Randall Garrison

[Committees of the House, March 10th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, before I came here, I was a member of a municipal police board, and I am quite familiar with the challenges police have, because we leave so many social problems to them to try to deal with rather than providing the services in advance that would prevent these problems from ending up in the legal system.

What was most striking to me at the beginning of the pandemic was when I phoned and talked with local police agencies. They were saying that “We have an increased number of domestic violence calls, and in many of those, we know that this will end up in violence, but with the way the law is structured right now, we have no way to offer assistance to those victims until there are bruises and broken bones.”

That phrase that I have been using came from one of those police officers who gets sent to those problematic relationships. So, it was from both police and women's agencies that the suggestion came that we needed to move that point where we provide assistance closer to those times when the victims actually need it.

[Committees of the House, March 10th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the justice committee does not just deal with the legislative part, it also make serious recommendations about increasing the supports, in particular, for frontline community and women's organizations that provide assistance to the survivors of domestic violence. So, it is a package of measures that is in the report and not just adding to the Criminal Code.

However, I do want to emphasize what I think is very important here, which is that we need to move that intervention point, or that help point, forward. When we can do that, it will not be really about prosecuting more men, it will be about making sure that the violence does not occur, which ends up in prosecutions.

[Committees of the House, March 10th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we are trying to get across as a justice committee and as members of Parliament is that there is a failure to recognize that coercive and controlling behaviour is, in and of itself, a form of violence.

As I said in my brief remarks, this is really not about creating a new criminal offence. It is about moving that goalpost to where people can get assistance when they are in problematic relationships instead of making them wait until there is physical harm before social service agencies, law enforcement or whoever else can step in to assist them in escaping coercive and controlling behaviour.

I think that this is where we are starting, by recognizing this as a form of violence and doing so explicitly in the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Committees of the House, March 10th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented on Thursday, April 7, 2022, be concurred in.

I first want to thank my caucus for making the opening available for me to move this concurrence report, and I also want to thank, in particular, the members for Victoria and for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, with whom I continue to work very closely on matters to do with combatting violence against women.

In Parliament, unanimity is a very rare thing, but fighting violence against women provides an instance where all parties have agreed. This report and its recommendations have now twice received the support of all parties in the justice committee.

The statistics on violence against women in Canada are shocking and clearly demonstrate that intimate partner violence is a growing problem. At the start of the pandemic, I heard from both frontline service providers and police in my riding that domestic violence calls for assistance had increased by more than 30%. Unfortunately, this happened in communities all across the country, and these rates of violence have not decreased, even as pandemic measures have eased.

We continue to lose one woman every six days to intimate partner violence in Canada. More than 40% of women, that is more than six million Canadians, reported experiencing some kind of psychological, physical or sexual abuse in an intimate partner relationship in their lifetime, and marginalized women bare the brunt of this violence. For indigenous women, the number reporting abuse is 61%, and for women with disabilities it is 55%. For lesbian, bisexual and transwomen, it is over 67%. While indigenous women account for 5% of the population, they account for 21% of all women killed by an intimate partner.

Making coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence is not really about adding a new offence to the Criminal Code. Instead, it is about recognizing that this behaviour is, in itself, a form of violence. It is about moving the point at which victims can get help to one before physical violence occurs, instead of making them wait until there are bruises and broken bones. As femicide in intimate partner relationships is almost always preceded by coercive and controlling behaviour, this change will save lives.

We should also recognize the broad community impacts that intimate partner violence has in all of our communities, not only on survivors but also on families and, in particular, on children, both in their physical safety and their mental health.

I urge all members of the House to support this concurrence motion, to support the necessary legislation when it comes forward later in the session and to support the other important recommendations in this report. Let us show Canadians that we are united and that we are determined to bring an end to violence against women in this country.

[Online Streaming Act, March 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question.

We do already require Canadian broadcasters to make those contributions that help support Canadian content. It is just not fair that we allow the web giants to get away with not making similar contributions.

[Online Streaming Act, March 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a perplexing question for me. Quebeckers have decided in referendums a couple of times that they wish to be part of Canada, so I will go with what they have decided.

However, I do think an important point we were raising in debate about this bill, outside the chamber, was whether Celine Dion, an example the Conservatives like to cite, would be such a big star without Canadian content. We were having a debate about whether it was the Eurovision Song Contest or the Canadian content requirements that allowed Celine Dion to build her world fan base. I do not have an answer to that question.

[Online Streaming Act, March 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we started with Bill C-10, which was definitely worse. I think what the member is referring back to are the concerns we were expressing at that time. Some of the changes that came in Bill C-11 reassured us, and one of those changes is the very one the Conservatives are harping on. That is the change that made sure that user-generated content is not affected by this bill.

What Conservatives are ignoring is that there is an exception. If those making their own content have a million subscribers and they are making money out of that, then, yes, the CRTC will have an ability to look at that. It is not what the Conservatives are saying, which is that we should have a blanket exemption that nobody who is making money on the Internet has to report to anybody or be accountable for anything. That was one of the major improvements between the first version of the bill and the bill that New Democrats are now supporting.

[Online Streaming Act, March 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, what happens and what the Conservatives are failing to recognize is that business-dominated streaming services and Internet result in the most homogenous material going the farthest. It actually works against diversity. Those who have a smaller market, because they are appealing to serving their own local communities and their own local culture, will not advance as far in this free competition that the Conservatives see out there. What we need is a bill like this that would create that opening, that opportunity and that funding for Canadian content that will respond to the diversity of Canada.

