Debates of Feb. 16th, 2022

Ukraine

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on with the point that was made by my colleague from Thornhill.

When comments made in the House are injurious, insulting and unparliamentary, they rise to the level of a question of privilege. As you know, you have the ability to rule on that immediately.

I will not even go into the hypocrisy of a man who did blackface so often that he cannot remember it accusing somebody else of doing anything remotely racist. However, his comments made to a Jewish member of the House are beyond unparliamentary. They are reprehensible. I ask that you rule that this rises to the level of a question of privilege. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will take that under advisement and return to the House should I see fit.

On the same point of order, we have the hon. Minister of Families.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, emotions are obviously running very high right now, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to take a step back and reflect on the values of the House.

I am also a proud Jewish woman who is the descendant of Holocaust survivors. My family found refuge, support and a life in this country. We must listen to each other and must ensure that no one in the House is standing with those who support white supremacy, who support Nazi views or who look to contribute to and enable racist views. I ask that all of us in the House use our words judiciously, including the member opposite, who just yelled out something completely inappropriate. All of us have reason to be here. I call on the members opposite not to stand with those who are sharing those views.

How does it feel, as a person in the House, to see colleagues taking pictures with people who are looking to overthrow the government? That is what I ask those colleagues to think about.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. I understand that we are all fairly agitated at this moment. Can we imagine how what happened in the House today is impacting Canadians who are very aware—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I need to interrupt the member, as I am afraid interpretation is not happening. Please make sure the headset is functioning.

We will wait for the hon. member to get her microphone working, and in the meantime we will go to the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should engage in an exercise of comparative victimhood credentials. I will observe that I too have Jewish ancestors. My grandmother was born in Bialystok. Fortunately, she came here before the Holocaust occurred, but of the 10,000 Jewish residents of Bialystok when she left, only 500 survived World War II.

It is not for the member opposite, although I know she spoke sincerely, to speak out on this. It is for the Prime Minister to come back and retract his words. The Prime Minister is very good at apologizing for acts that took place before he was born by people he was not involved with, and it is time for him to take responsibility for his own words and apologize for what he said.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, I note this is evolving into a debate. If hon. members would like to call this back as an emergency debate or something along those lines, or bring it up as a motion, I think it would be more appropriate.

We will now go to the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my perspective on this. It is really important that the Prime Minister do the right thing and apologize for the statement he made today, especially in reference to the House, but also because this statement has been abused and used against Canadians, and he has not recognized in any way the thousands and millions of Canadian flags that have flown over the past two or three weeks.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Old Age Security Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-12.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #31

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement) is deemed considered in the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

Terms of Debate under the Emergencies Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your ruling concerning a key procedural aspect of the very important and historic debate the House will be having this week. On Monday, the Prime Minister announced that Canada was under a public order emergency, invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time in that law's existence. That will require a debate in the House to confirm the government's declaration of emergency, a debate we expect to start later this week. I wanted to rise on this point of order at the earliest opportunity to allow you as much time as possible to prepare a ruling.

Subsection 58(6) of the Act requires that the motion “shall be debated without interruption until such time as the House is ready for the question”. That is a legal requirement, yet there is some difference of opinion within this building about how to give it effect. I understand there is a head of steam building up behind the view that the words “without interruption” unbelievably allows for interruptions for members' statements, question period and nightly adjournment. However, when my predecessor, now the leader of the official opposition, sought the advice of the table concerning a potential debate under a different statute, a debate that did not happen, but if it had, would also have been without interruption, the advice she received from the clerks at the table was that it would override S. O. 31s and QP, and see us sit into the night until completed.

Members can appreciate that this is something that needs clarity, and quickly. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines the verb “interrupt” as, “act so as to break the continuous progress of (something) temporarily”. That is in line with the advice the table gave my predecessor three years ago. To my mind, this means that nothing could or should get in the way of the debate once it has been launched, regrettably not members' statements, certainly not the evening adjournment, and definitely not the upcoming constituency week. That, I would submit, aligns with both the letter and the spirit of the Emergencies Act.

