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.

[Alain Saulnier]

You have to remember what it was like at the time. Steve Jobs became a major creative celebrity. We were all obsessed and enthralled by the creativity and modernity of these people. I'm talking about people like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos.

In a way, I think that successive governments—the Conservatives and the Liberals—until recently had the impression that it would be unwise to do battle against the Internet giants. Remember the Netflix tax. People said that it shouldn't be introduced. Remember also that there was an outcry in Quebec, because the media and the cultural milieu decided instead that something had to be done.

If we were too slow, it's because we were impressed and mesmerised by the power of these Internet giants, which oozed modernity.

We are beginning to put all of that into a framework, which is all to the good. However, we lost a full year over Bill C‑10, which died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Personally, I believe that the longer we wait, the longer we will be stuck with the law of the jungle that I alluded to earlier.

At the CBC, people were telling us that it was important to be on Facebook. What happened? We went on Facebook. All the media shot themselves in the foot at the time because it meant that we were becoming increasingly marginalized. You can't allow access to the media through social networks. Things have to be done differently. The media have to be very strong.

[Nathalie Guay]

Thank you very much for the question. I'd be glad to answer it.

I found the methodology used for the calculation at the Canadian Heritage site. I'd be happy to send you the information. It clearly explains how these amounts were determined for both the audiovisual and music sectors.

We would like to point out four major differences between Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11. First, in Bill C‑10, there is a mention of “original programs in French”, whereas in Bill C‑11, unfortunately, the reference is to “original French language programs”. In addition, it's important to us that the expression “official language minority communities” be put back into Bill C‑11.

Then there is the question of the factors that would encourage independent producers to own the intellectual property. I'm talking about the new section that provides guidelines for the definition of Canadian programs.

Finally, with respect to paragraph 3(1)(a) of Bill C‑11, which concerns the fact that the Canadian system ought to be the property of Canadians and under their control, we would propose a different wording, because we believe that the changes made could make it easier for foreign undertakings to acquire Canadian undertakings.

Of course, there is also the new item on social media. We had been satisfied with the final wording in Bill C‑10. Now, we consider the sandbox, as it has been called, to be an acceptable solution. We are very much looking forward to the next phase so that the CRTC can do the work of reviewing the data. We're hearing a lot about how this might play out, and about the various types of regulations that could affect social media. However, it's important to remember that the first phase consists of conducting an analysis and that this can only be done once there is enough transparency and data sharing among the principal stakeholders and the CRTC.

[Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the three groups that are in front of us here this afternoon.

I'll start with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. I believe you were in front of us on Bill C-10, so what's changed, in your mind, between Bill C-10 and Bill C-11?

Nathalie, I noticed that you talked about the $830 million that was supposed to be generated. At the time, it was Minister Guilbeault. Nobody substantiated that $830 million. Nobody knew where that number came from. To be honest with you, as a hypothetical number, the minister at the time said that would be the windfall for Canadian producers. Maybe you can comment on that, because you did bring up the number of $830 million.

[Nathalie Guay, Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Nathalie Guay, the Executive Director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which has only a few requests to make with a view to improving Bill C‑11.

First, the broadcasting system must continue to promote Canadian talent. The suggested wording of paragraph 3(1)(f) establishes two regimes. The first sets higher expectations for Canadian undertakings, including online Canadian undertakings, with respect to the use of Canadian creative resources, expenses related to Canadian programming, contributions to the fund for the support of content development and efforts to promote Canadian programming. The second regime opens the door to reduced requirements on foreign online companies in these areas.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the Canadian Heritage estimate that the bill could lead to the injection of an additional $830 million per year in our ecosystems was largely based on an estimate of spending on Canadian programming and on a contribution comparable to the current obligations of Canadian broadcasting undertakings. With a two tier system, there is a risk of setting this objective aside, not to mention the fact that an imbalance is being introduced between the respective obligations of Canadian undertakings and foreign undertakings.

Second, we think that the CRTC orders need to be subject to the possibility of an appeal to the Governor in Council to have them cancelled or referred back to the CRTC for review and a new hearing. It would simply adapt the current provision in the Broadcasting Act to the new regulatory framework. In addition, it could strengthen both parties' confidence in the CRTC.

Third, we would like to see a public hearing process for orders. We think that this would encourage a more effective way of factoring in the various points of view, particularly with respect to potential stakeholders' varying levels of experience and resources, and also because hearings provide an opportunity to respond to the arguments of other parties.

Fourth, we suggest an amendment to subsection 8(2) to allow for providing full representations concerning a notice rather than simply a summary.

Fifth, we would like the committee to reintroduce a number of terms that had been adopted in the former legislative instrument, Bill C‑10. I could explain that in further detail if anyone would like me to.

