Mike Morrice

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for the tone of his speech. It elevates the quality of the discourse in this place.

He did mention some concerns with respect to user-generated content that I shared previously this evening. My question is specifically on proposed section 4.2. Given the points he made, does he not see it would be simpler to just remove the sections that create various exemptions with respect to indirect or direct revenue? Would that be one way to simplify the bill, or does he feel differently about that?

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Trois‑Rivières for his speech.

I know he supports Bill C‑11 and that discoverability of French-language content is important to him. That reminds me of my own experience watching M'entends-tu? on Netflix while I was working on my French. I hope more people across the country will watch this amazing show.

My question for the member is about clause 4.2, which would make it possible to regulate user-generated content. This worries me, so I proposed an amendment to strike it, but my amendment was rejected.

Is he concerned about this clause too? Are Quebec's content creators concerned?

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to offer multiple options, and it was my intention to say, “Here is a concern I identified.” I had the chance to speak to it, and I offered a few ways the committee could consider addressing it. I know other parliamentarians did as well.

In my view, at least taking out user-generated content with indirect revenue would have been a reasonable amendment. It is also my view that, had we had less of the rhetoric in this place and more of a collaborative engagement among parliamentarians across party lines, there would have been an opportunity to say, “This is a reasonable one. We can agree on this piece. We will put aside our differences over here.” My sense, with this particular legislation at this time of year, is that it did not allow for some of those improvements. I believe all of us should be reflecting on the reasons why those reasonable improvements did not see the light of day.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to make clear to the parliamentary secretary that I do agree with him.

As I said in my speech, it has been quite some time since the Broadcasting Act was first passed. There is an important need to modernize the Act, and I am glad the governing party prioritized that. I also believe it is important to get it right. While there are many stakeholders, as he has mentioned, who are supportive, there are also many others, some of whom I mentioned, such as Canadian YouTube content creators, who are quite concerned.

I go back again. Yes, it is a difficult decision not to support this legislation, but the analysis I am doing is weighing harm versus good. My concern here is that, with this legislation as currently written, given some of the vague language and allowing for user-generated content to be regulated as it does, it is open to the possibility of more harm than good.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-11 seeks to modernize the existing Broadcasting Act for the first time since 1991, primarily to bring online streaming services like Netflix and YouTube within its domain.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

In my view, it has been a long time. Bill C-11 is certainly needed. We need to modernize the Broadcasting Act. I also feel it is well-intentioned legislation on behalf of the government party, and it has good items in it, a few of which I will mention. One, of course, is the requirement for streaming services like Netflix to invest more in Canadian productions. Second is that it legitimizes the role of community broadcasting, including non-profit and campus radio stations, acknowledging that community broadcasters, through collaboration with local organizations and community members, are in a unique position to provide varied programming to meet the needs of their communities.

That being said, Bill C-11 also has significant issues. The first is that, throughout the bill, we see vague language and some contradictions, and at times it is fairly poorly written. I will give one example. In the section I will be talking about next, there is a definition of “social media service” without that term being defined earlier in the bill. As we heard from others, it skips over a really critical opportunity to update and clarify the definition of what Canadian content is.

Most important of all, despite claims that only platforms would be regulated, there are very clear provisions in the bill that would allow for user-generated content to be regulated, and the chair of the CRTC confirmed as much when he was in front of the heritage committee. One of those provisions is any time user-generated content generates either direct or indirect revenue. What does that mean? I think of a local musician who might be soliciting financial contributions on a YouTube livestream, for example, and whether that musician might fall under the regulations that are permitted under this act.

I want to be really clear. There are some who have said that this bill censors what Canadians would be allowed to watch. That is simply not true. That is not in this legislation. That said, both at committee and in the wider conversation across the country on this bill, non-partisan experts and those affected by the legislation have shared their concerns, and I would like to share a few of those this evening.

One group is the YouTube content creators themselves, Canadians like Morghan Fortier. Morghan said this: “Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It’s been written by those who don’t understand the industry they’re attempting to regulate”. Many others are on the record with concerns similar to Morghan's, other YouTube content creators across the country.

