Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister, this is offensive to intrude on committee work. We have a fiction in this place that the committee is the master of its own destiny. It is increasingly a fiction from the day when, in the previous government, Stephen Harper instructed that every committee pass an identical motion that affected people such as members of Parliament in unrecognized parties, such as all Greens and independents, in that we were coerced to show up in committee 48 hours before clause-by-clause began. That process made a mockery of the notion that committee is the master of its own destiny and its own work. This intervention is another offence to this notion. This is the first time in more 20 years that this particular standing order was been utilized to get a committee to report back more quickly than it is normally able to do.

I do think that these principles matter. The irony here is that the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith who, within the Green caucus, carries the work on Bill C-10 and has done a tremendous amount of work, is right now in clause-by-clause in the heritage committee on Bill C-10 and cannot be here to defend his right to put forward every single amendment that we have worked on so hard.

I am sorry, but we have a bit of an interference—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I completely agree with him on the significant support for this bill in Quebec and across the country. In Quebec, the National Assembly unanimously called for the adoption of Bill C-10, deeming it a major step forward for the artistic and cultural sector.

To quickly answer my hon. colleague's question, I think that time allocation motions remain exceptional measures that we use in exceptional circumstances.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, using time allocation to speed up our work is a drastic measure that should be used sparingly.

However, it was the right choice for Bill C-10. Dozens of amendments have been adopted. The Bloc Québécois critic was extremely effective and had several amendments adopted that greatly improved this bill.

We cannot allow the Conservatives to block this bill and jeopardize the future of our cultural sector. It is important because every week spent debating represents the loss of millions of dollars. Quebec's cultural sector and Quebeckers are calling for this bill to be passed before the end of the session. That is why we agreed to proceed in this way.

I have a simple question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Should time allocation motions continue to be used only in exceptional circumstances?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I have a lot of respect for him but, in all honesty, I am a little surprised by the NDP's position on this matter.

Thousands of artists across the country signed a petition. The signers include francophone artists, anglophone artists, indigenous artists, and artists from racialized communities, as well as cultural organizations like the Canadian Independent Music Association, which testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Like many other organizations, CIMA, which is headed by a former member of the NDP, is asking that we pass Bill C-10 as soon as possible.

However, the NDP is siding with the Conservatives to deprive artists of $70 million a month. I never thought I would see such a thing. I am speechless.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, I recall the Liberals saying that they would change practices, that they be more open in Parliament and allow for more of the fulsome debate that they saw being denied under the former Harper government. It is important to note that this manoeuvre that the government has put into place is something that even the Harper government did not try. We are talking about new ground with respect to not allowing the kind of debate that is so important.

I will be voting against this closure motion, because it would not allow the appropriate fixes to be made to the bill. When we look at it, the reality is that this has been a communications disaster. The minister has not clearly communicated, he has contradicted himself and has badly explained parts of the bill.

Is that not the real reason the Liberals are invoking this unprecedented closure motion? Is it not because the communications around Bill C-10 have been a disaster?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will remind him that the motion is before the House and that it is the House of Commons, and not the government, that will make the decision.

Why did we proceed in this fashion? I tried to answer this question last week, but I will try again. During the first four Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meetings where Bill C-10 was being studied, the committee made it through 79 amendments. In the 11 subsequent meetings, when the Conservative Party began filibustering, the committee was able to review and vote on only seven amendments. If the committee can resume its initial pace, there is ample time to get through all of the amendments still before it.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion—Speaker's Ruling

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do apologize, but reflecting on the events of the day in question, first, I wish to thank you for the clarity you provided. I was the first to rise on a point of order, because, as the motion was read out, and based on the quick research I was able to do before we began, it seemed to me that the motion was not in conformity with the Standing Orders for a motion to instruct a committee. However, I did immediately accept the Speaker's ruling.

The difficulty before us, Mr. Speaker, if you check the record, is that I do not believe we can say six and a half minutes elapsed, because I was not able to hear anything from the questions or the comments that were being put to the hon. minister. I respectfully think we should restart the clock with the full 30 minutes, because this is a rather important matter. There are important motions that the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has before the committee in clause-by-clause.

The effect of passing this motion on Bill C-10 may be to pre-empt putting forward important amendments that could improve the bill. I do think it requires a full debate. I do not wish to dispute anything you have said, but I think, if you check the record, we did not have six and a half minutes of usable, comprehensible questions and answers.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am now ready to rule on the multiple points of order raised on Friday regarding the time allocation motion for the committee stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Immediately after the motion was moved, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked whether a motion of instruction was not a more appropriate way for the House to direct the work of a committee.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker indicated that the time-allocated motion was in order.

