Bill C-10

An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests.
It also authorizes that Minister to transfer COVID-19 tests and instruments used in relation to those tests to the provinces and territories and to bodies and persons in Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Why was vote 5 not used, the contingency? There is about $650 million unspent. Why was that not used? Why Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 and now the supplementaries? It seems very poor planning, or perhaps it's being used as a PR stunt by the government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

So if we approve the supplementary estimates (C) for $4 billion and Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 receive royal assent, what will happen with that added $4 billion that you're asking for? Will it lapse or will it be reprofiled?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

But you're asking for $4 billion in the supplementaries. You already have $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. Why the $4 billion more? Supplementaries will die on March 31. Is it your intent to have that lapse or reprofile that for something else?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay. That's good.

Let me move on to the $4 billion for the rapid testing. There was $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. I understand that this is a duplicate $4 billion—or is this $8 billion altogether for rapid tests?

Online Streaming Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, as an aside, I would first like to point out to the House that, like many of my colleagues, I am wearing the colours of Ukraine today.

I was in Montreal yesterday, along with several of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, to take part in the rally in support of Ukraine. A number of rallies were held across Canada and Quebec. I saw yesterday why the people of Ukraine will emerge victorious from this conflict. Whatever the outcome of this Russian assault, the people of Ukraine have embarked on a path that will inevitably lead them to achieve their goals. When a people or a nation decides to live freely and to live in a democracy, the path to get there does not stop until the ultimate goal has been reached.

Quebeckers are worried about loved ones who are currently stuck in Ukraine. One of my constituents in Drummond, Mr. Nelson, comes to mind. His wife is sheltering in the basement of the school where she teaches in Nizhyn. He has not heard from her, although perhaps it is for some silly reason, like she cannot charge her phone or has no way to reach him. I want Mr. Nelson to know that the Bloc Québécois and his representative will never give up.

This long preamble on the situation in Ukraine is somewhat related to what we are debating today. War in the digital era plays out at different levels than it did a few decades ago, or even one decade ago. These days public opinion is infinitely easier to manipulate. We have seen it many times and examples have been pouring in for a few years now. It is a threat that we must confront urgently.

An example of this came up just today. My colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood mentioned it. This afternoon, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and we talked about the Russian propaganda media, Russia Today, which has been banned from several Canadian cable companies. I am not saying that muzzling or censorship is the solution. I want to make it clear that this is an exceptional measure.

The solution is not always to silence the voices of people with different opinions, and I pointed this out to the minister earlier. I told him that this was warranted in the case of Russia Today, which is broadcasting disinformation and propaganda from the Russian regime to justify Russia's despicable attack on Ukraine, but I said that this instance must not create a precedent for censoring or silencing other press or media outlets that might broadcast questionable content that we do not agree with or condone.

This is why a bill on the Broadcasting Act that takes today's reality into account is so important. As members know, the current legislation was passed in 1991. I think we explored the issue thoroughly during the debate on Bill C‑10 last year. This old and outdated legislation is long overdue for revitalization and modernization. I am very pleased to finally rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which will also address online streaming.

It is rather sobering to see that, 16 months after a bill that was urgently awaited by the cultural industry, broadcasters and the media was first introduced, we are essentially back to square one. I say “essentially” because some improvements were made to Bill C‑11. These improvements were obviously the result of the numerous amendments proposed when the bill was studied in committee last year. I also want to point out that many of these improvements were championed by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, in particular the improvement regarding the discoverability of Canadian and French-language content and content from different cultural communities, which add colour and beauty to our cultural universe.

Had Bill C-10 passed, the CRTC would now be holding hearings to regulate the industry with a view to creating a more level playing field for all actors in cultural sectors and broadcasting.

Had Bill C-10 passed, we would be starting to see our content creators, programming undertakings and artists getting back to creating television shows, movies and music because they would have renewed confidence in the government's ability to create an environment where their content will do more than just make Chinese and American billionaires richer.