The government has said this country, the whole of it, is in a state of emergency. That is a big deal. A situation so serious and grave requires a dedicated and determined focus by the Chamber on it, and I think our constituents would expect no less. We must vote on the Prime Minister's emergency. Very few of the debates the House has held have been governed by rules written into statute rather than our Standing Orders. Those debates are enumerated at pages 709 and 710 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Of these, only four have been held under a law that required the debate to be held without interruption, according to my office's research. The first was held in November 1974 under an Act to Amend the Veterans’ Land Act. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 714, describes the second and third of these cases:

Many statutes that prescribe provisions for statutory debates also stipulate that the debate may not be interrupted. Nevertheless, in 1977, debate on the motion pursuant to the Anti-Inflation Act, which took place over four days, was interrupted on three occasions for the Adjournment Proceedings, after which the motion to adjourn was deemed withdrawn and debate continued, pursuant to an Order of the House adopted on May 30, 1977. In 1985, the debate held pursuant to the Western Grain Transportation Act was interrupted for a ministerial statement by the Minister of Finance pursuant to an Order made by the House.

The most recent of these without-interruption debates was held in December 1992 under the provisions of the Special Economic Measures Act.

There are also key distinctions between the relevant legal provisions and the context of those four debates and our current circumstances. While subsection 1(3) of an Act to Amend the Veterans' Land Act, which governed the 1974 debate, required the debate to occur without interruption, it was also to be held “in accordance with the rules of the House”, and was to be concluded “not later than the end of the first sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered”. The 1974 debate was meant to be subject to all of the Standing Orders of the House, along with the concept of being divided between sitting days as well as providing a cut-off for the debate. None of those three concepts is found in subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act.

Those concepts did, however, appear in subsections 46(6) and 46(7) of the Anti-Inflation Act as amended by subsection 11(2) of an act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, which required the 1977 debate to happen without interruption, but also that the debate was limited to four sitting days and would occur “in accordance with rules of the House”. Again, these additional concepts are missing from subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act.

As for the 1985 debate held pursuant to subsection 62(6) of the Western Grain Transportation Act, the law actually specified that the debate would occur “For a period not exceeding the duration of the normal business hours of the House on that day”. That is rather cut and dried, and it is also different from subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act.

Finally, the 1992 debate pursuant to subsection 7(4) of the Special Economic Measures Act was also held without interruption but, importantly, “for not more than three hours”. As I have established, there is no time limit in subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act.

Essentially, we are left with a situation where we need to square two different sets of rules that have been adopted by the House, one being the Standing Orders and the other being the Emergencies Act.

Page 267 of Bosc and Gagnon notes that:

In the case of statutory provisions, the House of Commons endeavours to ensure that its Standing Orders and practices are consistent with statutes while retaining the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the provisions of a statute apply to its proceedings.

I would respectfully argue that the distinctions between the Emergencies Act, on the one hand, and the laws under which all of the other without-interruption debates were held rendered those debates inappropriate precedents to follow to the letter. A critical maxim applied judicially in statutory interpretation cases would be instructive here. It is that “Parliament does not speak in vain”. That touchstone is elaborated upon in various entries in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, which is the leading Canadian authority on the interpretation of laws. I will simply offer two short quotes from the 6th edition.

First is paragraph 814, which says, “Although ordinary speakers or writers require much co-operative guesswork from their audience, a legislature is an idealized speaker. Unlike the rest of us, legislatures are presumed to always say what they mean and mean what they say. They do not make mistakes.”

Then there is paragraph 8.32, which I believe speaks to Parliament's use of caveats and the requirements of some debates to be held without interruption. There are no such qualifications on the requirements in the Emergencies Act.

