44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague is in Dauphin, Manitoba, and I used to play at that festival, which is one of my favourite festivals of the summer, so he understands the importance of supporting our artists.
We need to make sure there is a balance between legislation and regulation. If we put everything in and do not give any flexibility, we will not have the ability as technology changes to make sure we can adopt to new technologies.
Right now the digital creators are still protected. Proposed section 4.2 does not say that they would be scoped in.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if I may, as my hon. friend opposite did, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-11, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my father, as Father's Day is coming up this weekend. I thank him for all his love, guidance and support over the years. He is currently undergoing chemotherapy and is not feeling 100% himself. However, my three brothers, my mother, all of our extended family and I know he will be back to 110% soon. I just want to say we love him.
I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-11. Although I believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be renewed, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-11 because, in many ways, it is simply a revival of the flawed and failed Bill C-10 from the previous Parliament.
The government claims that Bill C-11 is being introduced to protect Canadian content creators. However, the bill fails, as many such entrepreneurs are opposed to this legislation. The bill fails, for example, Chad, who lives in Upper Stoney Creek in—
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:02:00 p.m.
- Watch
I have to interrupt the hon. member because the hon. Minister of Seniors is rising on a point of order.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:02:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 o'clock midnight, pursuant to order made Monday, May 2, 2022.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:02:20 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, the Minister of Seniors' request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.
I invite the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook to continue his speech.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about Chad, who lives in the Upper Stoney Creek portion of my constituency. Chad is a digital creator who is concerned about the threat Bill C-11 poses to his livelihood. Chad is not alone by any means. We have seen dozens of Canadian content creators testify at the heritage committee to their deep concern with regard to this bill.
Chad told me that Canadian content creators are thriving with open social media platforms and, in fact, 90% of all viewer traffic on Canadian YouTube channels comes from international audiences. Let me put that another way: Canadian content creators export 90% of their product. Every Canadian knows that the world is a consumer of Canadian content. Our talented comedians, musicians and other artists are the content creators, just like Chad, who do a fantastic job of making sure that people from around the world get a glimpse of our great nation. Therefore, why is the government failing Canadian content creators again? Prominent YouTube artist J.J. McCullough, who testified before the heritage committee, said, “I also worry that the dreams of the next generation of Canadian YouTubers will become less achievable once they're forced to navigate intimidating new regulatory hurdles my generation did not.”
It is the same government that is already failing young Canadians in so many ways. As they struggle to fill up their tank to drive to work each week, as they are no longer able to achieve the dream of home ownership, and as they struggle to keep up to the costs of living because of generationally high inflation rates, now the government introduces a bill that would place hurdles on the ability of young Canadians to succeed in one of the few sectors of the economy that has flourished during the last two years. Instead, it is putting big print media companies first. With respect to this bill, if it were really concerned about content creators, then why would it not put content creators first? Why are the Liberals so against it?
I know that Professor Michael Geist was a speaker at one of the committees. He is the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He expressed this concern and I will quote. He said, “Canada punches above its weight when it comes to the creation of this content, which is worth billions of revenue globally.... We are talking about an enormous potential revenue loss for Canadian content producers.”
The article then states, “Geist says [that] would make platforms including YouTube and TikTok 'force-feed Canadian content' that people might not usually choose to watch, rather than curated content matched to their preferences.” It then continues, “If people do not select Canadian content they are offered, or if they indicate they don’t like it or choose another video instead, it could lead to content that wasn’t chosen, disliked or not watched to the end automatically being downgraded around the world.”
Therefore, why would this bill be placing power in the hands of the government to make these decisions? I might add that this is the government that cannot manage the passport system, as we have seen with the ridiculously long lines at Service Canada offices across the country. Why would we trust the same government to regulate content creation, which is a space which, by its definition, needs to be nimble, flexible and dynamic?
The concerns over Bill C-11 are not limited to detrimental effects on the livelihood of Canadian content creators, but extend to the right of free speech, which is a core identity of Canadians. If the last few years have taught us anything, it is that open social media platforms are vital and crucial for us as we maintain our social connections. Podcasts and the simple joys of sharing videos of puppies and kittens and such with friends could be heavily regulated and restricted if this legislation goes through. These are examples of social media content that have seen great success without government regulation, but that would be controlled by the CRTC, a bureaucracy which would needlessly clamp down on social media platforms.
The government is failing Canadians in the sense that it is introducing legislation that would reduce choices in content that have given Canadians relief over the course of the past number of years. What also gives constituents and I concern is the threat to the ability of Canadians to freely express themselves without government interference.
