House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was communities.

Topics

Citizenship ActRoyal Assent

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I am often in the same boat at home, juggling family and my work in the House of Commons. For those of us who are young parents, we all have to confront this challenge of how we talk to our children about Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples and how we explain the pride we feel in Canada and yet the shame we feel about things that were done in the name of our country and perhaps in the name of communities we are a part of.

I wonder if the member would share how she tries to engage in these conversations, in particular with the next generation, and how we should explain what happened and what we plan to do going forward.

Citizenship ActRoyal Assent

7:50 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his recognition of the tough balance between work and life sometimes. My two children are with me in the office tonight. My oldest is in grade 3 and the revelation hit him pretty hard. It hit his classmates and community members hard too. Oromocto First Nation is where he is a band member. Members put children's shoes in the shape of a heart and lit it up at night. It is difficult to drive by, and it is difficult to have those conversations with our children.

My son has had an introduction to residential schools before, because his mom is very passionate about having him be proud of his heritage and having him learn the difficult road that his ancestors had to take. This is very much a sensitive issue for me. It hits close to home, and I do all I can to have these tough conversations. There are storybooks we can read that are appropriate for children, and if anyone would like to reach out, I have lots of recommendations that I can pass on.

Citizenship ActRoyal Assent

7:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fredericton for her speech, and I would also like to say hello to her little boy, who is absolutely adorable.

My colleague is not a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, where the wording of the oath of citizenship was discussed. This evening, we heard from members who seem to be somewhat insensitive to how Quebec feels about this issue.

I would simply like to know whether she has a different understanding of the reason why this is an issue for the Bloc Québécois. In order to achieve unanimous consent, would she have supported an amendment from the Bloc Québécois that would simply remove the recognition of the Constitution from the wording of the oath of citizenship?

Citizenship ActRoyal Assent

7:50 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, yes, my son is adorable.

I respect the nation of Quebec. I respect the sovereignty and its individualized culture, and it is important to add that to the conversation as well. This is about respecting everyone's background, heritage and culture and coming to Canada and building a nation where we truly all belong, where we feel included and represented. I am very open to working with Bloc members to assure there are amendments they are comfortable with.

Citizenship ActRoyal Assent

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I ran a non-profit organization that supported newcomers to Canada for many years, and one of the things we learned was that often indigenous communities were not something they knew a lot about. Sometimes they would come into Canada and hear from other people really discriminatory aspects of that perspective and did not understand the history. When they learned the history, it was very overwhelming sometimes because there were some stories that really related to the experience they had in their home country.

I am just wondering if the member could speak a bit about how important it is to have that acknowledgement in our citizenship oath so we encourage all members of the community who become Canadian to know the history of our country in this context.

Citizenship ActRoyal Assent

7:50 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, I was a bit more cynical about those calls to action, but the more I thought about it, the more I think it is so important to enshrine up front when that important learning is happening about coming to a new country, coming to Canada and what that means. To talk about the original inhabitants right out of the gate leads to what could be a future of reconciliation for all. It is an important step. I do not think we can trivialize it. Bill C-8 is important and I am proud to support it.

Citizenship ActRoyal Assent

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

It being 7:55 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 1, the motion is deemed adopted and Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, is deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Regional DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, on February 26, I asked the minister a question about the B.C. regional economic development agency. I requested that a location of one of the offices of this new agency be located in my riding. In November of last year, I put forward a motion, Motion No. 53 in the House of Commons, calling for the federal government to be guided by principles for a sustainable and equitable future, when considering funding for COVID-19 relief and recovery.

Rural and remote communities across Canada are facing specific challenges that are often ignored and unrecognized by the Government of Canada. I asked the House to recognize and honour that Canada, as a nation, has a rich history of resource-dependent rural communities providing the economic prosperity many Canadians have benefited from; that this prosperity has been at the expense of, or specifically excluded, local indigenous peoples and communities; and that the future of these resource-dependent communities is at risk due to climate change, the changing resource sector, the loss of ecological diversity and integrity and, of course, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rural and remote communities have built this country and lived through multiple boom and bust cycles. This is a challenge that I want to work with the government to repair. This can only be done with fair disbursement of funds, so when the announcement came from the government about the B.C. regional economic development agency, I wrote immediately to the minister to let her know that our region is a good one to invest in. I believe it is essential for offices of government to be located in urban and rural communities. As rural and remote communities face challenges in the changing economy and environmental realities, it is imperative that there be a specific focus for these areas.