These people are not asking for a pandemic relief program. They are asking to create, sing, dance, produce shows, play, produce and earn an honest living through their passions.

We have lost many people and a great deal of expertise in the cultural and radio and television sectors since the start of this pandemic. Many people have left for more stable and less stressful sectors because they are also mothers and fathers. We underestimate these people's contributions to society.

I will repeat it, because I get the impression that it takes time to sink in, that it is not immediately or quickly understood: Culture is not an expense. Culture is an investment. Culture pays off. Culture contributes to the Quebec and Canadian economy. Artists and cultural workers are not a bunch of lazy old fogies who live off subsidies. Culture is an industry worth about $60 billion per year. Culture is an industry that supports more than 600,000 people in Canada. It is is wealth. It is not just wealth from a financial perspective, it is our wealth because it both reflects and conveys what and who we are as a nation. Culture conveys to the whole world what our identity is, what our values are, what our personality is, what our colours are.

If the means of disseminating our culture are taken away, what will be left of us? The rest of the world will continue to think that Canadians play hockey, that they drink beer and Tim Hortons coffee, that Quebeckers wear arrowhead sashes while eating poutine around a campfire in winter. We will see the usual familiar clichés that all of us are a little tired of seeing around the world. That is what our television, our radio, our cinema allow us to convey. They allow us to showcase our stories, what and who we are.

We must ensure that our creators, producers and broadcasters can continue to do just that on the new platforms forced upon us by the new technologies on which we are becoming increasingly dependent.

We have heard a lot of criticism about the regulation of content. Sometimes the criticism is ideological, while other times it is more partisan. Sometimes it is well-founded, while other times it is less so. I think the criticism is relevant in the sense that everyone is entitled to their opinions. For instance, someone might not be a big fan of quotas for French-language content.

I started working in radio as a young host in the mid-1980s. Canadian music quotas and francophone music quotas were just starting to be imposed. I can say that it really got on my nerves, because it was not very cool, even though there was some great music there. There were some excellent artists, but the choice was still pretty limited at the time. There was not a huge pool of music for the different styles of radio, for example. The radio station I worked for was much more youth oriented. We definitely had a little less to choose from in those days.

I can admit quite honestly now that I used to find it annoying to have to comply with francophone music quotas. However, over time, I began noticing the positive impacts of that regulation, that push to promote francophone content on Quebec radio stations.

As time passed, more and more new bands and new musical genres came along and were discovered because of the regulations that were put in place to showcase our music and our artists. There were extraordinary positive impacts.

Today, there could be radio stations with 100% French-language programming and listeners would never get bored. They would not necessarily hear the same thing all the time, even if some radio programmers believe that the same songs should be replayed just about every hour. That is another matter and another debate.

The positive effects of implementing such regulations are tangible. If it worked for radio, if it works for traditional media, it is also going to work for digital media. We must do it for digital media for the same reasons that I mentioned earlier. We show the entire world who we truly are through our media, our art, our culture, our programs, our movies and our talent. We are more than just beer and coffee drinkers, more than just lovers of poutine wearing arrowhead sashes and gathering around a fire. Culture dispels clichés.

The need to quickly bring in new broadcasting regulations, to refresh the ones that have been in place since 1991, is even more urgent given the current crisis in the cultural industry, which has certainly been aggravated by the omnipresent digital media and digital corporations like GAFAM. These giants are gobbling up our news media's profits and their share of the advertising pie. It is time to regulate this.

I have some figures to share. Since the beginning of the pandemic, out of the 180,000 jobs lost, whether temporarily or permanently, more than 50,000 cultural sector workers, artists and content creators decided to throw in the towel and do something else. They went off to get another job. They have families to feed, and they cannot stay in a situation where they do not know when the next crisis will crop up or what impact it will have on them.