To conclude, we are not proposing any changes to the social media provisions. The government has already tightened this up by proposing criteria that the CRTC should use for its analysis. We also believe that adding further details would make the framework less flexible and would create loopholes that would make the new framework obsolete.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Jérôme Payette]

No, I don't believe they do.

The CRTC hasn't done anything for the past 20 years. We've been consulted since 2016 on the modernization of the act. At the time, it was within the “Creative Canada” policy framework. After that, if memory serves me, there was a CRTC report, followed by the report from the group of experts on the Yale review panel. Then there was Bill C‑10.

We are now studying Bill C‑11. This will be followed by a period during which the CRTC will gather information, which is the usual way of proceeding. It will really take the time required to properly understand what's going on and take established objectives into account. That will lead to the creation of regulations.

It's therefore still going to take quite a while for this to reach people in the field, the entrepreneurs I represent and the artists they work with. We don't have time to wait much longer. Bill C‑11 has to be adopted and the CRTC has to remain flexible.

I don't know how much speaking time I have left, but I could say more about Ms. Fortier's comments, if you don't mind.

[Ted Falk]

Okay. Thank you for that and thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Geist, you've written on Bill C-11, just as you did previously on Bill C-10. Can you articulate what you believe the government's objectives are and also how they should have drafted the bill to achieve those?

[Peter Menzies]

Yes. It would be useful to see what is planned for this one. When Bill C-10 went forward, there was one. A draft, at least, OIC was posted. We haven't seen one yet on this.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I'm a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. I'm appearing in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

As you're surely aware, I've been quite critical of Bill C-11. I'd like to start by emphasizing that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for culture nor of regulation of technology companies. I think that public support for culture is essential and that one of the core problems in this area is that our current CanCon rules don't achieve their stated objectives.

As Peter Grant, a member of the Yale report panel and a long-time advocate for Internet regulation, recently noted, certified CanCon “doesn't have to look Canadian or be about a Canadian story.” I don't think that's how Canadians think about CanCon, and our rules should be changed to become better aligned with our policy objectives. Further, I agree with former Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who recently noted with respect to Internet platforms that there's a need for legislated transparency, accountability and rules on data governance and privacy.

Given my limited time, I'd like to focus on two main issues this morning. These are Bill C-11's regulation of user content and its overbroad regulatory approach, and the need for greater certainty.

First, I'll discuss the regulation of user content. When Minister Rodriguez introduced this bill, he stated, “we listened to the concerns around social media and we fixed it.” With respect, many of the concerns remain intact. While the proposed section 4.1 exception for user content was reinstated, proposed subsection 4.1(2) and proposed section 4.2, which together provide for the prospect of CRTC regulations on user content, were added.

The bottom line is that user content is treated as a program, and the CRTC is empowered to create regulations applicable to programs that are uploaded to social media services. Non-commercial, user-generated content may be out, but user content that generates even indirect revenue is subject to potential inclusion within the regulations. As you just heard, you don't need to take my word for it. As you know, when asked at this committee last week about whether the bill included the potential for regulating user content, the CRTC chair Ian Scott acknowledged, “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required”.

You may ask why any of this matters. Bill C-11 permits the creation of regulations on the presentation of programs to the public, and since it treats all audiovisual content anywhere in the world as a program, the potential regulatory scope is vast. Those regulations identify but aren't limited to discoverability. Discoverability has rightly attracted attention, since applying it to user content is both unworkable, as we don't have a mechanism to determine what qualifies, and potentially harmful to Canadian creators who may find their works downgraded globally.

The solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way, and it should be removed from the bill because it doesn't belong in the Broadcasting Act. In the alternative, remove all of the regulatory powers associated with user content, but leave in the potential for contributions by user content platforms.

Second, I have a few comments about the overbreadth and uncertainty with this bill, which, as currently structured, covers any audiovisual content anywhere in the world. As a Canadian Heritage department memo on the issue noted with Bill C-10, that includes video games, news sites, niche streaming services and workout videos. I recognize that this may not be the government's intent, and there is an expectation of a policy direction that creates some limits and the CRTC itself may decide to establish some others. However, I believe there is a clear need for thresholds and limitations in the legislation itself. Without it, services may regard the regulatory uncertainty—which you heard last week could take years to sort out—and block Canada, leading to less choice and higher consumer costs.

If the goal is to target the large streaming services or to exempt video games or niche streamers, say so in the legislation. While we're doing that, borrow from the European Union's approach of distinguishing between curated and non-curated services, and use that as a way of establishing more targeted regulatory requirements or exemptions.

There's certainly more to discuss, including the myriad of concerns about the CRTC: the current lack of transparency, the cloud of bias and the potential for government to overstep on CRTC decisions into program regulation. There are also the outdated CanCon rules that I noted earlier and the actual data on investment in film and television production.

I'll stop there. I look forward to your questions.