Our industries are changing, and COVID has had serious impacts. I, in my office, have spoken to many in the tourism industry who are very afraid of the future of their work. The forestry sector is still recovering from a lengthy strike; the federal government has announced a change for spot prawn fisheries that has seriously concerned the industry; public fisheries continue to want to hear more about the commitment to mark selective fishing; and communities are still waiting for the report that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans promised this spring on what a more sustainable aquaculture will look like. Summer is days away. The consultations have happened with communities, industry and indigenous leadership, and we are sill waiting. With recent DFO science identifying the concerns of open-net farms, it is important that this report on sustainable aquaculture comes out to clarify the next steps for our region. People want to know. We have also heard a commitment for investment in wild salmon, a key part of our region's cultural and economic health. Communities are waiting for the details to support and protect the wild salmon that are struggling so profoundly.

My motion demands that funds be applied and distributed equally by federal riding, geographic region and province or territory. That is why I am asking the minister: When will B.C. hear more about the B.C. economic development branch? Does she commit to having locations in rural and remote communities to better understand these particular needs and voices? When will she answer my letter and let my constituents know if an office will open in our region?

Regional DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the question from the hon. member for North Island—Powell River regarding our new regional economic development agency for British Columbia. I appreciate her making this important request for constituents, and her emphasis on rural, because I come from a rural riding. I also appreciate her support on the support we are providing for salmon, because that affects my riding as well.

Our government understands the importance of investing in communities. We know that the regional development agencies are often the best vehicles for these investments. That sentiment has been reinforced throughout this pandemic. From the outset, the RDAs have been on the ground across Canada helping businesses weather the effects of the pandemic.

Through the $2 billion regional relief and recovery fund, we have helped businesses stay afloat and protect jobs. The RRRF has been important in western Canada, which is already facing unique economic challenges, as the member just mentioned very nicely.

Under the very strong leadership and successful actions of the Minister of Economic Development to date, the RRRF has delivered more than $775 million to approximately 9,000 businesses in western Canada. Thanks to this support, we have helped protect more than 40,000 jobs across western Canada, including more than 15,000 jobs in B.C.

Our RRRF funding in B.C. has gone to all parts of the province, in part, thanks to B.C. Community Futures offices, which have delivered more than $60 million to more than 1,400 rural B.C. businesses impacted by the pandemic.

As we build back better, our government understands that we need to continue delivering support directly to our regions and communities. In B.C. and across western Canada, we understand there are unique economic realities, which the member mentioned, and the one-size-fits-all-approach no longer works.

In the 2020 fall economic statement, we announced we would be creating a new regional economic development agency for British Columbia, with new dedicated funding to help businesses and communities in British Columbia continue to grow and create good jobs across the province. In budget 2021, over and above $1 billion for tourism, we backed up with real investments. We are going to provide this new B.C. RDA with $553.1 million over five years, starting this year, 2021-22; and $110.6 million ongoing. These investments will support the new agency and ensure our government is there to help businesses in B.C. grow and create good jobs for British Columbia.

As we establish this new RDA, we are continuing our commitment, ensuring it is driven by the local realities that the member mentioned. The Minister of Economic Development and the parliamentary secretary for the new B.C. agency, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, have met with and heard from a diverse number of economic development thought leaders, including those on Vancouver Island and the surrounding coastal communities. Their guidance will ensure the new B.C. RDA is built by and for British Columbians, with a greater local presence, improved service and more locally engaged staff.

We are still in the early days of this new B.C. RDA, which means we cannot yet determine exactly how it will look or where the offices will be located. However, I can say with certainty that our government listened to the local stakeholders and when the new Pacific regional development agency opens its doors, it will allow our government to play a robust role as adviser, investor and, most important, a partner for businesses and communities across British Columbia.

Regional DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's response and I also appreciate that he represents a very large rural and remote riding.