These people no longer want to go through that kind of stress. More than 50,000 people in Canada have decided to do something other than the work they loved above all else. One of these days, we will have to come back to this and think about how much importance we give to our artists and content creators. We might want to consider reviewing the Status of the Artist Act. I want that to happen soon. It will be important to do that, because these self-employed cultural workers lack even a modicum of financial security, as they are excluded from government programs by virtue of their status. That means we lose them in times of crisis, which is what we are seeing right now.

The Union des artistes, a Quebec-based artists' union, polled its members earlier this year, and the numbers are alarming: 61% reported having lost interest in their artistic trade, 35% had sought help for mental distress, and 15% had suicidal thoughts during this period. The Union des artistes has 13,000 members, so 15% is a lot of people to be having those thoughts.

Culture is important, but we also need to talk about broadcasters. Up until a few years ago, companies across Canada were operating in a system that they helped to build and that afforded them some protection from the invasion of powerful foreign consortia and major media outlets. This was, in large part, thanks to the legal requirement that this system be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.

For decades, these companies helped develop Canadian and Quebec content, highlighting and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity. These companies spent and are still spending a lot of money to be able to operate and meet the licensing requirements. Many of these companies are key parts of our economy, in Quebec and across Canada. These companies still bear a massive burden just to be able to operate as broadcasters.

What message are we sending these builders, these major employers, these broadcasters that have been required to contribute to helping artists and niche broadcasters thrive?

Niche broadcasters, which may have less influence, have had the opportunity to thrive and offer programming for cultural communities. ICI Télévision in Montreal is a wonderful little TV station that I think everyone should check out.

There is also APTN, which does such a good job of promoting the culture of our first nations and serves as an example for the entire world. People come here to learn from APTN's expertise and apply it in other countries. I think we can be proud of that, and it is thanks to our broadcasting system that we can have success stories like this one.

The message we are sending our broadcasters right now is that it is okay for the big sharks to swim in our little fishbowl, siphoning off the bulk of the advertising revenue without having to contribute significantly to the system. However, it is our broadcasters who must comply with burdensome, increasingly costly, counterproductive and decidedly unfair regulations as the industry transforms.

These days, there is a lot of talk about politicizing issues. It is true that a lot of politics is done on just about everything, and I think that is normal. We are in politics, so it is normal to politicize issues. Otherwise, I do not think we would be in the right place. However, I think there are issues that require us to rise above and look beyond ideology or filibustering. We need to be open and aware of the issues we are debating here.

Bill C‑11 may not be perfect yet, but we will have the opportunity to work on it. I think this is a bill with a very good foundation, and it certainly does not deserve to be blocked the way Bill C‑10 was last year.

I sincerely hope that all members and political parties in the House will see this bill as a necessity for our Canadian and Quebec broadcasters, but also for the entire cultural industry, for our artists, our content creators, our artisans and our self‑employed workers in the cultural sector.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-11 and to continue this discussion that has been going on for quite a while. It has been at least a year since a bill similar to this one was introduced in the last session of Parliament. That bill, unfortunately, did not make it past the finish line, but what we have here is an improved version of the bill we saw before, a bill that tackled some of the challenges and obstacles, rightly or wrongly, that were put forward in particular by the opposition.

I want to go back to one of the comments that was made just a few minutes ago by the Conservative member who was responding to questions. He said something very important. I think it is important because it represents a lot of the narrative that we are going to hear over the next few days.

I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

We will hear a lot of the language that is being used. We just heard the previous member say that we do not want to allow the government to control what people watch. If anybody is going to be following this debate, I want them to pay close attention to the fact that as the debate goes on over the next few days or weeks, we will hear that language quite a bit from the Conservatives, because this is the exact language they used last time. It is language that tries to suggest to Canadians that the Government of Canada sits behind a desk and decides what people can watch and what they cannot watch. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the original bill did and what this bill is proposing to do now is not to regulate what people watch but to broaden the pool of what is available to them.