The member for Lethbridge then argued that the time allotted under the terms of the motion was insufficient, as all previous examples of time allocations under Standing Order 78(3) at the committee stage had been up to 10 further hours, while the present motion provided only five additional hours. As the standing order provides that the amount of time allocated may not be less than one sitting day, and since committees do not have standard sitting days the way the House does, she contended that the House should be guided by past practices and allot at least 10 further hours.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker repeated that the motion was in order and that she would return with a more detailed ruling after the 30-minute period for questions and comments.

This was followed by multiple points of order by many members who continued to challenge the admissibility of the motion and the approach the Chair was taking. These continued until the House began Statements by Members, and resumed after question period until the House began Private Members' Business.

There are four points I would like to address in relation to this matter. The first is whether this time allocation motion is in order. The second concerns the manner in which the Chair considers points of order before coming to a decision. The third relates to respect for the Chair's authority. Finally, I would like to address the status of the time allocation motion, on which proceedings were not concluded.

First, it is clear to the Chair that it is possible to move a time allocation motion in relation to the committee stage of a bill. As the member for Lethbridge acknowledged, there are three previous examples of such motions under Standing Order 78(3) for bills before standing or legislative committees, all of which providing for 10 additional hours of study by the said committees. Time allocation was invoked under the terms of Standing Order 78(3)(a) for the purpose of setting a deadline, and I quote:

…in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee…for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day...

The standing order makes no distinction between the stages of a bill, except for the possibility of moving one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third stages. Moreover, while it is possible to allot a specific number of hours or days for the consideration of a stage, the minimum length of time is expressed in sitting days.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued that the Chair should look at the times at which committee meetings are normally organized in the course of a day, suggesting that this could be more than 12 hours. An argument could even be made that the usual length of most committee meetings is two hours. Truth be told, while the House is set to meet and to adjourn, this is not the case in committees. Thus, the Chair can only conclude that the intention was indeed to specifically refer to the length of a sitting of the House.

What, then, is the equivalent of a sitting day when a motion is expressed in hours?

In a ruling made on June 18, 2012, a previous Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, offered a historical review on the application of Standing Order 78. In his conclusion, he stated that the average length of time for the consideration of Government Orders in a typical week is approximately 4.7 hours per day, and that accordingly a motion allotting a rounded-up number of five hours was the equivalent of a sitting day. There have been multiple examples of time allocation motions under Standing Order 78(3) allotting five hours for the second reading stage, for report stage and for third reading stage.

For all these reasons, the Chair does not see why the committee stage would be any different. I therefore rule that the motion is in keeping with the requirements of Standing Order 78(3).

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan expressed concerns that the motion would prevent him from proposing amendments in committee that he considers important. Indeed, one of the consequences of a time allocation motion may be that certain amendments and arguments will not be presented at the committee consideration stage of a bill. In fact, the Standing Orders provide for such situations. It is not for the Chair to consider the consequences of a motion properly before the House. That is a decision for the House. The Chair's role is limited to determining whether the motion is in order.

The second point I wish to address is the power of the Chair in relation to points of order.

Some members argued on Friday that the Chair is required to hear as many points of order as are raised, even equating a failure to do so with censorship or a suspension of the Standing Orders. Certain members also asserted that the Chair is required to give reasons for decisions, and that a failure to do so immediately enables members to continue questioning the Chair’s ruling. This is not the case.

In a ruling given on June 4, 2018, at page 20170 of the Debates, my predecessor, the member for Halifax West, stated, and I quote:

It is well established that when making a case on either questions of privilege or points of order, members are expected to make brief presentations on the issue being raised. The Chair, once satisfied that sufficient information has been given, may inform the member accordingly....

Acting Speaker Devolin explained this well on June 13, 2012, at page 9374 of the Debates, when he stated, “...the floor is not the members' until they choose to stop. The Speaker has a right to terminate that discussion....That is left to the judgment of the Speaker.” This is to say that members do not have unlimited time to speak.

Additionally, once the Speaker has ruled or determined that sufficient information has been presented, it is not in keeping with our practices that members use new points of order, for it can be perceived as undermining and questioning the authority of the Chair.

This makes clear that the Speaker has the authority to decide how long to listen to an intervention in order to ascertain the argument being made. The Speaker can also decide how many points of order to hear on a matter before closing the discussion. Members do not have an unfettered right to raise as many points of order as they want for as long as they want.

I wish to especially insist on this point in the context of our hybrid sittings. By activating their own microphones, members can interrupt the proceedings, cancelling out the audio of the members duly recognized, and making it impossible for the interpreters to do their work. When the Chair has indicated that a decision has been made and the discussion is over, members are expected to respect the statement and not persist in raising points of order.

