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.

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to put this on the record, I believe the member was referring to Bill C-10.

Virtually from the beginning, the Conservatives were all about trickery and the types of things they could do to play that destructive role. Nothing has changed. I am hoping that we will get a glimmer of hope this evening from some individuals saying that this is legislation they could support, that they do not have to continue to delay it and that they could respect what has taken place and look at it.

At the very least, the Conservatives could take into consideration what we did as a Liberal Party when the Conservatives proposed something with Rona Ambrose. There, we had unanimous consent; it was passed through.

I am suggesting that, out of respect for the process and so forth, this does not have to be one of the bills that the Conservatives are playing games on.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Criminal Code

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was December 6, 1989, at École Polytechnique de Montréal, January 29, 2017, at the Quebec City mosque and so many other dates. Those dates need to resonate with my colleagues when they consider voting on this bill.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-21. We can say without hesitation that the Bloc Québécois's contribution is undoubtedly why this bill is finally acceptable. I would like to note the exceptional work of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, without whom this bill would certainly not have progressed in the same way.

That said, it is far from perfect, as it was initially botched by the government. We can see that, as with Bill C-10, Bill C-11 and so many other bills, the Liberal signature is to introduce flawed bills and be able to brag about having done this and that. In reality, it is others who improve them and deal with the problems and shortcomings of each bill that the government proposes. Bill C-21 is a flagrant example.

The bill was tabled in May 2020. It was essentially a freeze on handgun acquisitions and a grandfather clause. In that respect, the government did in effect prohibit most models of assault rifles with its order in council on May 1, 2020, which was issued quickly, a short time after the killings in Portapique, Nova Scotia, but several models were not covered, while new models continue to enter the market. Also, the prohibition on May 1, 2020, did not cover all “modern” assault weapons, thus allowing weapons like the very popular SKS, which is frequently used in mass shootings in Canada, to remain legal.

In the briefing to members and political staffers, officials also confirmed that the government planned to amend the bill to add other measures, which was unheard of for a newly tabled bill. There was no rhyme or reason.

In other words, the bill was not at all ready and the government only tabled it to ride the wave of support for gun control following the latest unfortunate shooting. That is called opportunism. I would even add a real lack of desire to be truly effective. In short, the government was not necessarily able to bring forward a fair and reasoned bill, but action was required because it was the right time and looked good. The results are there.

In fall 2022, the government tabled a package of amendments to its own bill. More than 400 pages of amendments were submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, although the studies were already completed. These amendments included new measures to combat ghost weapons, but also a definition of a prohibited assault weapon and a list of more than 300 pages of prohibited weapons.

Here is another demonstration of what the Liberal government has made us accustomed to: anything. These amendments were tabled without explanation, without briefing and without a press scrum. Even Liberal members of the Committee seemed unable to explain these amendments. The various positions of the advocacy groups have become entangled—that is normal, of course—in a mish-mash of various readings and interpretations, most of which were justified or unjustified, since we were in a sort of grey area.

By drawing up this list, the government created a host of ambiguities and possibilities for circumvention, and, at the same time, penalized hunters and airsoft sport shooters. This does not include the weapons market already trying to circumvent the list. The concerns kept growing.

Hunters' fears are a good example. The Bloc Québécois listened to hunters. We therefore proposed reopening the study so that experts could be brought in to testify on the matter of assault weapons. The Bloc Québécois opposed the list in the Criminal Code because it made it needlessly long. The Criminal Code is not a real-time reflection of models of weapons and their classification.

It is my colleague from Avignon—La Métis—Matane—Matapédia who was a guiding light and kept the reason for logic throughout the process. Through pressure from all over, her team's research and her consultations with scientists and advocacy groups, she and the Bloc Québécois research team made a big difference in the study process of this bill.

It makes me very proud, today, to take the floor and re-tell the entire story. The government then tabled a gag order to quickly conclude the study of Bill C-21.

However, the government itself is responsible for the slow progress of Bill C-21. It preferred to bring forward an incomplete bill quickly after the killings rather than take a few more months to table a complete bill.

Despite these shortcomings, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-21. Initially, the bill was criticized by hunters, pro-firearms control groups and air gun enthusiasts. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, it was improved and satisfied most of the groups. Again, the Bloc was proactive and made such fair proposals that they could not be refused.

The government has acted softly for years, leading to gun violence everywhere, particularly in Montreal. Prohibited weapons are circulating illegally. Bill C-21 is a poultice on a wooden leg, as my father would say. It is not nothing, but it is little, and the time wasted with the parliamentary exercise of cobbling together a badly designed bill does not save time. However, time is running out.

It was a mistake to try to create a bill full of shortcomings, that practically put hunters, sports enthusiasts and killers in the same boat. What a lack of will and respect for the afflicted, the victims, and for the innocent. In fact, the ultimate urgency was to table a bill developed by experts and scientists and improved by consultations with associations and as many representations as needed. The government is proposing quite the contrary, and that is unfortunate.

