Bill C-18 (Historical)

Online News Act

An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada

This enactment regulates digital news intermediaries to enhance fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contribute to its sustainability. It establishes a framework through which digital news intermediary operators and news businesses may enter into agreements respecting news content that is made available by digital news intermediaries. The framework takes into account principles of freedom of expression and journalistic independence.
The enactment, among other things,
(a) applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to specific factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those factors;
(c) specifies that the enactment does not apply in respect of “broadcasting” by digital news intermediaries that are “broadcasting undertakings” as those terms are defined in the Broadcasting Act or in respect of telecommunications service providers as defined in the Telecommunications Act ;
(d) requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) to maintain a list of digital news intermediaries in respect of which the enactment applies;
(e) requires the Commission to exempt a digital news intermediary from the application of the enactment if its operator has entered into agreements with news businesses and the Commission is of the opinion that the agreements satisfy certain criteria;
(f) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting how the Commission is to interpret those criteria and setting out additional conditions with respect to the eligibility of a digital news intermediary for an exemption;
(g) establishes a bargaining process in respect of matters related to the making available of certain news content by digital news intermediaries;
(h) establishes eligibility criteria and a designation process for news businesses that wish to participate in the bargaining process;
(i) requires the Commission to establish a code of conduct respecting bargaining in relation to news content;
(j) prohibits digital news intermediary operators from acting, in the course of making available certain news content, in ways that discriminate unjustly, that give undue or unreasonable preference or that subject certain news businesses to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage;
(k) allows certain news businesses to make complaints to the Commission in relation to that prohibition;
(l) authorizes the Commission to require the provision of information for the purpose of exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions under the enactment;
(m) requires the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide the Commission with an annual report if the Corporation is a party to an agreement with an operator;
(n) establishes a framework respecting the provision of information to the responsible Minister, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, while permitting an individual or entity to designate certain information that they submit to the Commission as confidential;
(o) authorizes the Commission to impose, for contraventions of the enactment, administrative monetary penalties on certain individuals and entities and conditions on the participation of news businesses in the bargaining process;
(p) establishes a mechanism for the recovery, from digital news intermediary operators, of certain costs related to the administration of the enactment; and
(q) requires the Commission to have an independent auditor prepare a report annually in respect of the impact of the enactment on the Canadian digital news marketplace.
Finally, the enactment makes related amendments to other Acts.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks from my colleague. One of the things that comes to mind when he talks about the Conservative Party's motivating factor is that this issue was part of an election platform for us back in September, but we were not unique. All political parties recognized how important it was that we take on these tech giants in order to ensure that we have an industry that is so critical to Canada's democracy, along with issues such as jobs.

It is an industry that we need to protect. It seemed back in September that all political parties recognized that fact. Now we have a government that is fulfilling one of many other election commitments. This particular debate that we were supposed to be having today on Bill C-18 was to deal with being there in a very real and tangible way to protect our news agencies, to ensure that we are levelling the field and ultimately ensuring fairer compensation so that we would have more fact-based news and protect our democracy and so many other things.

Could the member speculate as to why he believes the Conservatives are now putting up such a roadblock, when back in September they seemed to support the principle behind it?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are heckling me now. I can always tell when I hit a nerve. I can always tell when the truth is starting to sink in. When someone is calling them out, we can tell, because that is when they start to heckle, and that is exactly what they are doing right now.

When it comes back to this particular report and the committee work that was done, Liberals did participate in this committee at the time. They participated in the committee. They helped studies with the witnesses. They helped to create their own recommendations. I know that three recommendations that came from the Liberal benches, which I do not see in the same form in the report, were never adopted. I would like to read out what those recommendations were.

The recommendations from the Liberal members do not mention individuals' names or look to berate people. They look to set and develop policy. The recommendations, which were in the dissenting report, were that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct, at an earliest opportunity, a full statutory review of the Conflict of Interest Act with appropriate recommendations.

