This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal
In committee (Senate), as of June 29, 2021
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.
Over the past few weeks, I've given several interviews about Bill C-10, and you'll probably have noticed that I've never mentioned the filibuster that your party is doing. Perhaps...
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses who are with us today.
If I may, Minister, I would like to start by setting the record straight a little bit. For some time now, you seem to have had a narrative that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP were in full agreement to delete proposed section 4.1 in Bill C-10. I would just like to put this in context and explain the process by which discussions take place between the parties in an effort to save time and make our committee work as efficiently as possible.
We had amendments to suggest for proposed section 4.1. The Bloc Québécois initially advocated amending proposed section 4.1. We wanted to keep it, but remove the exclusion given to social media, while preserving the exclusion given to social media users.
However, in our discussions, people in your party, Minister, suggested instead that we delete proposed section 4.1 and introduce new amendments to add other provisions in this regard, which we agreed with, I admit. However, it should not be said that this was a collaborative proposal and that we were happy with it right off the bat. We would have preferred to amend proposed section 4.1; that was our original proposal.
So, there is an important nuance here, and I wanted to make that clear.
That being said, we're also hearing a lot lately that the opposition parties as a whole are blocking the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10.
Now, Minister, I would like to ask you a question, in all candour.
At the very beginning of the impasse that we are in right now, after the first meeting that we had where the Conservative Party members raised the issue of deleting proposed section 4.1, we talked to each other. I told you that a solution that would work for everyone would be to reopen the debate on section 3 of Bill C-10, which proposes the new section 4.1 for the act, that we amend that section, and proceed. I have proposed that.
Do you think that would have been a good idea, Minister?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I think there is a mistake in the premise of your question. Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. It is about giving us the tools to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share in cultural matters...
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
The first version of Bill C-10 that the committee received was at that time our best interpretation of what modernization of the Broadcasting Act should be. However, as soon as the bill was introduced, I was the first to say that it could be improved.
All political parties represented on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, including the Conservative Party, as well as many stakeholders, spoke out to argue that proposed section 4.1 created too broad an exemption. As Mr. Waugh said, under this section, the act would not have applied to a platform like YouTube, which is the largest music distributor in Canada today. This exemption was therefore too broad. As a result of these interventions, we decided to delete the proposed section.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes, but you answered that question earlier.
Now I would like to know why, in the original version of Bill C-10, you had proposed to add section 4.1 to the act.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized, you may recall, was under a Conservative government. That government put in place the entire regulatory ecosystem that we have today for conventional broadcasting. What we are trying to do through Bill C-10 is to adapt the regulations to the Web giants, who are becoming more and more important in the current ecosystem.
You mentioned net neutrality. As you know...
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
That's fine. That's a good answer, especially since the Prime Minister also said he would defend net neutrality wholeheartedly. The Minister of Canadian Heritage before you, Ms. Joly, also said this in the cultural policy she introduced. She even said that the government agreed on the principle of net neutrality.
Internet neutrality is defined as “a principle that should ensure equal treatment of all data flows on the Internet”. This includes everyone.
Navdeep Bains, while he was Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, said this: “Net neutrality is one of the critical issues of our time, much like freedom of the press and freedom of expression before it.”
Mr. Lametti, while serving as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, said this:
It is clear that the open Internet is a remarkable platform for economic growth, innovation and social progress in Canada and around the world. It is essential to a modern digital economy and society. Many activities depend on it, including access to health care, education, [...], and entertainment. More broadly, it is vital for freedom of expression, diversity and our democratic institutions. A flourishing and vibrant democracy is possible only when citizens are able to communicate and access information freely. [...] Our government supports an open Internet [...]
You introduced Bill C-10. You did mention at the outset that its purpose was to restore the balance, in terms of regulation, between digital and conventional broadcasters. Just so everyone understands, we're talking about Netflix, Disney+ and other digital platforms that compete with broadcasters like TVA, CBC/Radio-Canada and CTV. This could also apply to radio stations.
In the process, you chose to delete the originally proposed section 4.1. I would like to know why this section was proposed in the bill in the first place.
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, members of the committee.