As usual, the Bloc is being valiant. We have done the work by bypassing and adapting the limitations and mistakes of the government. The next step is urgent. Weapons are flowing into Canada. What will the names of the next victims be? Who will lose a mother, a father, a daughter or a neighbour? What does the Liberal government plan to do to prevent illegal weapons from crossing the border?

I hope it will learn from its mistakes. Above all, I hope that the next steps in the fight against crime will be firm and frank gestures, based on clear legislation and taking into account the realities and needs of organizations that oversee, that work and that intervene in the area of public safety.

Online Streaming Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to the people whom I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot across east-central Alberta, and also to ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard within this place. Certainly, when it comes to the amount of correspondence and calls I receive, or the people who come up to me in the grocery store or on the street, or who walk into my office on the main street in Camrose, or when I chat with them across the many communities I represent in Battle River—Crowfoot, time and time again I hear from constituents who share their concern and who share their dismay at the fact that the Liberals and the Prime Minister would perpetuate a type of censorship that would limit the ability of Canadians to express themselves online.

It is unbelievable that in the 21st century this would happen in Canada, yet we are seeing it now, not only through Bill C-11, but we saw it through the previous Parliament's Bill C-10. Liberals seem to stop at nothing to control what Canadians believe and think, control everything to do with their lives. My submission to this place today, on behalf of so many constituents, is to plead with the government to reconsider.

As we discuss specifically the bill, which has been studied thoroughly, what I find interesting, now that it is back before this place, with the government's response to a thorough debate that took place in the Senate, is that we see so clearly that there is no consensus on the path forward for the bill, which is very contrary.

In fact, I would like to call out a very significant falsehood that is often perpetuated by members of the government. They somehow suggest, and in fact in question period earlier today they said it very clearly, that every Canadian supports the bill and that nobody is opposed to it. They asked the Conservatives what we are doing and said that we stand alone. I will definitively answer that question and say categorically that it is a falsehood, because of what we have heard throughout the course of this study. I know for a fact that there are some Canadians who live in constituencies represented by Liberals and by New Democrats who have reached out to me and other colleagues and have said unequivocally that they do not support Bill C-11.

I want to call out that falsehood in this place today, because government ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other talking heads of the government stand and say it is only the Conservatives who are somehow opposed to this great idea called “Bill C-11”. They forget to talk about the substance of it; rather, they would simply make the case that everybody is on their side and that nobody opposes them. That is categorically false, and I am going to call out that falsehood here today, as my constituents expect me to.

We face a unique circumstance. We are facing not only a censorship bill that is before this place, in the form of Bill C-11, but we are facing the limiting of debate. Can members believe it? We see that not only does the government want to control the online feeds of Canadians, but it is truly stooping to a new level by limiting the debate in the people's House of Commons.

Can members believe it? The Liberals, with their coalition partners in the NDP, would do everything they can to silence opposition voices and to silence the voices of so many Canadians. It is not just Canadians we have heard from on this matter. It is not just regular folks who are living their daily lives, but we have seen that there is certainly no consensus across the artistic community in Canada. In fact, we have heard from many of Canada's most talented individuals, those in the more traditional spaces like art and writing, as well as television stars and that sort of thing, but we have also seen, incredibly, the rising digital creator class speak so clearly in opposition to the bill.

In fact, I remember the previous iteration, Bill C-10. It can get a little confusing for those watching, and I am sure there are many watching this egregious attempt by the Liberals to censor not only members of Parliament, but all Canadians. The previous iteration of the bill in the last Parliament was called Bill C-10, and I remember chatting with the president of a digital film festival. I can assure members that this person was not a natural Conservative.

This was not somebody who would be predisposed to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, but the plea from this pioneer in the creation of digital content was to say to stop it, stop the Liberals from being able to control our feeds and stop the Liberals from being able to introduce a massive government bureaucracy that would endeavour to control what we see online. I am proud to stand in this place with my Conservative colleagues as the only party that stands for freedom and democracy and against censorship.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I look at the House, and I look at all of those who are supporting the legislation and know how important it is that we bring forward this long overdue legislation. Then, I see the Conservative Party not supporting it, and I question that. I wonder why that is the case.

Part of me thinks that it is because right now they are without a leader and they are, in fact, blocking everything that happens in the House. They have been filibustering our foreign affairs committee for over a month, and they are blocking us from being able to do the jobs we want to do in this place. Maybe that is part of it, but then I think about when the Conservatives were coming to the committee when we were looking at Bill C-10, and I will make a bit of a joke that I made then.

The member for Lethbridge yelled “freedom” so many times that I swear she seemed a bit like she was imitating Braveheart, except I would say in Braveheart they only yelled it once, so perhaps she could be a little more succinct. Also, when we were in committee, we saw a literal turning door of the “front-benchers” of the Conservative Party coming to our committee wanting to talk about Bill C-10. This would be good and important, if we had ever seen any of those members come to our committee to talk about COVID supports for artists.

