44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/30/23 5:02:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to go to what Senator Dave Richards had to say:
No decree by the CRTC could, in any way, tell us what Canadian content should or should not be, or who should be allowed to bob their heads up out of the new murkiness we have created. Like Orwell’s proclamation, the very bill suggests a platform that decrees, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
That is one of the concerns, and why we should have had amendments to deal with these issues.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day to debate Bill C-11. I have asked this question many times before, but I am going to ask it again in this way. Do people trust the Prime Minister to defend their freedom of speech?
That is the crux of our debate from our party to the parties across the way. Other concerns have been brought up by other parties. They are still going to support the bill, but that does not mean that there are not concerns around this and possible threats to user-generated content, which could possibly be implicated by this legislation. Again, it is not just us. There are many people across Canada who have read the bill, who have been brought to testify about their worries for its potential.
I always like to use facts. Let us get right into it. Bill C-11 used to be a bill called Bill C-10. I have an article in front of me from May 20, 2021. It all started with clause 4.1, which I will be referring to quite a bit. This is a little hiccup for the Liberals that has a lot of Canadians calling it the censorship bill. The article is called “What is Bill C-10 and why are the Liberals planning to regulate the internet?” It is from The Globe and Mail.
It reads:
The bill is currently being reviewed by the House of Commons heritage committee. Members of the committee were studying the document line-by-line, but that process was disrupted in late April when Liberals on the committee moved an amendment that removed a section of the bill.
That sounds very familiar, like a particular part of Bill C-21 where they just table-dropped or pulled amendments out of legislation. The articles goes on:
The change was approved “on division,” meaning there was no recorded vote to show which opposition parties sided with the Liberals. This segment, section 4.1, provided an exclusion for user-generated content. Removing that exclusion set off concerns that the legislation could then be used to regulate Canadians’ social media posts.
That is what we have been talking about across the country for the last three years, worries about censorship and the government with this particular bill. Further, the article continues:
However, other critics draw a distinction between users, specified in 2.1, and 4.1′s exclusion for user-generated content, and so maintain that social media posts could still be subjected to the legislation.
On May 7, the Liberals introduced a new amendment that they said would put these questions to rest. The text of the new amendment is very similar to the text of section 4.1 that was originally removed, but was added to a different section of the bill that defines the regulatory powers of the CRTC. The government says this change ensures that the posters of user-generated content are not regulated.
That was back in the day when we were all supposed to be reassured that it was all going to be great. The problem is that section 4.1 has remained. The government could have easily dealt with concerns of the parties and put that to bed. I am going to directly read sections of the current legislation, Bill C-10, but the numbers are still the same.
This is clauses 4.1 and 4.2. on page 9 of the actual act so that Canadians out there watching can read it for themselves. Even lawyers get confused with some of this wording but I will give it a go,
4.1 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of a program that is uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.
(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program
(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or
(b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.2.
It opens the door to user-generated content, wide open, that it could possibly be regulated by the CRTC.
I will go on to 4.2. Again, this is the really difficult one to follow.
4.2 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 4.1(2)(b), the Commission may make regulations prescribing programs in respect of which this Act applies, in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression.
Sounds great, except:
(2) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Commission shall consider the following matters:
(a) the extent to which a program, uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service, directly or indirectly generates revenues;
Despite the government's reassurance that user-generated content is going to be exempted, the door is flung wide open again. How is the government ever going to regulate content that could produce revenue? It could be a share of a post, or whatever. Some other content provider could share a post that was previously not funded. It opens the door to user-generated content.
The implications are as vast as what we have been saying. It is not just us who have talked about these being significant issues. I will refer to testimony at the Senate hearing committees. Hon. Paula Simons referred to the concerns of the former CRTC head. It is not just a senator making a comment in a general way.
She said:
Several expert witnesses, including Monica Auer, Executive Director of the Forum for Research Policy in Communications; Robert Armstrong, a broadcasting consultant, economist and former CRTC manager; and Ian Scott, who was, at the time, head of the CRTC, testified before our committee about their concerns that subclause 7(7) of the bill could give new and unprecedented powers to cabinet to intervene in independent CRTC decisions. As Dr. Armstrong put it in his testimony before us:
In this sense, Bill C-11 reduces enormously — potentially — the powers that the CRTC has and hands them over to the Government of Canada.