[Ian Scott]

Financially, the government gave us two years of funding to implement Bill C-10, now BillC-11, to do the preparatory work. We've had the first year's funding and will receive the second year's funding shortly, I anticipate, and that is adequate to do the preparatory work. Thereafter, there will need to be a review of the precise budgetary requirements, but it will largely get collected from the fee-payers. That's why I described the regime.

So, yes, we have the necessary funding to do the work we must do right now. I don't know if I've answered your question well.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

Let me come to you on Bill C-11 for a second, which was previously Bill C-10. There have been a number of people commenting in various places that somehow this bill and then the CRTC would choose to regulate social media posts of non-commercial, individual users.

Could you clarify whether the CRTC has that nefarious intention?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much. I raise that because this was an issue that was raised the last time we looked at Bill C-10.

If the government hadn't asked you to look at a channel within a certain amount of time, do you have the powers to, for example, say, “There is a Chinese state broadcaster. We're concerned about it. We are proactively looking at it”?

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted by the indignation of the Liberal side on this debate. The member speaks about dysfunction in the House. It is their House, as government, to manage, and it is obvious that they are so dysfunctional in managing the House that they cannot get legislation through.

Last night, the Liberals adjourned the House two and a half hours early, after cancelling committees so that we could have interpretation services available and other House services that were required. They sent those people home early and sent the whole House home two and a half hours early after they had scheduled it to sit until midnight last night.

We have to really question what is behind this determination to serve time allocation notice on the bill before us. What is coming behind it? We have seen previous legislation, such as Bill C-10 now Bill C-11, which will be coming through for debate. Is this an effort to get things out of the way so that they can push that forward through time allocation as well?

I hear NDP members rail against the procedural tools that we have to hold this government accountable. For years, in Parliament after Parliament, they railed against time allocation votes. Here they are, after this marriage of the NDP-Liberal government, now joining in with the Liberals in supporting time allocation votes. I question what really is behind all of this rush to get legislation through and to silence the opposition that we are here to provide, having been elected by the people that we represent.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes, I am just a little concerned. Obviously it's a unanimous consent motion, so there is usually not a lot of debate, but I am a little concerned about the clause-by-clause section and whether or not there will be enough resources for us to be able to have a proper process.

As I said, from seeing how terrible Bill C-10 was in the last Parliament, when people literally were voting on things without knowing it, I would just ask to see if maybe we should suspend so that we can have confirmation from someone. Maybe the clerk can look into that to see if we will have enough resources at that time, because if there are not enough resources for us to have clause-by-clause in a proper process, I won't be able to give unanimous consent.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm glad that Mr. Chambers is here to keep some of us in line. They're giving themselves until June 10.

Why? It's because as independent and regionally or conservatively minded senators, they have decided among themselves that the best way for them to balance between presenting legislation promised by an elected government to properly scrutinizing bills.... I'd be really interested to see how many ministers and how many hours ministers are required for in the other place versus the simple one hour that we got here.

By the way, I do think we can improve that process. If a minister is going to come for one hour, we should only be giving them a five-minute introduction, because that really did cut down the amount of time the rest of us had to really do what our focus is, which is holding the government to account.

I know you'll take that, Mr. Chair, and you and the clerk will try to work on that, or at least I'm hoping.

I'm looking to see, Mr. Chair, that you're listening. Okay, there's a dutiful nod. Anyway, I'll take what I can get. Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me that nod so I know that I'm not just speaking into the ether.

I've talked a little bit so far about previous experiences, whether it be the miscellaneous tax amendment bill of close to 700 or maybe 800 pages that in the 41st Parliament the NDP wanted to look through, even though most of those laws had already been through the ways and means motion process or acted like it was....

I've talked a little bit about Bill C-12 and how that really strained what was really a well-functioning committee, and the absolute gong show that happened. Again, if you listened to Michael Geist interview the former heritage chair, Liberal member Scott Simms, you'd know that the process did not do anyone right.

I would like us to avoid those issues, Mr. Chair. I would like us to actually see better communication and for the government to start saying, maybe we have to make the committee process work for everyone and not just simply for a few members here and there. They should actually say, perhaps...and if they don't want to agree with me, then they can maybe agree with Mr. Chambers. I can understand not wanting to say that they agree with the member of Parliament for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola because that might be publicly frowned upon, but at least I would hope they would say that they would agree with MP Chambers.

Again, I have talked about how this process could be improved. I've been speaking with some of my Conservative colleagues. We're not at a stage where we can talk about that because right now we're discussing a subamendment to MP Ste-Marie's amendment, but I just have to say again that the process the government is pursuing here is not the right way to do it.

I would hope that the government is getting the drift of where Conservatives are coming from. I think that a reasonable timeline would allow us to get back on track. Unfortunately, the unreasonable timeline that we have, the programming in the original motion and the subamendment that we have here have created a sense of bad faith among members of the committee.