If I had ever seen the member for Carleton come to my committee to talk to our group about how we need to support artists in his community, that would be one thing. If I had ever seen the member for Calgary Nose Hill come to the heritage committee to talk about truth and reconciliation and the acknowledgement of September 30 as the Day for Truth and Reconciliation, that would be another thing. We never saw any of that. We just saw them then, so I am asking myself why this is the case.

I actually talked to one of my Conservative colleagues who said that every time they sent out an email on Bill C-10, they raised about $2,000. I have to think that this looks a lot like a fundraising campaign. This does not look a lot like good policy to me. This looks a lot like there is an option there to make some money, and of course that is hard for me to understand and hard for me to accept, because Edmonton Strathcona is the heart of the artistic community, as well.

We have a strong francophone community, but we also have an incredible artistic community, so I do not want members of that community to suffer and I do not want members of that community to not have the opportunity to benefit from taxes being raised or from funds going into the cultural community. For example, when Bill C-11 is put in place, over a billion dollars will go back into our cultural community in Canada. That is not taxes. I want to make it really clear that this is something the web giants would pay. It is not something the government would pay. Multinational corporations would be paying into our artistic sector.

What I think about is how much money Netflix has, how much money YouTube has and how much money all of these multinational corporations make, and why I would not want them to pay their fair share to support organizations like the Blues Festival in Edmonton Strathcona, the Edmonton Folk Music Festival, the Edmonton Fringe Theatre Festival, the Edmonton Heritage Festival, the SkirtsAfire Festival, theatre groups like the Alberta Musical Theatre Company, Concrete Theatre, where my good friend Mieko Ouchi used to work, Firefly Theatre and Circus, Fringe Theatre and Grindstone Comedy Theatre. I can tell members they had the most incredible Pride event there just a couple of weeks ago, and anyone in Edmonton Strathcona during Pride needs to go the Grindstone.

We have the Northern Light Theatre, we have Theatre Yes, we have Blues on Whyte, the Northern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium, the Metro Cinema and the Myer Horowitz Theatre. Outside of my riding is the Starlite Room, but I still visit it quite regularly. The Starlite Room had one of my very favourite concerts: I got to listen to Propaghandi, a Canadian band, play there. Just a couple of weeks ago on my 50th birthday, I got to see Corb Lund sing, and I will tell members he is someone they should not miss. They should certainly be trying to support the Timms Centre, the Old Strathcona Performing Arts Centre, Varscona Theatre, Walterdale Theatre and the Yardbird Suite.

Francophone organizations in my community include the Chorale Chantamis, the Chorale Saint-Jean and the Flying Canoë Volant, where, as I have probably told everyone in the House, one can race a canoe down a ski hill, dressed up as a beaver. Also, there is L'Association Franco-Albertaine de L'UniThéâtre, the Fête-franco-albertaine and the FrancoMusik Alberta Association. There are alternative media that this would support, including the CJSR radio network of the University of Alberta, The Gateway and Le Franco.

All of these organizations are really important and integral to my community, and every one of these organizations could benefit from this fund. They could benefit from the money that would come in from multinational corporations.

I am never going to stand in this place as the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona to fight for the rights of big corporations over the rights of artists, over the rights of community groups and over the rights of the small organizations that make Edmonton Strathcona so incredibly special.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, much of the work was also done during the study of the old Bill C‑10, so we need to look not only at the study of Bill C‑11, but at all the debates on the Broadcasting Act.

People in the cultural community, especially those in Quebec, told us there was an urgent need to act and warned against missing this opportunity. That is why it was so important for us to press the government to move forward and pass this bill. Too much time has been wasted already.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, this afternoon the minister is trying to defend the indefensible from coast to coast. Bill C-11 is a disaster, as was Bill C-10, and it is being shut down once again. We had 20 written submissions handed to us last Wednesday at committee from people who wanted to come to committee. The member talks about LGBTQ and indigenous issues. We have not heard from APTN, which was one of the guests the NDP wanted to bring to the committee. It has yet to come to talk to us.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Why do the Liberals want to shut the bill down in the House of Commons, do nothing over the summer and hand it over to the Senate? We have time to bring other issues forward. Proposed subsection 4.1(2) has always been an issue. It was an issue a year ago when we debated Bill C-10 in the House, which they rammed through and then called the unnecessary election. This is the same situation we are seeing today with Bill C-11.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C-11

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful abuse.

We as parliamentarians owe it to our constituents, our stakeholders and Canadians from coast to coast to do our due diligence, evaluate amendments, debate amendments and ensure the amendments being proposed achieve what is in the best interests of Canadian creators, Canadian viewers and Canadian consumers.

Could members do that, with dozens of amendments and dozens of clauses, in two hours and 59 minutes? It is not acceptable. It is unreasonable, and it is not possible.

I will tell us what could happen. What could happen is the same thing that happened with Bill C-10, where the Liberals tried to force through amendments that do not improve the bill but in fact worsened the bill. That is what happened with Bill C-10. The Liberals, out of the blue, moved an amendment that took away the exception for user-generated content.

