Marty Morantz

[Income Tax Act, June 2nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would just like to say I am sorry I cannot be there in person to speak to the bill I have introduced, but I want to thank every single member of Parliament who has spent so much time studying this bill and making arguments. I realize that there are many positive arguments and there are some questions around the bill. That is why I think it is very important that a bill that could have such a profound effect on charities across the country be studied in committee.

When I say “charities”, I want to be clear that I am talking not just about charities; I am talking about the people who these charities serve, and what I have been saying throughout this whole process is that when charities are hurting, real people are hurting. This bill can help charities get back on their feet and help Canadians get back on their feet.

The idea of the bill came from Mr. Don Johnson, who I am sure many of the members listening know has been advocating for this. He advocated the tax change that led to the exemption for publicly traded securities, and he has advocated this change. I worked with him very closely.

I have to say there is broad stakeholder support also, and I ask every member to consider what institutions in their own ridings could benefit in a great way from this change. I know Imagine Canada has endorsed the bill, as have Diabetes Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Special Olympics. Many charities have endorsed this bill, because they are in a situation right now where they have been affected in two ways. It is kind of a double whammy, when it comes to charities. They were hurt tremendously during the pandemic, and now the cost of living crisis is making it almost unaffordable for people to make contributions to charities.

With this bill, I do not need to go through the numbers. They have been reiterated in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Everybody is aware of them, but the reality is that the amount of money donated to charities would exceed the cost to the government in all cases. I disagree with a fact one of the members from the Liberal bench said: that this was just a tax break for the wealthy, or something to that effect. Most small business people are not wealthy people. Some people just own a duplex or a small apartment building. It does not make them wealthy.

This bill highly incentivizes charitable giving at a very efficient tax cost to the government. It is not a new idea. It piggybacks on the concept of the donation of publicly traded securities. It was introduced in 2015 in the budget, which passed. All I am really asking is that we not let this bill die here. I am just asking that we let it go to committee, bring expert testimony and ask all the questions that have been asked in the House.

If members who have reservations about the bill are still concerned about it when it comes back to the House, they can vote against it then, but I do not think it would be fair to the people who would benefit from this bill to essentially kill it right here, when it comes up for a vote next week. I really do not.

This bill deserves the attention of the finance committee. It was, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, a recommendation in the Senate report on charities just a few years ago. It is an idea that is worth every member's consideration in the House.

I just want to say, on the issue of regressivity, that it is also another issue that could be debated at committee. I personally do not think it is regressive, because the reality is that whoever is making these donations does not get to keep any of the money. Every single dollar would go to charity, so I do not know how someone, whether they are wealthy or not, when they are parting with every single dollar, is being benefited other than that they are being incentivized to give.

Those are my general comments. I want to again thank everybody for their serious consideration and thought on this bill. I ask members to please vote for it.

With that, I would like to ask for a recorded vote.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 17th, 2022]

With regard to the government's $173 million agreement with Medicago to develop a COVID-19 vaccine and the decision of the World Health Organization (WHO) not to accept the vaccine for emergency use: (a) was the government aware that Medicago being partially owned by a tobacco company would cause a problem related to WHO authorization prior to the agreement being signed, and, if so, why did the government still proceed with the agreement; (b) on what date did the government first become aware that Philip Morris' ownership stake in Medicago would become an issue with the WHO; (c) has any minister made a formal request or representation to the WHO related to the Covifenz vaccine issue, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each instance, the (i) date, (ii) name of the minister, (iii) summary of how requests or representations were made, (iv) title of the WHO official receiving requests or representations; (d) what is the breakdown by country of how the 20 million Covifenz vaccine doses under contract by the government are to be distributed; (e) how many of the doses in (d) have actually been distributed to date; (f) how many Covifenz doses had the government originally planned to be part of Canada's international COVAX commitment; and (g) has the government replaced the committed doses in (f) with another COVID-19 vaccine, and, if so, which one?

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the question touches on a couple of important areas. When it comes to food security and energy security in Europe, the world changed in February when Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine. That is a really important point. It should not be lost on any member of the House that food security affects countries everywhere, including China.

This is just another reason why we need to have this committee: so we can have a good analysis and understanding of the geopolitical implications of China's position on a whole host of issues.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, what is laughable is that the member seems to want to live seven years in the past. The world has changed substantially. As I said in my speech, we need to be taking the role of China in the world extremely seriously, particularly in the context of Mr. Putin's invasion of Ukraine, how President Xi Jinping views this aggression and how it might impact his decisions as they relate to Taiwan.

