Rick Perkins

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2022]

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge: (a) has DFO conducted any research activities showing that halibut fishing in the Eastern Canyons marine refuge is negatively impacting gorgonian coral, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings, of any such research; and (b) prior to announcing the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge area, did DFO examine the potential impact of climate change and storms on this particular ecosystem, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings, of any such analysis?

[Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, September 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in my brief parliamentary career, rising today to pay tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on behalf of those whom I represent in South Shore—St. Margarets is the greatest honour I could imagine. There have been many wonderful tributes to Her Majesty in this place today, and I will attempt to add some additional perspectives in this commemoration of an exemplary life of dedication and service.

The loss of one's mother leaves one feeling unmoored. It leaves one feeling the anchor of the family is lost. It changes the family forever. Those of us who have lost our mothers know this to be true. My mother, Rosemarie Borgald Perkins, passed away less than three months ago, on June 29. There is a sense that one is adrift. Several of our colleagues in this place also lost their mothers this summer and are experiencing the same grief.

The death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is a loss felt most deeply by her children, King Charles III, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. Theirs is the loss of a mother's love. William Shakespeare captured the feeling of a child once their mother is gone well in Henry V, when he wrote:

And all my mother came into mine eyes
And gave me up to tears.

The royal family must feel that way in this period of public grieving, the way all of us feel when we lose a parent. Grief comes in waves like the ocean, waves of deep sadness and waves of great humour and joy. Queen Elizabeth said, in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, that “Grief is the price we pay for love." As her family grieves, as her nation and the Commonwealth grieve, we are demonstrating a global act of love and thanks to Her Majesty and her family.

She said, as we know, in her statement on her accession to the throne, “my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service”. Indeed, we were blessed that her life was long and she fulfilled her duties with grace, solemnity, passion and humour. The world is a better place for it.

When we grieve for the loss of a person we care about, we often reflect on our own lives and tell a few stories about that person that captures their personality. If the House indulges me, I will tell a few stories about Her Majesty.

My mother and father grew up in Halifax during World War II. It was a busy war port and the King, Queen, royal family and Winston Churchill played a huge part in their lives at that time. When young Queen Elizabeth, only 33, visited Nova Scotia for the first time as the Queen, my mother and father had to go to see her. They did, and when the motorcade passed, my mother and her sister ran down the road after the Queen like they were Beatles' groupies and embarrassed the heck out of my father.

In this place, we all know the importance of the role that those that do tour advance for prime ministers play in serving our country. One of my best friends, Scott Munnoch, played this role for Prime Minister Mulroney. Scott, in this role, often wore white running shoes with his suits. He even wore them while wearing black tie. While it looked a bit goofy, it was comfortable, given the long days he had on his feet. Scott is a big man. Having been a defensive lineman on the Queen's University football team, he is hard to miss.

During the royal visit in 1992 to celebrate Canada's 125th birthday, Scott wore white running shoes the entire time. RCMP security mentioned to him that a couple of times in the car, the Queen had asked about the fellow with the running shoes. On Canada Day, Her Majesty appeared at the noon-hour show on the Hill and returned for the evening show as well, something she had never done before.

On the final day of departure at Uplands Airport, the farewell delegation included the prime minister, Mrs. Mulroney and several ministers. They were lined up at the foot of the stairs to the aircraft. Once they were assembled, Scott stood on the opposite side at the foot of the stairs, out of the way, he thought. Her Majesty said her goodbyes and moved up the aircraft stairs. After a step or two up the stairs, she paused, turned around to Scott and said, “I really like your footwear.” She then boarded the plane and flew back to London.

In 1997, while serving in a similar role for Premier Harris, Scott organized the Ontario portion of Her Majesty's visit to Canada. At the last stop of the tour in North Bay, Scott was told to be present at an event with Her Majesty. As the last person to be called into the personal audience with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, the Queen invested on the “fellow wearing the running shoes” the Royal Victorian Order, making him a member of this dynastic order established by Queen Victoria, which is only bestowed by the monarch. It recognizes distinguished personal service to the monarch. Scott is the 2,072nd person in the Commonwealth to receive this honour since it was established in 1896.

In 2002, Her Majesty the Queen was in Regina to unveil the statue of her riding her prized horse Burmese, a gift from the RCMP. The RCMP had transported the State Landau to Saskatchewan for the event. The day was marred on and off by torrential rains, so the commanding officer of the RCMP asked the monarch if she would like the roof installed to keep her dry. She responded, in typical Queen Elizabeth fashion, that if her subjects were going to be in the rain, then so should she. The roof went back to the truck where it stayed for the rest of the day.