[Online Streaming Act, March 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut.

I am pleased to rise in this debate, and I will try to talk about Bill C-11, instead of all the other kinds of things not related to Bill C-11 that seem to have found their way into the debate today, because it is very fundamentally important to our Canadian identity. The way we learn to understand our country and ourselves depends on the stories we tell each other, the movies we watch and the music we listen to. Therefore, it is very important that there be a space created in this cacophonous world media that is emerging for Canadian content. Otherwise, we will lose our identity as Canadians.

This bill seeks to amend and to update the Broadcasting Act. It looks at making sure there is a level playing field for the new streaming services that have taken a great deal of control over what is happening. It is a very important bill. It asks that the streaming services, which take an enormous amount of revenue out of Canada without paying taxes here, for the most part, be obliged to contribute funds so that Canadian creators can continue to create that content.

The Conservatives are focusing on people who are creating content on the Internet. However, what I am talking about is music, publishing, television and movies, and it is essential that we have that Canadian content. If we tell artists to go ahead and create Canadian content, but the money has already been sucked out of the economy that would go to finance that, then that content will not exist. It cannot exist. The money will be invested and decisions will be made by the streaming services, and they will invest those Canadian revenues around the world wherever they think they can make the most profit. This bill asks that they make an equal contribution to the revenues they are taking out of this country to make sure that Canadian content in movies, television and radio continues to exist. To me, that is the importance of this bill.

A secondary part of this bill that is very important to me is that which updates the broadcasting policy to add a requirement that when we are looking at Canadian content it includes diversity. In particular, one of the things that has never been recognized is the importance of indigenous culture and indigenous languages in this country. This bill updates the Broadcasting Act to include an obligation that the Canadian content that is being protected would be inclusive of indigenous culture and indigenous languages. I think that is a very important step forward.

It also acknowledges other forms of diversity. No one would be surprised that I belong to one of those minority communities. I think it is important that all of that diversity, whether with respect to sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic, racial or religious backgrounds, is represented in Canadian content. This bill would update those regulations to recognize how important that diversity is to who we are as Canadians. For that reason, I am supporting this bill. I have supported it from the beginning.

Do I think the government has done the best job of communicating its messages here? Frankly, no, I do not. Do I think it has done the best job of getting this done in a timely fashion? Obviously it has not. We had an unnecessary election that caused us to start over on this bill. However, that does not make any difference to the final outcome.

We are talking about Senate amendments today. Everyone knows that I am not a great fan of that other place. Most of the time, I think the House should reject all amendments from the Senate. Very few senators even show up to vote on legislation, and they are not accountable to anyone. Therefore, I have no hesitation at all in saying that we will look carefully at amendments that come forward. However, if we in the House do not think they are good amendments, we have every right to reject them, because we are the elected members who represent Canadians in the House. I have no problem sending the amendments back to the Senate, thanking it very much, and telling it that we, the elected members, will decide on legislation.

Having said all of those positive things, I cannot avoid talking for a minute about this other world that the Conservative caucus seems to be living in. It is a world where the Internet is unregulated in a free market where quality rises to the top. I do not live in that world. It is not the real world. The web giants control the content and who rises to the top already. Through their algorithms, they determine what Canadians can see. Google decides in its search engine what will be prioritized.

I belong to the interparliamentary group working on online anti-Semitism, and we have been trying to get those web giants to acknowledge their role, in this particular case, in promoting anti-Semitism in the way that their algorithms function. We had a great deal of trouble getting the attention of parliamentarians from 12 countries to this problem, which they create through their algorithms. They say those algorithms are a business secret. They cannot share how those work. They cannot let anyone have any role in those algorithms. Those are theirs, and they make profit out of them. The bill says that, in terms of discoverability, there be a way that Canadian content created in Canada can be discovered through those search engines.

Yes, there is an intervention about content and what we see. It is not an attempt to censor. It is an attempt to create opportunities for diverse material to make its way forward through the business-controlled algorithms that determine what people see and watch now. There is no wild frontier out there where everybody competes equally on the Internet. We hear the Conservatives saying there is an attempt to censor. There is an attempt to create an opening for more diversity and an opening for Canadian content. That is not censorship.

We heard very extreme statements about Canadian content here, which would, I would say, throw the baby out with the bathwater. They are saying for all these years we have had Canadian content, which has helped Canadian filmmakers and Canadian singers establish a base that they have been able to use to go on to become stars on the world stage. They want to throw that away and say no level playing field and no resources for Canadians against the rest of the big streaming giants who are funding things elsewhere.

That is not the Canada I want to live in, and that is not the way we should approach what is absolutely a changed environment. That is what this bill tries to do. It tries to respond to that changed environment that the streaming companies have created and to make sure there is a role for our stories, our music, our movies and for us as Canadians on the world stage.

That is why I will continue to support Bill C-11. I hope the Conservatives believe what they are saying. I am not sure they do, but I hope that they are arguing from a very honest perspective. I just do not understand how creating opportunities for Canadians is censorship.

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, February 17th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. The bill we are discussing is on the Investment Canada Act and whether we need to update it given some changes in the world.

I will ask a question that I asked earlier of a Conservative member.

Increasingly, foreign investors see the Canadian health sector as place in which they can invest. We have the example of Anbang, a Chinese insurance company that was later nationalized or seized by the Chinese government, which is a major investor in long-term care homes in my province. I wonder if the member agrees with us in the New Democratic Party that we need to update this piece of legislation before us to take into account investments like these, which put the health of Canadians at risk.