44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 16, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I know that there is a very active and vibrant artistic community in her riding that has been weakened by the laissez-faire approach of successive federal governments and by the current crisis, which is still ongoing.
I think she made an excellent point. As a progressive opposition party, we must be very vigilant about the powers given to the CRTC.
I spoke a bit about that earlier. We need to be very serious and firm about information, data transparency, negotiations with web giants and the obligations that will be imposed. In my past life, I often saw the CRTC being somewhat lax, weak and complacent with large corporations.
If the directives and guidelines are unclear, we cannot automatically assume that the CRTC will do the right thing.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He seems very knowledgeable about this issue; good for him.
He said the act has not been updated since 1991 and commented that he did not know if it was a good thing or a bad thing that he remembers those days. Unfortunately, I was not yet born, so I do not remember it. I am so sorry, but that joke really made me laugh.
I heard him mention algorithms, which is something that really interests me. At the end of his speech, he pointed out that the act does not really say much about CBC/Radio-Canada.
In the regions, we have issues with coverage. We have just one or two reporters covering Rimouski, Matane, Gaspé, Chaleur Bay, the Gaspé coast and the Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine. I think that deserves our attention. Perhaps my colleague agrees.
How could that have been built into this bill?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her excellent intervention.
This reform of the Broadcasting Act could indeed have been a good opportunity to do that. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has beautiful, modern facilities in Montreal, but unfortunately, the corporation itself could use a little updating in terms of its mandate, its role and its resources.
I am also very sympathetic to what my colleague said about regional coverage. I would perhaps even go a little further than she did. There are also problems with coverage outside Quebec. Many francophone communities outside Quebec do not get much news coverage from Radio-Canada, so they get very little out of the public broadcaster. A lot of work needs to be done to improve that, particularly by having a more independent board of directors, who can then make their own choices.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
It is an absolute privilege for me to stand in the House today, on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, to speak in support of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. I am truly grateful for the leadership of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the work that he, his department and his team have done with respect to the bill.
As I have mentioned many times in this chamber, my riding of Davenport, in Toronto's west end, is home to more artists, creators and those in the cultural industry than probably most ridings across this country. Anything that impacts artists and cultural sector is of great interest to me and to the residents of my riding.
Before I go any further, I would like to acknowledge that I am delivering this speech from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.
Our federal government is committed to advancing the interests of Canada and Canadians through a forward-thinking digital policy agenda. This will include steps to make the Internet fairer and safer for all Canadians, while ensuring that it remains an engine for innovation.
For decades, our system has guaranteed the creation of Canadian movies, TV shows and music. Today, streaming platforms benefit from access to the Canadian market, but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and creators. With Bill C-11, our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. The online streaming act would also improve fairness in the broadcasting system and ensure the sustainability of our cultural industry and the livelihoods of Canadian artists and creators.
A key and important element of the online streaming act is its application to online streamers. This issue has seen a lot of debate in the past, but our approach moving forward is quite simple. Canadians will continue to be able to use social media as they always do and will not be subject to this legislation. User-uploaded programs on social media, including those of digital-first creators, are excluded.
The online streaming act is about broadcasting and ensuring that online streaming services that provide access to commercial programs are required to contribute in an equitable manner. During the last parliamentary session, this bill's predecessor was the subject of a lively debate about the treatment of social media services and their role in supporting our creators and culture.
We know that parliamentarians, broadcasters, cultural creators and all Canadians rightfully value freedom of expression. We are also passionate about supporting our unique, vibrant culture and ensuring that there is a prominent place on our airwaves, our TV screens and the Internet for Canadian music and stories.
Let us be clear. The online streaming act would not force a choice between these important objectives. Our federal government listened to the concerns of many different stakeholders, built on the work of my colleagues from the last parliamentary session and, as a result, changed the approach to appropriately recognize the role of social media platforms. Under this approach, users of social media, including online streamers, are not impacted. The bill would not impact their choice of freedom of expression.
Social media services play a role both as communication tools and as broadcasters. The online streaming act recognizes this dual function. When social media services are used as communication tools to share personal content, they are not covered by the bill. In fact, the vast majority of activity on social media services is not covered by the act.
At the same time, the CRTC can impose obligations of social media services in situations where their activities are the same as those of other online broadcasters. The approach is simple.