I’m joining you from Montréal, on the traditional lands of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
I am pleased to appear before you to discuss Bill C-10, the explanatory document the Department of Justice drafted in response to your request, and the impact of your committee’s amendments to Bill C-10.
I have with me officials from my department, as you said, Mr. Chair, as well as senior officials from the Department of Justice. I am delighted to contribute to your review of the bill.
I would like to begin by thanking this committee for its important work to date.
Since Bill C-10 was introduced, the cultural sector, broadcasters and experts have given us—and you too, I’m sure—much food for thought. They have provided input and support on updating the Broadcasting Act across the country.
Our broadcasters, our production sector and the cultural sector as a whole are counting on this new legislative tool to continue to flourish on digital platforms.
They are counting on this tool to level the playing field between conventional broadcasters and digital platforms. In other words, the bill is about restoring a balance that the arrival of the Web giants has skewed very seriously in their own favour at the expense of local people and businesses.
If we do not modernize the act, within a few years, our creators, artists and musicians risk losing up to a billion dollars annually.
However, if we move forward with Bill C-10, the Department of Canadian Heritage predicts that by 2023, online broadcasters could be contributing up to $830 million per year to Canadian content and creators.
Let's remember that the audiovisual and interactive media industry employs nearly 160,000 Canadians every year. According to the 2016 census, the median annual income for core artist groups, such as musicians, singers, authors, writers, producers and directors, was only $24,300, which is well below the $43,500 median for all workers.
To make matters worse, this industry is still suffering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the years to come, the positive impacts of Bill C-10 will stimulate industry growth and increase the visibility of our stories and our artists.
Canadians also support this initiative. More than seven out of ten Canadians feel that more needs to be done to promote Canadian and Quebec audiovisual content in the country, and almost half say that this content is not easy to find.
Although some have the view that any type of regulation for web giants is too much, most Canadians believe that we must act: 78% of Canadians agree that streamers need the same rules as those of Canadian broadcasters; 81% support the principle that Facebook and Google should pay more for news; and 83% support some form of accountability for these companies for the content shared on their platforms.
The first objective of the bill is to ensure equity between conventional and digital broadcasters and to ensure that social media platforms that act as broadcasters are also contributing to our cultural industry.
Another objective is to promote Canadian cultural expression in all its diversity, including that of indigenous and racialized communities.
The goal is not to regulate content generated by users, such as videos of our children, friends and colleagues. It never was. And it never will be.
However, one thing is clear: more and more Canadians are listening to their favourite music and artists on social media. Right now, YouTube is the most popular online music listening service in the country.
Witnesses who appeared before this committee showed that section 4.1, as drafted in the original version of Bill C-10, could allow social media platforms to get away with just about anything. They also demonstrated that section 4.1 did not take into account how these types of services are used to deliver professional content, such as content put online by record companies.
While other online businesses would be required to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, social media platforms would not. How could we justify imposing obligations on Spotify, Apple Music or QUB Musique, but not on YouTube, a Google subsidiary?
Following the constructive debate at second reading of the bill, all opposition parties, including the Conservative Party, deplored the fact that social networks were not covered by the bill.
Let me give you a few examples.
On November 19, the Conservative MP from Saskatoon—Grasswood, Mr. Waugh, told the House of Commons the following:
It is deeply disappointing that the government's proposals are so incredibly lacking. I am going to focus in on four points today. First, the legislation does nothing to address social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, and their various properties, such as YouTube, to pay its fair share.
On March 26, he also added—again, this is the beginning of the quote:
To the Professional Music Publishers' Association, you're right on about YouTube. It is not regulated in Bill C-10, and everybody is using YouTube. We are going to have an issue. As you pointed out, correctly, this should be regulated and it's not.
That’s why it was not surprising that on April 23, a majority of the members of this committee, including those of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, agreed that first, section 4.1 should be withdrawn, and that the CRTC’s powers should subsequently be restricted with respect to social media platforms.
We know that these platforms are very different from conventional broadcasters. The amendments proposed by my parliamentary secretary last week limit the CRTC's power to three main requirements: Number one, platforms must provide information about their revenues; number two, they must contribute financially to the Canadian cultural ecosystem and, finally, they must increase the visibility of Canadian creators.