It seems like a legitimate thing to do. It seems like a legitimate thing to do from a policy perspective if we are generally interested in trying to fix perceived flaws in our system. That is what we would do, not talk about all these recommendations that they have in here referencing the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's wife and various other people, as well as how certain information needs to be turned over immediately. The reason I say that is that colleagues will recall that the Ethics Commissioner was already doing his own study on this issue.

Everything that the committee was demanding in the form of recommendations through this study was for no purpose other than to grandstand and put all the dirty laundry of everybody out in public, regardless of what their involvement was. They are attempts to do that. That is all this was. We know that is because the Ethics Commissioner is not going to do this to the same degree as the official opposition wanted the committee to do it. That is all they are interested in.

The Ethics Commissioner was already investigating this, and it was as if the committee said, “No, no; we're better at this. We should do all this work instead of the individual who has been hired to do this in a fair, non-partisan, unbiased way.” That is exactly why this report has been tabled again.

As I mentioned previously, this is not a report generated by this particular Parliament at the ethics committee that sits now, but one from the previous Parliament. They basically just grabbed the report and retabled it so that the Conservatives could continually do this over and over and over.

The second recommendation that the Liberals put forward in that dissenting report was that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct at the earliest opportunity a full statutory review of the Lobbying Act, with appropriate recommendations.

Again looking at it from a policy perspective, the Liberals were saying that they recognize there is concern out there, that it is possible there are flaws out there, and that this is how they would address it. They would look at the Conflict of Interest Act and look at the Lobbying Act and at ways to make them better and strengthen them. That is what proper policy from a committee should look like, not these arbitrary demands that are being made by the opposition for no purpose other than to try to shame individuals and try to keep a scandal going as long as they possibly can. That is all they were interested in.

The third and final recommendation made by the Liberal members in the dissenting report was that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics refrain from conducting parallel investigations with any independent office into the conduct of members of Parliament, either directly or by proxy.

That last recommendation was the Liberal members saying, “Hold on a second, as this ethics investigation is already ongoing by the individual who has been appointed to look into this stuff. Maybe it is not a good idea that we do this at the same time.” It would be the equivalent of a judge reviewing a case in court while a parliamentary committee is trying to do the exact same thing on the side. They are trying to influence it. They are trying to highlight and bring everything possible to the surface so that they can try to attack individuals and personalities. They do this time after time.

This brings me back to where I started in the five minutes I have remaining. What we are seeing here today is part of a pattern. It is part of a pattern that has been developed lately by the Conservative Party of Canada, a pattern of continually trying to put up any possible roadblocks. They are moving concurrence on a report that a committee in this Parliament did not even write. They are not even doing the work before trying to move the motion here. They are just grabbing a report from the last Parliament and retabling it here so that they can move concurrence on it. We are seeing this time and time again.

As indicated by the member for Winnipeg North on a number of occasions, the Conservatives have complained, saying they want debate, that they want to debate the issue. They say, “Why won't you let us debate these very important pieces of legislation?”

Then the government says, “Good point. Maybe we do need some more time to debate.” Motion No. 11 comes along, basically saying, “Let us sit later into the evening.” What did the Conservatives do? They tried to filibuster that. We had to move closure on that motion, the motion to try to set our work schedule. That is how incredibly obstructionist they have been.

Earlier today we saw a Conservative member stand up and move an amendment to the concurrence motion. He was just trying to create another vote. He was trying to burn more time. That is what is happening over and over in here. This is not about actually debating policy.

If Conservatives wanted to debate policy today and had a genuine interest in advancing the objectives of Canadians, they would be debating Bill C-18, something we know they care about because it was in their platform, and something they had said they are pushing forward on.

However, it appears as though the Conservatives are only interested in moving it forward if they form government. As we saw, they put it in their election platform and they ran on it. We get here and say, “Let us bring this idea forward.” It should be a fairly easy one to get through, because we know the Conservatives support it, but every single time we bring it up in this House, they put up a roadblock like this to prevent us from actually talking about it.