What we've seen with the passage of just the short time between our Monday meeting and today is that this schedule, again, which looked ambitious then, right now is just looking like Bill C-10 or Bill C-12 from the last Parliament waiting to happen.

We pitched over 46 witnesses, from right across this great country, and we want to hear from them. That's where I think the government members need to just simply back off of the process we have ahead, table the motion, get committee witnesses in and let's go through them all. They can always come back with a motion.

We actually have some ideas about a much more reasonable timeline, but unfortunately at this stage of debate we can't do that.

Let's be mindful that we didn't really have to put out a call for witnesses. They were coming to us. I'm sure that MP Ste-Marie's phone is going off the hook with people wanting to speak with him and wanting to come here. In fact, I saw that the clerk had sent out, to all committee members, other witnesses who have suggested that they want to appear before the committee outside of the usual process of speaking to individual members. Why? It is because they want to be heard by this government.

I'm not going to claim that all of our witnesses are the right ones. There might be others who other members might have heard from who right now we can't hear from because this government has chosen to start with a programming motion rather than letting a process evolve.

There is always a time, Mr. Chair, when either the compromises that MP Dzerowicz spoke of need to come together or there needs to be a democratic vote, but we are not at that time right now.

I would also say that one thing that is missing from Mr. Beech's subamendment is any reference to our being able to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer in addition to hearing from the Minister of Industry or having the Minister of Finance come back. I know the PBO pays particularly close attention to the tax-related measures and financial figures put out by the government. I think that would be a much better improvement to the subamendment that MP Beech has put out here.

Again, I should disassociate that. It's not fair to MP Beech to always make this program motion his, because really at the end of the day he's a parliamentary secretary, and this was written by someone else. At least I hope he would clarify if I'm mistaken on that point, Mr. Chair.

I say that because the Minister of Finance is a busy minister. In fact I think she's too busy.

I'm just going to talk quickly about this, because I think that is the direct reason she's not here in the subamendment by MP Beech. I think she'd be cross with him if she were in here, but I think it's worth pointing out that the job of being finance minister is busy enough as it is. A deputy prime minister, Mr. Chair, I can only imagine is so much more, and again it's not up to the Deputy Prime Minister in her function as that, or as the Minister of Finance, to decide what her job is. That is the Prime Minister's job.

The Prime Minister by putting those two roles together, despite the talents of any individual, Mr. Chair.... I think this is a point that needs to made: She doesn't have the time. She doesn't have the time to stay more than an hour at this committee. She doesn't have the time to answer conclusively questions by members. In fact, again, the process of giving her 10 minutes.... Look, I'd love to give every minister 20 minutes if we had three hours. To me that would be fair, but, again, for a minister to have only 50 minutes spread among all these members here, I just don't think that is a very good process.

I do think that the Prime Minister should be looking into that, because if the Prime Minister wants to have a finance minister who is on top of her file, who is able to come and spend the time with the finance committee to defend her bill, to be able to spend the time, it obviously is not here.

From what I've heard from member of Parliament Mr. Ste-Marie, the luxury tax is not properly designed. We have heard that there wasn't even an economic impact study. There were no jobs and whatnot, and that may reflect that the Department of Finance is not getting enough attention. I do know from speaking to people who worked with former finance minister Jim Flaherty, who is no longer with us, that when you had someone who was completely concentrating on that file, they would ask every question of every proposal that came forward.

Then they would have to bear the scrutiny of members of Parliament whether in the minority years or later in the Harper majority from 2011 to 2015. Not having a finance minister who is also the deputy prime minister would probably also improve this process. Again, this particular motion doesn't include having her come back. I would simply suggest that is something we should all consider. I'm not satisfied with the amount of time that's there.

I saw that president for the wine growers was here on Monday. I'm sure he wanted to give an earful because, when I asked the Minister of Finance about some of the provisions in regard to this government's treatment of their industry, I was deeply disappointed that they were just surface answers when there are so many issues going on here.

To members of the government, if this is a serious discussion we're having and you're truly saying that politics should be about compromise, I do hope that right now you're taking the time to text, to message or to email one another. Again, you don't have to say that you agree with Dan Albas, but you could certainly say that you agree with MP Chambers that we could make a much better process.

I know they've already done that for MP Ste-Marie because he put forward the amendment that they said they, in essence, support.

Time is incredibly important in this place. We have until June 23 where we could actually be discussing legislation. The government has a lot of time, especially now with motion 11 that was passed with the NDP, which gives them the opportunity to extend midnight sittings. Those sittings certainly can have more debate. I'm really upset that I wasn't able to speak to C-19 in the House. I think there are a lot of provisions in here that Canadians largely need to know about.