When considering a point of order, the Chair may rule right away or take the matter under advisement and return with a decision later. However, it is also possible for the Chair to provide an immediate ruling and return with more detailed reasoning at a later time.

For example, on March 21, 2007, Speaker Milliken ruled that an opposition motion on the Notice Paper was out of order, returning with a more detailed explanation as to why on March 29, 2007. An even closer parallel would be on June 12, 2012, when the Deputy Speaker heard several points of order in the middle of the question and comment period on a time allocation motion. She gave a brief ruling at the end of the period, allowing the vote on the motion to proceed, with the Speaker providing a more expansive ruling on July 18, 2012. This is the ruling I referenced earlier about the length of a sitting day. Therefore, it was perfectly acceptable for the Assistant Deputy Speaker to proceed as she did on Friday.

This brings me to my third point, about the need to respect the authority of the Chair. The Speaker is elected by members to apply and enforce the rules that members themselves have adopted to govern the conduct of business in the House. In this, I am assisted by the three other Chair occupants, but to carry out our work, we rely on the support, co-operation and good will of all members.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us at page 641 that, and I quote: “Once the decision is rendered, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion and the ruling may not be appealed.” It also states, at page 620, and I quote: “Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or other Presiding Officers. It is unacceptable to question the integrity and impartiality of a Presiding Officer.”

The tone of debate has recently taken a turn for the worse. This past week, both sides of the House openly challenged rulings of the Chair. On Friday, derogatory remarks toward the Chair were heard. I recognize that there are moments when tensions run high and when disagreements are strong. However, disregard for our rules and established practices is not only disrespectful to those entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining order and decorum in deciding procedural questions, it is also disrespectful to the House as a whole.

On March 14, 2008, in a similar context, Speaker Milliken said, at page 4183 of the Debates:

Like all Canadians, and indeed all hon. members, I realize and respect that political exigencies often dictate the strategies adopted by parties in the House. However, as your Speaker, I appeal to those to whom the management of the business of the Parliament has been entrusted—the House leaders and the whips of all parties—to take leadership on this matter....I ask them to work together to find a balance that will allow the parties to pursue their political objectives and will permit all members to carry on their work. I am confident that working together in good faith they can come to an agreement that will return us to the equilibrium that our procedures and practices have been designed to protect.

I come now to my final point, which concerns the status of the time allocation motion moved Friday. For the first two decades of their existence, time allocation motions were subject to a two-hour debate. However, since 1991, such motions are no longer subject to debate. In 2001, following a recommendation of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, the House instituted a 30-minute question and comment period when a time allocation motion is moved under Standing Order 78(3). The intent of this change was to promote accountability and to require the government to justify its decision. This change did not, however, render a time allocation motion debatable, set down on the Order Paper and carried over from sitting to sitting. It is to be decided forthwith, meaning immediately, that is, during the sitting in which it is moved.

Time allocation motions and closure motions are non-debatable motions where the question is not put on them right away because of the 30-minute question and comment period. What then is to be done when the House cannot complete this period?

The Chair has looked at a variety of precedents. On March 7, 2012, the House began a question and comment period at approximately 5:10 p.m. Proceedings were not interrupted at 5:30 p.m., but instead continued until 30 minutes were completed. On April 30, 2015, the question and comment period was interrupted for the first time in order to proceed to Statements by Members. In so doing, the Acting Speaker stated that he was only doing so as there would be an opportunity to complete the proceedings after Oral Questions. On June 6, 2017, the Speaker interrupted the proceedings at 5:30 p.m. to move to Private Members' Business, but the sitting hours had been extended and there was an opportunity to return to the motion later that day.

In those cases, the House resumed the question and comment period where it had left off, completed it and proceeded to the vote. Friday was the first occasion where the proceedings were interrupted for Private Members' Business and the House had no opportunity to resume the question and comment period before adjourning. In the future, the question and comment period on a time allocation motion or closure motion will be interrupted only if there is an opportunity to conclude proceedings in the same sitting. Where this is not possible, the House will continue with proceedings until a decision is made on the motion.

The Chair's role, as I said earlier, is to apply the rules the House itself has adopted. The House has provided for the time allocation motions on bills, including at committee stage, and has provided that they are to be decided forthwith after a question and comment period of 30 minutes. In the case of this motion, the appropriate notice was given, the form of the motion respects our Standing Orders, the motion was duly moved and seconded and the question and comment period began. So far, six and a half minutes have been used in that period. The appropriate course of action is now to conclude the remaining 23 and a half minutes and then proceed with a vote.