First, the users of social media services are not considered broadcasters. They will never face obligations under the act. This means that no matter how active we are on social media, what we post, read or comment on will always fall outside the scope of the Broadcasting Act. The online streaming act is not about our activities on social media.
Second, social media services like YouTube can only have obligations in relation to the commercial programs they carry on their services. Content that does not generate revenue, the content of digital-first creators that is only distributed on social media and amateur content are excluded.
Finally, when social media services are used to distribute commercial music, they can be required to contribute in the same way as other online streaming services. It is only fair. After all, two-thirds of Canadians listen to music on YouTube. We owe it to our talented creators and our Canadian broadcasters to ensure fair treatment of programs consumed on different platforms, regardless of how they are distributed.
I will outline this approach in greater detail. The online streaming act is not about regulating the Internet. It would not affect Canadians' ability to use the Internet. Canadians would be able to connect with friends and family, and stream their favourite movies and TV shows, just as they always have done. The act would set clear limits as to where the CRTC may impose obligations. Content uploaded by Canadians on social media platforms, such as Facebook or YouTube, would not face obligations, except in clearly defined circumstances as provided in section 4.2 of the act.
Let me provide a few examples. Ottawa's Jade Taylor-Ryan uploads a video of her dancing cat, Ed, that reaches over 10 million likes on TikTok. Jade Taylor-Ryan is a user of social media and would never be covered by the act. TikTok would also not face any obligations in relation to Jade's video. Gurdeep Pandher, Yukon's famous bhangra dancer, uploads his YouTube videos that have danced their way into many hearts. Gurdeep Pandher is a user of social media, and would never be covered by the act. YouTube would also, in this case, not face any obligations in relation to Gurdeep's videos. YouTube and other social media services cannot face obligations in relation to these user-uploaded videos, because they are not the kinds of videos offered on other streaming or traditional broadcasting services, such as TV and radio stations, or Spotify and Netflix.
Again, if a Canadian uploads a video of their child's birthday party, that would also fall outside the scope of the act. Even when a Canadian captures their pet's hilarious moment and uploads it to social media, where it goes viral with millions of views, both the user and the content would always fall outside of the scope. Again, the act would not apply to content generated by everyday Canadians or to social media services for their distribution of that content.
This brings us to the question of digital-first creators. Social media platforms have helped turn many Canadians into household names. We have seen the rise of such talents as Gigi Gorgeous and Asian-Canadian pop singer, Alex Porat, on YouTube. Platforms like Bandcamp and SoundCloud have provided opportunities for artists such as Hussein Ahmed, a.k.a. Handsome Tiger. He is a producer and DJ of Anishinabe-Métis-North African descent. These individuals are among the many Canadian digital-first creators. Their content is developed first and foremost to be distributed on social media platforms. It is not distributed through other broadcasters.
The intention of this bill is not to interfere with or stifle these Canadian voices. That is why the government intends to instruct the CRTC through a policy direction to ensure that the content of digital-first creators be excluded from the act. Therefore, social media services would not face any obligations in relation to the programs of digital-first creators. We have been clear on this from the very start.
The online streaming act would only allow the CRTC to impose obligations on social media services with regard to a subset of commercial content, such as commercial music. The legislation includes three factors the CRTC would have to consider in identifying commercial programs. It would consider the amount of revenue generated by the program, whether the program was available on other traditional or online broadcasters, such as Netflix or Spotify, and whether the content had been assigned an international standards code number.
The objective here is fairness. Any service used to distribute commercial programs in our homes, cars or pockets would be required to contribute to Canadian stories and music. This approach would ensure that music like Edmonton native Ruth B.'s song, Dandelions, which is also popular, would be treated the same way when made available through YouTube as on the radio or Spotify.
In conclusion, the new approach to social media in the online streaming act would ensure that social media services contribute in an appropriate manner to the Canadian broadcasting system while respecting the rights, freedoms and choices of Canadians. With our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. Both Canadian broadcasters and streaming platforms should play from the same set of rules. I ask all the hon. members of the House to support the online streaming act. We owe it to our creators, our culture and all Canadians.
1572 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:28:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am tabling, in both official languages, a motion for confirmation of a declaration of emergency pursuant to section 58 of the Emergencies Act; an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration; and a report on consultations with the lieutenant governors in council of the provinces, with respect to the declaration. I am also tabling the proclamation declaring a public order emergency.