That's not your fault, Mr. Chair, because a lot of people, believe it or not, don't actually watch the committee work. In fact, I get more responses from people on speeches in the House of Commons because they watch CPAC. They see the chamber functioning, but they don't always get a chance to see us here at committee.

This is really the only place I'm going to get a chance to talk about C-19. I can't talk about C-19 until we have a process that will work for this committee. I will not allow this committee.... At least, I will do my utmost to make sure that this committee fully understands that if we go along with this programming motion—even if it's slightly improved by MP Ste-Marie—to where suddenly we have “recommendations in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday May 20, 2022”, those other committees won't have a chance. That is literally eight days from now and we're still talking about this because that's an unreasonable time frame.

The parliamentary secretary, even though he didn't write this motion that someone in the minister's office.... Maybe it was the minister, but probably it wasn't. Why? You're right, Mr. Chair. She's too busy with too many things. For us to be considering these, I have to say that I don't believe the government has given this committee adequate time. It's certainly not giving other committees adequate time when it comes to consideration of C-19.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair?

If a standing committee listed in (a) chooses not to consider the subject matter of the provisions, it advise the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance by letter, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 13, 2022.

May 13 seems to me a bit of a problem. Why? May 13 is tomorrow. If a committee chooses to say that it's too busy, it's supposed to let you know in formal writing that it is not possible. They won't even have the opportunity to do that, so either we're forcing them to do that or we're forcing them to not respond.

To me, Mr. Chair, as I said, it's time, time, time. This government is too short with the time of others, and rather than letting the parliamentary calendar settle this, and to have all reasonable parties come together by the 23rd, they are pushing not just this committee into a terrible process but other committees into a worse one.

On my point on that, Mr. Chair, if they can't write to you under this motion by tomorrow, what then? Are they obliged to now study it? Are we going to have, because of the M-11 motion, extended sittings where some committees are being cancelled? How are they supposed to get the resources? Is the government going to give us more translators, along with Mr. Beech's motion, or I should say the Minister of Finance's office's motion...?

These are things that they are not commenting on. Again, if they don't reply to you in writing by tomorrow, then they're obliged. When do they call their meetings? Are they supposed to attach committee business? I guess there are just so many unanswered questions here that, obviously, it comes back to my original premise that this is not really a good-faith process. Do you know what? We can simply sit back and be told by a government, by its parliamentary secretary on committee, what we're going to do and what other committees are going to do. It's just not healthy.

It's not what the Liberals promised in 2015. They promised many things. Omnibus legislation, that was out. It didn't happen. Parliamentary secretaries would be non-voting members. That's out. They've always said that the committees are independent. That's out.

I say there needs to be a few things in. One of them is that you have to get Conservatives in a process that we feel is fair. It doesn't mean that we agree with everything in that process, but that we believe the process is fair.

The second thing is that we want to see those witnesses. We want to have them here. We want to ask them questions. We want to see the PBO. We want to see the Minister of Industry. We want to see the Minister of Finance come back and actually show some ministerial accountability for what was, I think.... This is how bad inflation is now. I thought at the start of this it was a 423-page bill. Actually, it's 468. That's the inflation under this government.

I kid, but I would much rather that we be studying that bill and having the Minister of Finance come for a second hour, or having her come here and talk for three hours as was set out by the previous motion on the inflation study. I even think that my colleague, MP Stewart, put forward a very good motion on studying advance pricing arrangements. The decisions made by CRA that have been in the news of late.... We haven't even been able to get to that, because this government is again putting forward a programming motion that has been amended by a Bloc member, or at least may be amended by a Bloc member. That is now being further amended, because the government ultimately wants to control the process. The process itself is not connected to a proper process, the proper scrutiny of it.

I have sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—one of the best committees we have, very important. I would hate to put that committee in a position where they do not have proper process. Because for goodness' sake, if we can't have that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that they can look over some of the issues that are in this bill....

The judges' quadrennial pay review is in this bill. There are Criminal Code amendments, ones even relating to the moon and extending Canada's Criminal Code jurisdiction outside of its waters. In fact, I hear there is water on the moon, so maybe we can argue that there is Canadian water on the moon somehow. I don't know how that will work. I don't think we can apply maritime law to that.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair. I have to read that into the record, because one of our members said specifically that he should be asking former astronaut Marc Garneau, our former transport minister. Do you know what? I wish this government consulted a bit more widely with members of Parliament, even its former ministers. Bring him as a witness, someone says.

That's the thing. There could be other witnesses who have similar experiences. We can ask MPs to come. We can't summon them. It would be quite a meeting to hear about that at the justice and human rights committee.

Again, whether they can schedule all of the hearings to talk about many of these matters.... They can't. I don't think it's feasible. I don't think it's reasonable. I don't think it's possible at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, because what are they studying? They're studying Bill C-5, which is making major changes to our Criminal Code.