That is not just some random person walking down the street. These are the former heads of the CRTC. To all the testimony, the Liberal government just says, “Hey, no biggie. Just ignore that expert testimony.” She continues:
But I think the biggest and most critical amendment we made was to a vexing part of the bill, subclause 4.2(2), which I like to call the “exception to the exception” clause. In the wake of some of the controversy around Bill C-10, the Minister of Canadian Heritage promised that Bill C-11 would not pertain to nor capture users of social media but only big streamers who were analogous to traditional broadcasters. Indeed, that is what clause 4.1 (1) of the bill says — that the act does not apply to a program that is uploaded to a social media service by a user of that service.
Unfortunately, clause 4.2 (2) of the bill, as it came to our committee, undid that assurance by giving the CRTC the power to scope in a program uploaded to a social media service if it directly or indirectly generates revenues. That exception-to-the-exception clause rightly worried all kinds of small and not-so-small independent producers who use services such as YouTube and TikTok to distribute their programming, though they retain the copyright.
I have a lot more here. I could put stacks here and read them for the record. I started off by asking whether we could trust the Prime Minister with our privacy and to protect our freedom of speech. I take that testimony from some pretty solid folks who were actually at the head of CRTC, and they said they were worried about the potential of this legislation.
We need to heed that advice. Canadians out there who are watching this, and many who are going to watch it online from some of our content that we generate, are concerned about where this is going, in a very bad direction.
I look forward to questions, but I think the answer is very clear: we cannot trust the Prime Minister to defend our freedom of speech.
1438 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:13:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there has been a drastic shift in Canada's broadcasting sector that has directly impacted the level of support for Canadian programming and talent. Does my colleague believe that continuing to treat online and traditional broadcasters differently is fair?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:13:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of Canadians, and we have former artists on our side, who want to see Canadians who produce content do well. I produce content myself. A lot of us in the House produce content, and we want to make sure we can continue to do that.
I think it is fine if a person can produce content, freely send it out to the Internet and people can purchase it or watch it at their choosing. However, the problem is that, if a directive were to be given by the cabinet, there is the potential, as has been warned about by the former head of the CRTC, that it would say it does not want people to watch things that have a certain word in them or that are from a particular area in the country. That is the potential this has. We have seen examples around the world where this happens. Like I said, we cannot trust the Liberal cabinet and Prime Minister to defend our freedoms.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government of Quebec called for Bill C‑11. Quebec's cultural community called for Bill C‑11 or its equivalent. It is true that the Government of Quebec asked to be consulted when Bill C‑11 is applied in the Quebec context. Despite all that, the Conservatives continue to say that the bill violates freedom of expression based on the word of a single expert, Mr. Geist, who testified in this case but also on almost every other committee for the Conservatives. He is like a Renaissance man.
Are the Conservatives also telling us that the Government of Quebec is against freedom of expression when it wants to protect and promote Quebec's French-speaking culture?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:15:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the Conservative Party, compared to the Bloc, is a party that is not willing to trade away our freedoms.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for Canadians at home to know that tonight's vote is not on Bill C-11. It is on the message from the House of Commons going to the Senate with respect to the amendments that the Senate sent here and whether we agree with the substance of that message. In particular, it also includes a message to disagree with the amendment from Senators Simons and Miville-Dechêne with respect to addressing user-generated content.
I wonder if the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies would like to comment specifically on the motion we are debating this evening.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the amendments would address the concerns around user-generated content, I think we would have a whole bunch of viewers listening over here. However, the bill is flawed. We have been talking about this bill for many years, since Bill C-10. It is still flawed today, and frankly does not cut it for us on this side of the aisle.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain some of what he has heard from some of his constituents, who, I am sure, are very similar to those I have heard from in northern Alberta who are very concerned about what this is going to mean and about what they are going to be able to see and say on social media platforms.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:17:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I thank the member for asking about what local folks and my neighbours are saying about this. I think a lot really support it, and we support freedom in this country.