Finally, I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to subsection 58(5) of the Emergencies Act.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a lot has been said in the debate today about social media and about web giants. I was curious to notice that the member for Davenport has spent $18,955 on Facebook advertising in the last couple of years. With subsection 4(2), on direct or indirect revenue generated from social media content, I am curious as to whether the member thinks that the $18,955 she has spent on Facebook advertising would be captured under subsection 4(2) of the act.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy for everything to do with arts and culture in this country. As I mentioned, in my riding, we have so many artists that anything to do with this sector is very important.
The objective of this bill is to bring online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. It is to modernize a very outdated piece of legislation and make sure that we treat our broadcasters the same as our online streaming services. That is the key objective of this legislation.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are both members of the Standing Committee on Finance, and we heard some really compelling evidence from Sophie Prégent of the Union des artistes. She said that artists have suffered enormously during this pandemic, and that never before had they withdrawn so much money from their RRSPs.
Bill C-11 could have helped many of these artists earlier. Why did it take so long for the government to introduce it?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very important question.
In terms of this legislation, I want to point out, because it is important to raise this, this legislation would update CRTC guidelines that will increase the proportion of French-language content to be supported through the Canadian media fund and other streams.
In terms of support, we did introduce this relatively quickly. The last election happened only last September, and we came back into session in November and December, so I feel that we have made a priority of reintroducing this bill.
I will say, though, that I share her concern, and I have heard also from artists from my own riding as well, about the need for additional support. I am really proud of the support that our federal government has given to artists through the CERB and CRB to very targeted and specialized funding for the arts and culture sector. We have had the backs of our artists, and we will continue to do so moving forward.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, levelling the playing field with online streaming web giants is critical. Just as Canadian cultural workers, artists and broadcasters have been calling for these changes to ensure Canadian content is protected and supported, Canadian publishers have been calling on the government to address concerns in their industry.
I spoke to Orca Book Publishers, an incredible Canadian children's book publisher located in my riding of Victoria. It talked about the need to ensure continued access to a diverse range of Canadian-authored books published by Canadian-owned companies. One of the ways to do that is to ensure the Canada book fund is adequately resourced. It also spoke about how COVID‑19 has exposed long-standing weaknesses in the Copyright Act. The legal framework—
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I did ask for a brief question. I will allow the hon. member to respond. We do not have very much time.
The hon. member for Davenport.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will say that in my riding of Davenport we have the House of Anansi, which is a wonderful publishing house. It is also looking for urgent changes and an update to our Copyright Act. I agree with the member that we should make that a priority as well.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C‑11. During the 43rd Parliament, I gave a speech at second reading stage of the previous bill, Bill C‑10, and I am pleased that this new version is being debated in the House.
I believe that, in a way, this bill represents a second chance. It gives the official opposition a second chance to clearly support our creators and to hold to account a massive industry that is gaining influence by the day. I am obviously speaking about the digital broadcasting industry, otherwise known as streaming services. This bill offers a second chance to hold the web giants at the heart of this industry to account.
The Conservatives say they support the little guy, but by opposing Bill C‑10 in the previous Parliament, they sided instead with the giants, the most powerful players, those dominating the public space in the digital era.
Our creators play a key role in our society and our economy. They are not just here to entertain us, to serve as a distraction from everyday living or to offer an escape from real life. They have a much more profound and important role. Creators reinforce our identity and help it grow in a world that is constantly changing and evolving. Creators hold a mirror up to our society. They show us who we are, both the good and the bad.
Creators help us learn about and understand our past. They also serve as a beacon, illuminating a future full of possibility. Creators embody the soul of a people, a nation, a country, and their work feeds that soul. If we do not take care of our artists and creators, if we do not ensure they can earn a living, if we allow them to wither and die, our collective soul will pay the price.
Artists motivate us as individuals and as a society. They motivate us to keep building. For example, when we experience an exceptional piece of art, especially one that reflects our own stories and our own reality, it imbues us with a sense of pride in who we are and what we can accomplish. This pride motivates us to keep building our community and sharing our perspective with the whole world.
I am thinking of the work of Jean-Marc Vallée, who passed away recently. We recognize ourselves as Quebeckers in his films, particularly C.R.A.Z.Y and Café de Flore. We also hear our voice in his Hollywood movies like Big Little Lies, Dallas Buyers Club and Demolition Man. His Hollywood projects generated economic spinoffs for Quebec and Canada, even in my community of West Island in Montreal. I have a friend, Gavin Fernandes, who worked with Jean-Marc Vallée for a long time doing post-production work on some of his films.