It reads, “It is presumed that the legislature uses language carefully and consistently so that within a statute or other legislative instrument, the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meanings. Another way of understanding this presumption is to say that the legislature is presumed to avoid stylistic variation and once a particular way of expressing a meaning has been adopted, it is used each time that meaning is intended. Given that practice, it follows that where a different form of expression is used, a different meaning is intended.”

Page 122 of Bosc and Gagnon instructs us that, “The right to regulate its own internal affairs does not mean that the House is above the law. However, where the application of a statute law relates to a proceeding in Parliament, it is the House itself which decides how that law is applied.”

In this case, I believe the path forward is that we must apply the rules set out in the Emergencies Act to this week's debate. The Standing Orders obviously can supplement all of those areas where the act is silent, such as the maximum length of speeches or how long the bells for a vote would ring, to name just two examples.

Ultimately, the statutory rules that apply to this specific debate must, I would respectfully submit, trump the general provisions of the Standing Orders where there is any conflict. Nonetheless, the House's authority to interpret the law leaves it open to the House to adopt a special order through unanimous consent to structure the terms of the debate in a way that suits the House best. That was certainly the case, for example, in 1977 and 1985, when the House had adopted special orders, as I cited from page 714 of Bosc and Gagnon. I also understand that the 1992 debate was guided by a special order.

That would be the correct approach to the House exercising its privileges to determine how to regulate our procedure and how to interpret the law. It would be correct for the House collectively to reach that decision. Let me stress that again: It is for the House. It would not, though, be for any single member to substitute, and certainly not for the government House leader to dictate, new interpretations of a simple phrase like “without interruption”.

The Prime Minister today said that the government would follow the letter of the law. I cannot believe I am going to say this, but I agree with him. Let us follow the letter and the spirit of the law, and ensure that the House takes up this declaration of emergency debate with the urgency a supposed national emergency should naturally require.

The last thing we need to do is leave here at 2:30 on a Friday for a 10-day vacation, as much as I am sure the Prime Minister would like that. Let us debate the emergency, let us air the concerns of our constituents and their views, and then let us have the vote.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for that point of order. I will be coming back to the House as quickly as possible with a ruling.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

International Trade

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the enhanced transparency requirements set out in the amended policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament, I am pleased to present to the House of Commons the Government of Canada's objectives for negotiations for a Canada-United Kingdom free trade agreement.

The Government of Canada intends to commence negotiations with the United Kingdom as soon as practicable. In accordance with the policy, the commencement of negotiations will take place no earlier than 30 days from today.

Foreign Affairs

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. Thirty years ago, on February 26, 1992, 613 Azerbaijanis, including 103 women and 63 children, were massacred by the Armenian army in a two-hour offensive attack on the civilian town of Khojaly.

This was one of the worst massacres, and indeed, the worst massacre in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has resulted in the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 Azerbaijanis and the ongoing illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territory by Armenian forces.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to officially condemn the Khojaly massacre, declare February 26 a national day of remembrance for the victims of the Khojaly massacre, and work with the governments of Azerbaijan and Armenia to bring about the normalization of relations, as well as demarcation and delimitation of the borders between the two countries, with the aim of supporting sustainable peace in the region.

Rights of Children

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table e-petition 3608, signed by nearly 2,000 of our fellow Canadians.

The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the government to the 2019 United Nations report on children and armed conflict, which calls on Israel to uphold juvenile justice standards and cease the use of administrative detention for children. The petitioners remind Canada of its obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Finally, the petitioners call for the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to undertake an urgent study of the treatment of children in occupied Palestine.

Queen Juliana Park

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and with some urgency that I present this petition. These paper petitions are coming in large numbers from Ottawa residents who are concerned about the logging and destruction of the trees within Queen Juliana Park. The park was established to recognize the sacrifice of the 7,600 Canadians who died in the liberation of the Netherlands. It also serves as the home of popular traditional Algonquin powwows, it being the territory of the Algonquin peoples.