As an aside, we see in this bill, and I will talk about it a little later, an exception to the exception for user-generated content, so the Liberals have clearly not quite learned their lesson when it comes to user-generated content and the importance of protecting it.

Here is another issue: We have the unique situation where there are members of the House who are not represented at committee. I am speaking about independent members, members from unaffiliated parties, such as members from the Green Party, who do not have the opportunity, or I would say the privilege, to sit on committees.

In traditional times, those members are able to come to committee, any committee reviewing pieces of legislation, and submit amendments and move those amendments during the clause by clause.

This programming motion, this guillotine motion on steroids, in subparagrah (iv) says, “suggested amendments filed by independent members pursuant to subparagraph (a)(ii) shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”.

It says “deemed to have been proposed”. The member for Kitchener Centre and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will not even have the opportunity to appear before committee and move their amendments to this piece of legislation, which is the largest update to the Broadcasting Act in over three decades.

This is like a bad novel. It keeps getting worse and worse. Obviously, it is a bad novel written in a foreign country because Canadians only produce great novels, but this is a bad novel because it keeps getting worse as we go. Subparagraph (v) states:

if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9:00 p.m. on June 14, 2022, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill

That means no debate. Not just limited debate, but not a word of debate on a clause-by-clause or amendments at clause-by-clause. Our job, as parliamentarians and as elected officials, is to debate legislation. It is to debate legislation on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of Canadians.

Under this motion, Motion No. 16, each and every question necessary will be put without debate. It means that we cannot even suggest minor amendments to proposals. We cannot suggest to the Chair that perhaps an amendment may be out of order based on various reasons, including the parent act rule. That would not be possible because this proposal does not provide for it.

This proposal states that there shall be no debate, no debate on the largest update to the Broadcasting Act since 1991. No debate on a piece of legislation that could affect each and every Canadian who listens to music online, watches videos online or creates content that is posted online. There will be no debate on clause-by-clause or amendments after 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2022.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member is going to let me speak to the question of witnesses.

Originally, three of the four parties at the committee thought that a certain number of hours would be sufficient to hear from witnesses. The Conservative members then proposed 20 hours, which was more than the other parties thought needed to be given to witnesses, given that many of these witnesses had already been there for Bill C-10. However, the rest of the members of the committee agreed to accede to the request from the Conservatives and provide 20 hours to hear from witnesses. At that point, the members from the other parties felt that we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses and the Conservative members disagreed. The majority of the committee believed we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses. As a result, instead of just coming to a vote and deciding by majority whether we had heard from a sufficient number of witnesses, there was a filibuster of each and every motion to try to move to clause-by-clause on the vote.

If the hon. member had been there at the first meeting, he would know that was actually the history of the committee.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the hon. member: This bill has nothing to do with censorship. Freedom of speech is protected in this country under section 2, and it is very clear that freedom of speech is protected under this bill.

Second, this bill would not be necessary except for the fact that members of the hon. member's party have continued to filibuster the committee, preventing us from ever getting to a vote on any of the many motions, amendments and subamendments the Conservatives are making. In meeting after meeting, and now I have seen it on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, their end goal is for the committee not to be able to get to clause-by-clause. I think this frustration is shared not only by the Liberal members of the committee, but also by the NDP and Bloc members of the committee.

In the end, we are doing something that is asking the House to instruct the committee to do its job and get to clause-by-clause, so it is actually very democratic and parliamentary.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it mind-boggling and ironic that the minister talks about Conservatives bringing in U.S. problems, when the current government's whole modus operandi is to import U.S. culture wars.

I want to give an example of why it is so important that we continue debate. We heard the exact same response from the government over Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and the supplementary estimates (C), where there was $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 for rapid testing, and then a duplicate $4 billion in the supplementary estimates (C) for rapid testing.

We just found out today that the government is sitting on hundreds and hundreds, if not billions, of rapid tests unused, warehoused. This is the reason we need debate on this and other issues, so we do not have a repeat of this incompetence where the government is spending billions of dollars for items that are not even used.

Would the minister perhaps comment on why he wishes to stop any oversight of taxpayer spending and the government's incompetence?

Online Streaming Act

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill, the online streaming act, which we know amends the Broadcasting Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.

At the outset, I want to state, as my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, did in his excellent remarks on this bill, my support for those sections of it that would see major international companies pay their share and invest in Canadian content. However, my remarks will focus on the impact this bill would have on the rights of all Canadians.

First, I will give a recap. When the first iteration of this bill was introduced in the last Parliament, it did not capture the attention of many Canadians. In fact, at second reading the bill was simply passed on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for review. Then, during the clause-by-clause deliberations, the Liberal members of the committee voted to remove an important safeguard of Canadians' freedom of speech. Canadians began to take notice, and started to loudly voice their opposition to this amendment and, by extension, to the bill's passage.

It bears repeating that the clause the heritage committee removed was a substantial clause that the justice department, in its opinion of the bill, made specific reference to as being necessary for the protection of the rights of Canadians.