The Conservatives are only interested in delivering for Canadians if they can be in the driver's seat. That is not how democracy works. Democracy works, in Canada at least, with people being elected from 338 parts of the country, coming together and figuring out the best way forward. If we cannot do it through consensus, which by default we rarely ever could, then we vote on it. Then we move on. We recognize that we played our role in that democratic process, that we helped advance the lives of Canadians for the better. We accept the roles that we have been given in the House.

Canadians will notice that the Liberal Party said that we accept the role we have been given in this House. We accept the role of being a minority government. What did we do? We looked to other parties. We went to the NDP to see if it wanted to work with us to advance issues for Canadians. The NDP accepted its role. It said yes. It had an interest in advancing issues for Canadians and wanted to get together and work together. That is how we got a supply and confidence agreement.

We know what the Bloc's objective is. It is interested in being its own country. I guess, by default, it is going to be a lot harder to work with them for the interest of all Canadians, but at least we know exactly what its position is. We know exactly where it is coming from. The Conservatives, however, are literally rudderless right now. Who is driving the ship over there? I would absolutely love to know. There is no way that they can continue to operate in this way. They do not even know what their role in this House is.

I have no problem voting against this concurrence motion and I have given my reasons. I have referenced the report, but this is not what we should have been talking about today. We should have been talking about Bill C-18, an issue that would genuinely advance the interests of Canadians and make our country more independently focused for news organizations and outlets throughout the world. Unfortunately, we are not there, because the Conservatives are once again playing games.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this concurrence motion. Those watching at home might be wondering what a concurrence motion is. A report has been tabled by a committee in the House. Very rarely would there be a concurrence motion like this to vote on a report. It is, in my opinion and as the member for Winnipeg North indicated earlier, nothing more than a tactic by the Conservatives to jam up more House time.

What makes this particular concurrence motion even more remarkable is this. We start off with the rarity by which reports are dealt with in a concurrence motion, but this one is not even a report from the current ethics committee. This is actually a report from the previous committee. I am sorry, I should not say that. All of the work was done by the previous committee. It developed the report, put together the report, studied it, questioned the witnesses and put it forward. All the current ethics committee that exists in this Parliament did was retable that report.

We start from a place where it is very rare to have a motion like this on a report. To make it even more bizarre, it is not even a report that the current ethics committee dealt with. It did not interview the witnesses. It did not ask questions or form the recommendations. It is going off of work that was done before. People might ask themselves why it is doing this or they might become skeptical when we accuse the Conservatives of using this as just another political opportunity. It is very clear, when we look at the games they are playing, that they are willing to go to any lengths to make sure that we cannot get government legislation through.

For those watching, what we otherwise would have been discussing right now is Bill C-18. Bill C-18 is a bill that the Conservatives, at least in their election platform, support. It is a bill that would provide supports to news outlets throughout our country to make sure they can continue to be independent. Rather than doing their job and following through on commitments they made during the election campaign to Canadians, they see no political win or political gain out of this particular bill because the vast majority of members in the House, if not all, already support it. They are looking for blood, quite frankly, and they do not see any here. That is why they say, “Rather than spend time talking about Bill C-18, a concept that we agree with, why not go after something that we can actually attack Liberals and individual Liberal members on?” That is exactly what we are seeing here with the introduction of this concurrence motion on this report that has been tabled by the committee.

One of the comments that I found very interesting, and I was surprised to hear from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, of all people, was when she questioned the member for Winnipeg North as to why he was using time to debate this. That criticism or question might hold water if nobody else in the room was speaking to it, but Conservatives are. They are using the time, burning the day, by debating and talking about this particular motion. The question then becomes: Why would we not use our designated slots to speak to this and to tell Canadians what is going on?