We saw an example of overreach by the government not that long ago, just over a year ago, when bank accounts of some groups were shut down because people wanted to voice their freedoms, and so it leads to the next step. What if this government does not like a particular movement, a particular party or a particular message? Well, let us just make a call to the CRTC and say, “Hey, shut it down.” That is what my residents are talking about and are very worried about. They have seen examples of it already, and I think those concerns are warranted.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in 1951, when Ray Bradbury was writing Fahrenheit 451, it was a time not unlike 2023. Fahrenheit 451 presented an American society in the year 2049 where firemen were employed to burn outlawed books, along with the houses they were hidden in, because of a government deciding what people could see and what they could say.
Ray Bradbury described his book as depicting political correctness as an allegory for the censorship in the book. He called it the real enemy and labelled it as thought control and control over freedom of speech.
When the book was written, it was a time of massive social change and technological revolution. Hearings in the U.S. investigated Americans with alleged communist ties. Nuclear warfare was fresh. The golden age of radio occurred between the 1920s and the late 1950s and the television launched into living rooms in the 1950s, which changed how people consumed media and news.
Governments took actions to make sure the news and the artists they thought should be promoted in this technological shift would be promoted, and the ones they did not like would be censored.
The house un-American activities committee held hearings to investigate alleged communist ties. The Hollywood 10, a group of influential screenwriters, were blacklisted, and of course everyone remembers the Truman Doctrine and McCarthy hearings.
The government's interference in the affairs of artists and creative types infuriated Bradbury, who was bitter and concerned about government intervention, and he then wrote Fahrenheit 451. Fast forward to 2023, and we have absolute parallels with those government interventions in Bill C-11. Just like Margaret Atwood, Ray Bradbury would not be impressed with the government's looking to interfere in the affairs of artists and creators at a time of immense technological change.
We have the Internet, social media and AI. We use smart phones every day and we use tablets. It is an incredible time and certainly we all, in the House, want to see our Canadian artists and content creators be successful. In fact, we want to release the shackles and ensure all creators are immensely successful.
It is not done by government intervention; it is done by breaking down barriers so artists can succeed. There is no culture without freedom of expression, but do not take it from me. Take it from the creators themselves. We have heard all week how Margaret Atwood called this “creeping totalitarianism”.
A YouTuber and TikToker named Kallmekris has said, “I am scared...Bill C-11 was supposed to promote Canadian storytelling online. In reality, the bill has ended up so broadly worded that it lets the CRTC interfere with every part of your online life. That includes manipulating your feed and search results.” Another YouTuber, J.J. McCullough, says, “What Canadians want is what Canadian culture is, not what the government says it should be.” According to a Regina TikToker named Tesher, “C-11 would limit that reach by requiring creators to prioritize government criteria for domestic distribution over making content optimized for global audiences.”
Through this legislative measure, the government is preparing to give itself the power to control what Canadians can listen to or watch online. For example, instead of offering people more content based on their interests on platforms such as YouTube, the government would force those platforms to promote content that it deems to be a priority. It argues that the order of priority would be established according to the Canadian nature of the content.
For example, instead of giving a Canadian more of what they want on platforms such as YouTube, the government would choose what it wants Canadians to see. Let us be clear: Big tech would still monopolize algorithms and government would shut down the voices of individual Canadians.
What is worse is that it would open the door for other governments to do the same. We already know how strict buy America has been for Canadian manufacturing, and we fight it every day. What would happen if they emulated the strategy against Canadian creators by emulating a “buy or view America” against Bill C-11? If we control Canadian content, sooner or later they would control America content, shutting Canadian content creators out of America. It is cultural warfare.
Another glaring fact is that people have to want to watch it, not be forced to watch it.
Let us talk about innovation and competition as an alternative to this bill. The answer to seeing increased competition and innovation is to release the shackles of Canadian content creators, and I have an idea for creators. Let us see a Canadian Netflix competitor created that plays Canadian content. We would call it “Canuck-Flix”. Does that not sound good? Canuck-Flix would have the ability to showcase Canadian talent, showcase Canadian television and, of course, have creators put that content online. That is real competition.
There is a great show in my riding, airing right now on Bell's Fibe, called Stoney Lonesome. It is filmed entirely in Belleville. It stars some really great professionals in some great local backdrops. They are 10-minute episodes that are very funny, content-created and something they want to see outside and to compete with others. That is a great example of great Canadian content, and we should be promoting it.