The loss of the forest in this very popular urban-area park in Ottawa would allow for 17 acres of parking, including a four-storey parking structure. It opens the door to development within Ottawa, which is very worrying to the petitioners. Over 8,000 people have signed petitions. The one I am presenting today has 117 additional signatures.

The raison d'être for all this destruction is the decision to reject the recommendation of the National Capital Commission to have the new Ottawa Hospital located at Tunney's Pasture and to instead move it to this different location, which includes a great deal of the Experimental Farm, which has also provided green spaces until this development decision.

In summary, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to restore the National Capital Commission's original recommendation to build on Tunney's Pasture as the ideal location, to preserve Queen Juliana Park and the entire Central Experimental Farm as green spaces and to support the request for a public inquiry as to why the NCC's recommendation was set aside so quickly and without transparency.

Climate Change

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by constituents in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills. The petitioners call on the parties in Parliament to work together to commit to reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% from 2005 levels by 2030, to establish a concrete plan to end fossil fuel subsidies, to stop all new fossil fuel expansions, to restart the just transition consultations and to pass legislation as soon as possible.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Online Streaming Act

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, imagine a day without art and culture: no music, no movies, no television or books. It would be really boring. This is why I am so happy to speak today about Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This legislation will update Canada's broadcasting rules to include online streaming services and will require them to contribute in an equitable way to our culture.

This is the first of a few pieces of legislation that are part of my mandate as Minister of Canadian Heritage. The bills are with respect to online streaming, online news and online safety. All three will work together to make the Internet a fairer, more inclusive, safer and more competitive place for Canadians.

When the Internet came along, we all thought that it was great and wonderful, that we would let it develop on its own, that we would not get involved at all, and that it would create new opportunities, strengthen democracy and connect people.

That is true. The Internet has connected so many people and has had and continues to have so many positive impacts. The Internet is a true vector of change, but it is also responsible for an increase in polarization and misinformation. When it comes to culture, for example, the Internet has completely changed the way we produce and consume cultural goods.

What is more, unfortunately, anyone, particularly young people, can easily be exposed to completely unacceptable online content, such as content promoting hatred online, child exploitation and bullying. We all have a role to play, including the platforms that dominate the Internet and take up so much space in our daily lives.

We need to take action to address these issues now. If not, they will continue to harm Canadians, chip away our cultural sovereignty and weaken our digital society. This is about making the Internet a better place for all Canadians.

How are we going to do this? It starts with this bill, the online streaming act. It starts with making sure that online streamers contribute to the strength and vitality of Canada's cultural sector. Let us remember Canada's strong culture is no accident. We made that decision. We decided and we chose to be different. We chose to be different from our neighbours to the south. We chose cultural sovereignty.

We are reminded of this every day, especially yesterday on National Flag of Canada Day. When we chose the maple leaf as our flag, we were choosing a symbol of our national identity, a symbol that is distinct and set us apart from the cultural superpower to the south. After 57 years, the maple leaf is the most widely recognized Canadian emblem in the world. To each and every one of us, it is a symbol of a Canada, a country, made by all of us together.

Our culture is all of us. I say that often. It is our past, present and future. It is how we talk to one another and how we tell our stories.

For more than 50 years, the Broadcasting Act has helped us share our stories. That is how we built a strong Canadian culture. That is how we forged our Canadian identity, and that is how we brought Canadian voices to the world. We want to build on this for the future. We must recognize that times have changed.

The last time our system was updated was in 1991, and the world was a very different place. People were going to Blockbuster Video to rent movies. I am sure you used to go there yourself, Mr. Speaker. We all went to Blockbuster to rent VHS tapes and paid a fee when we brought them back late. We had Walkmans. That is how we used to listen to music.

So much has changed in the last 30 years. Online content delivery has changed how we create, discover and consume content, and the system in place today needs to reflect this.

Canadian broadcasters have been investing in the system for decades to create the content we love, so it is only fair that online broadcasters be asked to contribute. We are only asking them to do their part, nothing more, which is fair.