I thank the members for their attention.

Questions and comments.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say how much I appreciate Quebec, its culture and its people.

Quebec makes an enormous contribution to Canadian culture. I understand that some Bloc members doe not really like multiculturalism, but I personally believe that Canadian multiculturalism helps Quebeckers preserve their culture and share it with the rest of the country.

As a result of Canada's openness to different cultures, including French culture, we have French-language schools across the country, including in my riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta.

My riding also has English-language, Christian and other educational institutions, which offer students a diverse range of educational options. Having other schools does not have a negative impact on our local French-language school, because all these schools coexist.

We can say the same thing about the global culture of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. My riding has a diverse population with people of different backgrounds, but we stand united behind our Albertan and Canadian identity while maintaining personal cultural traditions. That is multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is not new to Canada. There are hundreds of indigenous nations in Canada. The French and the British arrived later in this country, followed by other Europeans. We were already a multicultural people before Confederation, and when Canada was founded, people started to share their nationalities with others from different cultures and religions. It goes without saying that this process was not seamless, but we must accept that a multicultural society is not a utopia.

Nothing in this world is perfect, but I believe that the advantages of a multicultural society outweigh the disadvantages. I support the principle of pluralism, which is a political philosophy holding that people of different beliefs, backgrounds and lifestyles can coexist in the same society and participate equally in the political process. I believe that Canada is an example of a successful pluralism, in which people from all cultures, beliefs, faiths, races and sexual orientations are proud to call themselves Canadians.

As some may know, multiculturalism is something I am passionate about. Quite often I feel like we underestimate it both in terms of what it demands of us and the possibilities it represents. Multiculturalism can be challenging when it calls on us to live with and understand things that are unfamiliar to us, but it also provides us an enriching opportunity to have a deeper and intimate understanding of a much broader range of human experiences that we get through different cultures and traditions.

In a society with limited diversity, we would be ignorant without knowing it. In a more diverse society, ignorance can lead to moments of discomfort, but those moments of discomfort can give us the opportunity to learn and grow if they are associated with grace and humility.

When diversity leads to learning and growth we end up with a society where we all know much more about the world around us, one where we can not only savour all sorts of differences, but where our thoughts and conversations can be imbued with the wisdom of teachers and statesmen around the world.

The creation of this type of multicultural society that works has value and presents tremendous opportunities.

Multiculturalism and the knowledge that is gained from it can make us better artists and philosophers, better able to search for individual and collective happiness because we have access to more data, thanks to our personal relationships and conversations. Multiculturalism can help us resolve more problems by applying various problem-solving techniques, allowing us to become unique world leaders who use our cultural understanding to negotiate peace agreements that previously would have been unimaginable. Finally, multiculturalism is an opportunity to create wealth through our ability to engage in respectful trade with countries from all over the globe without being intimidated or manipulated.

There is a lot more we need to know to practise multiculturalism properly, but the knowledge that we gain about other cultures along the way will help us to do much more than simply avoid offence. When we do not understand a culture, it is easy to make erroneous snap judgments and engage in xenophobia. It is important to be open-minded when trying to understand people. If we do not, we will never have a successful, diverse society. That is why diversity of opinion is so critical. It enables members of an ethnically diverse society to co-exist and understand each other.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and explain why it is important that it apply to all of Canada, including Quebec.

The purpose of the act is to preserve and enhance Canada's cultural diversity. It was introduced in 1971 with the hope that it would guarantee the cultural freedom of all Canadians.

Freedom is a Canadian value. I am someone who values freedom, and that is one of the reasons why I am opposing this Bloc Québécois bill today.

I always oppose attacks on freedom. That is why I am also against Bill C-10. The government says that Bill C-10 seeks to advance diversity, but, in my opinion, freedom of expression is essential to do that.

Quite frankly, I am concerned about the repercussions on religious minorities if the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec.

Discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities is a problem in all regions of Canada. Conservatives understand the constitutional jurisdictions of each level of government, but we will always act within the federal jurisdiction to protect minority rights.

I do think it is important to recognize that the discourse on the issue of multiculturalism is a little different in Quebec than in other provinces. Given that Quebec francophones are a minority in Canada, I can understand why they want to protect their culture and especially their language.

Unlike some members, my Conservative Party colleagues and I recognize that the French language in Quebec is in decline, and this issue must be addressed. However, unlike some other members, I do not believe that assimilating minority communities or opposing multiculturalism are effective responses to this problem.

The fact is that many immigrants who settle in Quebec speak French, especially those from Haiti, Africa, Morocco and Algeria and from Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon. All these cultures are proud of their French while maintaining their cultural and religious traditions.