I am paraphrasing him, but he just said that the regional offices were the best sources for local investment. I really want to ensure the government is hearing that. If we do not see these offices also located in rural and remote communities, we will never see that fundamental change that needs to happen in the country. Therefore, I hope the member will continue to advocate alongside me to ensure my riding has this representation.

Also. the funds for small businesses, especially the tourism sector, really need to be extended past the deadline provided by the government. Many folks in that industry are worried that they will not be able to hold through this period of time. Tourism is not going to come back this year, and that is a huge concern.

Regional DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member's very constructive input. I will certainly take it back with me, because I have a tourism-based riding as well and I totally understand what she is saying.

We are committed to creating a prosperous Canada, where Canadians will get well-paying jobs to support their families. That is why we are proposing this new economic development in the west, a refocused agency in the Prairies and this new agency for British Columbia that will be responsible for the special diverse economic needs so nicely outlined by the member.

The new points of service and the locations will be determined through careful consideration of the needs of those we will serve and will be announced after consultations are completed and the decisions have been made. We know they will improve how we support British Columbians as well as Canadians in the Prairie provinces and position their families, communities and businesses for success.

Canadian HeritageAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Madam Speaker, tonight I will talk a little about Bill C-10. We have talked about free speech and net neutrality. There have been a lot of words mentioned by the minister about foreign big tech and the Conservatives supporting them. When I look at lobbying, and I look at all of those people from big tech, the Amazons, the Netflixes, the YouTubes, they are not coming to lobby me. There is a registry that shows who gets lobbied, and they seem to spend a lot of time in the minister's office, not mine, so I am not sure where he is getting that from.

There has been some discussion about tax. Yes, if businesses are doing business in Canada, we agree there should be a tax, but we are going to be honest about that because the users are going to be paying up to 50% more because of that tax. The Biden administration is saying that, if we tax those companies like that in Canada, there are going to be tariffs, so where is that cost going to go to?

We are talking about funding this for culture, but who gets it and where does it go? The parliamentary secretary was the chair of the heritage committee when we looked at where our funding was going for cultural groups in Canada. Is it a surprise that Alberta got 50% less per capita than the rest of the country?

Who decides where it goes? The CRTC is involved in this, but who is the Canadian Radio and Television Commission? It is made up of nine appointed commissioners, and if we look at the Yale report, which a lot of this supposed legislation in Bill C-10 is based on, it recommended that one has to live in Ottawa, the national capital area, if one is on the commission. That is interesting.

There are no minutes for the CRTC. It has no record of debates and no record of votes. Is this transparent and accountable? We know that in the private sector, algorithms have been developed for Amazon or Netflix. They have developed the algorithms, so, if people like a movie, it will suggest some more like it, or if we are buying one thing, it will suggest more we might like.

They are driven by profit and data. We know that, but now we are taking the content, which is what we object to at the CRTC. It did protect individuals, but it pulled off the protective content, so now the CRTC, these non-transparent commissioners, are going to develop algorithms that are driven not by data but by content.

Would someone have a concern about the content of an organization that is going to develop algorithms based on Canadian content? That means they are going to look at whatever they think is Canadian content and develop algorithms that say this one is more Canadian than that one. It will say we should be watching these Canadians more than those Canadians.

That creates winners and losers in our creators of Canadian content. We have 200,000 people who have created and uploaded their content. We have 25,000 people in Canada who have been very successful at making a living. Our concern is to protect individual rights, and the content should be left alone. That is freedom of speech and it should be net neutrality. That is why we are concerned about Bill C-10.

Canadian HeritageAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Toronto—Danforth Ontario

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is an absolute priority for our government and for the cultural sector. It has been 30 years since the Broadcasting Act was modernized, before Canadians turned from video stores to streaming services to access their movies and shows. Over that time, foreign web giants have stepped into that void and they made money in Canada without any requirement that they contribute a portion of those revenues to our cultural industry.

We have an uneven playing field where traditional Canadian broadcasters have regulatory obligations and the foreign web giants do not. We are levelling that playing field, while creating greater support for an important part of our economy. I am happy that the member opposite raised the issue about cultural productions in Alberta because the Canadian cultural sector employs many Canadians across our country on shows like Heartland, which is filmed in Alberta.