Poet Maya Angelou once said to watch people's feet, not their lips. The Liberal talking point is that they want free speech and do not want to curtail it. This happens to be the very process to discuss Bill C-11, and it is a sham. We are seeing the Liberals stopping and silencing debate, not just in committee, but also in this chamber. This is ironic, because the Minister of Canadian Heritage was recently reported in the Globe and Mail saying that the Senate is not going to look at this before the summer, and recently the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, estimated that it could take two years to implement Bill C-11. What is the rush? Why is there curtailing of debate on this bill in this House? Canadians need to stop watching the Liberals' lips and start watching their feet.
The impact that this legislation would have on freedom of speech is a serious concern for many in Flamborough—Glanbrook, who have sent hundreds of emails and made dozens of calls to my office, and I have to say the overwhelming majority are opposed to Bill C-11. As an example, Christina and Albert from Mount Hope emailed my office to express their concerns about the vagueness of the legislation and how it would allow for almost unhindered regulation of the Internet by the CRTC and, in turn, would influence what social media posts Canadians can see. Christina and Albert were also concerned with the possibility that those views that differ from the government’s might be more readily clamped down on in social media, because the CRTC would have regulatory control over the Internet. There are similar concerns from Harry in Lynden, in my constituency, as well as Arie in Mount Hope. Their overall concern is the limiting of the content they might watch or the content they might create and post.
I share the concerns of my constituents. We are proud as Canadians that Canada is seen internationally as a beacon of democracy, but this legislation and the limitations it would have on free speech are a betrayal of those freedoms that we certainly cherish and promote worldwide.
I know my time is winding down, so let me conclude.
For these reasons, Canadians are rightly concerned about this bill, its contents and the process by which it is being pushed through this chamber. This is why I stand with the people who have contacted my office and taken the time to call or write, with the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook and with my Conservative colleagues and urge everyone to vote against Bill C-11.
1207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also want to assure the House that the government, the CRTC, is not interested in puppies and kittens.
I am a francophone. There are 600,000 Franco‑Ontarians. Unfortunately we are not a strong market force. Is my colleague saying that we should not help develop my culture in Ontario?
That is exactly what Bill C‑11 does. The same content that is on television and radio goes into a fund to support francophone communities in developing their culture. If those same videos are streamed on platforms, nothing goes toward supporting our cultures.
Does my colleague not agree that we should be supporting my culture? Is my culture equivalent to his?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague opposite that I very much respect the francophone culture and franco-Ontarians. If members were to look at my CD collection, and I am dating myself by saying this, I had perhaps an equal number of francophone artists as anglophone artists, so I certainly encourage and respect that.
I do not think this bill is necessarily what is necessary to accomplish that, and I would note that the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, did indicate that this bill would allow the CRTC to regulate user-generated content, so that is the concern.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I share his concerns. He also made reference to people that he and his party consulted. Unfortunately, we have noticed that it is always the same person who is consulted, while the member for Drummond has long consulted all the organizations that represent content creators and the creative industry. They are in favour of Bill C‑11 and they also agree that it is urgent to pass it.
I would ask my colleague to explain to us the source of all these concerns expressed by the only person, just about, that they consulted.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did refer to one individual in my riding who is a content creator and who expressed his concerns, but as I noted as well, a number of content creators who spoke at the heritage committee raised similar concerns. My home city of Hamilton, Ontario may be not the same as Burnaby, which is the Hollywood of the north, but I think we are quickly becoming a destination for a lot of movie production and content production, so we take that personally as well.
As I said, there were hundreds of emails and quite a number of phone calls, and the vast majority were opposed to this legislation. It was not one single source at all. It is a concern. We are hearing that directly, and I did not solicit these.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask the member if his party understands that the proposed changes in Bill C-11 include user-generated content creators generally but provide exceptions only to professional content providers who are generating revenue.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, given the brevity of time for a response, let me just reiterate this. As was pointed out by my colleague for Lethbridge this morning, there were five days of two-hour debate at the committee, which was shut down. There were committee amendments that were voted on by number, without being read into the record, at committee this week, which really is a sham. There were a number of people who wanted to present at committee and have their voice heard, which ended up on the cutting-room floor, because this was rammed through. I think that is really the story of what this is about, and the reason why we should be very concerned about the content of the bill.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 13, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1, and a vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:16:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:17:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:18:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so we can start private members' hour.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/22 1:19:25 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-226, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
It is far past time we addressed environmental racism and the disproportionate siting of polluting industries in Black communities, indigenous and racialized communities and those of the working poor. These are communities that typically lack an economic and political base to fight back. It is impossible to ignore the reality that governments have consistently put harmful industries and dumpsites dangerously close to some of the most marginalized communities across the country. This is a systemic issue that not only negatively impacts those residents' physical health and wellness through abnormal instances of cancers and other diseases, but also discourages others from moving into that area, deterring growth and new opportunities for those within it.