If someone has the perspective that we should be homogeneous in terms of everything that is in front of us since we live in North America, that there is no problem with being just like the United States, that we do not need our own individual identity and individual culture, then that is one thing. If that is somebody's position, although I disagree with it wholeheartedly, at least that would be the position of someone who still understands the facts. However, in fact this bill does not suggest that. What this bill does, and what I prefer, is that we provide Canadians with the opportunity to watch programming that is produced by Canadians and for Canadians as an option that someone can watch.

It is very similar to the CanCon rules that apply to radio stations. Right now, if someone in Canada has a radio station that broadcasts over FM and AM bands, they are subject to a rule that a certain amount of the content that is played during the day has to be Canadian content. I live in a border city that is not that far from Watertown, New York, and quite often we find radio stations trying to circumvent those rules. They would set up their transmission tower in Watertown, even though all of the broadcasting was happening in Kingston. It was being sent over to Watertown, New York, where it was then being broadcast from towers, and I am sure over 90% of the listenership was Canadian people because the broadcast audience was a Canadian audience in Kingston.

As the technologies develop and as we see new technologies come online and as the Internet becomes a dominant force in the consumption of content, it goes without saying that if we believe in making sure that Canadian content is in that pool of availability for those who are consuming it, we have to ensure that the Canadian content is there. That is the difference.

This is not about controlling what people see. I trust that we will have a more thorough debate on it this time around, but the rhetoric last time with Bill C-10 came down to suggesting that the federal government was trying to regulate all social media in order to determine what was put in front of people on the Internet, and that could not be further from the truth. This has always been about making sure that content is available.

What does this bill do specifically? Let me just highlight some of the important points. It brings those online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act because, as I previously mentioned, they are not. It will require online streaming services that serve Canadian markets to contribute to the production of Canadian content. This is what I was talking about. When Netflix or these other agencies are selling to Canadians, they have to invest in Canadian culture and Canadian-produced content.

Again, we might not agree with that. We might think that we are so globalized now that we can just get everything from wherever we want, and that should not matter. That of course is a position to take on this matter, but it is not the position that I take. It is not the position that the bill seeks to improve upon, because we recognize that it is extremely important that a portion of that content remains Canadian.

This also prioritizes support for content for francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ2+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators. It ensures online broadcasters will showcase more Canadian content, as I previously mentioned, and it modernizes outdated legislation to bring it into the 21st century.

It is also important to talk about what the bill will not do, despite the fact that I do not think that even my saying this now will change what we will hear. We are going to hear people in the chamber over the course of this debate say that it will do these things, but it will not impose regulations on content everyday Canadians post to social media. If someone uploads something to YouTube, they would not be subject to it even if they have a lot of followers, unless they are making money off it, in which case they would be similar to other businesses making money off it. There is an important point there that I will get back to in a second, because even those who do upload will not necessarily be subject to this.

It also does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users, as I said, and it will not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. I have already touched on this point, but it is important to mention it again because this is what we will hear over the course of this debate. We will hear that the Prime Minister is personally sitting behind a computer somewhere trying to set an algorithm so that people see more content that he likes.

I know we are going to hear that, because that is the rhetoric that happened with Bill C-10. I have no doubt that we will hear it again with Bill C-11, although I really hope that we do not, but if history is an indication of anything in the House, when these issues come up, Conservatives know exactly which ones are going to be the ones that they can push that will engage public reaction whether or not they are true.

I want to go back to the first comment I made when I was talking about the things it will not do, which was to impose regulations on everyday Canadians. This is important, because the member who spoke previous to me brought up the fact that if someone uploads a video or content and they are making money off it, they are subject to legislation. That is actually not true. There are three criteria, and these are “and” criteria, not “or” criteria, that need to be met in order for something to be considered commercial content. In determining whether the content is commercial content, the regulator will need to evaluate three elements. One is whether the content is monetized, which goes to the member's comment a few minutes ago. However, two other things also have to be present. One is whether the content exists on another non-social media platform, such as Spotify, the radio or TV. The other is whether the content, such as a song uploaded to YouTube, has a unique international standard music number. Those are the three items that need to happen for this legislation to apply.