Tomorrow is a very special day, my eldest son Jack's 10th birthday. I look forward to his future, and all of us as parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents wish all our children, Canada's children, equality of opportunity for success in whatever each of them wants to achieve and do in this country, whether that be in sports or as researchers, volunteers or, dare I say, politicians, to be whatever they want to be. The government's role is not to tell them what to be; it is to assist in breaking down any barrier that does not allow them to be what they want to be, and this bill would not do that.
Today's creators do not function according to the same rules as previous generations did. Today's creators exist in a new space and have new ideas, freedoms and choice. Choice is a fundamental right of Canadians and an absolute necessity for competition. Competition allows Canadians to make their own choices so they themselves can choose which content goes viral and which does not. It allows Canadians to succeed or to fail, but it allows Canadians to allow the free market to dictate what success is like and what it is not.
I share the desire of the member for Lethbridge, who has been an incredible advocate for this cause and for which she deserves a round of applause, for Canadians to know that this bill would impact them in two areas. It would censor what they see and it would censor what they say. With regard to what they see, if a Canadian government determines what gets promoted and what gets demoted, it means it is censoring what Canadians can see.
Furthermore, this bill would censor what an individual can say or post online. Creative talent here in Canada would no longer succeed based on merit, as it does now. Instead, content would be subject to a list of criteria that the government has not released yet. Let us make that clear. We would have a list of criteria by which the government would determine just what Canadian content is, and yet we have not seen it. As parliamentarians, we have no idea of the content of that list or how it would determine what is Canadian or not. Therefore, it would be left up to interpretation or, as I like to say, to the greatest line I have ever heard, “I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”
Through that, the government directed that those criteria have to be weighed and measured to see if they are met by the artists. If they are, they would be deemed Canadian. How do we fancy that? If they are not, they would not be discoverable, and those that are not discoverable would be bumped down the list of search engines, on YouTube, on TikTok, on Instagram, or whatever. That is censorship, not only what viewers can see but also, for creators, what we can say.
The bill is a travesty of Canadian freedoms that needs to be replaced. Here are the alternatives: a bill that updates the Broadcasting Act, that promotes all Canadian artists and creators without censorship, what one sees and says; the promotion and development of our arts and culture in Canada, celebrating great artists, great content and the arts, which we know all do well and are incredible; and a new tax code that taxes big tech. Conservatives agree with that.
Some have said this bill is all about only taxing big tech. It is a little part of this bill. A larger part of the bill is what people can say and what they can see, but we need to also have a separate bill. If that were the case, why was this bill not separated into a tax bill that just did that? We are all about doing things we say we are going to do. If this were about Canadian creators creating more content, this would be under creative arts funding and entrepreneurship. There are a lot of great things.
I am going to leave everyone with a quote before I end. It is a great quote by Diefenbaker, because it really summarizes what we believe on the Conservative side and what we believe for Canadians. He said, “I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
Another great saying that is attributed to Voltaire is, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Fahrenheit 451 ends with the symbolism of the legendary phoenix. It is an endless cycle of long life, death in flames, rebirth and the symbolism that the phoenix must have some relationship to mankind, which constantly repeats its mistakes, but men and women have something the phoenix does not. Mankind can remember its mistakes and try to never repeat them.
Let us repeal this bill, let us come back and get it right and let us make sure we respect the fundamental right of freedom of Canadians.
1800 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:29:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, whether it was the minister or one of the many other members, it has very clearly been said that what the bill would not do is, “impose regulations on the content [of] everyday Canadians post on social media.” It “does not limit [Canadians'] freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.” Why does the Conservative Party continue to give false information and plant anxiety in many individuals, and use that anxiety, when it knows it is not true?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the bill specifically states there would be criteria determined by the government that would determine what is Canadian and what is not. That very definition is what we can see and what we can say, and that is censorship. On this side of the House, we are against that.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:30:27 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:31:11 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:31:22 p.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:31:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request the motion be adopted on division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to recognize three people who have worked on this for a long time. Certainly, our colleague from Surrey—Newton started a long time ago to try to get something like this in place. My friend, colleague and next-door neighbour from Cloverdale—Langley City also worked on this. We cannot ever forget the work of Senator Mobina Jaffer, from the other place, who kept the flame alive until today.