All of this would be done without ever preventing anyone from putting their own content online and sharing it, or forcing anyone to watch anything against their will. In other words, you and I, like all Canadians, would continue to enjoy the same freedom online that we enjoy now.
I've said it before and I will say it again: We're not targeting individuals; we are targeting the web giants, which are almost all American companies. Our goal is simple, to get these multi-billion dollar companies that generate hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada every year to do their part to make sure our creators and artists are better paid and more visible online.
We must remember that Canadian radio, television and cable companies have been subject to similar obligations for more than 50 years. In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.
In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.
Bill C-10 recognizes that there is a large diversity of digital business models. It provides ample flexibility to craft common sense rules that will evolve over time as technology changes and Canadians’ habits for accessing culture change.
Once again, let me be very clear: there is no question of censoring what individuals post on social media.
I would also like to point out that the Department of Justice, in its updated analysis of the bill as amended by the committee, confirms that the bill is still consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Internet is dominated by a few massive American companies whose algorithms dictate what we see, what we hear and what we consume. We are inundated with their information. Many of our artists and creators, especially francophones, indigenous and racialized people, have a hard time being heard.
Far from limiting anyone's freedom of expression, Bill C-10 wants to give more visibility to these artists and creators to ensure a greater diversity of voices and perspectives, to counter homogenization and to assert our cultural sovereignty over foreign companies that are only accountable to their shareholders.
I hope the committee will resume its work and quickly move Bill C-10 back to the House of Commons. As always, I would be delighted to support you in your work. I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hello, everyone.
Welcome back to the 33rd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to order of reference on February 16, and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format as you can see across the screen. Again, I ask for your patience as we try to deal with this. Please only speak when recognized. Talking over each other under normal circumstances doesn't serve well, and, of course, being in a hybrid situation, or a virtual situation, it makes it even worse.
That being said, there's also one final rule I neglected to mention last time, and that is screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted, please.
One final warning, we are televised today so I hope you are sounding and looking your best as we get on with our meeting.
As you know, thanks to a motion we have appearing before us right now the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding Bill C-10. Also from the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Thomas Owen Ripley, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace; and Drew Olsen, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.
From the Department of Justice, we invited the Minister of Justice. We received correspondence, and we have been advised that Minister Lametti respectfully declines the invitation. However, we do have from the Department of Justice Nathalie Drouin, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Sarah Geh, director general, human rights law section; and Michael Himsl, legal counsel, also from Canadian Heritage.
That being said, we go back to our original format of witnesses. What we normally do is we allow the chief witness up to 10 minutes to speak, and then we have questions and comments from members of the committee. We follow, based on our old regime, our old order of precedence, when it comes to questions.
Mr. Waugh, I see your hand up.
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, Canada's analysis confirms that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the Charter's guarantee of freedom of speech. As a government, we have upheld, and we will continue to uphold, Canadians' fundamental rights.
I would like to confirm once again that individuals posting to social media are specifically excluded in Bill C-10. Also, to be clear, of the obligations for social media companies in the bill, none would require them to restrict or review posts by individuals.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, let me clarify: When the member says that the bill would make certain artists discoverable, what she means is that it would move some up in the queue and some down in the queue; it would pick winners and losers. It is sneaky, controlling and wrong.
If this bill had been in place when Shawn Mendes was a young, aspiring artist posting to YouTube, where his popularity began, the government's Internet czar likely would have demoted him because his songs are, well, just not Canadian enough.
Will the minister truly support Canada's young artists and cancel Bill C-10? The question is for the minister, please.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, when it comes to content creation on YouTube, Canadians punch above their weight. Now, the government wants to step in and determine who gets to be noticed and who has to be hidden; who gets to succeed and, well, who gets to lose.
If Bill C-10 had been in place when Justin Bieber was just a kid posting his music on YouTube, he probably would not have been discovered because his songs just are not Canadian enough, according to the government's approval test. I ask members to let that sink in, for just a moment. Why is the minister moving ahead with a bill that punishes young artists?
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Madam Speaker, the heritage minister has dismissed and insulted critics of Bill C-10 as “extremist” while peddling his own tin-hatted conspiracy theory about big tech being in cahoots with Canadian academics just to spread disinformation about his bill.