On another visit to Canada, for her Golden Jubilee, she visited Exhibition Place in Toronto, where Her Majesty was to be introduced to a renewed horse breed called the Canadian that had gone almost extinct. She immediately made a connection with the huge horse, which was a little skittish because of the crowd and because of the camera flashes that were happening. To everyone's surprise, Her Majesty pulled a large carrot out of her handbag and fed it to the horse, now her new best friend. There we have it. There was more in her purse than just a sandwich.

A staff member of mine, Denis Drever, acted as an official photographer on royal tours to Canada for Her Majesty and Prince Philip. He did that three times. At the conclusion of one of those tours, the Queen personally presented him, a professional photographer, with a hand-signed portrait of the royal couple and said, “It's quite odd really, me giving you a photograph.” Naturally, he accepted it with thanks and it now hangs proudly in a place of honour in my Hill office.

In a story President Reagan told Prime Minister Mulroney, President Reagan hosted the Queen and as the visit wound down the president asked her what her schedule was the next day. She replied that she was going home, going to Canada. It spoke of her affection and love for Canada.

Queen Elizabeth attended only two funerals of the 15 prime ministers who swore allegiance to her: Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. Therefore, I will conclude my tribute with the words of Winston Churchill in his final toast to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth when he was prime minister. Churchill said this:

Never have the august duties which fall upon the British monarch been discharged with more devotion than in the brilliant opening to your Majesty’s reign. We thank God for the gift he has bestowed upon us and vow ourselves anew to the sacred cause, and wise and kindly way of life of which your Majesty is the young, gleaming champion.

God bless Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and long live King Charles III.

[Public Safety, June 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the minister opposed the creation of the inquiry, and it is shameful how the Liberals are trying to evade accountability for this outrageous political interference.

The minister continues to quote a supposedly independent statement from Commissioner Lucki, a statement that was likely cleared by the public safety minister's office before being issued. In essence, he is quoting himself and impugning the integrity of the investigators.

When did the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Public Safety's office approve the commissioner's statement that the minister is now using to defend himself?

[Public Safety, June 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia inquiry revealed that RCMP Commissioner Lucki chastised the lead investigator: “The commissioner then said that we didn't understand, that this was tied to pending gun control legislation”. Also quoted in these documents was the RCMP communications officer, who said, “[I]t was all political pressure. That is 100 percent [the minister] and the Prime Minister.”

Why will the government not believe that investigating officers are telling the truth?

[Public Safety, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, to have the mass murder of 22 of my fellow Nova Scotians and an unborn child be used as a Liberal gun control wedge is disgusting, obscene and an insult to the victims and their families.

The detailed investigative notes of RCMP officers, which will be used in court, state political interference into this mass murder. They were contradicted by the public safety minister and the commissioner of the RCMP.

Who is telling the truth: the RCMP investigators, or the Liberal politicians trying to interfere in the investigation?

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the quote. The NDP used to remember what it was like to be in opposition, but now it seems to speak for government. The tools that the opposition has for democratic discourse are limited relative to members of the NDP-Liberal government trying to ram things through. We had to use every tool in our arsenal, which is limited in—

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I also enjoyed our time sitting next to each other during the long hours into the evening on clause-by-clause. We had a lot of fun joking back and forth. That is part of the fun we can have sometimes in this place, regardless of the party.

In answer to the member's question, I do not think there is an actual number, but there were dozens more witnesses we were trying to hear from. I do not think the committee ever settled that 20 hours would be the limit. In fact, committees often change the number of witnesses once they are into the committee and say they should hear from more people. We thought we should perhaps hear from a few more witnesses to get a more balanced approach so we could have more discussion about the amendments that were being proposed in clause-by-clause.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the ability of Canadian artists to develop their programs, music or content has not been hindered by not being regulated. The other day, the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke at length about one quote from The Tragically Hip saying how it could not have burst onto the scene without the use of this bill. It managed to burst onto the scene without this, and so did Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Alessia Cara, the Weeknd and Carly Rae Jepsen. They were all discovered on the Internet without the help of the CRTC or the Liberal government.

[Online Streaming Act, June 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my riding, South Shore—St. Margarets, to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, the first amendments in 31 years, I believe.

I was disheartened to see how swiftly the government moved to shut down debate on this important bill. The irony is not lost on me, or probably on the House, that the government moved to stifle debate on a bill designed to control what people can see or say on the Internet. The irony continues because the heritage minister recently stated that he does not expect the Senate to rush the bill through in the other place. This raises the question as to why the government was so eager to have the bill moved through the House of Commons committee.

My colleague for Perth—Wellington noted that the minister does not expect the Senate to rubber-stamp it, but for some reason he expects the House and our 338 duly elected members of Parliament to rubber-stamp the bill. The Liberals voted closure on the second reading of the bill, a bill that would let the government prioritize what is most important for us to see on the Internet, and a bill that would put new entrepreneurs under the thumb of government regulation. This is what the witnesses who generate content on the Internet say. This is what, in committee, the head of the CRTC said. Now, I know other members may have their own opinion, but I think it was the expert, the head of the CRTC, who said that the bill would give it the power to regulate the Internet.