The previous statement that somebody would be subject to it as long as they are making money off it is actually not the case. There are three criteria that need to be met.

I know that my time is coming to a close, but I wanted to say what this really is about. I hope that everyone will at the very least support the fundamentals of ensuring that the Canadian pool of content remains robust and available to Canadians, because if we look back at the decades that have gone by, the last 70 years or so, the Broadcasting Act, even though it did not apply to the Internet, is what made sure that the content remained available for Canadians to see.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In general, I'm quite supportive of this amendment. I circulated, or attempted to circulate, what I hope is going to be a friendly amendment, and I'll speak to what that is.

As NDP-2 and NDP-3 are close, I think I referred to Bill C-10 in my subamendment, but I will read this in and hopefully it will be considered a friendly—

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if there is some technical reason that makes French-language content appear more frequently or whether we need to use algorithms. I am not an expert in that area. In any case, the issue remains the same.

Bill C‑11 gives us a sort of guarantee that the major platforms will be asked to work on discoverability. It is not perfect. For the time being, we are not going to get involved in that. We will rework the bill. If there is reason to get involved in that area, the CRTC will decide in the end.

I do believe that the message is fairly clear in the bill: We want French-language content to be visible everywhere for anyone who wants to consume it.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and humbled to rise today to debate and get down to the brass tacks of a bill that is extremely important to the creators and people of Quebec and Canada. Allow me to digress a little and talk about some conceptual aspects before I offer some more practical recommendations.

It is time for Canada to get out of the stone age and catch up to the rest of the world. Most of us agree that this is essential. We also agree that, in doing so, we must absolutely protect the artists who are the living embodiment of our culture. We must not rush into things. We must take the time to think things through.

When the current Broadcasting Act was drafted in the last century, the world was a very different place. The war had reshaped borders. Radio and television were the only ways to get information.

Certain ancient or classical philosophies postulated that space and time were the only two things without which nothing was possible. An event must take place somewhere and at a given moment. It cannot occur anywhere or at any time because it would not be an event. Nothing can be imagined outside space and time.

In those days, many passed the time wondering how long would it take for a bird flying in the sky to fall to the ground if time did not exist. The answer is that it would take no time at all because it would not fall without time. That is the idea, but that was before the Internet.

The Internet did away with the notions of time and space. It is both nowhere and everywhere and it will be there always. Those of us who are used to the Cartesian way of thinking are sometimes destabilized by the Internet because it has no centre. It is all very well to call it the web, but it has no centre.

It is difficult to frame legislation when we cannot contextualize the subject matter. I will come back to that a little later. If we want to talk about the Internet, which is nowhere and everywhere, we need to change our paradigms and bring in regulations, which are found somewhere by their very nature.

To do that I will propose another philosophical reference, Heraclitus, who gave us the quote, “From all things one and from one all things”. The Internet is bit like that, from all things one. Geography and temporality have no meaning, it is nowhere and everywhere, always and never. How do we regulate that?

In Bill C‑11, we are talking about expanding the CRTC's powers. I wonder if that is the solution. Should we not instead, like other governments, consider creating a separate dedicated agency made up of digital experts?

The Canadian government often needs to be reminded that it is the government that defines the rules, not businesses. The past gives us reasons to doubt. In the case of the digital world, it is time for the state to do more than just survey the damage.

When will we have a new digital agency? Obviously, we would expect transparency, which would instill trust. We must also keep in mind that trust does not exclude control. We should be able to verify what is going on and we must make the businesses in question accountable.

Bill C‑11 will give the government the herculean task of convincing and compelling web giants to agree to a balance between their commercial interests and the public interest. That is no small task. Bill C‑11 covers it in 14 lines, but the actual work remains to be done.