Despite all the backlash and the minister's vague promises of future clarity amid his own incoherent and contradictory statements, the bill remains “a full-blown assault” on freedom of expression.
Remember, this minister is a lifelong, radical, anti-energy activist. He admits that the whole point of Bill C-69 was to ensure that no Canadian energy project ever gets built again, and now he wants the power to regulate online content to be, in his words, consistent with the government's vision.
To the energy workers who have lost their jobs at the hands of this government's vision, the prospect of this minister and his government regulating their posts should be terrifying. However, if this deeply flawed bill passes in this Parliament, do not worry, a Conservative government will appeal it in the next one.
Bill C-15—Time Allocation MotionUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Madam Speaker, the minister has claimed that somehow there has been Conservative dilatory tactics used and he has to move time allocation, yet that has not been the case. Maybe the minister could give us the real reasons why time allocation is being moved.
I know he has so far refused to attend the heritage committee hearings on Bill C-10, even though he has been ordered to do so. Perhaps, is he moving time allocation so he can clear his schedule to enable him to appear at that committee as he has been asked to?
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, I have big shoes to fill in following my colleague from Shefford, who is always eloquent and on point. It is my turn to congratulate her on her speech.
It is unbelievable. I am somewhat appalled to see our Liberal colleagues speak so passionately in this debate on Bill C-19. I think that, had he known they were so passionate about the subject, the Prime Minister might have thought twice before forcing closure on it. It seems to me they really need to talk about it.
I believe we are all of one mind in saying that a pandemic is not the time to hold an election. The motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois today is plain common sense. It simply reminds us that an election was held in October 2019, that 1.3 million Canadians, including almost 360,000 Quebeckers, have been infected by COVID-19, that nearly 25,000 people have died as a result and that, in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and the government must make every effort to ensure that it does not happen. It is a common sense motion.
I get that the government wants to be ready in case the opposition parties decide to bring it down. That is the cheap excuse the government is using, but we are not naive, and neither are Quebeckers. The only reason the Liberals want to pass Bill C-19 is that they expect an election in the coming months. I think it is as simple as that.
I think it is irresponsible of the government to even be thinking about an election, never mind doing everything it can to blame it on the opposition parties. I think that is the height of cowardice. Under normal circumstances, yes, there would probably have been an election this year, or maybe even before now because the Liberals, quite frankly, are just not rising to the occasion. They do not seem worthy of the trust that voters placed in them.
There are some fairly recent examples, like that of the Minister of National Defence, who took no action on allegations of sexual misconduct against the former chief of the defence staff, and the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, who did nothing to save French-language programs at Laurentian University. She even said that her government would take action to reverse the current anglicization of Quebec. We are still waiting. In the meantime, Quebec had the time to come up with its reform of Bill 101, which was introduced today.
Another example that is very important to me is that of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who has difficulty putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to greenhouse gas reductions. In fact, his actions encourage businesses to increase their emissions. For example, he granted exemptions to DuPont and Owens Corning, which are manufacturing giants. These exemptions let them ignore the new standards established by his own department for the manufacture of XPS insulation board. I mention this because it was done to the detriment of companies such as Soprema, which is a well-established company in my riding of Drummond that has suffered huge financial losses just because it agreed to comply with these new standards.
There is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who has been in the hot seat a lot recently. He still has not come up with a solution to the urgent problem facing our print media, which have been suffering for years because of GAFAM, which is taking advertising revenues on the backs of our journalism content creators. This is to say nothing of the current impasse on Bill C-10 and how the government is managing that file.
In fact, the only minister who did something and took full responsibility was the former minister of finance. I am talking about when he resigned, of course.
If this government knew how to collaborate, listen and govern in a minority context, it would not have such a hard time convincing us of its good faith. Instead, rather than listening to the criticisms and comments of the opposition parties, it prefers to act like a two-year-old child.
When kids are two or three, they go through a phase of saying no. The Liberals are going through that phase right now. They say no to health transfers. They say no to increasing the old age pension starting at age 65. They say no to a single tax return for Quebec. They say no to applying the digital services tax to Netflix, Amazon Prime and other subscription-based content streaming companies. They say no to print media, as I just mentioned.