I find it quite interesting that we would be accused of wanting to speak to this just because we do not want to talk to it. That is like saying that we should not be speaking to it because we do not want to be talking about this anyway. Of course we do not want to be talking about this. We want to be talking about Bill C-18, but the reality of the situation is that through their political games the Conservatives have put us in the position of having to debate this right now. We are clearly going to use that opportunity to debate it and show Canadians what is going on right now. I would expect, to be completely honest, that question to come, in a very cynical way, from my colleagues across the way, but I was surprised to hear it from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Maybe she has had an opportunity to reflect on it and thinks differently of it now.

I would like to talk about this report specifically. I realize there are 23 recommendations in this report that were put forward by the previous Parliament's ethics committee. It put forward these recommendations. When one starts to read the recommendations, it becomes very clear how incredibly focused they are on individuals: the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's wife and people who work in the Prime Minister's Office.

We heard a Conservative member talk earlier about wanting to get certain staff to come before the committee. One of the deep criticisms was that the government would not allow staff to go before the committee to testify. Instead, the President of the Treasury Board, if I remember correctly, offered to go to the committee to speak, but the Conservatives, the opposition, were not interested in that. They wanted actual staffers to go there.

I find that very concerning. I realize that Conservatives have no issue with attacking individual people. For the slightest bit of political gain, they will take down somebody's career. We already know that. They did, after all, for the first time in over 100 years, drag someone before the House, to the bar of the House. It had not happened in 100 years, and it had never happened to somebody who was outside of the government. The Conservatives dragged before the bar the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada. That demonstrates how willing they are to take down anybody if they think they will get the slightest political gain out of it, and that is exactly what we are seeing happen here today.

When the minister who is responsible for these staffers says they are the leader, they will take responsibility, they will go before committee and they will answer the questions, that shows what a leader does. Was that enough blood for the Conservatives? No, of course it was not. They wanted to go after the staffers, the individuals who are employed by the minister responsible, which, coming from the ethics committee of all places, is extremely unethical.

In any organization, there is always somebody who is going to take responsibility for those decisions, somebody who will be the accountable one. The minister wanted to do that. Were the Conservatives and other opposition parties interested in that in at committee? No, they were not. They wanted staff. They wanted individuals who do not have the same power to defend themselves, who do not have a voice in this place and who do not have a voice in the public to be the ones to go in and be berated for two hours.

The minister was not interested in doing that, which should not come as a surprise to anybody in this House. It certainly should not come as a surprise to Canadians, especially when Canadians witnessed the Conservative Party, propped up by the Bloc and the NDP, drag before the House of Commons a public service individual, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Never in the history of this Parliament had that happened, and when it was done before that, it was never an individual in his position.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, again, I look at it, and the member says how important it is to have a debate on this issue. If it was such an important issue, why would the Bloc not support a concurrence motion or an opposition day? Why use it strictly on a government's debate day for legislation, when we have already put in the issue of allocated time for Bill C-18? In other words, every minute we are debating this motion today—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debates that take place inside the House. Having been able to listen to the arguments being presented by the Conservative Party, I think it is important that the people who follow the types of debates that take place in here have a truer reflection of reality as to why things are taking place in the manner in which they are.

I truly believe that, at the end of the day, this debate will continue to take place, for the next little while anyway, not necessarily because I want it to take place, but because this is something the Conservatives want, as opposed to talking about Bill C-18. That is the reason they moved the motion. We will have to wait and see if others stand to speak.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg has laid bare the reasons we are debating a concurrence motion on an ethics committee report instead of what we had planned to be doing this afternoon, which is dealing with Bill C-18. I am wondering why he has contributed to the delay tactics by offering a speech at all at this time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to be very clear to the residents of Regina—Lewvan, the Conservatives do not want to pass Bill C-18. They would like to put up as many speakers as they can in order to filibuster the bill virtually endlessly.