It surprises me that these same web giants keep telling us it is important to innovate and keep up. Innovation does not justify everything. Some innovations should never see the light of day. Innovation does not justify wiping out a language or hiding it behind a skewed algorithm that automatically gives selective results for certain populations. Nobody can do that in the name of innovation. Innovation does not mean it is okay to collect individuals' data without giving them anything in return. That is not okay. Innovation is not an excuse for allowing surveillance capitalism to take root.

Many of the amendments the Bloc Québécois wanted to make to the old Bill C‑10 are in Bill C‑11, and we are very happy about that, but we cannot let our guard down or forget to think critically.

In some cases, the two versions differ by just a few words, yet the fate of the world can hang on a word. A word is a construct of sound and meaning. We need to be careful because sometimes words are stripped of their meaning and become nothing but sound, and then we have a language devoid of meaning.

As Orwell said a long time ago, the fewer the words, the smaller the temptation to think.

As an aside, when the first English-language version of the Bible was drafted, the King James Bible, there were about 6,000 words in that language universe. Shakespeare had 150,000 in his language universe.

These days, we have about 750,000 words with which to compose sentences, poetry, literature and music. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's lexicon was limited to 200 words. Only very crude ideas can be expressed in 200 words or less.

Words are a tool for preserving language, linguistic expression and culture. They also serve to create nuance, give life, and nurture culture. Words must not disappear. They are the tools with which culture and history can be told.

Let us come back down to earth. I realize my thoughts were a bit in the clouds just now. As the world becomes more and more digitized every day, it is unthinkable that the big media players, the web giants, have so few obligations to the citizens and states that make them rich.

In the past, the Government of Canada gave in to web giants. I would like to remind the government that it has the authority to be firm and a duty to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share.

Many people have spoken about that fair share today. However, the fair share is not what the web giants agree to pay. It is not that at all. They must pay their fair share of taxes. They must contribute their fair share to the production of Canadian content. They must pay their fair share in order to compensate content creators. That fair share is not an equal share. It is the amount that each one fairly owes.

It will not be easy. We will have to be careful because web giants became giants for a reason. They are used to deciding for themselves what their fair share is. We will have to be vigilant.

In this world where we have to rethink our references to time and space, the Government of Canada must not think of Bill C-11 in isolation. It will have to harmonize its regulatory instruments with those of our neighbours, the nations around the world. Several jurisdictions, including the European community, have already thought about these elements, as have certain English-speaking countries. I urge the government to at least look at these two sources, because Anglo-Saxon sources are very similar.

I will conclude with this point: We must never give in without a fight. I believe that Bill C‑11 is a good bill, that we must amend it to increase its scope a little and see how we can give it some teeth, and that creating a dedicated agency would be appropriate.

An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to change my vote in the vote that took place after question period. I had technical difficulties that prevented me from changing my vote to yea and from joining Zoom, so I would ask for the indulgence of the House to have my vote recorded as having voted in favour of Bill C-10 in that vote.

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

Pursuant to the order made on Monday, February 14, 2022, Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, is deemed considered in the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, February 14, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-10.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Government Business No. 7--Proceedings on Bill C-12

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address a few points that the member across the way has raised and, at the same time, share some thoughts that not only I have, but all members of the House have, in regard to seniors in general. This is a very important and hot topic among my Liberal colleagues as we continue to strive and improve the lifestyle of our seniors and be there for them in a very real and tangible way. I am going to highlight a number of things we have been able to do for seniors over the last six years.

First, I will address the issue of how the Conservative Party wants to twist this issue of process and why the government is where we are today with what is a very important piece of legislation.