In fact, they say no to good suggestions from the Bloc Québécois, but those good suggestions will likely become more appealing at election time because we know that the Bloc Québécois proposes things that reflect the interests and demands of Quebec.
I experienced this “no” phase with my own children. They went through it. It is so annoying. It is tiresome and counterproductive. They are so stubborn that there is no way to make them listen to reason. That was at age two. Now we are stuck with a government that is in its “no” phase.
If there is an election during this pandemic, we can conclude that all of the measures announced in the budget were probably meant to become election promises. There is nothing concrete. The government simply made announcements without any follow-up. The Liberals have been doing this since well before the 2019 election.
One example is that the government is promising an inadequate increase to old age security in 2022. Their motto seems to be “why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?”
The government announced $1.3 billion to support the cultural and tourism sectors. The government had the opportunity with its budget implementation bill to include a number of proposed measures to support the cultural and tourism sectors. These sectors would finally have gotten the money they so urgently need. However, the government did not do this.
Two years ago, the Prime Minister promised that his government was going to plant two billion trees by 2030. That comes out to 200 million trees a year. That announcement sounds great, but I do not think that many trees have been planted so far. In fact, I am not even sure there have been many shovels in the ground since 2019.
Since we cannot count on the Liberals for that, I thought maybe the 184 opposition members could give them a hand. According to my calculations, if we decide to do the work for them, every MP will have to plant 10,869,565.2 trees. I do not want to brag, but I have already planted two trees in my yard, and I believe my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has planted one or two as well. We are ahead of the game. Other MPs will have to catch up with us because there is a long way to go.
As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in his book, The Prince, to govern, one must make others believe. The Liberals have read the book, and they are putting that theory into practice.
According to a Global News study published on April 18, 57% of voters feel that an election during the pandemic would be unfair. Another survey, this one by Leger, shows that 60% of Canadians do want an election, but they want it to happen later, at least after the fall.
The opposition parties are not the only ones against holding an election in a pandemic. Over 22 million Canadians feel the same way. The Liberals have been getting ready to trigger an election for a while now. In an article published in Le Devoir, journalist Boris Proulx wrote that, in the fall of 2020, candidates under consideration received invitations, in the form of letters addressed to them, to run under the Liberal banner. In the same article, he wrote that, in a year-end interview with CBC, the Prime Minister let slip the words “next year's election”, referring to this year. Either his subconscious is playing tricks on him or plans have been laid.
Why is the government in such a hurry to call an election? I use the word “hurry” because Bill C-19 has been languishing on someone's desk for four months now, and suddenly, the government leader put it on the agenda, with only four hours of debate and time allocation. We are not the only ones wondering about this. The media has often talked about the Liberals' intentions, wisdom or opportunism in trying to trigger an election.
In January 2021, Louis Lacroix, a Cogeco Media host, said that, if he were prime minister, he would want to hold elections as quickly as possible, because once the vaccine begins to have an impact a few months from now and the pandemic starts to recede, we will have time to analyze all these programs and spot the mistakes that were made, which will come back to bite the Prime Minister.
The government would like to have an election because things are getting better and better. The vaccine rollout is generally going well, and we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
In closing, I will repeat what Bernard Drainville, a radio host on 98.5, had to say. On Monday morning, he said that if the government wants to change the election act, it must seek as broad a consensus as possible. He also mentioned that changes were made unanimously in Quebec.
What the the Bloc Québécois is proposing is to have the leaders of the four parties meet to discuss the proper way to do things and reach a consensus, as befits a subject that is so important to the people we represent. It is just common sense.
The Bloc Québécois has always been clear about what it expects for Quebeckers. When the government criticizes us for voting against the budget, that makes me feel quite cynical because we have always made it very clear that we would support the budget if it included an OAS increase for seniors 65 and up and higher health transfers, which Quebec and the provinces were unanimous in calling for. The government knew that it would not get the Bloc Québécois's support without those things.
The Bloc said in advance what it wanted. Its demands were transparent. When it votes against a budget that does not contain those things, whose fault is that? Is it the Bloc Québécois's fault? I think not.