These decisions also impact the environment around those who live there, affecting drinking water and food sources for indigenous communities in particular. All of this has a negative impact on the mental health of these residents, compounded by gaslighting, with the onus routinely placed on those impacted most to prove the situation is leading to these adverse effects and that change is required. I would like to share a few examples.
Africville was a Black community in Nova Scotia established in the 1850s on the outskirts of Halifax. The community was pushed to the margins and did not receive the same services or infrastructure as others in the nearby city. Over the decades, undesirable developments were built in or near the community, including an infectious disease hospital, a dump and a prison. Africville's water and land were contaminated. Eventually the city relocated residents in 1964 without meaningful consultation or compensation.
Another is the toxic dumping in Kanesatake, Quebec, a community that is suffering ongoing health impacts because of the toxic waste from a recycling facility which has not been cleaned up despite repeated calls.
We can take the example of when a pipe at a pulp mill ruptures, spilling untreated effluent into a Pictou Landing First Nation wetland and it takes six years to solve the issue.
Closer to my community, in Ontario, there is the mercury-poisoning crisis in Grassy Narrows First Nation and neighbouring White Dog Independent Nation, one of Canada's worst environmental disasters that is still ongoing. A recent CBC investigation found that 90% of the population of Grassy Narrows experienced the symptoms of mercury poisoning, which include neurological problems, seizures and cognitive delays. Many homes do not have safe drinking water in an area with very limited health services and no on-reserve mental health care. The community has been fighting to have this contamination cleaned up for over 50 years without result.
These are just a few of the many examples of how Black, indigenous and racialized communities have been disproportionally impacted by neglect and the siting of environmentally harmful industries.
We can also see environmental racism and injustice showing up in other ways, like when racialized neighbourhoods do not have the same access to green spaces, public trails and playgrounds, or even street trees in their area.
Personally, I have learned so much on this topic from the incredible work of Dr. Ingrid Waldron and the ENRICH Project, a collaborative, community-based project investigating the cause and effect of toxic industries situated near Mi'kmaq and African Nova Scotian communities. It is a project that Dr. Waldron started and has led since 2012.
Dr. Waldron literally wrote the book on environmental racism. It is called There's Something in the Water, which was turned into a 2019 documentary of the same name, co-produced with Elliot Page and Julia Sanderson.
Dr. Waldron says it best, “In Canada, your postal code determines your health.” She went on to say, “Environmental racism is about a pattern and it is historical. It is rooted and embedded in historical inequities and it is about the lack of response by government to act on the citing of these industries and communities of colour and indigenous communities.”
Dr. Waldron went on to lay out two ways we can meaningfully address environmental racism. One is to develop legislation across the country and the other is to provide education on the subject in schools.
Collectively as parliamentarians in the House of Commons we can take action on the first. In Canada we need to be honest. We are way behind. As an example, in the United States, the office of environmental justice was formed as part of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992. That is more than 28 years ago.
Dr. Waldron has been making incredible progress over the last number of years. Dr. Waldron worked with then MLA Lenore Zann on what was Bill 111, an environmental racism protection act in the Nova Scotia legislature in 2015. The bill was defeated at second reading.
When elected as an MP representing Cumberland--Colchester, then MP Lenore Zann in the previous Parliament brought forward Bill C-230, which forms the basis of this piece of legislation before the House today. While Bill C-230 had widespread support, it died on the Order Paper when the election was called.
It is part of why I am so glad that my colleague, the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, has now brought back Lenore's private member's bill, as Bill C-226. I am also glad that as it has been brought back, it includes all of the work that has already been done to this point. It has already been to committee, for example. It has had an amendment adopted. The only difference between the current bill and the one in the previous Parliament is that the amendments that had been proposed are now included in the specifics of the strategy that would be developed should the bill be passed.
The bill has all of the benefit of the cross-party support that the previous version of the bill already had. It is for this reason that I am hopeful that Bill C-226 will continue to have the widespread support across party lines, recognizing that there is nothing partisan about ensuring that we take immediate steps to address environmental racism and environmental justice in this country. It is my hope that parliamentarians from all parties will choose to fast-track this legislation, recognizing it has already been studied, so that we can send it to the Senate as quickly as possible and ideally have it passed into law.
In conclusion, we know that for decades environmental racism has been neglected by all levels of government and to some extent the environmental movement itself. We must take action now to ensure that no community suffers the same harms as Africville, Grassy Narrows and so many others have. It is far past time to develop a national strategy to redress the harm of environmental racism and lead us into a just climate future for all.
1190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