It is baffling to me that the government, in particular the Minister of Canadian Heritage, along with his allies in the NDP and the Bloc party, could not see why millions of Canadians became opponents of this bill overnight. I believe that Canadians rightly suspected that this was not a case of the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, just having a difference of opinion, but rather knowing that Bill C-10 infringed on their fundamental rights. They did not care that it did so.

Equally troubling was how the Liberals rammed Bill C-10 through the House without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee. The many outstanding concerns that had been expressed by experts, parliamentarians and Canadians went unaddressed. In fact, the shadow minister at the time, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, made the following observation: “Weeks ago, the Trudeau Liberals secretly withdrew the section of their own bill that protects individual users’ content.”

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in the House again with respect to Bill C-8, now at report stage. I would like to start by sharing that I intend to continue to support Bill C-8, as will my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which she shared when she spoke last week. The bill has much in it that we both continue to appreciate, such as funds for rapid tests, money for ventilation for schools, and delays on loan repayments for small businesses at a time when they need those the most.

With respect to the Conservative motion that is proposing several amendments, I do not intend to support them because they would remove many of these same items, including the school ventilation improvements, the ventilation tax credit for businesses and a tax credit for school supplies for teachers. That being said, I do want to raise a red flag that my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands and several others have raised with respect to the allocation, or even a double allocation, of funds. As she shared, I expect this was done with the best of intentions, but it is also important for us to be mindful of it.

In Bill C-8, there is $1.72 billion allocated for rapid tests. There is also $2.5 billion for rapid tests in Bill C-10. Last Thursday, in the supplementary estimates, we approved the allocation of another $4 billion for rapid tests. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer has called out, it seems to be that there is at least, if not double spending, a double allocation of this $4 billion for rapid tests. Certainly, with respect to Parliament reviewing this legislation, we both see it is important to address this, so that there is some measure to ensure that those funds are only spent once.

With the rest of my time with respect to Bill C-8, I would like to talk about what I see as the ambition gap in this legislation. In the fall economic statement, and in the legislation to bring it forward, there is so much more that could have been done to really meet the moment we are in.

I will start with the housing crisis that many colleagues have spoken about. In Kitchener, it is significant. There has been almost a 35% increase in the cost of housing in the past year alone. On Friday afternoon, I spoke with a neighbour of mine. Nick is a young person who shared with me, as many others have, that not only does he not expect that will he ever be able to buy a home, but when it comes to staying in Kitchener he does not expect that he will continue to be able to afford rent. He was just so concerned. That is as a result of a market that has increasingly become commodified. This is a market designed to provide a commodity for investors, when we should be focused on homes being places for people to live in.

In Bill C-8, as members know, the underused housing tax is being introduced, but it has also been diluted from what we know has worked in other jurisdictions. Vancouver is an example. In Vancouver, it is a 3% tax that applies to everyone. As a result, that measure has started to have an impact. It has reduced the number of vacant homes by 25%. It has reintroduced 18,000 units back on the market and it has generated tens of millions of dollars for affordable housing.

We can compare that with what we know is in this legislation. Not only is it not 3%, but it is down to 1%. I think there are fair questions to be asked about whether, even if it was broadly applied, a 1% tax would meaningfully change the behaviour of those who have begun to commodify the market and pull housing off the market simply to speculate on its value.

It is not only that. We also have exemptions everywhere: on every citizen, every permanent resident and every Canadian corporation. The list goes on and on. I think there are fair questions to be raised. Certainly, on its own, it would not be enough, but would this measure meaningfully shift and be a helpful contribution? At this time, in terms of ambition, this could have been the housing economic statement. It could have been the time we said that we have great ideas that have worked before, such as co-op housing, for example. Back in the 1980s, when we invested in co-op housing, we were able to build thousands of new rental co-op units.

Of course, when that is not in statements like this, it is less and less the case today.

It could have also been the time when we could have said we were going to put in meaningful measures to move away from the blind bidding process and move toward investing in public and subsidized housing with really bold and visionary measures to make progress on the housing crisis. If they are not here, I aspire to seeing more in the budget that we are expecting over the coming weeks.

In terms of this ambition gap, at a time when this House has affirmed that we are in a climate emergency, should not every economic statement focus on taking substantive, transformational action on the climate crisis? I certainly believe that to be the case. In Bill C-8, of course, the word “climate” is not mentioned even once. Instead, we see talk of more and more subsidies for oil and gas. Sometimes they are introduced under different names. The most recent one we are expecting is a new tax credit for carbon capture and storage, a tax credit that some are estimating could be worth up to $50 billion in this new subsidy for a solution that has already been subsidized significantly over past decades and only leads to 0.001% of reduction in global emissions.