Then, of course, there are also subject matter experts like Michael Geist, who sounded the alarm. He has written often on the topic and spoke at committee. I hesitate to even bring up Mr. Geist given how often he has already been referenced in this debate over the last number of weeks, but I will quote one snippet that is important for this House to hear again, which is that Bill C-11 needs “extensive review and further reform to get it right.”

Finally, political analyst Erica Ifill shared her many concerns in a recent Hill Times article. She put it succinctly, “the new broadcasting bill still does not address core problems of the digital experience.”

For my part, I brought two amendments to the committee. One would have removed every part of proposed section 4.2 of the bill that allowed for user-generated content to be regulated at all. There are various provisions here that would open up that opportunity. Why not close those to be really clear that platforms are in and users are out?

The second was more precise but less ambitious, which was to remove just those users who generate indirect revenue. Can we not at least agree on that? This is a group of users the bill was likely not intended for, so let us take that out. Again, parliamentarians from all parties have previously said that they believe in this premise of platforms in and users out. Therefore, I was disappointed that both of these amendments were defeated at committee.

I would also like to briefly note my disappointment in the process. It was not the best moment. We saw the animosity between committee members, between opposing parties in this chamber, and that resulted in the majority of votes on amendments last Tuesday night having to take place without any debate at all. In my time here I have seen better moments. I think back to December when members came together to unanimously move forward on banning conversion therapy, for example. There have been incredible moments in this place of parliamentarians working together, but in my view, this was one of our less strong moments.

To summarize, in my view, when assessing legislation, I find myself thinking about my neighbours in Kitchener and our community, and I ask myself, “Does the bill do more harm than good?” I get it that rarely I will get to vote on legislation that fully addresses the interests of my community, so I will always support legislation that has a net-positive impact. However, my concern with Bill C-11 is that it could do more harm than good. This is the reason I did not support it earlier this afternoon, and I am not likely to support it at third reading tomorrow. I appreciate the good intentions. I appreciate that there are good elements in the bill. I certainly wish we had more time to debate it, and even to see more negotiation among parliamentarians to see amendments tabled and moved forward with.

Assuming the bill will soon be moving to the Senate, I hope senators will take the opportunity to improve the bill.

[Petitions, June 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to present a petition on behalf of petitioners joining others across the country who are recognizing that we are in the midst of a climate emergency. The petitioners call on the government to enact just transition legislation that includes a number of items, such as the following: ensuring that we have reduced emissions at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030; ending subsidies to fossil fuels; creating good, green jobs; expanding the social safety net with new income supports; decarbonizing public housing; providing accessible and affordable public transit across the country; and ensuring we can pay for this important transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest corporations across the country.

[Criminal Code, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, very few recent mass shooters in this country had criminal records of any kind. Consider shootings in Fredericton, Danforth, Quebec City and Moncton. Could the member comment on how Bill C-21 would help reduce and even eliminate mass shootings across the country?

[Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand this morning in support of Bill C-245, an act to amend the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act.

It is important to note that it was just over three years ago when parliamentarians in the chamber admitted that we are in a climate emergency. If it is an emergency, then we should probably act like it is one. In fact, that is what international climate scientists called for in their most recent report from April. The co-chair of an IPCC working group said, “It's now or never, if we want to limit warming to 1.5°C”. That is the internationally agreed upon maximum to ensure that we are taking action at the pace that science tells us is required.

One way to do that is to take existing Crown corporations and direct their resources toward solving the climate crisis we are in. That is why I support Bill C-245, along with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and that is why I really appreciate the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski bringing this legislation forward as her private member's bill. The bill recognizes that communities are at the forefront of the climate crisis and, as such, it would shift the priorities of the Canada Infrastructure Bank to be explicit about supporting climate adaption and mitigation efforts. The bill would do this in three ways: one would be to remove the parts of the Infrastructure Bank's mandate that allow it to seek out private investments; two would be to increase the transparency of the bank by requiring regular reporting to Parliament; and three would be to ensure that first nations, Inuit and Métis communities have a seat at the table on the board.