The government is essentially saying, yes, we will send these things, but they won't be able to do clause-by-clause and we won't give them any time, and then somehow.... I don't understand how the government thought it would be. Again, I don't blame MP Beech, because I don't think he wrote this, unless he wants to make that point clearer, but May 13 is not doable.

That is a big issue. Other committees will have other things that they are studying. Given that M-11 and the late-night sittings won't allow for many of these committees to happen, they can't possibly meet, or if they do, they can't do clause-by-clause. I guess they could do what the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands has to do and come here as an independent member and table those amendments that way, but they are going to have get started very quickly. Right now, many of them, like the justice committee, are studying Bill C-5.

I don't understand why the government is so firm on these timelines. Why not let us start having witnesses? Do you know what? We have lots of time between June 23 and today. With the right spirit, the spirit that this member here—MP Chambers, an eternal optimist—has had, maybe we can reward some of those people who believe that reasonable minds can set aside some divisions and that we can start moving forward.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? After this particular subamendment is debated by other members, perhaps we can have a vote and it will get defeated. We will then have another motion come forward that is more in line with what MP Chambers was discussing in his intervention. I hope so, because the world needs optimism. We have so many things that are not going well.

I know that the government wants what it wants, but it should also want to have members of Parliament feel that they are doing their jobs. The government should try to empower MPs, because that is what many members of Parliament came here to do. They came here to get a sense that they could ask questions, they could move amendments and they could have a process where they feel that they are part of something. I'm sorry to say that the programming motion and the subsequent subamendment by MP Beech, which may not be from MP Beech himself, doesn't allow for that. It doesn't make us feel like we are in and part of that process.

Again, there are so many things we could be doing here. I would like for us to again be bringing in the CRA commissioner. I would like for us to be talking about competition when it comes to open banking. I would like for us to be talking about.... MP Dzerowicz has talked a bit about the effects that getting rid of trade barriers would have, but, no, we're stuck here because MP Beech and the person who wrote this felt this was the best thing to come forward right now.

To try to somehow jerry-rig a committee, as dignified as the finance committee, is not in the best interests of this committee, and I will not be going forward with my support.

I've mentioned a few things that might have my support. I really do hope that other members have listened to my intervention and that perhaps they are moved. Perhaps they are moved and will move at the appropriate time an amendment. Maybe we could just say, “No, cancel it. This is over. We're not doing this motion.” Maybe MP Beech, himself, realizes now that having a program motion that literally says, “No later than 4 p.m. on Friday, May 13”...I don't even know.

Mr. Chair, can I ask you, through the clerk, how fast could you get a letter out if you needed to? Do you have these letters already prepared? Do you have the letters ready?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that I know how difficult these conversations can sometimes be, and I do like the tenor, the tone, that we have all embraced as members of Parliament. We are all sent here to try to work together.

I will disagree with some of the things my honourable colleague MP Dzerowicz said earlier, but I'll save that for a moment other than to say that I appreciate that these meetings are not only important to our constituents, but they can be long because you can't put a price on democracy. There are rules that have been enshrined in this place to allow committees to function as independently as possible, as MP Chambers said earlier.

There are obviously other tools the government can use such as a House order. It, in fact, directed the study of Bill C-19 to this committee. Ultimately this committee was created to serve the House, but without having further instructions, we have a responsibility to set our own sail.

While the original programming motion that was put forward by MP Beech as the parliamentary secretary was received in good faith by MP Ste-Marie, who I admire very much for his passion for his constituents, for the questioning he's had and the lack of answers he's been able to receive when it comes to the luxury tax and the occasional intervention by my honourable colleague from the NDP, what has happened is that he put that forward, and now we've had a further subamendment to his amendment, which was to try to make sure that there was a proper process.

The government—let's be mindful, Mr. Chair—at the very beginning tried to apply its direction to what is supposed to be an independent committee. Right off the bat, I believe I made it known that it was an issue. I believe I made some arguments about how there were promises by this government to not have parliamentary secretaries on committee. They would occasionally sit down in the corner and listen in thoughtfully so that they could report back to their ministers the goings of this committee, which is a very august body, and I've always enjoyed being on it.

Again, this is a bill, 468 pages, I believe, because when I put it to the minister when she came in for the hour, I said 421. Again, Mr. Chair, you might be mindful that there are a number of pages we did not know about. The government didn't even give us the courtesy in their courtesy copies to say that there's more on the website, even just a note to go along with it, so there are missing pages, which I raised earlier.

As I open my comments today, I go back to the tone that Mr. Chambers presented earlier. In fact, he made a little bit of a joke saying someone had to listen to him, and when he said thank you for staying, they said, “No, I'm the next speaker.” That was very funny. It reminds me of a very similar joke I used to give when I first set out in politics. I said that my goal in any speech or presentation was three things: to be bold, to be brief and then to be gone. Actually, I think it wasn't to be bold. I think it was to be brilliant.