In very practical terms, arts and culture are an economic force. As for the sectors targeted by Bill C-11, let us look at broadcasting. Broadcasting contributes roughly $9.1 billion to Canada's gross domestic product. That represents 46,556 jobs.
The film and video sector contributes approximately $4.3 billion to the Canadian economy, which translates into 71,868 jobs. Finally, the music and sound recording industry injects $572 million into the Quebec economy, which translates into 8,286 jobs.
I would take it one step further. Contributions made by the creative sector transcend the industries I just mentioned. Creativity is at the heart of nearly everything in a modern economy like Canada's, where things like ideas, experiences and symbols are increasingly consumed alongside physical products.
625 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:43:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I asked for this time in Adjournment Proceedings to give the minister another opportunity to answer a very simple question I asked him in the House in December with respect to Bill C-5: Is he willing to accept an amendment?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:44:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am speaking to members from the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-5. I intend to focus on some areas where there appears to be some misunderstanding about the impact that repealing mandatory minimum penalties from the Criminal Code will have on our justice system and society more broadly.
I want to direct the member to take part in the committee, as well as the process where amendments can be made. We would welcome and review all amendments put forward by members at committee.
Let me make this clear from the outset. Repealing MMPs for certain offences does not signal that these offences are less serious. Instead, the government is aiming to restore judicial discretion to impose fit and appropriate sentences in more cases. These changes will also help address systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. Our approach is smart on crime and we will not take lessons from the previous Conservative government's failed approaches.
In Canada, sentencing courts are always required to consider public safety when imposing a sentence and to ensure that the system reflects both the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I have faith that sentencing courts will continue to impose fit and appropriate sentence. I would also note that the courts understand the seriousness of offences involving firearms. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nur confirmed that serious penalties should be imposed for our firearm-related offences when circumstances warrant it.
Here are the facts. The MMPs targeted by this bill have disproportionately affected indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. In 1999-2000, indigenous peoples represented 2% of the Canadian adult population, but they accounted for 17% of admissions to federal custody. Since then, those numbers have risen significantly. As most recent available data suggests, they now account for 5% of the Canadian adult population, but 30% of federally incarcerated individuals.
What is more is that Black Canadians are overrepresented in terms of federally incarcerated individuals, representing only 3% of the Canadian adult population but 7% of federally incarcerated individuals. They are also overrepresented in respective import-export offences subject to MMPs in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
It is hard to ignore the evidence that shows negative trends that span well over a decade and have only been getting stronger. Repealing the MMPs in Bill C-5 would not reduce public safety. In fact, these reforms would contribute to enhancing public safety because data shows imprisonment, particularly for lower-risk offenders, is associated with higher rates of reoffending.
Bill C-5 offers an important way forward. It is evident from the calls for reform made by Canadian stakeholders, as well as organizations and commissions, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, that they believe these reforms will move criminal justice in the right direction. Having said that, I look forward to the member's feedback during the committee stage of this bill.
520 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:47:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, that was kind of a long-winded answer when “yes” was all I was looking for. I wish the parliamentary secretary could have answered the question in question period. It would have saved us all a lot of time.
That being said, I would like to correct him. He talked about the failed Conservative policies, but the 14 or so mandatory minimums being removed are all ones that were brought in by former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien, and not anything that was brought in under former prime minister Stephen Harper. These are Liberal mandatory minimums being taken off the books.
Just to go to the member's whole point in his concluding statement, can he provide an extenuating circumstance of why someone found guilty of producing schedule I or II drugs, i.e., heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth, should be let off as not a serious crime?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:48:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ensure that the idea behind Bill C-5 is put forward this evening.
Bill C-5 advances an evidence-based approach to sentencing policies in Canada. It proposes to repeal MMPs for certain firearm offences and all those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in order to address unjust outcomes for indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized Canadians by remedying their overrepresentation in custody, including for offences punishable by an MMP.