The government brought in time allocation this morning, and when the minister stood up, we saw a number of Conservatives stand in their place to say they wanted to have more debate time on Bill C-18 and to ask why we were preventing them from having more debate time. Then when they were provided more debate time on the bill, which we are supposed to be debating right now, what did they do? They prevented debate knowing full well that it will be coming to a vote because time allocation was brought in.

The Conservatives really need to understand what they are doing. I do not think they understand it. If they want more debate time and the government provides more debate time by sitting later in the evening, why not be happy with it and accept it? Why not allow for orderly proceedings? House leaders could sit down and opposition members could say they understand we have to pass legislation. Then we could have some time for this debate, maybe an extra few hours in the evening, and work it out in negotiations by talking about it, while acknowledging that there is a responsibility for the government to pass legislation and a responsibility for the official opposition to contribute to the debate in a positive, constructive way.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that was one of the most fanciful speeches I have ever heard from the member. It was amazing. He lives in a parallel universe.

The Liberals brought in time allocation on Bill C-18. Their job is done. It is going to get voted on. Now he is making this big pitch about how we should be debating Bill C-18 and saying we are being obstructionist, but the vote is going to happen regardless.

The government got its wish; its job is done, so now we should get to a vote on this concurrence report and have the debate, because he has done his job. For the first time in eight months, the member actually got something done for the Liberal government. Time allocation was brought in, and he made this big fanciful speech about how we are obstructionist.

I am wondering if the member could lay bare some of the facts that happened today, such as the government bringing in time allocation and curbing debate on Bill C-18 after one Conservative member got to speak. The rest of the member's speech was about nothing. Could the member please put the facts on the table for Canadians about what has actually happened in the House of Commons today?

My constituents in Regina—Lewvan would like to hear a Liberal answer a question. For once, could he please be truthful about the fact that he did get Bill C-18 to where a vote is going to happen? Then we can move on and debate something as important as ethics in the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not too sure exactly where to begin. There is so much that one could start with, in regard to this particular motion that has been presented by the Conservative opposition. What it does is clearly show and amplify the silliness and the destructive force of the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons.

We can talk about consistency. The only consistency I have witnessed from the Conservative Party over the last number of years, including the days when I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, was the character assassination of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, even before he was leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. All one needs to do is look at Hansard, the production of papers that clearly show what is being said inside the House of Commons.

When I was in the third party with the leader of the Liberal Party, if we review some of those S.O. 31s and the comments that were coming out, the Conservative Party was focused on personal attacks of the then leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. We went through an election back in 2015. All we have to do is take a look at the negative ads that were out there against the leader of the Liberal Party, and then take a look at the first few days after we took office back in 2015, to see that the Conservatives continued the personal attacks.

They expanded it. They started to include every minister they could possibly think of. They looked for the little rocks to try to uncover, amplify, distort and create issues that clearly were there for one reason and one reason alone, and that was to attack personally the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Government of Canada. They have spent a great deal of resources, both time and finances, whether it was justified or not, and it is always the latter, from my perspective.

I have stood in this place before and I have indicated, as other members of the caucus have indicated, that as much as the Conservative Party wants to spend all of its time and effort on character assassination, we will continue to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way by remaining focused on what is important to Canadians.

When the Conservatives first started attacking the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance back in 2015 and 2016, we might recall some of the initiatives we had taken. Coming out of the 2015 election, we made it very clear that our number one priority was going to be supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it, while at the same time providing supports for those people who are in need. When we talked a great deal about that and took initiatives to support that, we still had the Conservative Party playing in the mud.

I remember the Conservatives saying, and they have referenced this in the last number of weeks, that the former minister of finance had a villa in France and it was not declared, and there was a ruling that came from the Ethics Commissioner that it should have been declared. They really like to ramp that up.

However, it was shortly after the federal election when there was a news article in which the then minister of finance was publicly talking about the cottage he had in France. It is not like he was trying to hide something from the public or was trying to not be transparent. How is it a secret when the media are already aware of it? Yes, it should have been listed in a document, which we are all expected to fill out, and the Ethics Commissioner pointed that out. As such, like with other rulings from the Ethics Commissioner, who does more than just look at government members, a decision was made, and when that decision was made, we accepted it and acted accordingly.