The legislation we have before us today is here because of the pandemic. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada, with support and encouragement from different levels of government, from Canadians in general and from MPs who were advocating, came up with a series of brand new programs that virtually started from nothing. They were a direct response to the pandemic. When we brought in programs virtually from nothing, there were, no doubt, issues that would arise. This is one of those issues, and it is an issue that today the government is addressing through legislation because of the impact it has had on our seniors. Some are trying to give the impression that the government is trying to fix a problem it created and that somehow the government has been negligent. However, this is unfortunate given the consistent supports and actions of the government for seniors since 2015 when we were first elected, let alone during the pandemic.

Yes, there have been some issues to deal with, but I suspect, after hearing comments from the opposition, that they will be supporting the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that. However, on the other hand, they are critical of the manner in which this is being processed and of not only the government but also the New Democratic Party. It is interesting that when the New Democrats do something the Conservatives do not like, they say there is a coalition between the New Democrats and the government. I think Canadians would rather see a coalition between the New Democrats and the Liberals than a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have this default position: For anything the government wants, just say no. They know full well that they need their coalition to continue to frustrate the government's agenda. They know they can often count on the Bloc, but they get all upset if the NDP does not follow their recommendations. They get upset with the NDP because the NDP will not listen to the Conservative agenda, and then they say it is a coalition.

I can tell colleagues that the government has operated with all three opposition parties, collectively together. At times we have operated with the New Democrats separately, like today, and at times we have operated with the Bloc separately. We appreciate the mandate that we have been given by Canadians, and it is a very clear message: Canadians want us to work together.

We saw a very good example of that back in December with conversion therapy. Members will recall that the entire House recognized the importance of conversion therapy and the legislation before the House. The Conservative Party members were the ones who recommended that we do not have second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading, the whole process. They wanted to go right to royal assent, and the bill was passed unanimously. This shows that when it is convenient for the Conservatives and they feel it is important, it is okay and debate and committees are not necessary.

It is not the first time they have done that. They even attempted to get unanimous consent when there was no unanimous consent for getting what they believe is priority legislation through the House of Commons. If they disagree, it is anti-democratic, and the government is wrong because they we want to see something. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied. On the one hand, the Conservative Party now says this is important legislation and recognizes it is important legislation. After all, its members are going to be voting for the legislation. I understand the Bloc is going to be voting for the legislation too. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition does not like the manner in which we are trying to get it through. The NDP supports the legislation and has been advocating for significant changes to take place regarding the compensation issue. It also recognizes that it is important to get this legislation through as quickly as possible.

The Conservatives say that the Senate is not sitting this week. As I pointed out yesterday, let us take a look at the legislative agenda. In the number of weeks we sat, we brought in legislation dealing with the coronavirus. The number one issue of Canadians for the last two years has been taking on the coronavirus. We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and now Bill C-12, which are all legislative measures that deal directly with supporting Canadians and that deal specifically with the coronavirus, whether it is through programs that have been brought in, programs we are trying to extend to continue supports or the bulk-buying of things like rapid tests, which we debated yesterday. All of this stuff is important legislation.

We all know there is a finite amount of time to deal with legislation. It is not like we can debate a bill for 10 days and have it go to committee for two weeks. If it were up to the Conservatives, for anything they disagreed with, and even for things they agreed with, they would try to speak things out in order to frustrate the government. They would want to bring bills to committee for indefinite periods of time, with no commitment to get them through.

We are still in the pandemic. There is still a sense of urgency, even this week alone. Yesterday, we debated $2 billion-plus for rapid tests to ensure the provinces, territories and businesses in our communities have the necessary tests. Today is about seniors and making sure we are there to support them by putting money in their pockets. We still have other important pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with this week, if at all possible. I am thinking of the Emergencies Act. We also still have the opposition day motion from the Bloc party that has to be dealt with, and we have two short days this week.

Are the Conservatives saying that debate on our seniors, the rapid tests or the Emergencies Act should all just be postponed by 10 days or a couple of weeks because it is convenient for the Conservative opposition party? Ten days from now they can come back and ask why it has taken the government so long.