Multiculturalism can be a major asset for Quebec when it comes to attracting new francophone immigrants and strengthening the presence of French in North America.

I would now like to briefly address the issue of religion in this debate because it appears in the preamble to the bill. I understand that when an individual or community has a negative experience with a religious organization, that causes pain and a desire to get as far away as possible from the source of that pain. However, hypothetically, repression in the name of secularism can happen too and can be just as harmful as repression in the name of a given religion.

I believe that the political community should focus on freedom, pluralism and freedom of religion. I do not think the state should impose a particular point of view on religious matters or practices. That is the real idea behind the separation of church and state. The idea is not about actively marginalizing people for practising their faith; it is about giving people the ability to decide what they believe in and how they interpret these beliefs.

Multiculturalism and pluralism are an expression of the universal human desire for freedom of choice and freedom to seek the truth on fundamental issues without interference from the state. Multiculturalism is important and must not be exercised at the expense of Quebec's rich culture. I think it can even improve Quebec culture, especially with respect to the French language and the fact that more immigrants speak French.

Although I am in favour of preserving Quebec's rich culture, I do not support a bill that could wind up leading to cultural assimilation. We need to work on improving multiculturalism—

Procedural Role of Speaker

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me on the House of Commons floor.

Madam Speaker, according to the green book, the role of the Speaker is as follows:

The office of the Speaker must be distinguished from its incumbent, who requires the support and goodwill of the House in order to carry out the duties of the office. The Speaker’s authority and responsibilities as Presiding Officer in the House of Commons flow in large part from the Constitution and from the written rules of the House.

It goes on to say:

The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that public business is transacted efficiently and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves in the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

That is a powerful statement, “over many generations”.

Today, I rose in the House immediately following the party opposite moving a motion that called for time allocation on Bill C-10 in committee. When I rose in the House and I called a point of order, Madam Speaker, you immediately rolled your eyes at me. You did not know what I was going to say, which means that you made a judgment against me presuming that you knew what I would say.

Regardless, it is my right as a member of Parliament, my privilege, to be able to stand in this place and to have my voice heard. As the Speaker of the House, according to the green book that I hold in my hands, which is the document that directs this place, it is your responsibility to gain the support and goodwill of this place. When you fail to show respect and honour to each and every member on the floor of this chamber, you produce a lack of decorum, because chaos will ensue when there is no respect and when there is not mutual honour.

Madam Speaker, the fact that you started by rolling your eyes at me and then proceeded to ignore me every single time I rose in the House to raise a point of order is absolutely inappropriate. When I rise here, I rise as the member of Parliament for Lethbridge. I was duly elected by the people of Lethbridge to have their backs right here in this place. I do not speak with my own voice. I speak with their voices, and so, Madam Speaker, when you roll your eyes at me, you roll your eyes at more than 120,000 constituents who have elected me to be here on their behalf. That, Madam Speaker, is incredibly disrespectful and in disregard for democracy.

I invite you to consider those actions and I invite you to take the next steps forward.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to the minister on Bill C-10, the NDP has supported the process to this point for Bill C-10, but we are waiting for a full discussion and the final bill to make our decision.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about free speech. The government's Bill C-10 intends to censor artists and creators who are achieving success online.

We were in the middle of going through Bill C-10 clause by clause in committee, which is the normal and right legislative process here in this place. The government does not want any more problems to be discovered with its bill, and it is plagued with them, by the way.

Why is the government shutting us down? It is nothing less than a gag order.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, no other democratic country in the world uses its broadcasting act to censor what Canadians post online. Let that sink in for just a moment.

It would appear that the Prime Minister wants Canada to be likened to countries like North Korea and Communist China. Experts have called Bill C-10 the most regressive piece of legislation they have ever seen.

Why is the Liberal government so determined to rush it through, to silence our voices and to move on this piece of legislation that it is shutting down debate within committee?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-10. The NDP supports Bill C-10. The Greens support Bill C-10. Obviously, the government supports Bill C-10 and artists across the country support Bill C-10.

The real question is, why has the Conservative Party decided to side with some of the wealthiest companies in the world, such as Google, instead of supporting our artists?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, “how low can they go” is the name of the game when it comes to free speech with the Liberals and their attack, time and time again.

Bill C-10 undeniably threatens the voices of Canadian creators. MPs have contended for them by standing up for their voices and their right to both freely express and be freely heard. What the government is doing now is nothing less than a gag order. Censoring the voices of creators was not enough. Now it is having to stop members of Parliament from debating this atrocious bill at committee.

Why is that?