What is laughable is that the member is living in 2015 when he should be living in 2022.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is plain and simple. The foreign affairs committee is seized with so many issues, and the relationship with China is so complex and multi-faceted, that we really do need another committee to study it. My friend referred to a couple of things, but when I think about the list, there is Huawei, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Uighurs, Tibet, the recent pact with Russia, trade issues, espionage and human rights. There are just simply not the resources or time at the foreign affairs committee to deal with these.

Around the discussion of the timing of the committee, that is a reasonable question. Let us see how the debate unfolds.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

I rise today to speak to the proposal for the creation of a special committee on Canada-China relations. At the outset, I want to make it clear that we have no quarrel with the people of China, who have contributed so much to humanity. As a parliamentarian, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Chinese people. Chinese-Canadians and Canadians of Chinese descent have helped build this country and have made it a far better place. Their contributions simply cannot be overstated. Our quarrel is with the Chinese Communist Party. In my comments today, when I speak of China, I want to be clear that I am, in all cases, speaking of the Chinese Communist Party.

Some members are asking why we need this committee specifically dedicated to Canada-China relations, why we need to study our relationship with China, and why the Conservatives are so concerned about the CCP. It is because Conservatives see an authoritarian China as the most consequential foreign policy relationship Canada will face in a generation. Through policies of repression and aggression, China has frightened countries near and far.

In recent years, China has expanded aggressively on multiple fronts. Wolf warrior diplomacy has replaced friendship diplomacy. Perceived slights from foreigners, no matter how small, are met with North Korean-style condemnation. A combative attitude has seeped into every part of China's foreign policy, and it is confronting many countries with their gravest threat in generations.

This threat is most apparent in maritime East Asia, where China is moving aggressively to cement its vast territorial claims. Beijing is churning out warships faster than any country has since World War II, and it has flooded Asian sea lanes with Chinese coast guard and fishing vessels. It has strung military outposts across the South China Sea, and dramatically increased its use of ship ramming and aerial interceptions to shove neighbours out of disputed areas. In the Taiwan Strait, Chinese military patrols, some involving a dozen warships and more than 50 combat aircraft, prowl the sea almost daily and simulate attacks on Taiwanese and U.S. targets.

China has gone on the economic offensive, as well.

Its latest five-year plan calls for dominating what Chinese officials call “choke points”, goods and services that other countries cannot live without, and then using that dominance, plus the lure of China's domestic market, to browbeat countries into concessions. China has become the dominant dispenser of overseas loans, loading up more than 150 countries with over $1 trillion in debt. It has massively subsidized strategic industries to gain a monopoly on hundreds of vital products, and it has stalled the hardware for digital networks in dozens of countries.

Armed with economic leverage, it has used coercion against more than a dozen countries over the past number of years. In many cases, the punishment has been disproportionate to the supposed crime. For example, China is slapping tariffs on many of Australia's exports after that country requested an international investigation into the origins of COVID-19, and here at home in Canada, when China wished to steamroll over our courts and the rule of law to free Meng Wanzhou, it banned Canadian canola. This is something that cost the industry over $2 billion. Later that same year, it suspended Canadian beef imports and placed sanctions against our colleague in this House, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

China uses subsidies and espionage to help its firms dominate global markets and protects its domestic market with non-tariff barriers. It censors foreign ideas and companies on its own Internet, and freely accesses the global Internet to steal intellectual property and spread CCP propaganda. China has also become a potent anti-democratic force, and sells advanced tools of tyranny around the world.

By combining surveillance cameras with social media monitoring, artificial intelligence, biometrics, and speech and facial recognition technologies, the Chinese government has pioneered a system that allows dictators to watch citizens constantly and punish them instantly by blocking their access to finance, education, employment, telecommunications or travel. The apparatus is a despot's dream, and Chinese companies are already selling and operating aspects of it in more than 80 countries.

It is time for this government to take seriously the threats that the Beijing communist leadership poses to Canada's national interests and security, as well as our interests and values. For example, it is has been over a year, and the Liberal government has yet to release the Indo-Pacific strategy.

This committee is critical to examining all of these challenges and threats. It would be all-party and multidisciplinary, with the ability to look at all aspects of the Canada-China relationship, from complex consular cases to national security issues and from trade to global affairs, within the context of a committee that could go in camera with respect to sensitive information.