MMPs have high economic and social costs, and they offer little or no return on our investment. They perpetuate unfair outcomes and offer a less effective criminal justice system. Bill C-5 is an important step that breaks away from rigid, one-size-fits-all sentencing policies that treat lower-risk and first-time offenders the same as hardened drug offenders. The reforms in this—
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary's time is up.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:49:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I initially asked in question period late last year, on December 2, 2021. The question ended up with the Minister of Fisheries. This topic that I am going to raise again tonight crosses several different departments federally. At its core, it is about environmental racism. It is about the illegal dumping of toxic waste on Mohawk territory. I cannot imagine any non-indigenous or non-Black community allowing it, but we do have an environmental racism problem in this country. I hope my private member's bill, Bill C-226, will be passed soon. It is a non-partisan effort to make sure the federal government adopts a strategy to deal with environmental racism, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done for decades.
To my specific example, this was part of my question on December 2:
On the Mohawk territories of Kanesatake, there is a toxic waste dump. It has been leaking harmful chemicals, and it also affects the wildlife and the fish. It is not as though the government has not said something about it.
There was a directive delivered to the toxic waste facility from the federal government on November 18, 2020, to call for the toxic waste site to be cleaned up and for the dumping of toxic waste to stop. I asked the government, “Could the minister update us on what is being done to remove the toxic waste facility from Kanesatake?” The answer came from the hon. Minister of Fisheries. I think her answer was sound, but we did not have the details. The minister said that disposing of waste in this manner is dangerous to people, fish habitats and fish, and said, “We will hold any individuals who violate this act to account.” As things progressed, it is clear that the illegal dumping continues.
The Province of Quebec allowed dumping outside the confines of the specific permit that was given in 2015 for a recycling landfill, which is what it was originally licensed for. The Province of Quebec gave that permit to G & R Recycling in 2015 and by 2016 the complaints had begun. They continued as residents nearby smelled toxic and nauseating fumes and became sickened by these fumes. Finally, in September 2020, the Province of Quebec revoked the licence. Again, as evidence of environmental racism, it was not until the black ooze from this toxic waste facility began seeping onto settler culture farms outside of the Mohawk community that the province took action.
The federal government is still looking at this situation and the figures are just astonishing. This facility was licensed for storing up to 27,800 cubic metres of waste and it now has 400,000 cubic metres of waste, or 15 times what it was originally licensed for. This should not be tolerated. The community of Kanesatake is calling out for justice.
Chief and former RCMP investigator, Jeremy Tomlinson, has said that these facilities are being built and people are paying to haul the waste away, but “instead of getting rid of it at a designated site, they’re dumping it here. Think about it, they’re building on land that was stolen from us and dumping on what little land we have left. People have had enough.” I am hoping in the late show we can get to some solutions for this community.
575 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/22 6:53:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps I will start by noting that Environment and Climate Change Canada is well aware of the issue and is working with the Kanesatake band council, Indigenous Services Canada and the Government of Quebec to resolve the situation. G & R Recycling SENC is a Mohawk company operating since 2015 as a sorting centre for construction and demolition materials on Kanesatake territory under a band council resolution and a certificate of authorization issued by the province.
Over the past three years, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Indigenous Services Canada have provided support to the Kanesatake Mohawk council's environment office to help the community address environmental issues on its territory. As part of this support, in April 2020, at the request of the band council, Environment and Climate Change Canada provided assistance to the Kanesatake environment office to carry out the environmental site assessment of G & R Recycling.
Following complaints of a discharge of water into a water body next to the G & R site in 2020 and subsequent inspections, Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers issued a direction under the Fisheries Act to G & R Recycling on November 18, 2020, with respect to the discharges of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish. Since the issuance of the direction, Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers have completed at least three follow-up inspections at the site, the latest of which was less than two weeks ago. To date, the inspections have found that the company is complying with the requirements of the direction. The company was also subject to a series of enforcement actions under the Quebec Environment Quality Act that culminated in March 2020 when the province issued a ministerial order directing G & R to immediately cease the deposit of residual materials and return the site to its original state.
As my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, mentioned during question period on December 2, the protection of fish habitat and prevention of pollution in fish-bearing waters are a priority for our government. The administration of the Fisheries Act allows us to achieve that goal. The Fisheries Act contains specific provisions for the protection of waters where fish live, and the administration of these were entrusted in 1978 to the Minister of Environment. Environment and Climate Change Canada officials will continue to work with all parties to verify ongoing compliance with federal environmental legislation at this facility.
410 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