Since Bill C-10 was introduced on November 3 of last year, the proposed legislation has received more than 20 hours of debate in the House of Commons. Even during that first debate in this place, the Conservatives vowed to block the bill. There have been more than 40 hours of dedicated study at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Witnesses provided over 100 in-person testimonies; dozens of written submissions were accepted and looked at. The bill itself is the response to a 2019 report called, “Canada's communications future: Time to act”, which received more than 2,000 submissions. All that is to say there has been considerable study and debate on this bill.

Having witnessed the Conservatives in power for the 10 years previous, once we formed government we ensured that all bills must be accompanied by a charter statement. The Department of Justice Canada's analysis has confirmed that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter's guarantee of freedom of speech, as has our supplemental analysis after amendments were made at committee. I would like to add that the original Broadcasting Act contains a section that remains unchanged, which states that it must be interpreted in a way that respects freedom of expression and journalistic and creative independence. That has been there for the past 30 years. We added a further clause, at committee, that repeats its protections specifically for social media companies. The bill is consistent with our right to freedom of expression.

I would like to go back to the amount of time that has been put into the study of this bill, which, over the past weeks, has included tremendous amounts of repetition. Every moment lost as a result of the Conservative Party of Canada's filibuster has deprived the Canadian economy of important investment in our culture and jobs. Each month, an estimated $70 million that Bill C-10 would add to our broadcasting, audiovisual, music and media sectors and would support the 170,000 people who work in those sectors is lost. Instead of going to our artists, creators and cultural workers, and Canadian stories, we are seeing that money remaining in the pockets of foreign tech companies.

In conclusion, Bill C-10 would even the playing field. It is not fair the way the system is working now. I understand the Conservatives have opposed levelling this playing field from the very beginning. That is their choice, but Canadians want fairness and that is what Bill C-10 would deliver.

Canadian HeritageAdjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Madam Speaker, not to be a repetitionist, but there is another issue that has developed this week that is really of significant importance.

COVID really destroyed the airline industry in this country, hugely, shutting it down and losing all sorts of parts of our airline industry to travel. There were 20,000 people at all different levels who lost their jobs. Every type of employee was affected. Travel agencies lost their businesses, 85% of them female.

There was a bailout negotiated by the current Liberal government, using taxpayer money for loans and money. The executives suffered from the pain of firing 20,000 and negotiated a bailout, reacted decisively and got millions and a buyout and bonuses. This is the wrong thing for the bonuses.

Canadian HeritageAdjournment Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Madam Speaker, well, at least we have avoided repetition, but today we were talking about Bill C-10.

The government understands the need to act quickly. The regulations for the broadcasting industry need to be reformed because the current version of the act is over 30 years old and because, today, Canadian content is created in a very different context than it was in 1991.

I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-10. I look forward to the opportunity for our creators to travel all across our country, even to Alberta, to create these wonderful stories.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually tonight in adjournment proceedings to address a question I initially asked on April 15 of this year.

People who have been paying close attention to the climate agenda and our rapidly shrinking opportunity to make the difference that we need to make, as time passes and our emissions are still rising, will recall the April 22 climate summit hosted by President Joe Biden, held virtually with leaders from 40 countries.

On April 15, first I noted that our emissions kept rising right up until COVID, with recently announced reports to that effect. My second point was that a report from a news outlet called The Breach said a special cabinet committee had formed during COVID with representation of senior levels of government from natural resources, finance, environment and elsewhere that was actually focused on helping the oil and gas sector. My third point was that our subsidies continued to go up.

The minister's response was that we would see a new target soon. I return to the fundamental question on the not-so-new target now. Since 2015, the Liberal government has proclaimed that Canada is back and clearly understands that the climate issue is real. Has it actually grasped the science? This is my core question.

I will say again that as well-intentioned as the government might be, it does not seem to understand that we must hold to no more than a 1.5°C global average temperature increase above the global average temperature at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Blowing past this target by failing to put in place rigorous targets now will lead us to a place where we do not get a do-over. We cannot fix it later.

