victimize them in any way. Um, you know, most recently we had, we have an

00:12:55.720 example where, you know, a deep fake was created for, on Taylor Swift. Um, you know, and so basically

00:13:02.100 she, she was, uh, an AI generated image, um, a nude was created and it went viral within a matter of

00:13:10.620 minutes. And of course you can imagine just the damage to her as an individual, but also to her

00:13:14.840 brand. And it took far too long for that image to actually be taken, to be taken down. We should

00:13:22.080 be looking for legislative solutions to issues like that in order to make sure that Canadians

00:13:27.360 are rightly protected. This bill does not do that. And so that's why I'm really proud of our

00:13:34.560 conservative team and the concerted effort that's being put forward right now. Um, you know, Michelle

00:13:39.440 Rumpel-Garner is one individual who is, who is, you know, leading this, um, initiative in order to

00:13:45.260 come forward with a private member's bill that would propose an alternative. Um, you know, I, I think

00:13:49.500 Canadians will be really pleased with what we put forward because it really will have teeth and make

00:13:53.840 a meaningful difference. And that's the, the real issue, right? The, the government, as you said it

00:13:58.340 right off the top, is giving C-63 this, this fluffy title that makes them, that gives the impression

00:14:04.080 they're actually fighting against something that I think we all agree on is, is protecting the

00:14:08.540 victims. Uh, but at the same time, this bill does nothing other than a bit of smoke and mirrors,

00:14:14.200 but also goes, takes us down a very dangerous path that I would think most Canadians would disagree

00:14:20.680 with. I think that's exactly it. I think freedom matters to Canadians. Um, certainly they're not

00:14:26.820 wanting undue harm to be caused to other individuals or to themselves. Uh, but they are also wanting their

00:14:31.920 basic liberties to be kept intact. Bill C-63 is, is, is an assault on that. Absolutely. And, and,

00:14:38.040 and, you know, I think I, I, we talk about it so much and I, I, I, I just wish that, um, those on the

00:14:47.520 other side that think this is a good idea realize that this, this train does not stop moving once

00:14:53.480 it's left the station. And, and that's the most dangerous part of it. Right. No government, I don't

00:14:59.440 care what the stripe should, should be even moving in this direction. It is a very scary because free

00:15:04.920 speech is, is the fundamentals of our society. Right. Uh, popular speech doesn't need to, to, to be

00:15:11.800 protected. It, but it, it's the, the, the other voices that I may disagree strongly. I may upset my

00:15:18.920 sensibilities, my principles, but I, I think the, the ability to say it, uh, should still be there.

00:15:25.560 At the same time, I can also tune them out, counter them. There, there are other measures. If, if the

00:15:32.760 government doesn't like the speech or things people are saying about them. But again, you know, Trudeau

00:15:37.660 will do anything to stay in power. We know that. Well, and I, I think, I think not only anything to

00:15:42.820 stay in power, but I, you know, of course there, there seems to be this, this ideology that drives Mr.

00:15:48.640 Trudeau and his, his cabinet, um, this ideology around more control, more government infringement,

00:15:55.460 um, you know, bigger bureaucracy, all of these things fit within their framework of governance.

00:16:04.480 Meanwhile, Canadians are getting smaller and smaller and smaller, not only in terms of paycheck, 0.99

00:16:09.460 of course, but also in terms of voice, in terms of being able to have that freedom to believe what

00:16:15.220 they want to believe in, to be able to express those opinions accordingly. Um, it's, we're, I think

00:16:22.240 we're, we're in a really dangerous place as a country right now. Um, I, I can only imagine where

00:16:28.320 we'll be, you know, should Bill C-63 pass. Exactly. Well, we appreciate you fighting for the,

00:16:34.500 the team here, fighting for Canadians. As you know, the guests get the last word, the floor is yours.

00:16:40.120 Well, Jamie, I just want to thank you for having me on. And, you know, I think more than anything,

00:16:43.800 what I want Canadians to understand is, is absolutely we should be doing everything in

00:16:48.080 our power to protect those individuals who are, um, who have images, you know, wrongly construed,

00:16:54.440 um, and put out there online or, or have, you know, harmful, the harmful effects of the internet,

00:17:01.320 for sure. We should be looking to mitigate those. Um, sadly, this bill does not do what the Liberal

00:17:08.860 government claims it does. Um, and in fact, it, it actually goes after Canadians. Um, it is a direct

00:17:15.620 attack on their freedom of speech. Um, and I, and I think we should be doing everything within our

00:17:20.540 ability, uh, of course, as the official opposition, but I would even say Canadians as a whole, uh, to

00:17:25.700 exercise our voice and, and to be speaking up, um, and out about this bill and the dangers that it

00:17:31.300 holds. Uh, so I think, you know, more than anything, I would encourage your audience to get involved

00:17:35.780 and to have their voice known, um, and, and certainly be connecting to the Prime Minister, uh, and his

00:17:42.580 office directly and, and, and tell him to stop. I couldn't agree with you more. Rachel Thomas, thank you

00:17:47.740 very much for joining us. We appreciate your time and talking about this very important issue, the

00:17:51.960 Member of Parliament for Lethbridge, also the Shadow Minister for Heritage. I do enjoy having her on the

00:17:56.820 show. The topic, again, the third in the censorship legislation fiasco that we have going on, uh, not such a

00:18:03.620 great topic, but we do need your help as well. We need you to like, comment, subscribe, and share

00:18:07.920 this program. I guarantee you're not hearing this message in the mainstream media. Don't forget,

00:18:11.960 you can tell your friends to download this program on platforms like CastBox, iTunes, Google Play,

00:18:16.080 and Spotify. You name it, it is out there. New content for you every single Tuesday, 1 30 p.m.

00:18:21.200 Eastern time. Until next week, remember, low taxes, less government, more freedom. That's the blueprint.

00:18:33.620 game 860 p.m.

00:18:50.960 이것홍

00:18:53.920 430 p.m.

00:18:54.380 Souls

00:18:55.520 390

00:18:57.960 660

00:18:59.880 650

The Blueprint: Canada's Conservative Podcast - May 01, 2024

The Prime Minister’s obsession over censorship continues.

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript