44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, there is some confusion here in the House.
One thing that is really fascinating from the opposite side is that the Liberals are trying to create legislation for what they are listening to on their Walkmans or Discmans. These are things that people do not use anymore, and the Liberals are trying to create this legislation for things that people do not do anymore. They are using an archaic method, the CRTC, which is nonsensical, in the opinion of many Canadians. When we look at it, there is a new way. It is called “the Internet”. This is how people are now getting their information. They are watching movies on it. No doubt, they are listening to music on it. To think that we need to adopt this “Liberal government knows best” style of government to continue to indoctrinate people in Canada is really beyond what anyone could possibly imagine.
I think the other part, when we begin to think about time allocation on this, is that approximately one-third of Canadians are under the age of 24, so they would probably be the highest users of this information. From this side of the House, we think it is exceedingly important that we give those approximately 10 million to 15 million people their due diligence and understanding of what the government is attempting to make them do.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course, the last time this legislation was updated, the technology the member is referencing was the technology that was prevalent, and the reality for how the technology is utilized now is very different. People are consuming media that is coming from online streaming sites and online streaming services that are not subject to the same rules that traditional media have been subject to.
I know the Conservatives traditionally have not supported Canadian artists and the idea that broadcasters have a responsibility to use some of their profits to support Canadian artists and to promote Canadian artists in what they put on, whether it is on the radio or on television. I suppose they are continuing their battle to block—
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:47:13 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would really appreciate it if the House leader would stick to the facts and not spread misinformation. If he actually has proof that the Conservatives—
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:47:29 p.m.
- Watch
This is debate.
The hon. government House leader.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's anxiousness to participate in the debate, but I will say very clearly that the Conservatives talk about defunding the CBC and about not supporting Canadian content, including in this specific case. Does the member across, who is arguing against support for this bill, not believe that Disney or Netflix, which profit here, should be promoting Canadian content? Does he not believe they should be giving dollars back to Canadian producers of culture and content? It is a battle they fought for a long time—
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:48:01 p.m.
- Watch
We have a lot of individuals wanting to ask questions.
The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, maybe my colleague, the government House leader, could speak about the sense of urgency. Cultural workers and artists suffered the most under the pandemic. Many of them could not operate at all for two years, and many of them could not even access the programs that were offered to them. When people have zero revenue coming in, the wage subsidy does not help them, nor the rent assistance program. The sense of urgency is real.
In the meantime, the big web giants had record profits. They took all the gas out. There was a massive economic leakage happening in our country. Maybe the House leader could talk about how critical it is that we plug the economic leakage to the big web giants and that we get to this work rapidly and quickly and get this to committee.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the reality is that, as we have seen a shift in the way we consume entertainment and media, there has not been a similar shift to apply the same rules that apply to traditional media to new media.
The member is absolutely right. We saw during the pandemic that the artists who perform in local venues and enrich our local communities got hit incredibly hard; they were not able to participate during the pandemic. At the same time, the streaming giants enjoyed record profits and record participation.
This bill would continue a long tradition in Canada of saying that if people profit from the entertainment industry in this country and profit from the cultural sector, they have an obligation to pay back into it and help build it up. As I look at cities and communities across the country, and I look at the quality and depth of the culture that is there, I would say it is there, in no small part, because of that rule, because of the obligation we put that if people profit from that sector, they have to invest back in it. I would say that it is not only our local communities and artists that have benefited from it, but I think the world has valued the Canadian voice in culture and heritage.
221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what we continue to hear again and again from across the aisle is that there is an agenda that needs to be followed, and therefore there needs to be this push for Bill C-11 to be brought through the House of Commons without proper debate.
That is wrong. That is absolutely anti-democratic. There are 338 elected individuals who were sent to this place to rigorously debate issues. That is our responsibility, and that responsibility is being taken from us right now. That is not just shameful for those who are in this House; it is actually shameful because of what it does to Canadians.
I represent 125,000 people from the riding of Lethbridge. You just squashed their voices.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:51:12 p.m.
- Watch
I remind members not to address questions and comments directly to the Chair.
I will allow the hon. House leader to answer.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to make two points. The first is on this bill, which is that there is absolutely an agenda. The agenda is to say that those who make money from the cultural sector in this country have an obligation to invest back into it. That has been the tradition in this country. It just has not been updated to reflect the new media so that our content creators and the community that suffered during the pandemic can be supported and Canadian art and culture can be expanded.
With respect to democracy, let us be very clear. I was there in opposition when the Conservatives created a 200-page handbook on how to control, like puppeteers, committees, how to shut them down and how to run them through their parliamentary secretaries. I was here in this House day in, day out as we saw incredible command and control of everything that happened in this place.
It is rich beyond measure to compare that to this. There is more than enough opportunity to go from here, to have further debate at committee and for it to return to the House.
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here is one last little plea on my part. I am always appalled to see how the government ignores the reality of our artists, artisans, content creators and those who revitalize culture in our world, our beautiful world.
Today, we are spending more time debating whether we should take even more time to debate something that already existed and is now back on the table.
In the previous Parliament, we had Bill C-10. Now it is back on the table as Bill C-11. It has been reworked and improved. The Bloc Québécois put a lot of effort into that, and the sector is happy, but here we still are, talking about the time allocated for debate.
I am rather appalled. I would like the House leader to comment on the urgent need to take action on behalf of these people who are losing money—
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:53:32 p.m.