As it stands today, the Canada Infrastructure Bank was established back in 2017 as arm's length from government, with a budget of $35 billion. What an opportunity that is. Last year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that it would not even spend half of that amount over the next 11 years. What a wonderful way to activate those funds if we are going to follow through.

As other speakers have mentioned, communities across the country are calling out for more. Municipalities are taking a leadership role, and Waterloo region is one example of that, but if communities across the country are going to follow through at the pace that science requires, they are going to need the federal government to step up. I recognize that the Canada Infrastructure Bank, as it stands today, requires projects to generate revenue, meaning they have to charge public user fees or tolls, directly or indirectly, to meet the needs of private investors. Instead, if approved, this bill would redirect those tens of billions of dollars toward the infrastructure projects we need, whether it is helping communities move off of diesel or moving to high-speech rail, the list goes on and on.

One person I respect on this topic is Seth Klein. He has said that we should think about urgency of the climate crisis the same way that we might have thought in the past about wartime efforts. I would like to share a quote from Mr. Klein, who said, “But in response to the climate emergency, we have seen nothing of this sort. In contrast to C.D. Howe’s wartime creations, the [Liberal] government has established two new Crown corporations during its time in office — the Canada Infrastructure Bank (a vehicle for privatizing infrastructure that has thus far accomplished very little), and the Trans Mountain Corporation (an ill-advised decision that makes all Canadians the owners of a 60-year-old oil pipeline). If our government really saw the climate emergency as an emergency, it would quickly conduct an inventory of our conversion needs to determine how many heat pumps, solar arrays, wind farms, electric buses, etc. we will need to electrify virtually everything and end our reliance on fossil fuels. Then, it would establish a new generation of Crown corporations to ensure those items are manufactured and deployed at the requisite scale.”

I invite members to think of the jobs we could create in this transition, and they would be good, unionized, well-paying jobs to transition our economy to that of the future. When I reflect on Mr. Klein's words and look at what is in this bill, that is what excites me about this.

Bill C-245 would be one step along a long journey, not only aligned with Mr. Klein's vision, but also with that of climate scientists, who are telling us that this is required and that action is not in eight years. It is certainly not thinking about net zero by 2050. The action is required now, and there are bills before the House, such as Bill C-245, which would equip us to do it.

That is the most important thing. It is not what one party or another is bickering about with each other. It is not about partisanship at all. Future generations will judge us and what we did in this chamber, and whether we collectively acted at the pace scientists tell us is required, rather than giving billions of dollars in new subsidies to fossil fuels, and invested it in the infrastructure we needed.

The bill is one we should all embrace, and I am proud to support it.

[National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act, June 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-226, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is far past time we addressed environmental racism and the disproportionate siting of polluting industries in Black communities, indigenous and racialized communities and those of the working poor. These are communities that typically lack an economic and political base to fight back. It is impossible to ignore the reality that governments have consistently put harmful industries and dumpsites dangerously close to some of the most marginalized communities across the country. This is a systemic issue that not only negatively impacts those residents' physical health and wellness through abnormal instances of cancers and other diseases, but also discourages others from moving into that area, deterring growth and new opportunities for those within it.

These decisions also impact the environment around those who live there, affecting drinking water and food sources for indigenous communities in particular. All of this has a negative impact on the mental health of these residents, compounded by gaslighting, with the onus routinely placed on those impacted most to prove the situation is leading to these adverse effects and that change is required. I would like to share a few examples.

Africville was a Black community in Nova Scotia established in the 1850s on the outskirts of Halifax. The community was pushed to the margins and did not receive the same services or infrastructure as others in the nearby city. Over the decades, undesirable developments were built in or near the community, including an infectious disease hospital, a dump and a prison. Africville's water and land were contaminated. Eventually the city relocated residents in 1964 without meaningful consultation or compensation.

Another is the toxic dumping in Kanesatake, Quebec, a community that is suffering ongoing health impacts because of the toxic waste from a recycling facility which has not been cleaned up despite repeated calls.