We have respected the institutions that we have as parliamentarians, but from the Conservative Party's point of view, it is more about how they can build up the Conservative spin, how they can try to mislead Canadians in many ways and how they can turn it into government corruption. That is what it is all about, and that is the reason, in part, that they have a fixation on the issue of character assassination. This is why, as I have very much indicated, when we talk about the motion before us, the Conservatives want to bring something back to a standing committee of the House for the purpose of focusing the attention of the House of Commons on it.

In many ways, they want to focus purely on fabrications and issues that, quite frankly, have been discussed, debated and moved on from, whether through apologies, time or an election. Some of the stuff they talk about happened three Conservative leaders ago, but that does not cause them to lose their focus. I think it is important that we ask ourselves why we would want to continue to go in the direction the official opposition wants us to go. I would suggest that we need to do what we have been doing, and that is to remain focused.

I talked about 2015 when the Conservatives were being critical and making all sorts of allegations, and often they were allegations that they would only say inside the chamber but not outside of it. Their personal attacks were often attacks against family members as well. When that took place, I witnessed first-hand, as did other members, the Prime Minister indicated that they could continue their attacks on him as the prime minister, but, as he said, “We will stay focused on Canadians”. We would take both the budgetary and legislative measures that were ultimately there to support Canadians.

As I said, in the first mandate with regards to the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class, we addressed many of the inequities, whether it was the tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest or support for children and seniors, which literally lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty. We heard from the Minister of Finance earlier today the overall number of people who have been lifted out of poverty. We also had the tax break for Canada's middle class. These are the issues that we have brought forward, much to the chagrin of the Conservatives, who want us to be focused on their agenda.

If we fast forward, we went through another election in 2019. Once again, we saw the Conservatives preoccupied with the idea of trying to paint a picture of the need for change because of corruption. At the end of the day, we were given yet another mandate. Shortly after that mandate, we saw the need for us to work as a team toward the battling of the pandemic.

We put in a great deal of effort as a government to work with Canadians and a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including other provincial governments, indigenous governments, community leaders, school divisions, municipalities and people as a whole. We were very much working with health care experts, looking at science and remaining focused on getting us through the pandemic.

There was a very small window during which even the Conservative Party seemed to realize it was in the best interest for us to do that, but it sure did not last very long. It lasted maybe a couple of months, and then the Conservatives wanted to get back to the gutter. It is unfortunate, but the moment they started in that way, we continued with our focus. This is what we continue to do today.

Why now have the Conservatives brought forward this motion? What is the purpose of it? They will tell us it is because they want it to go to a standing committee and that they want to talk about ethics and so forth, again and again. That is no doubt one of the reasons it is important for them to try to change the focus of what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons.

What were we supposed to be debating today? I had the opportunity earlier today to provide comments on Bill C-18. Prior to me speaking on Bill C-18, we had to time allocate the legislation. We had no choice but to bring in time allocation. One of the things we have learned is that the Conservative Party does not have any desire to see legislation pass through the House of Commons.

When Conservatives see co-operation coming from other political entities in the chamber, they get upset. They do not seem to understand that with the third mandate, which put us in a minority situation, it is just not the Government of Canada or the Liberal Party that was given the mandate. Opposition parties also have a responsibility in a minority government.

The Conservative Party, I would argue, has failed to meet up to the responsibilities Canadians entrusted them with back in September. We have seen that in the behaviour of its members, especially in the last few months.

I have more years of parliamentary experience in opposition than I do in government. I was in opposition for 23 or 24 years, and hopefully I will be able to match that in government. I have never seen such a destructive force as the Conservative Party's approach in dealing with legislation. Today we are supposed to be talking about and debating Bill C-18. Let me remind my Conservative friends that Bill C-18 is an election platform issue that even the Conservative Party supported back in September.