As so many academics and scientists have called out, this is not a climate solution, so we need to be mindful of both what is not here as well as what could have been here and should be here going forward. We could take that $50 billion and invest in proven climate solutions, such as incentivizing homeowners to move forward on retrofits to their homes and businesses. Whether it is electric vehicles or high-speed rail, we could be mobilizing funds at the scale of a green new deal and at the pace that scientists tell us is required, and not to hold on to some faraway net-zero 2050 but to address what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us is required, which is the possibility of 1.5°C being the highest increase in global average temperatures at a time when we are already at 1.1°C. Yes, this is an emergency. As a result, I wish every economic statement we see in this House would have a stronger focus to give us the best chance of ensuring that our nieces, nephews, kids and grandkids have the possibility of a safe climate future.

Finally, I will close with respect to another gap in ambition, and that is with respect to mental health. We know the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, the Royal Society of Canada and so many in my community and across the country are calling out to address the significant gaps in mental health. We know there are significant wait times for young people in particular. As is the case for so many challenges we face today, this situation was present before the pandemic and has only been accelerated and made worse. This was another opportunity missed to increase the amount of health transfers from the federal government to equip provinces and territories to have the resources they need. If we are going to say the words “mental health is health”—as we all should, because it is true—then we should also be allocating the funding to ensure that we follow through and that across the country the resources are there to treat mental health as such.

In closing, I will continue to support Bill C-8. While I am disappointed that the ambition is not there for some elements, that does not take away from the fact that there are measures and funding that would go a long way in my community, and I want to continue to see those measures advanced.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again today.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we are all on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and express our deep appreciation for their patience as we remain on unceded territory. Meegwetch. We need to re-establish in every speech, at every opportunity, the ongoing demands of reconciliation, and it has to be more than a land acknowledgement.

Today, I stand to speak at report stage on Bill C-8, a bill I support and which I have spoken to at previous stages in this place. Report stage gives us an opportunity to look at where we are on the verge of the bill passing and going forth to the other place. Some concerns have arisen, and I want to address those because I would like to know from the government that there is a plan to address issues that surfaced from the hard work and diligence of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I also want to reflect, as we have this opportunity at report stage, when we are more than two years into a pandemic, to perhaps look at some of the elements that are at a higher level of abstraction in the bill before us, but which are related. Nothing will be off topic, but I do want to reflect on where we are now two years into the pandemic.

First, let me address what Bill C-8 is, just as a quick refresher. This is a bill in seven parts exclusively in response to COVID-19 at various aspects: its health impacts; the essential equipment that we need, such as rapid testing; and impacts on different sectors, including schools, businesses, individuals and workers. It is one more of the many, many bills we have seen since we started down this road March 13, 2020, when this place adjourned because we realized we were in a global pandemic and we could not continue meeting as we had. Since that moment on March 13, 2020, we have in this place, generally by unanimous consent, approved tens of billions of dollars of relief similar to what is in the package before us today in Bill C-8, which I support.

We have things like rapid tests, ventilation for schools, delays for small business for when they have to start repaying loans. It is a package with which I think all of us in this place are now very familiar. One thing was surprising, and I want to dive into it a bit because the citizens of Canada need to know that we are paying attention to the billions of dollars we pass in this place, and that was a certain redundancy, which the sharp-eyed people at the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer noticed. It is in relation to spending for rapid tests, which again, I support.

There is $1.7 billion for rapid tests found in Bill C-8. There was $2.5 billion for rapid tests found in Bill C-10, and then there was the $4 billion in the supplementary estimates that we have also passed. The question is this: Are we paying more than once for rapid tests? The answer is yes. The money is allocated, at least $4 billion, twice. I see an alarmed parliamentary secretary looking my way, yet Yves Giroux, our Parliamentary Budget Officer, has confirmed that there is in fact more money allotted than is needed.

I will quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaking in the other place:

When we asked questions about the intended use of this funding, it was to procure rapid tests for COVID-19 and to distribute them to provinces and then to Canadians. When we [the Parliamentary Budget Office] asked why try to have it go these two different routes to get to the same end, the government responded that it wants to get the funding as soon as possible, so they’re trying this through Bill C-10 and Bill C-8, as well as Supplementary Estimates (C). They will use whichever authorities come first to procure these tests. However, they have already started procuring these tests, so they are doing some risk management should the spending not be approved. That seems to be the reason why they are pursuing the two different approaches.

The discussion in the Senate then went on to discuss if would we spend $4 billion twice, or would there be some way of stopping the additional approvals once the tests are purchased? I do not really feel I have an answer to that question in this place.

I am still voting for Bill C-8. I want to make sure we get the rapid tests. I want to make sure we know what we are spending the money on, but I would also like to register now in this place, especially to government members, that we want to make sure there is some mechanism in place to avoid spending $4 billion twice. It appears from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's questioning of the government that this was not by accident, but I would like to flag that I have never seen it before, and I think it is quite unusual to approve spending $4 billion twice to make sure we get it once.

With that, I want to turn to a key area I think is, at a higher level of distraction, a problem with our federation. I am not proposing ways to fix it, but I want to flag it. It has been the reason we failed to meet our climate targets. I do not mean just recently; I mean over the last three decades. It is a reason why, I think, we have been less effective as a country, and I am not speaking of a particular government or political party, than we could have been in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. My thread on this is that, spoiler alert, I do not think the provinces and the federal government work particularly well together. They should, and we must.