On the issue of the Standing Orders, I approach them not just as a member of government. I spent many years in opposition. I understand the importance of accountability, transparency and the process inside the House. I hope to engage with members in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize them. We have plans and processes in place to accommodate debates, committees and votes. We see that. As I cited yesterday, whether it is on emergency debates in the chamber, opposition day motions, private members' bills or private members' motions, there are all sorts of limits.

What we have seen in the past 10 years, because we have to factor in the era of former prime minister Stephen Harper, is that we need tools to ensure that government bills can also get through in a timely fashion. That is why we are debating this motion today. If members believe it is important to support our seniors by getting money in their pockets, this is a piece of legislation members urgently need to support. The timing is very important.

The Minister of Seniors has met with opposition members and has been before committee. At committee, members can ask whatever questions they want of the minister. She is not shy to answer questions. We saw that earlier today, when the motion was brought forward. The department has provided information for members. Yes, we are making modifications today in order to get the money out more quickly to support our seniors. The department is working overtime to make sure we are there for our seniors in a real and tangible way.

The process we are going into today would have been preventable if, in fact, we could have had support from all opposition parties in saying that we could pass this legislation. In an ideal situation, it would be something that would be negotiated. However, the government is not in a position in which it can hold back on getting this legislation passed. With the support of one opposition party, we were able to ensure that our seniors would get the legislation they needed through the House of Commons. For that, I am grateful.

After 30 years of being a parliamentarian, there are some issues I hold near and dear to my heart, as I know many of us do. Our seniors, and the needs of our seniors, are of utmost importance. We often talk about the fact that where we are today as a society is all due to the seniors who were there before us, and we recognize there are needs that seniors have. I have made reference to the fact that I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand what those needs often require.

That is why it was so important for me personally, when I came to Ottawa, to be a strong advocate for our seniors. I remember one day when I was sitting in opposition. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in Europe, and there was an announcement that the government was going to increase the age of eligibility for collecting OAS from 65 to 67. We opposed it, and we indicated we would get rid of it.

I remember advocating for the needs of the poorest seniors in Canada and for the importance of our social programs. I use those two examples because in 2015, when we were elected to government, two of the very first initiatives we took were, first, to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. That was one of the very first initiatives taken. The second was to increase the guaranteed income supplement.

For those who understand the issue of poverty in Canada and want to help put more money in the pockets of our seniors, just as this bill does, in 2016 we talked about increasing, and then implemented a substantial increase to, the guaranteed income supplement. That one initiative lifted hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North alone out of poverty, and tens of thousands across the country.

We will all become seniors, if we are not already. We ensured that the contributions to CPP would be enhanced with an agreement between provinces and the federal government, something that Stephen Harper was unable to do, to ensure that there would be more retirement money for our seniors.

In terms of the pandemic itself, and how the government stepped up to provide, that is why we have the legislation today. In our urgency to support people of Canada through developing programs such as CERB, there were some mistakes. It was not perfect, but it was important to get those programs out as quickly as possible. Now we are making a modification that is necessary to ensure that our seniors would in fact be getting money that they would have normally been receiving, but other benefit programs during the pandemic ultimately caused a problem. This would fix it. That is why it is good legislation for us to support.

During the pandemic, we brought in direct support for seniors, with a special focus on the GIS, again, and the OAS. We did it directly and we did it through other programs, such as the CERB, which is more of an indirect way. Another indirect way we did it was through supporting non-profit organizations that provide support for our seniors. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.

The Government of Canada has been there to support our seniors because it is the right thing to do. From virtually day one, in 2015, until today, we continue to bring in budgetary and legislative measures to facilitate and support our seniors, whether with long-term care, direct money into pockets, mental health or so many other areas.

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

First I would like to say that the coronavirus is in charge, and we cannot dictate to it when it ends. Could the hon. member please tell us how Bill C-10 would help?