I'm going to let everyone now know that I used to joke that at least you'll get two out of three. I have become a little bit more of a realist, so I'm going to let everyone know not to expect any of the three today.

I'd like to start with why we should be concerned about the programming motion put forward by the parliamentary secretary, and I have already touched on it. Governments are tethered to this institution. They are not the ones who tell us as members of Parliament to have confidence. They're the ones who have to put forward bills that show confidence. In this case, we have a motion that is directly telling us how many presentations we can have. I guess it just gives us a time limit, and it also puts in when we should have clause-by-clause.

The very thoughtful motion by MP Ste-Marie does actually propose that we divide this up, because in those 460-odd pages there are many clauses that pertain to areas of expertise in other committees, and committees like international trade, industry and technology, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—all very important bodies.

When we send something to them, the very premise should be that we are in good faith seeking their responses. Now if you harken back to our last meeting, Mr. Chair, I believe it was confirmed that clause-by-clause would be done only by this committee. Regardless of what those members on those other committees think, ultimately they will not be able to substantially do what we do, which is to put forward amendments and to debate them. I don't think that is fair.

I should also point out that there is going to be a bit of a challenge, because I don't think independent members are being taken into account under this particular motion by the parliamentary secretary, or even in his amendment. Don't worry, though. I'll save that for closer to the end.

What I think is important to note is that when you offer someone something in good faith, the idea is that it's a legitimate offer. Now for those committees to suddenly decide whether or not they can meet at the time that has been listed here by the parliamentary secretary...and let's note that it is today, Thursday, May 12. When this was first tabled, obviously it was earlier in the week. Already days have slipped by, and while I do understand that MP Baker and MP Dzerowicz had both raised the idea that politics is the art of compromise, compromise means thoughtful discussion and give and take. It does not necessarily mean overriding other members without having some sort of thoughtful process.

As you can see, Mr. Chair, that leaves the Conservatives with very few options other than to say that we do not believe that this particular motion or its amendment.... Actually, I should say that the amendment seems to improve upon it, but the subamendment by the parliamentary secretary is not being done in good faith. Why? Because time has already been whittled away.

We already had to say no to those witnesses who came here on Monday ready to present. I presented a motion to try to see if we could speed that up. The importance of having witnesses cannot be overstated. Why? It's because obviously this is a very large omnibus bill and I find it lamentable that the Minister of Finance, the deputy prime minister, spent only an hour with the committee. I would have preferred a second hour, because I would have asked several other questions that pertained directly to Bill C-19.

I don't see any provision here in the subamendment for having the minister come back. In fact MP Chambers had expressed his desire to have the Minister of Industry come and speak to the competition components, the Competition Act amendments. I do enjoy Minister Champagne. I think he's a very thoughtful individual. If it is the will of the committee to have him come in for an hour, I would certainly make the time in my schedule for that. I think this particular subamendment that Mr. Beech has put forward has neither the Minister of Industry nor the Minister of Finance.

What worries me as time cuts away at this is that ultimately we're going to have less and less time, because the Liberals have not tried to work co-operatively with all members. I think that's really at the heart of this. I don't blame the Bloc or the NDP for playing ball because maybe their preferences have been met.

Maybe they see a different reality from the one I do, but this particular subamendment of Mr. Beech does not necessarily meet those needs from our perspective. Again, while we know the saying that politics is all about compromise, it's usually referred to as the art of the possible.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? What's possible isn't always probable.

What's probable is where you make.... You don't think you should speak to other members and try to get them on board. Instead, we have motions, amendments and subamendments that do not have the consent of each and every party or member. Obviously, there's a way to have a democratic debate about this and, eventually, a vote, but I am not going to be keen to give that until we have had a thorough venting of some of the issues with this particular motion.

Let me go into some of my concerns.

In the last Parliament—I'm going to give a personal example—I was on the environment and sustainable development committee. It's a very good committee. Much like in this body, I got a chance to work within a group where we may have had distinct views on policy. I felt that the people around the table were generally respectful and understood that we were all here to represent our constituents and to have an exchange of views. Where we might have disagreements, we would talk them out until either we found some consensus or compromise, or we put it to a democratic vote.

We went to a bill called C-12, and there's something very similar between Bill C-12, the net-zero bill presented by the minister of the environment—at that time, it was MP Wilkinson of North Vancouver, a fellow British Columbian.... Similarly, in that particular bill and study, the parliamentary secretary put forward a programming motion. Unfortunately, the member of Parliament for the NDP at the time decided that they would opt into that programming motion. Again, I don't want to prejudice or call into question anyone's character, including the previous member of Parliament or the current NDP representative at this table, who I'm sure is here in good faith.