Companies like Netflix, Amazon and Disney, to name a few, are already investing in the Canadian economy, which is great. We all benefit from that. Some of their content is really entertaining. This means money for and significant investments in our country. We are very pleased that they continue to invest here and pursue their projects in Canada.

Let us be honest, though. There is another reason why they are investing in Canada. It is because we have incredible talent here, including directors, actors and technicians. We have amazing talent, by any measure, so it makes good business sense to come and invest in Canada.

Basically, what Bill C-11 does is it updates the rules so that all broadcasting platforms contribute to our culture. That is all. That is what the bill is all about.

The online streaming act would bring online broadcasters under similar rules and requirements as our traditional broadcasters. Unlike traditional Canadian broadcasters, platforms profit from our culture but have no obligation to contribute to it. With money leaving traditional broadcasters, day after day, to go to these platforms, this is putting our creators, our industry, our jobs and even our culture at risk. We have to act.

Our system must also pave the way for new and upcoming Canadian artists. There is so much talent in this country. For decades, our current system introduced us to the incredible artists that we all love, many of them now share their art around the world. They are known everywhere. There are so many talents. I am thinking of Anne of Green Gables, The Tragically Hip, C.R.A.Z.Y., Drake, Charlotte Cardin, Lara Fabian, Shawn Mendes, District 31 and Schitt's Creek.

I could name so many other success stories from television, film and the music business.

We want to make sure that our children as well as future generations grow up as we did, having the chance to watch our stories and to listen to our songs.

Culture is an extremely powerful and foundational form of expression. It enables us to share moments, feelings and dreams. It enables us to forge a shared identity. Its scope and influence are greater than ever.

People need their culture to reflect who they are. For example, as francophones, we depend on culture to preserve our language. If we want our children to speak our language, we need to keep our culture strong. To do that, we need a system that is both just and fair.

Indigenous peoples are counting on it too. Diversity and inclusion are Canadian values and they must be key elements of our cultural policy. This is a key pillar of the online streaming act. Racialized Canadians, women, LGBTQ2+ persons and persons with disabilities deserve to have a space to tell their stories to other Canadians but also to the world.

This bill claims that space and makes sure that online streaming platforms contribute to Canadian culture, to our culture.

Currently, our Canadian broadcasters have to follow a set of rules, but streaming platforms follow a different set of rules. It should be the same for everyone, and that is exactly what we are going to do with the online streaming act. Anyone who makes money from the system has to contribute to it.

It is true that in the previous Parliament there were many important debates about the role of social media in supporting Canadian artists and culture. That is why we listened to the concerns around social media and we fixed it.

In response to this debate, Bill C-11 clearly outlines that the regulator would have no power to regulate the everyday use of social media by Canadians. Let me be clear. We will not regulate users or online creators through the bill or our policy, nor digital-first creators, nor influencers, nor users. Only the online streaming companies themselves would have new responsibilities under this act. That is our goal and we will achieve that goal.

How will we do this? Our new approach to social media responds to concerns about freedom of expression. At the same time, it takes into account that music is largely broadcast online. That is why this bill includes very important updates that would only focus on relevant types of commercial content. In fact, a study conducted by Media Technology Monitor in 2020 found that about two-thirds of Canadian adults use YouTube to listen to music, which outpaces dedicated music services such as Apple Music and Spotify.

The proposed amendments in the online streaming act regarding social media would not apply to content uploaded by users or to the users themselves. They would only apply to commercial content based on specific criteria defined in the bill. This responds to the needs of music stakeholders who stated that platforms that broadcast commercial music must contribute to the system. This is a creative way of doing this. We are defining the sandbox for the regulator in the law. There is a sand box there. This is a compromise, an effort in good faith, by the government.