- Watch
Order. There is very little time left and I have to give the government House leader the opportunity to respond.
The government House leader.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, time is of the essence for our artistic creators and our cultural community.
The pandemic has been really hard on the cultural sector. People in our communities could no longer attend events in person. The major broadcasters and online streamers pulled in huge profits, but it was just the opposite for our cultural community.
That is why it is essential that we act swiftly and move this bill on to the next stage, namely study in committee. The debate will not just be happening here today. We will continue to debate this bill.
It is odd that the Conservative Party is upset that the process is moving on to the next stage. The reason the Conservative Party is so angry is that it is generally against supporting the cultural sector.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:54:55 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Climate Change; the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Taxation; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Health.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:55:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 4:55:53 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
It being 5:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on private member's bill, Bill C-234. This is an important issue.
Agriculture plays an essential role in Canada's economy. Our farmers also help to feed the world. I am a city person, and I can tell members that city people rely on farmers across our country for the food on our tables. For that, we are deeply grateful. Perhaps now, more than ever, at this time of geopolitical uncertainty and rising costs, it will be vitally important to ensure that Canada's agricultural production continues to grow.
Our government is supporting Canada's farmers to make that happen, and we will continue to do so. The question we have to consider is how best to do so. More specifically, the question is how we deliver support for farmers that is effective in helping them ramp up production, without undermining important goals like addressing climate change, which itself poses a severe threat to agriculture production.
We know for a fact that farmers across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change first-hand, with floods and droughts. In fact, I was looking at some reports about the recent flooding over the last year in B.C., which is an example of a weather event caused by climate change. It caused massive damage to farms in the area. In one report, one farmer was talking about having lost 600 acres of crops, which were all under water. There were stories of expensive farm technology lost in floods and cattle that died, along with other farm animals, and that is tragic for so many reasons, like for the disruption in people's lives and also in hitting their bottom line.
To their great credit, they are taking action to address it. Farmers have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices, like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques, that can help reduce emissions and save them both time and money. Just recently, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change went to visit a farm to look at some of those practices.
Our government is taking action to support them. Our recent budget, for example, proposes to provide a further $329.4 million over six years starting in 2022-23, with $0.6 million in remaining amortization, to triple the size of the agricultural clean technology program. It also proposes to provide $469.5 million over six years, with $0.5 million in remaining amortization, starting in 2022-23, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.
The budget proposes $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and address other environmental co-benefits, with the details of this to be discussed with provinces and territories. It proposes to provide $100 million over six years, starting in 2022-23, to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that will allow for net-zero-emissions agriculture.
The budget also proposes renewing the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture in partnership with provincial and territorial governments. Each year, these programs provide $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. This includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2 billion of support on average per year.
At the same time, Canada's agricultural sector already receives significant relief compared to other sectors under the federal carbon pollution pricing system. The federal fuel charge regime provides substantial upfront relief for farmers for their purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel, provided that all or substantially all of the fuel is for use in eligible farming activities, such as the operation of farming equipment and machinery.
Our government has also proposed a refundable tax credit in the 2021 economic and fiscal update for farm businesses operating in backstop jurisdictions, starting in the 2021-22 fuel charge year. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount increasing as the price on carbon increases. This will help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming while maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.
These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.
My concern is that Bill C-234 could take us in a very different direction. The bill would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, sometimes referred to as the GGPPA, to expand fuel charge relief to farmers by modifying the definition of “eligible farming machinery” to include heating and grain drying.
More specifically, it would modify the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include natural gas and propane. This raises a range of potential concerns that must be carefully considered. For example, as this bill stands, farmers would effectively be double-compensated.
In effect, they would benefit from the proposed tax credit while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. This would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces, as the federal carbon pricing system is revenue-neutral and proceeds must remain in the jurisdiction of origin.
Let me remind hon. members that Canada's carbon pollution pricing system is efficient and cost-effective precisely because it puts a price on carbon pollution and then allows businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions.
With the significant support for farmers already in place under Canada's pollution pricing system, the additional financial supports proposed in Bill C-234 run the risk of removing this price signal completely. This price signal is the linchpin for effectively executing Canada's climate change plan.
A price on carbon pollution provides Canadians with an incentive to make more environmentally sustainable choices and to invest in greener alternatives that create a greener, cleaner economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than telling Canadians how to reduce emissions, a price on carbon pollution allows businesses and people to make those decisions in a manner that best suits their own circumstances.
Carbon pollution pricing also delivers economic benefits, because it encourages Canadians and businesses to innovate and to invest in clean technologies and long-term growth opportunities that will position Canada for success in a cleaner and greener global economy.
That means more jobs for Canadians, benefiting their families and communities across the country. Bill C-234 may very well undermine the effectiveness and benefits of this system. These are all important considerations Canadians expect us to take into account as we assess the potential merits of Bill C-234.
As we do so, we must bear in mind that the federal carbon pollution pricing system is not about raising revenues. The government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. That must be underlined: It is not staying with the federal government.
Our plan directs all proceeds from federal carbon pollution pricing back to the jurisdictions from which they were collected. Returning these proceeds helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but it does not change the incentive to pollute less. With this system, consumers and businesses have a financial incentive to choose greener options every time they make a purchase or investment decision.
Canada has been a leader in this regard and we should not do anything to compromise this. In the context of Bill C-234, we must be carefully considering it within the context of this pricing system.
1289 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