If Bill S-214 is new to colleagues, its purpose is to establish February 21 as international mother language day. This is not a piece of legislation reflecting a big headline, a big opportunity or a big issue that needs resolving, and it is not a national holiday. In fact, it is a lot more important than that. It is a foundational issue. It is a true Canadian values proposition, one that involves respect, one that involves community building and one that involves understanding and connectivity, rather than isolation.
It is really intended to honour, preserve and protect the languages that make Canada what it is. There is English of course and our beautiful French language of course. However, there are indigenous languages, too, many of which are in danger of going extinct, which is why, by the way, we have a National Indigenous Languages Day, and we will observe it tomorrow.
Language diversity is defined in Canada. A recent census shows some very interesting trends. The first language is neither French nor English for 25% of household in our country. Tagalog is the most common non-official language in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and in the Yukon. There is major growth in Spanish, Mandarin and Punjabi. Especially at home in Fleetwood—Port Kells, Punjabi is almost the dominant language and I wish I spoke it. However, I rely on my friends from Surrey—Newton and Surrey Centre to carry the ball for us on that.
When we talk about language, we have to enjoy the terms that we hear and the cadence.
Listening to somebody from Newfoundland or Cape Breton speak, they will say things like “stay where you to and I'll come where you're at”, or “Jesus Murphy”. I never knew what a “two-four” was until I lived in Fort Frances, Ontario and Brandon, Manitoba. It is an illustration of the character of the people. A Bluenoser, a Bogtrotter or a Caper mean something in Canada. Even in English, sometimes, people need translations. In these parts, of course, it is a beaver tail and out west it is a jambuster. In British Columbia, if one says “skookum”, people know exactly what one is talking about. If one says “Ditchmond”, they also know where one is talking about.
The cadence and the tone shine through the music, the poetry and I would include the food as part of a broader language that reaches out to all. In fact, had I been the one in the Senate, like Senator Jaffer, promoting this bill, there may have been butter chicken stains on the paperwork that finally made it to the House of Commons.
Observing international mother languages day is not up there with the current headlines that this place generates, but the spirit and sentiment it represents is a fundamental and essential element of what Canada is and what we represent, something entrusted to all of us here and in the other place.
593 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:36:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker,
[Member spoke in English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish]
[Translation]
There are roughly 7,000 languages in the world. There is Aba, French, Bikol, Chabacano, Mandarin, Spanish, Artsi which is spoken by just a few thousand people, Kamchadal and Puelche. These are all languages that are for someone, somewhere, a mother language.
A language is a system of expression common to a group. Obviously, when we add mother to it we are talking about the idea of transmission, the idea of community, the idea of being together and living together. The study of language falls under linguistics, but is also a philosophy that I quite like and that I had the good fortune of studying for many years: the philosophy of language.
We study language to extract ideas. My colleagues surely know, as I do, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian author I am fond of. Like all my colleagues, we ask questions when we study philosophy.
For example, we might ask about the origin of language. That is not an absurd question. It requires a lot of thought on our part. What is the relationship between language and reality? That is another question. I am sure that is all my colleagues talk about at parties. What is the relationship between language and thought? What is the relationship between language and knowledge? What is the relationship between language and other forms of expression? What is communication? Does the multiplicity of languages lead to the multiplicity of ways of thinking? Why is there not just one language?
We have all heard about Babel. The Bible provides an explanation. It seems that in certain climates, under certain circumstances, people were made to speak in different languages and then, suddenly, to understand one another.
The mother language is the first language learned, the one that guides us, allows us to learn, to understand and, sometimes, to lose ourselves in the moment. We have to be careful, because these days there is often a very strong temptation to speak English. I am not talking about Shakespeare's English, but rather what I call airport English. This form of the English language tends to reduce us to a certain kind of single-mindedness. As Orwell said, the fewer the words, the smaller the temptation to take thought. People who speak only one language must be able to transcend perfect conformity. However, globalization has resulted in a kind of single-mindedness, of conformity, which, in a way, prevents a mother language from fully flourishing. Single-mindedness means the death of literature, the death of poetry and, I am sure my colleagues will agree, the death of artistic sensibility. Please hold the applause.