I met with many social media content creators, including YouTubers and other digital-first creators, and I heard their concerns. It was a great conversation. They are amazing. They are all over the world and they are incredible and creative. I heard them very clearly and will continue to listen to them. These creators share incredible content with audiences here in Canada, but also, as I said, around the world. This bill is not about them. It would not require them to do anything new. It would not change anything for them.

If I have not been crystal clear on this yet, let me add that once this bill has gone through the parliamentary process and received royal assent, we will make it even more clear to the regulator, through a policy directive, that this legislation does not touch users, only online streaming platforms. Platforms are in; users are out.

Once again, I want to be extremely clear. This law will never control what Canadians can or cannot see online. We will always be able to choose what we listen to and what we watch. Users are not broadcasters. The content will not be regulated and an individual online creators' content will not be regulated. Again, the principle is simple: Platforms are in; users are out.

Our goal of updating our system has not changed. The system needs updating because 1991 was a long time ago.

As a country, we made the choice decades ago to protect our cultural identity so our artists and creators would always have a place on our airwaves to showcase their work here at home and around the world. That is why one of the conditions for obtaining a broadcasting licence is investing in and promoting Canadian content.

Our goal here, as we have said many times, is to ensure that everyone contributes to Canadian culture and puts our music, our TV shows and our films on the map. That goal has not changed. What has changed is the medium, the market and other things. It is time to adapt. It is not 1991 anymore.

Since the last major reform in 1991, the system has served Canadians well by creating a distinct space for our culture. Thanks to this system, generations of Canadians have grown up listening to Canadian music on the radio and watching Canadian movies on television, and generations of artists have been able to showcase their art and touch the lives of many Canadians. Now that the Internet has opened the door to new cultural connections, we want Canada's cultural success to continue, expand and accelerate. Never before has this been so necessary. I would say that it is now or never.

We have said it, we have seen it and we have lived it: COVID-19 accelerated our transition to the online world, and I am certain that applies to everyone. Physical distancing has pushed Canadians toward online platforms and streaming services. Canadians are communicating with their friends and families online, and millions of people are teleworking. Students, including my daughter, are taking their courses online, and in these difficult times, many of us have found an escape in streaming online music, television shows and movies.

Canadian artists and creators are facing many pandemic-related challenges that have severely limited their revenue streams for almost two years. An unbalanced system with unequal obligations is only making this situation worse for our artists, our creators and our culture. With fewer resources, fewer opportunities and fewer productions, Canadian music and stories will become harder and harder to find, and that is not what we want. We want the opposite. Without intervention, current trends in the market are expected to result in a decline in the production of Canadian television content of almost $1 billion by 2023 when compared with 2018. This is only a measure of the economic loss. The truth is that our cultural identity is at stake.

A distinct space lets us speak to and understand one another, build our own Canadian identity, and work together to find solutions for national issues. As our space erodes, our ties dissolve, and our stories, values and perspectives fade, there is a problem, and doing nothing is not an option.

We have taken action and will continue to do so to protect our culture, our jobs, our creators and the voice of Canadians.

The online streaming act will make a direct contribution to the vitality of Canadian culture. We just want online streamers to do their fair share, no more, no less, to fund, create, produce and distribute Canadian content. The act will ensure the future of Canadian broadcasting, as well as promote and protect our cultural sovereignty.

This legislation is the result of years of hard work and consultation on the part of Canadians, industry, stakeholders and parliamentarians, and I want to thank them for their thoughtful insights and hard work. As we start the debate on this very important piece of legislation, let us remember that at the end of the day, this is about updating our system to reflect today's digital reality.

Things have changed and streaming platforms are the new big players. This bill would make sure that everyone contributes in a similar and equitable way to our culture. The objectives of our cultural policy and broadcast system have not changed. This is about fairness and good middle-class jobs in the cultural sector. It is about having the power to shape our culture and making sure that everyone can see themselves in our culture. It is about being proud of who we are, being proud of being Canadian.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we get to questions and comments, members want to be disciplined in how they ask their questions so that everybody gets an opportunity to do that.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Winnipeg North.