I believe all political entities in the House recognized that having news agencies and reporters and news based on facts were of critical importance to our democracy, and that we needed to take on those tech giants. The former leader of the Conservative Party, not the interim leader but the former leader—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to rephrase the question I asked the previous speaker. The Conservative opposition is asking for debate on Bill C-18, as it asks for additional debate on everything, because it does have that Conservative hidden agenda of not passing legislation and filibustering.

Why, on the one hand, does the Conservative Party say it wants more debate time for legislation, but then on the other hand, it filibusters by bringing forward concurrence motions on things that are coming out of the committee? It seems that on the one hand Conservatives are asking for debate on legislation, and then on the other hand they do not want to have that debate when they are provided the opportunity to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-18. That is on the agenda. Is the member concerned that the Conservative Party says it wants more debate on legislation, yet it continues to focus on character assassination and preventing debate on government legislation? On the other hand, it complains that the government is bringing in time allocation, which seems to be the only way we can pass legislation because of the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservative Party.

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my last question. I certainly understand that all the questions about the process we are going through will not be answered.

I heard the minister. The Bloc Québécois is not just here to oppose things. We will vote in favour of things that are good for Quebec, and, obviously, we believe that Bill C‑18 is extremely good for Quebec.

Nevertheless, if collaboration is so important, why was the Bloc Québécois not consulted so that we could reach an agreement ahead of time? This is not our first time allocation rodeo. Over the past few weeks, closure has been all the rage. Again, the question is, how did we get to this point? Are the Liberals short on inspiration or on strategy?

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

Madam Speaker, to the hon. minister, this moment we have now is not about debating the substance of Bill C-18. I look forward to an opportunity to debate that, but I will not get that opportunity because time allocation is being used again.

I have to say that, on principle, I object to this. I objected to it when the previous administration under Stephen Harper did it over and over again at a level unprecedented in parliamentary history. What is now happening is the governing Liberals are normalizing the suppression of debate at second reading. Maybe we can debate this in the Standing Orders debate we are to have. Is the goal of governing parties in this place to shut down all debate at second reading and just say, “We will get to it in committee”? That is not acceptable.

This is not acceptable and I will not be voting for time allocation. On principle, I have maybe once been persuaded that there really was a case for it, but today on Bill C-18 there is no case for it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague agrees with that, he has a weird way of showing it. I see the Conservatives attacking the New Democrats because they come here trying to make a difference. On some things we collaborate; on others we do not and we disagree, which is fine. However, to the Conservatives the word “collaboration” makes no sense. What they prefer to do is jam things, filibuster, listen to each other and clap for each other all the time. They think it is a good thing to shut down democracy like they are doing now. It is totally wrong.

We have to move forward. This bill has to move forward. This bill will go to committee and will have hours of discussion and witnesses. I will go there and speak about the importance of it and how it allows collective bargaining to help smaller media news outlets and regional news outlets. I will talk about how this will translate into fair agreements between the tech giants and media outlets across the country. I will talk about the importance of the press. I will talk about the importance of the press for our democracy and the importance of a strong, free and independent press, because that is what bill C-18 is all about. That is it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on my colleague's hunches, but I will say this: I am somewhat surprised that the Bloc Québécois, which is generally the exact opposite of the Conservatives when it comes to ideas, principles and ideals, is so openly supportive of the Conservatives in this type of discussion.

As I understand it, the Bloc Québécois members support Bill C‑18. Why do they support it? They support the bill because it strengthens our media, because it strengthens a free and independent press, a press that will ensure that we have news about what is happening in Chibougamau, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Amos and Brossard.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that there will continue to be a press. From what I understand, the NDP supports it as well. As for the Conservatives, who included it in their platform, I hope that they will agree with themselves. If all goes well and they listen to themselves, they should support the bill. Then it will be unanimous.