I want to come back to Wittgenstein, who said that what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. It would be so interesting to apply that maxim here, but I will not draw any conclusions. Aristotle, meanwhile, said that the human being is the only animal with the gift of speech, and to speak is to communicate.
I want to come back to the topic of mother languages and say that a person's mother tongue allows them to evolve from silence to existence. The mother tongue allows us to understand, to learn, to surprise and even to be surprised. It is the first language a child learns, and I believe that everyone has a right to that. That is why, of course, the Bloc Québécois will support the idea of creating an international mother language day.
In conclusion, I believe my colleagues have all understood the essence of my remarks. As my friend reminded me, Aristotle said that the human being is the only animal endowed with language. Language is what allows humans, but not animals, to convey judgments and values. In fact, it is paramount for the organization of a community. Because we are animals with language, humans are political animals, which allows us to assert, propose and promote our ideas.
670 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP in support of Bill S-214 , a bill that proposes to recognize international mother language day, that recognizes the value of linguistic and cultural diversity in our country.
This is a bill that is important, because of the value statement it makes clear, that we, here in Canada, are proud of our mother tongues, of our linguistic and cultural diversity. I am proud to be a Canadian, the daughter of immigrants, whose first language is not one of our official languages, but my own language, Greek.
[Member spoke in Greek]
[English]
I am proud to have the opportunity to be able to speak my language, Greek with my two children who are now five years old. I am proud that they are able to claim Greek as their own mother tongue.
Our mother tongues are who we are. They are our roots. They are our stories. They are our strengths. They are our future.
Today, it is important to reinforce that we cannot just recognize, we need to actively support the survival and strengthening of our mother tongues. We must do that with concrete actions. Perhaps the most important thing that we could do is support indigenous languages here in Canada.
While there are more than 70 indigenous languages spoken in Canada, many of them are endangered, as the majority of them maintain fewer than 1,000 fluent speakers. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, who often communicates in Inuktitut and is clear on the responsibility that Parliament has to interpret and communicate in Inuktitut and other indigenous languages.
We must be clear that this situation, in which so many indigenous languages are endangered, did not just happen. It is the result of genocide, of colonialism, of the residential school system, of the sixties scoop, of the foster care crisis. In saying that, we have the power to reverse that damage that has been done. That means action through funding, investment and legislation.
Canada must step up to work with indigenous communities in supporting their education and the revival, for many communities, of their indigenous language as a mother tongue.
I am proud of the work that is done in my home community of Thompson on Treaty 5 territory to bring back Cree in the Cree immersion system at Wapanohk Community School. We need to see much more being done across the country.
I also want to acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done to protect French and stop its decline in our country. That is why I am proud of the work we are doing in the NDP to improve Bill C‑13. The Official Languages Act is a law that needs to be modernized to stop the decline of French in the country, including in Quebec.
We need to acknowledge that the survival of the French language is key to the future of our country. We need to support it with meaningful measures, immigration measures and protection measures, such as the inclusion of linguistic clauses in our agreements. Of course, the federal government needs to have a lot more power to support French in the country.
I want to recognize that many of us grew up, certainly my generation grew up, proud to be part of a multicultural country, but we need to recognize and strengthen those cultures. We need to make sure that Canadian education systems and Canadian society is supporting the education of the multitude of languages of communities that come here.
We heard about Tagalog, Punjabi, Mandarin and so many languages that are spoken by so many Canadians. We need to make sure that the children of these immigrants, if their parents or if they want, have the opportunity to learn their language, through their schools, in after-school programs, on the weekends.
I am proud to have been a Greek school teacher in Winnipeg, Manitoba while I was attending university. This work is done heroically by many ethnic communities across our country to teach the next generation the language of their parents and grandparents; their language. However, that work requires resources and support, and the Government of Canada needs to be part of the solution.
So, yes, today let us recognize the importance of mother tongues. Let us recognize the strength that this recognition gives to our country. More importantly, let us act through funding, investment and support, so we can all continue to speak the languages that belong to us.
[Member spoke in Greek]
[English]
771 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