It is crucial that we uphold Canada's role in defending the rules-based international order. Canada must play its traditional role as a “linchpin”, as Winston Churchill described us, between Europe and America. We are a G7 nation. We are a NATO nation. We are a NORAD nation, and we are a Five Eyes nation. For a country small in population, Canada punches far above its weight when it comes to building relationships that are necessary to influencing our national interests, the freedom and liberty of others and the interests of the western alliance.

We do not need a three-day study at a standing committee. We need a specialized, multidisciplinary committee that has the ability to explore not just complex consular cases, but trade, defence, security and the actions and impacts of China. We need to grapple with the moral and ethical complexities of a bilateral trade relationship with a country that this Parliament has declared is committing genocide against the Uighur people.

China is a country that is quickly eroding the strong democracy of Hong Kong. It is a country that, just in February, signed a sweeping, long-term agreement with Russia that challenges the United States as a global power, challenges NATO as a cornerstone of international security and challenges liberal democracy as a model for the world. It is a country whose aspirations toward Taiwan may be emboldened by Mr. Putin's brutal war of tyranny in Ukraine. Also, we must be ever mindful of the threat of espionage in a digital world.

All this bellicosity and belligerence on the part of China is simply not working. In fact, it is only sparking an international backlash: one that our Prime Minister seems to have not fully comprehended. That is why we need a committee, independent of the PMO and executive branch of government, to study these issues and take a serious look at our relationship with China.

There has never been any doubt about what China wants, because Chinese leaders have declared the same objectives for decades: to keep the Chinese Communist Party in power, reabsorb Taiwan, control the East China Sea and South China Sea, and return China to its rightful place as the dominant power in Asia and the most powerful country in the world.

Competing with and containing China will be fraught with risks for Canada and its allies, but it might be the only way to avoid even greater dangers. That is why it is critical we reinstate the Canada-China committee so that all parliamentarians can study, discuss and carefully consider how best to protect our interests and our sovereignty.

I would like to close with a Chinese proverb: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” I humbly ask my colleagues in the House to let us take that step together.

[Online Streaming Act, May 11th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, that is very rich coming from a member who just voted to cut off debate on this bill in this House. It is very rich when he says that we want to analyze the bill. Of course we want to analyze the bill. We would like to keep putting up speakers, but the government members have cut us off. Unfortunately, at midnight, debate on this bill is going to end. It is very unfortunate that the member has taken away the ability of parliamentarians to properly analyze the bill in this House the way it should be.

[Online Streaming Act, May 11th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Internet and platforms like YouTube have been a godsend for Canadian artists and creators. There are so many of them who are famous and successful today, and they are doing Canada proud on the national stage. We have Justin Bieber, Carly Rae Jepsen, Shawn Mendes, Alessia Cara and The Weeknd. I just did a quick Google search. I am sure I could find many others, including many from Quebec.

I am saying, as I said during my speech, Bill C-11 is a solution looking for a problem.

[Online Streaming Act, May 11th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what speech the hon. member was listening to, but I certainly did not say anything like that.

I do want to say something else. I found it interesting that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby earlier talked about how it is impossible to find Canadian content online. I did a quick Google search for Canadians who became famous by posting online, and the first site that came up was an article that talks about five super famous Canadian singers who got their start on YouTube. I do not know if the member across the way who just asked the question has ever heard of Justin Bieber, but he posted a YouTube video in 2007. If this law had been in existence then, Justin Bieber would be paying royalties, would not pass the revenue test under proposed section 4.2 and would be brought under the regulation of the CRTC. Do members know who else became famous—

[Online Streaming Act, May 11th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This bill seeks to awkwardly apply the same content regulation framework we see for radio and television onto online streaming and video platforms. Last year, the Liberals passed Bill C-10 in the House of Commons without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee to address many outstanding concerns from experts and parliamentarians over how this legislation affects Canadians' rights and freedoms on the Internet.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage claims that the bill's purpose is to target only large online streamers. The problem is this is not what the bill says. In fact, proposed subsection 4.2(2) says that in making regulations, the commission shall consider:

(a) the extent to which a program, uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service, directly or indirectly generates revenues;

To be clear, any content that generates any revenue could be regulated. On this point, Michael Geist said:

The tone for the government’s communication on Bill C-11 was established from the very beginning. In the very first speech from [the minister] in the House of Commons, he stated “the proposed amendments in the online streaming act regarding social media would not apply to content uploaded by users or to the users themselves.”

This is not completely true, though, as content uploaded by users who may benefit commercially from their uploads can be regulated under proposed section 4.2.