What ended up happening was, in my mind, remarkable. We had witnesses come forward and we listened to the testimony. All parties, the Bloc, even the Green individual.... My colleague MP May from Saanich—Gulf Islands brought amendments, as did the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Conservatives. We brought forward a number of meaningful amendments that we felt would have improved the bill, even though we opposed the bill in the House due to some issues over the net-zero advisory committee. I will not get into that discussion of what happened in the House. I will say it was rather unfortunate how that shut down.

What ended up happening was that they jammed through such a tight process that we were literally hearing witnesses when the period for submitting amendments to the bill had already expired.

Think of this. You get a call from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. You have dedicated your professional career or your voluntary hours and expertise to writing up a brief. In fact, one witness told me that the moment he got the letter, he started furiously typing up his presentation, but by the time he got on the schedule, all of the suggestions that he had presented in his report and in his remarks were moot.

Why were they moot? It certainly wasn't because of bad faith by that individual, but because of the way the committee had jump-started the process and programmed in that there was only going to be a certain amount of time to get amendments in. That person was deeply disappointed, as were others.

The government probably never heard from those individuals in person, but I can say that MP May attested at committee that she heard the same thing. Why? Many groups want to be invited back and they want to keep the government, at least, in a somewhat neutral, positive state.

In that case, I have to say that the environment committee process—a committee ably chaired by one of your colleagues, MP Scarpaleggia—was so bad that we ended up jamming through witnesses after the period for amendments had already closed. People felt that process was not in good faith. I see many of the same hallmarks—many of the same markers—in this process, in fact, and I will say that I did speak up at the time. I did very much what I'm doing today. I said to other members, “If we adopt this process, we are jamming witnesses.” We are going to end up with a process that does not lead to a better outcome than Bill C-12 did.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what transpired. In fact, when we look at the amendments, it was such a bad process. Some amendments were supported by certain witnesses, but others, effectively.... The NDP joined up with the Liberal members and voted down pretty much every single amendment, except for a Bloc Québécois motion that established a five-year review. There are some real parallels that I'm starting to see between that process and now. Where did we end up? We ended up where committee members were at each other's throat. It wasn't very good. Witnesses felt bad and, at the end of the day, the government got what it wanted. I see many of the same things happening here.

I would say that it probably wasn't a lot of fun for Mr. Scarpaleggia, but let me tell you what was even worse. Your former colleague, Mr. Scott Simms, said publicly.... He was on Michael Geist's podcast, Law Bytes, where he talked about what was known as Bill C-10 and the shenanigans that ended up happening there.

Why? Well, there is a direct connection with what has happened here with MP Beech's subamendment. The process and timelines were so tight in the original programming motion that, at one point, during clause-by-clause, because of a programming motion, the committee members, in many cases, did not know what they were voting on. In order to meet the programming motion set out by the government, which happens to be the same government here, they ended up voting on amendments without even knowing what they were voting on. The chair would call out a number, and what's even worse, for the people.... There were stakeholders there, obviously, from industry and cultural groups—artists, etc.—who all had a real concern about this. These were people who study the Internet and freedom of expression—those kinds of legal constitutional concerns. All of them were horrified because they didn't even know what the members were voting on. They just heard numbers being shouted out, and that brought the whole committee process into disrepute.

What's even worse is that Conservatives had to appeal to the Speaker in the chamber regarding such a bad process. Do you know what ended up happening? The Speaker said that was not how Parliament was intended to work and ordered the committee to restart the process. The government did end up getting its way, but, for the people who were following along, the parliamentary committee process was in question.

I would say to all members here that the same issues the environment and sustainable development committee had, and the standing committee on heritage had with Bill C-10.... There are certainly parallels with what we have here today—a large omnibus bill, where the witness time is being dictated by the government.

Again, this particular bill is much larger than traditional ones, Mr. Chair.

On one of the things that MP Chambers pointed out—because there will be some arguments that say, if the Conservatives are so serious about not proceeding on this side, there are tax measures that can affect Canadians and that they will not be able to take advantage of—was that for the ways and means process, actually, the government can table ways and means motion tax measures and the CRA will treat those as having been passed, even if that is not the case. Many Canadians, as I was explaining to one of my constituents the other day on Bill C-8, would be quite surprised.

Now, obviously, during a minority, I would surely hope that they would be very careful around those measures. I know, for example, that Bill C-208 in the last Parliament, Larry Maguire's bill, was a change in law. That was actually passed by Parliament, and they still have not put out the regulations. Most people would say, wait a second, when Parliament passes an actual law that allows that if you're a farmer or you have a fish operation, you could transfer that intergenerationally to your family without having to pay extra costs associated with it.... If CRA and the Department of Finance can hold back on those provisions, how in heck...? Pardon the language. I'll repeat: How on earth, Mr. Chair, can it be that CRA can take a proposed law and start acting like it is a law?