The Liberals did not take what they were hearing and did not like what they were hearing in committee. What did they do? They had the House of Commons put closure on the public hearings and the clause-by-clause phase under the anti-democratic Motion No. 16, which stopped what the committee was doing on the bill and forced clause-by-clause without debate. It even stopped the committee members who moved those motions from reading their motions.

Numerous times during clause-by-clause, I asked the chair, when Motion No. 16 was stated, where in that motion it said, when it talked about debate, whether or not a member could actually read their motion so people watching could find out. The Chair went further to say that he was interpreting Motion No. 16 to mean that members could not even read the motion in the debate, which was quite shocking, because the member for Vancouver Centre who chairs the heritage committee, in 2015 on another piece of legislation, said:

We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says. It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation. Everyone has accepted that public consultation should occur. Public consultations went on before [it] was set up.... We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government.

That was from the member for Vancouver Centre, who chaired this committee, so it is incredible that the Liberals continued to follow a different path during these discussions. Conservatives have raised the concerns of Canadians time and time again, but sadly the Liberals are too focused on ramming through this legislation. The NDP, of course, were reading from talking points that someone in their coalition had provided them.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the NDP House leader is fond of quoting Tommy Douglas, and I will read for him something that Tommy Douglas said: “The greatest way to defend democracy is to make it work.” Before the member joined the government, he used to understand that the House rules are made to ensure that opposition could do its duty in making democracy work by scrutinizing legislation. In hearing from a variety of witnesses on that legislation, and on proposing and discussing amendments to that legislation, since the member for New Westminster—Burnaby joined the Liberal government, he now thinks the opposition's role is to rubber-stamp legislation, as he clearly did during clause-by-clause.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby said, in 2015:

There was concern over a wide variety of community impacts as well. We have a government that brought forward a badly flawed bill last year and forced it through. Initial debates reflected very poorly on the government, so it hid the bill for a year and is now bringing it forward with closure, trying to ram it through the House with no due parliamentary consideration.

He was often a critic of tactics of closure before, but he seems to enjoy using closure now that he is part of the government.

Conservatives would have updated the Broadcasting Act while also respecting digital-first creators and those Canadians who want to excel here at home and around the world with the freedom to create and earn a living without government regulation.

Bill C-11 contains disturbing open-ended online censorship regulatory power for the government. The legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a). That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Spotify.

What does “indirectly” mean? Everything posted on the Internet has some sort of identifier and code to it, and it is on a page. Everything and everyone in the House is on a page. Opposite that, everything posted on social media has advertising beside it, so everything posted on the Internet indirectly generates revenue. That is why the CRTC chair says it can regulate all user-generated content.

When Canadians do an Internet search or look at videos on YouTube or TikTok, the Liberal government, in this bill, would require that those platforms prioritize Canadian content to the top of the list of what people see. The CRTC would pick the winners and losers of what Canadians can see. It would determine whether the cat video one wants to see has sufficient Canadian content. Is the cat Canadian? Is the videographer Canadian? Was it filmed in Canada? That is how the CRTC would impact what one can see on the Internet.

It is horse feathers that this bill would not give the government the power to regulate all user-generated content, as the minister claims. The Liberal government rules will drive what one sees on the first page, and not what is most popular. Most people do not go past the first page. This bill forces platforms to develop algorithms to choose what cat video comes first on search pages. This is why this bill is so dangerous, but the NDP-Liberal government thinks if it moves we should regulate it: “Hi, we are here from Ottawa and we are here to intrude on people's lives.”

Liberals say to trust them, yet they refuse to release the directive that is required to give to the CRTC. That is the trust they ask of us. They say that it is not their intention and not to worry. If they want that trust, then they should make the CRTC directive public now, before the bill passes. What is the government hiding?

The minister has tried to claim that user-generated digital content and YouTube creators, TikTok creators and Canadians who have been able to burst onto the scene not just in this country but internationally, are free from having that content regulated. The government says it has no interest in looking at that. If that were true, the government should have made it clear by voting for our amendments in committee. It refused to pass amendments that would remove the government's and the CRTC's ability to regulate user-generated content indirectly. To me, that says it all. By refusing to do that, by defeating the amendments that would prevent the government from regulating indirect revenue and user-generated content when supposedly the government was open to amendments in committee, it admits the bill has that power.

The NDP-Liberal government only wants to see its ideas on the Internet, and no one else's. The bill is another dagger, in my view, to our democracy. I would urge all members to please vote against this at third reading.

[Online Streaming Act, June 17th, 2022]

One witness in five weeks.