Mr. Geist said:

Not only does the law have few limits with respect to which services are regulated, it is similarly over-broad with respect to what is regulated, featuring definitions that loop all audio-visual content into the law by treating all audio-visual content as a “program” subject to potential regulation.

Bill C-11 essentially defines broadcasting as any transmission of programs and audiovisual content for reception by the public. Mr. Geist also said:

[F]or all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”.

He also said:

The kind of speech that many Canadians engage in on these platforms is just basic, fundamental freedom of expression that does not require, and should not be subject to, any sort of regulation or regulatory oversight by a broadcast regulator.

The bill would give the CRTC wide latitude to decide how to implement its new powers and there are legitimate concerns about regulatory overreach. One of the fundamental tenets of our free and democratic society is the need to separate political direction from the independence of the media. We see that in oppressive regimes like Russia and others that maintain a firm grip over what people see and do not see.

That is why I am so concerned about this bill and in particular section 7 and how it is expanded under Bill C-11. This section says that cabinet could tell the CRTC how to regulate online platforms. The section modifies cabinet's power to issue directives of general application on broad policy matters. The section would not only allow cabinet to issue general directions on broad policy matters, but would also allow cabinet to direct the CRTC on specifics, such as the definition of a Canadian program. It would shift the final authority for regulation from an independent authority to politicians and cabinet.

Just today in question period the Prime Minister refused to answer what direction the government would in fact give the CRTC for the implementation of this bill. That is a concern in and of itself, given the fact that debate is about to end in a few minutes on this bill and presumably we will be voting on it very shortly. The government says the goal of Bill C-11 is increasing the share of Canadian content consumed online by Canadians, yet the reality is that lots of Canadian content is already uploaded and shared every day, albeit in a disorderly manner. However, most Canadians have come to see social media and the Internet as an inherently disorderly place. In fact, it is what many Canadians appreciate about the Internet and social media. It is the sense of randomness and orderly chaos to the content they consume.

This legislation must be considered very carefully. We live in a society that values freedom of speech, thought and expression. These values are entrenched constitutional rights. By allowing the CRTC to impose a revenue test, any new online creator must now contend with the regulatory quagmire of rules, regulations and whim-of-government regulation for fear of being offside the fiat of the CRTC.

This test alone would have the exact opposite effect of encouraging Canadian content. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be a chill on new creators.

Former vice-chair of the CRTC Peter Menzies stated, “Overall, the big problem still is that [the Liberals] continue to believe that the internet is broadcasting, and I don’t think they really understand what it is”. Under the previous bill, Bill C-10, there was originally an exception, in proposed section 4.1, that would have allowed those who generated content on social media sites to be excluded. However, at committee, government members removed that exclusion, opening up user-generated content to regulation.

Further complicating the matter in Bill C-11, the Liberals added an exclusion to the exclusion, in proposed section 4.2, mainly regarding the revenue exception I have already mentioned. This exclusion to the exclusion is so broad that the government, through the CRTC, could once again regulate wide swaths of content uploaded to social media.

Canadians are rightfully concerned that an unaccountable government agency would be enforcing and controlling what people see and do not see on social media sites. Although the goal of promoting Canadian arts and culture is one I believe in, the government will never be able to be an honest broker, as it will always choose to highlight the content and media it subjectively enjoys. The incentive structure will change. The word will get out that if people want to get celebrated and promoted, they will need to share the government's subjective view of what is Canadian. Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules that do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and global successes.

Honestly, when it comes to social media and other online platforms, Canadians' main concerns are not about where their content is created; rather, their concerns are more personal. Canadians consistently express frustration that the current regulatory framework allows for the easy and near constant sale of their personal information. What Canadians want is to take back control over their lives and their personal information.

Let me offer a constructive suggestion, if members will entertain a thought experiment. Suppose I am an Uber driver and I have a great reputation as a driver. I want to open an Airbnb apartment, but I have no reviews on that, which means it is going to be hard. What if I could port my reputation from one application to another? If we make reputations portable and free-existing, that would allow me to own my own reputation, instead of some social media giant. It could be regulated in a way similar to how we currently regulate intellectual property.

I know this idea is imperfect; it is more of a rough sketch of a solution. My point is that Canadians are way more concerned about control of their personal information online and reputation portability than they are about the already pleasantly abundant supply of Canadian content. The truth is that Bill C-11 is nothing but a solution looking for a problem. Instead, why not solve real problems? Canadians should control the valuable data they generate, and the government should focus on issues that truly preoccupy everyday Canadians.

For this reason, I cannot support this legislation.