From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its special report on 1.5°C, which came out in October 2018, we know that if the world community does not move mountains in this coming decade, it will be too late.

In his book Values, Mark Carney said that understanding carbon budgets is very important. On page 273, he said:

If we had started in the year 2000, we could have hit 1.5°C by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must cut our emissions in half every 10 years. If we wait another four years, we will have to halve our emissions every single year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5°C carbon budget will be exhausted.

The Prime Minister attended the Biden summit. He announced a new target and proclaimed that it was ambitious. It is not. It does not meet the demands of science, and neither does Bill C-12, which we are currently debating in the environment committee. They have good intentions, great press coverage and good public relations, but they fail to do what is necessary.

Years ago, I marched with my daughter in the streets of New York in the lead-up to the COP before the Paris agreement. I saw a sign as we marched that said, “It's time to stop debating what is possible and start doing what is necessary”.

We have to cancel the TMX pipeline. We cannot afford $17 billion on a pipeline that blows our carbon budget. The choices are stark. The government is failing.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Toronto—Danforth Ontario

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, we understand that Canada must do its part to reduce emissions and work with other global leaders to tackle climate change, create growth and improve the well-being of all people. That is why we have developed a comprehensive plan and made the largest commitment to climate action in Canadian history to move Canada and the rest of the international community toward our shared goal.

We also understand that the previous emission reduction commitments made by the signatories to the Paris Agreement are not enough to hold global warming below 1.5°C. There has been a global call for increased ambition and climate action, and we have been listening.

That is why at the Leaders Summit on Climate, on April 22, 2021, Canada announced an enhanced emissions reduction target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. Members are probably wondering how we intend to meet this target. As I mentioned, we already have a comprehensive plan in place, and we have been working to find real solutions to tackle the climate crisis since 2015. Our recently announced strengthened climate plan, a healthy environment and a healthy economy, builds on our first climate plan, the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, and includes over 60 new measures and $15 billion in investments to advance our ambitious climate goals and strengthen our clean economy.

The government has since expanded on these investments and committed an additional $15 billion to public transit and active transportation projects, and $17.6 billion to new green recovery measures in budget 2021. The investments made in budget 2021, along with other action, including strengthened alignment with the United States to further cut pollution from transportation and methane emissions, mean that Canada is now positioned to reduce emissions significantly.

All this to say, we are making progress. However, we recognize that more needs to be done to reach the new target. Canada is just starting along the innovation curves associated with some of the most promising decarbonization technologies, such as industrial electrification; carbon capture, use and storage; and hydrogen.

Investments in clean technology and innovation, such as those detailed in Canada's climate plan, help to accelerate the development of next generation technologies. For example, new investments in Canada's net-zero accelerator will incentivize Canadian businesses and industry to develop net-zero technologies and build our clean industrial advantage.

Moving forward, the Government of Canada will continue to work with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, civil society, industry, national indigenous organizations and the U.S. administration to advance shared priorities that will further lower emissions. In these partnerships, the government believes that Canada can go further and faster together.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, but her history is wrong. What always amazes me is the history the hon. member mentions. The strongest climate plan in Canadian history is not the one we have now; it is the one we had under Paul Martin in 2005. It would have gotten us to a Kyoto target well below 1990 levels. We are now 21% above 1990 levels.

Now when we look at what we need to do, we are behind the eight ball. We have the worst record in the G7. We have the weakest climate target. Even after the Prime Minister improved it, it is still the weakest climate target in the industrialized world.

When we look at what we need to do to hold to 1.5°C to meet our Paris target, it is not about doing better or doing more; it is about getting it right. It is not going to be easy. It will take a whole-of-government approach. It requires us to take on the climate challenge as the fight of our generation, as it truly is. All of government must mobilize, and that is where we are failing.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Madam Speaker, G20 leaders committed to rationalize and phase out, over the medium term, inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. Our government has already taken actions to phase out or rationalize eight tax measures supporting the fossil fuel sector.

We will continue to review measures that could be considered inefficient fossil fuel subsidies with a view to reforming them as necessary. We are doing the hard work.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:25 p.m.)