We can take the example of when a pipe at a pulp mill ruptures, spilling untreated effluent into a Pictou Landing First Nation wetland and it takes six years to solve the issue.

Closer to my community, in Ontario, there is the mercury-poisoning crisis in Grassy Narrows First Nation and neighbouring White Dog Independent Nation, one of Canada's worst environmental disasters that is still ongoing. A recent CBC investigation found that 90% of the population of Grassy Narrows experienced the symptoms of mercury poisoning, which include neurological problems, seizures and cognitive delays. Many homes do not have safe drinking water in an area with very limited health services and no on-reserve mental health care. The community has been fighting to have this contamination cleaned up for over 50 years without result.

These are just a few of the many examples of how Black, indigenous and racialized communities have been disproportionally impacted by neglect and the siting of environmentally harmful industries.

We can also see environmental racism and injustice showing up in other ways, like when racialized neighbourhoods do not have the same access to green spaces, public trails and playgrounds, or even street trees in their area.

Personally, I have learned so much on this topic from the incredible work of Dr. Ingrid Waldron and the ENRICH Project, a collaborative, community-based project investigating the cause and effect of toxic industries situated near Mi'kmaq and African Nova Scotian communities. It is a project that Dr. Waldron started and has led since 2012.

Dr. Waldron literally wrote the book on environmental racism. It is called There's Something in the Water, which was turned into a 2019 documentary of the same name, co-produced with Elliot Page and Julia Sanderson.

Dr. Waldron says it best, “In Canada, your postal code determines your health.” She went on to say, “Environmental racism is about a pattern and it is historical. It is rooted and embedded in historical inequities and it is about the lack of response by government to act on the citing of these industries and communities of colour and indigenous communities.”

Dr. Waldron went on to lay out two ways we can meaningfully address environmental racism. One is to develop legislation across the country and the other is to provide education on the subject in schools.

Collectively as parliamentarians in the House of Commons we can take action on the first. In Canada we need to be honest. We are way behind. As an example, in the United States, the office of environmental justice was formed as part of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992. That is more than 28 years ago.

Dr. Waldron has been making incredible progress over the last number of years. Dr. Waldron worked with then MLA Lenore Zann on what was Bill 111, an environmental racism protection act in the Nova Scotia legislature in 2015. The bill was defeated at second reading.

When elected as an MP representing Cumberland—Colchester, then MP Lenore Zann in the previous Parliament brought forward Bill C-230, which forms the basis of this piece of legislation before the House today. While Bill C-230 had widespread support, it died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

It is part of why I am so glad that my colleague, the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, has now brought back Lenore's private member's bill, as Bill C-226. I am also glad that as it has been brought back, it includes all of the work that has already been done to this point. It has already been to committee, for example. It has had an amendment adopted. The only difference between the current bill and the one in the previous Parliament is that the amendments that had been proposed are now included in the specifics of the strategy that would be developed should the bill be passed.

The bill has all of the benefit of the cross-party support that the previous version of the bill already had. It is for this reason that I am hopeful that Bill C-226 will continue to have the widespread support across party lines, recognizing that there is nothing partisan about ensuring that we take immediate steps to address environmental racism and environmental justice in this country. It is my hope that parliamentarians from all parties will choose to fast-track this legislation, recognizing it has already been studied, so that we can send it to the Senate as quickly as possible and ideally have it passed into law.

In conclusion, we know that for decades environmental racism has been neglected by all levels of government and to some extent the environmental movement itself. We must take action now to ensure that no community suffers the same harms as Africville, Grassy Narrows and so many others have. It is far past time to develop a national strategy to redress the harm of environmental racism and lead us into a just climate future for all.

[Judges Act, June 16th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear there is widespread support in the chamber for this piece of legislation, and it has been suggested by some that the only reason it is still being debated is that there is some trading going on between parties.

I know the member cares about the quality of the discourse in this place. Could she share her reflections on her aspirations and what it would take for this place to rise past more transactional politics and focus more fully on the most critical issues we face?