I note that on COVID-19, eight dollars out of every $10 spent on COVID relief came from the federal government. We passed that in this place. Collectively, we did that. However, there was the speed with which we acted. The federal government might have been ready to act on numerous occasions, but the provinces were not, and if the action was in an area of provincial jurisdiction, we were delayed.

I definitely know this is the case on the climate emergency. Ironically, the European Union, which is made up of more than two dozen independent separate sovereign nation states, has done a better job than our federal government, our 10 provincial and three territorial governments, all together in one country, being able coordinate, negotiate and come up with a shared solution.

Leaving the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the European Union went back to home base and within weeks had negotiated a global agreement, global meaning all the EU countries in a bubble, on who would do more cutting of greenhouse gases and who would do less, so they could achieve the target they collectively negotiated. They are now collectively about 40% below their 1990 levels of emissions. Canada is about 20% above our 1990 levels of emissions, and I think a lot of this is because of federal-provincial tensions and a failure of collaborative leadership. I do not know how else to put it.

In the case of the ventilation for schools, which is my thread here, I worked all summer of 2020 on an idea I got for how to get kids back to school safely. I thought about it, and I thought of all of these tourism facilities, as I am very committed to the tourism sector, such as convention centres and hotels, that were vacant because of COVID-19. They would like to be able to put people to work. We had schools that would have overcrowding if kids went back to school. I wondered why we could not take the places that were empty because of COVID and allow schools to take place there. Then they would have had a lot more air and a lot more ventilation. It might have worked. I started talking to people, like the brilliant Paul Nursey, who heads Destination Greater Victoria. I started talking to people who run convention centres. They said they loved the idea and that it could work.

I will fast-forward to how many people and groups I got involved: People for Education in Toronto; the Tourism Industry Association of Canada; the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the union that was negotiating and talking to other levels of government; and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities gave me the time of day too. We started thinking we could put this together, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of this nation and her staff were interested in the idea. The one place I could not get any pickup at all, where I could not get anyone to pick up the phone and call me back, was the provincial ministry of education, and no one was going to go anywhere with this idea unless the provincial minister of education signed on.

Now we have here in Bill C-8 one of the things I was trying to address in my completely ad hoc volunteer way to try to get something to happen, and we are now approving ventilation for schools. That is provincial jurisdiction. We should have acted on that a year or more ago, and in my opinion, the reason we are approving it now in the federal Parliament, as opposed to much sooner, is that we could not get the provinces on board.

Opposition Motion—Federal Vaccine Mandates

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see all my hon. colleagues here in the House and to be speaking to today's opposition motion.

Before I begin my formal remarks, I want to say a few things.

First off, with respect to the residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the residents of the York region, where I live, we have achieved about 85% coverage for two doses of vaccination, which I think is incredible. I thank all of the residents who have done the right thing, or what I call the collective responsibility, and gotten vaccinated and who are doing that continually.

When the pandemic started, we asked much from Canadians. We asked them to stay home and we asked businesses to shut down. During that time, our government had the backs of Canadians, whether through the CERB, the CEWS or the number of other programs we put in place. We have done things prudently. We asked Canadians to do these things because we wanted to protect their health and safety first and foremost.

Every government knows that. If we read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and a number of those books, we see the government's job, fundamentally, is to protect the health and safety of its citizens. That is what we have done as the federal government in all of our measures. We asked Canadians to wear a mask and socially distance. We ensured that we had capacity in our health care system. We helped out the provinces by sending the army into long-term care facilities. Also, we put in place restrictions, including mandates, for the health and safety of Canadians.

Obviously we have been evaluating the data, as it comes in, on how we are doing against COVID. Thankfully, we can see a light and we continue to see more light as we go along. We have seen changes to the restrictions that are in place, including the removal on April 1 of the requirement to do antigen or PCR testing when returning to our beautiful country after taking a vacation or going somewhere for business. We continue to see progress, and that is very important.

As a government, it is important to highlight prudence and responsibility, because we must have responsible leadership. When we talk about governing a country or province or being a mayor, we must demonstrate responsible leadership. I would say it is irresponsible leadership on the part of the official opposition for it to say we can just magically turn a switch and COVID‑19 will vanish. That cannot happen. Rather, we must follow the advice of medical practitioners.

Today, I am pleased to speak about the federal government's ongoing commitment to the well-being of Canadians and our economic recovery as we collectively transition from stringent lockdowns and restrictions to a stage where each of us is assuming more personal responsibility. Ensuring that all Canadians have what they need to be safe during this critical time is a responsibility that our government takes very seriously. We are committed to continuing to work hand in hand with the provinces and territories on these efforts and have done so since the beginning.

Unfortunately, COVID‑19 continues to have a significant impact on the lives of Canadians. Despite Canada's high vaccination rate, COVID‑19 continues to challenge our health, social and economy well-being. We need to ensure that Canadians have the tools they need to keep themselves and their loved ones safe as we enter this new phase.

Over the past few weeks, many jurisdictions have begun to ease some or all public health measures that were put in place to diminish the spread of COVID‑19, including limited occupancy in bars, restaurants and gyms, the use of vaccine passports and the use of masks indoors. In this phase, it is important that individual residents are equipped with information and the tools that will empower them to manage their own risk, including making decisions surrounding their own care and health.

This shift has heightened the urgency for the government to continue to procure and distribute COVID‑19 rapid tests. Equitable access to tests across and within jurisdictions is just as critical as procuring and distributing the tests themselves. Canadians will be relying on these tests to inform their own decision-making, whether it is to assess if they are able to visit a loved one in a long-term care facility or send their children to school.

Canada has been a leader in vaccine uptake, with over 80% of the entire population having received two doses of a COVID‑19 vaccine. As members know, the primary objective of the vaccine is to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, and it has been suggested that COVID‑19 vaccines have been very effective in this regard. They have worked. Thanks to scientists and health practitioners, vaccines are doing their job and continue to do their job. Recently, a number of provinces and territories have moved to the general public distribution of tests and are leveraging the retail sector to make COVID‑19 rapid tests available free of charge.

To support provinces and territories, Health Canada sought and received authority through Bill C-10 to distribute tests to provinces and territories, organizations, and individuals. With this authority, Health Canada is distributing directly to entities that have experience receiving medical equipment, such as pharmacies and the Canadian Red Cross, as well as to provinces and territories.

The omicron variant changed the landscape of the virus for countries around the world. The rapid spread of the virus among vaccinated individuals, even today, led many countries to move to refocus lab-based PCR testing and scale up COVID-19 rapid tests as a key testing method. As a result of the global resurgence of COVID-19 and the increased adoption of rapid tests, an already scarce resource became even more limited in supply, leading to a very competitive market. I would like to commend the Minister of Public Services and Procurement on her job in procuring rapid tests for this country and the ability to get that done.

Fortunately, Canada was an early adopter of COVID-19 rapid tests and had contracting vehicles already in place to quickly procure additional tests from last fall into this winter. Furthermore, to assist with transporting inventory from Asia, the government has secured international logistics support that suppliers can access in the event that they cannot secure their own airlifts.

In addition, Health Canada has prioritized applications that seek regulatory approval of COVID-19 rapid tests. Just last week, another point-of-care rapid antigen test was approved, bringing the total number of approved COVID-19 rapid tests to 29, plus 11 self-tests.

Given the globally competitive market, the government is putting in place additional contracts to secure a critical supply of tests for the coming months. The reality is that not every Canadian finds help readily available or easy to access. Keeping these realities in mind, our government is taking important steps to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 rapid tests.

As provinces and territories, as well as the federal government, started to roll out workplace screening in spring 2021, the government partnered with the Canadian Red Cross to support the non-profit sector. Through this partnership, non-profit organizations were provided with guidance materials, support and COVID-19 rapid tests free of charge directly from the Canadian Red Cross.

Given the success of this initiative and the standing that the Canadian Red Cross has in communities, this partnership has recently expanded to support broader distribution of tests, with a focus on individuals who have been hesitant to access services and supports. Working with food banks, YMCAs and YWCAs, and Boys and Girls Clubs, the government, through the partnership with the Canadian Red Cross, is taking steps to ensure equitable access of COVID-19 rapid tests.

The ongoing commitment to ensure access to COVID-19 rapid tests is an important enabler for the economy. Vaccines, along with rapid tests, are allowing the economy to function to its fullest extent. Ready access will allow Canadian businesses to continue with their voluntary workplace screening, thus diminishing the possibility of outbreaks. In addition, ongoing general population testing will provide a level of comfort to those travelling both internationally and domestically that they are not putting close contacts at risk during or after their travel.

As I said, on April 1 we will lift the antigen or PCR test requirements for Canadians returning to this country. I know many Canadians have asked for this, and over the last few months I have said to my constituents and many other friends that we would do this when it was prudent and safe to do so. We have done so. We have followed the signs. I have great faith and confidence in the Minister of Health, a great colleague and a dear friend. I know full well he is following the science and advice of medical professionals here in Canada who are doing a great job, day in and day out, and who have been asked and tasked to do a lot over the last two years.

This will further enable Canadians to travel unimpeded and will support the recovery of the Canadian travel and tourism sectors. As the members of this House are aware, Canadians' health and safety is this government’s main priority during this difficult and unprecedented time. As we have stated throughout the pandemic, this government will be there for every Canadian. The first priority of government should be protecting the health and safety of its citizens, and that has been our primary job over the last two years.

It goes without saying that the months ahead of us will continue to be full of challenges as we transition from having numerous public health measures in place to supporting tools to empower Canadians to make risk-informed choices and decisions on how to manage the risks of COVID-19.

I look forward to questions and comments. I would like to extend well wishes to the Speaker of the House, who is recovering from his operation.